Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Most significant advance in bike technology for speed?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:06:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <ika8pjd3hjo8c94a4v1m8hejs2gib5ifao@4ax.com>
References: <vn0pv2$2cdge$1@dont-email.me> <vn1639$2dbs8$1@dont-email.me> <lvinbeFe2t8U2@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 01:06:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f0518eb57ccee5e117beede4f1c5b0b";
	logging-data="2604904"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZkYq+4sGQKa4xZuiBSnWXhpUa7NBmfxU="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Nf9gpr0qpENPMCyKSc/aWhIUhgM=
Bytes: 5745

On 24 Jan 2025 23:51:10 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:

>Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2025 2:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> In another forum, someone postulated that integrated brake & shift 
>>> levers (like STI) were the most significant bit of racing technology 
>>> ever designed for increasing speed. But that claim met with little 
>>> respect. One skeptic noted that there was no great increase in average 
>>> race speeds in Paris-Roubaix, Milan-San Remo, Tour of Flanders, Leige- 
>>> Bastogne-Leige or Giro de Lobardia since about 1960, including during 
>>> the era of STI adoption. By contrast, in the  years 1930 - 1960 average 
>>> speeds increased around 30%. (Note: That does not mean that STI is not 
>>> tactically beneficial. That's a separate issue.)
>> 
>> I'm going to take issue with this claim. The speeds have been showing a 
>> steady increase. "Great" increase is somewhat subjective, and taking 
>> into account the general "square-law effect" with going faster on a 
>> bicycle, a increase of 1MPH from 28 to 29 MPH could indeed be considered 
>> a "great" increase over going from 25 to 26 MPH.
>> 
>> Granted, this has little to do with integrated shifting, my nit is over 
>> the claim "there was no great increase in average race speeds....since 
>> about 1960"
>> 
>> 
>> from wikipedia, the top ten fastest editions of PAris-Roubaix were:
>> 
>>  Mathieu van der Poel (NED)	47.80 km/h (29.70 mph) 	2024 	
>>  Mathieu van der Poel (NED)	46.84 km/h (29.11 mph) 	2023 	
>>  Dylan van Baarle (NED)		45.79 km/h (28.45 mph) 	2022 	
>>  Greg Van Avermaet (BEL)	45.20 km/h (28.09 mph) 	2017 	
>>  Peter Post (NED)		45.13 km/h (28.04 mph) 	1964 	
>>  Fabian Cancellara (SUI)	44.19 km/h (27.46 mph) 	2013 	
>>  Rik Van Steenbergen (BEL)	43.99 km/h (27.33 mph) 	1948 	
>>  Mathew Hayman (AUS)		43.91 km/h (27.28 mph) 	2016 	
>>  Peter Sagan (SVK)		43.55 km/h (27.06 mph) 	2018 	
>>  Pino Cerami (BEL)		43.54 km/h (27.05 mph) 	1960
>> 
>> Out of the top ten in the 100+ year history of the race, 6 are within 
>> the past ten years. I challenge anyone to argue against a 10% increase 
>> since Sagan in 2018 to VDP in 2024 as anything but a "great" increase.
>> 
>> Milan/San Remo shows a similar trend. From 
>> https://www.procyclingstats.com/race/milano-sanremo/results/fastest-editions 
>>  :
>> 
>> Edition	Year	Avg. speed
>> 115	2024	46.11	
>> 114	2023	45.773	
>> 113	2022	45.331	
>> 97	2006	45.268	
>> 112	2021	45.06	
>> 100	2009	44.421	
>> 98	2007	43.665	
>> 110	2019	43.625	
>> 104	2013	43.577	
>> 102	2011	43.486	
>> 
>> It certainly isn't due to drivetrain technology, I'll suggest the trend 
>> towards wider tires has a great deal to do with it, but more so training 
>> and diet technological advances.
>> 
>> 
>Though it has ment that groupsets manufacturers do produce/provide for the
>Pros some truly massive chain rings I don’t spin out 46/11 on the flat, and
>gravity is my friend on the downs being on the heavy side!
>>> 
>>> But if not STI, what were the most significant tech developments 
>>> regarding bicycle race speeds?
>>> 
>>> Here’s my list:
>>> 
>>> Pedals & cranks, as opposed to scooting a “hobby horse” via feet on the 
>>> ground.
>>> 
>>> Tubular metal frames and wire tension (spoke) wheels.
>>> 
>>> Large driven wheels, to give a much higher effective “gear.” (The 
>>> Ordinary or Penny Farthing)
>>> 
>>> The “Safety Bicycle” with a diamond frame and chain drive, getting the 
>>> rider down lower, to greatly reduce aero drag as well as pitchover on 
>>> braking.
>>> 
>>> Pneumatic tires. Hard tired “safeties” had terrible rolling resistance.
>>> 
>>> The handlebar stem, invented by the heroic Major Taylor, to allow a much 
>>> more aero riding position.
>>> 
>>> Rim brakes, by whatever mechanism, as opposed to spoon brakes acting on 
>>> a tire.
>>> 
>>> Multiple gears, by whatever mechanism.
>>> 
>>> The derailleur, making multiple gears easy to shift, customizable and 
>>> light weight.
>>> 
>>> Recumbent geometry in some situations. Recumbents seem to be slower 
>>> uphill, but tend to be faster on level or downhills
>>> 
>>> Fully enclosed streamlined aero shells tremendously increased speed, but 
>>> at a great reduction in versatility and practicality.
>>> 
>>> Beyond those, ISTM that most developments have been chasing ever 
>>> diminishing returns.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>Roger Merriman
>
>



46 is massive?  I have a 53, also with an 11..  Although I don't use
that anymore except in a downhill. Granted that I have a 26 inch
wheel.

--
C'est bon
Soloman