Random Thought Thread, aka The RTT (**possible spoilers**)
#9626
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ChapelBorro NC
Posts: 4,126
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Jump away, I've got hours of testing in tunnels, HDC and the field. At zero yaw rider's impact on frame differentiation is pretty minimal. All the big surface areas of the bike see clean air. Given a 35-40 MPH sprint down a barricaded area would produce something near to zero yaw (certainly it appeared that crosswinds weren't an issue that day) I'd be comfortable in standing by my statement that Foil>Evo.
As you push more yaw your point is more viable.
At zero more differentiation could come from cable routing, handlebar width and shape, lever placement, Etc. But that's noise in the frame question.
I'd throw a pretty big load of cash betting Gerrans has a lower CdA just based on his size and a smaller bike, which in the frame vs. frame question is also noise, but in the Sagan vs. Gerrans question sure wasn't.
As you push more yaw your point is more viable.
At zero more differentiation could come from cable routing, handlebar width and shape, lever placement, Etc. But that's noise in the frame question.
I'd throw a pretty big load of cash betting Gerrans has a lower CdA just based on his size and a smaller bike, which in the frame vs. frame question is also noise, but in the Sagan vs. Gerrans question sure wasn't.
#9627
Senior Member
And in 90 seconds, you've just eliminated field sprints and pack riding as we know it. Anyone for bumping shoulders with the dude in the Obree position (either one)? In his original position, he couldn't even stay on the track by himself without putting his chest on his bars. Roadies like to complain about triathletes riding in unstable postures...
So, how do you fix this? You either be content with wild evolutions of racing style as it follows technology trends or you make another rule.
The above process is exactly what the UCI did, and those 90 seconds of rulemaking just described the, say, 1930's rulebook. You are defining a bicycle based on what you don't want it to look like (not a recumbent, HPV, or "lay down" bike). Then the guy comes along with the sketchy frame that is drilled full of holes and you create a rule for that. Then the guy who rests his chest on his bars comes along and you design a rule for that. Etc. And then you get a huge picture made of negative space defining what a bike is not. And what inevitably drives it? It's not about how the bikes look, it's about how the game is played. NASCAR and Formula racing styles are totally different not because the drivers prefer different styles of racing but because the technology makes the race play out differently. You plop a couple Formula cars in a NASCAR race and it instantly becomes a Formula race with a bunch of yahoos in NASCAR cars bringing up the rear. If you want to preserve the NASCAR style, you start defining what a NASCAR car is and we are right back where we are with the UCI.
It's no secret that there are wildly faster bikes than roadbikes out there. I just looked back at an old local TT result: there was a recumbent category - the top recumbent beat DrWJODonnell (of the "Before you start another TT thread" fame) by over two minutes on a 14 mile course.
So, how do you fix this? You either be content with wild evolutions of racing style as it follows technology trends or you make another rule.
The above process is exactly what the UCI did, and those 90 seconds of rulemaking just described the, say, 1930's rulebook. You are defining a bicycle based on what you don't want it to look like (not a recumbent, HPV, or "lay down" bike). Then the guy comes along with the sketchy frame that is drilled full of holes and you create a rule for that. Then the guy who rests his chest on his bars comes along and you design a rule for that. Etc. And then you get a huge picture made of negative space defining what a bike is not. And what inevitably drives it? It's not about how the bikes look, it's about how the game is played. NASCAR and Formula racing styles are totally different not because the drivers prefer different styles of racing but because the technology makes the race play out differently. You plop a couple Formula cars in a NASCAR race and it instantly becomes a Formula race with a bunch of yahoos in NASCAR cars bringing up the rear. If you want to preserve the NASCAR style, you start defining what a NASCAR car is and we are right back where we are with the UCI.
It's no secret that there are wildly faster bikes than roadbikes out there. I just looked back at an old local TT result: there was a recumbent category - the top recumbent beat DrWJODonnell (of the "Before you start another TT thread" fame) by over two minutes on a 14 mile course.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
#9628
Senior Member
Regarding tech, I think I'm mostly with RX: imagine if we had thrown the doors open to innovation in the 90's instead of the UCI stifling it. What would we be racing on now?
The problem goes beyond merely limiting what's available for racing (I know RX pointed this out already, but stay with me). Because of the marketing effect of racing success and trickle down of technology, what's available to recreational riders is limited, yes, but so is even our imagination of what and how good a bicycle can be! Just look at the ridiculous Internet debates over putting hydraulic disc brakes on road racing bikes, a pretty low bar for innovation - but it's too easy to convince oneself that the bikes we have are "good enough." Imagine someone arguing that about cars! I know, people do, stick-in-the-mudism can never be done away with, but even in relatively mainstream circles, the idea that modern cars are "good enough," that they aren't ripe for improvement, is preposterous.
Professional racing could certainly improve the breed, but with the UCI rules as they stand, we're improving it in very limited and arbitrary ways. And it's only going to get worse, word on the street is that the UCI is planning to ban wheels deeper than 60mm or so in mass-start races. Why? Where does it stop?
It makes me wonder about chilling effects, too. As technology has advanced, the trade-offs in weight or aerodynamics or power loss become more favorable to bicycle improvements that weren't practical before. I'd love to see a return to efforts to build suspended race bikes - I'm sure that there's some speed to be found there, especially in cyclocross. But do you put millions of dollars into developing something radically new when the UCI might up and ban it on a whim? I'd be pretty nervous about giving the OK on a project like that if I ran a big bike company. A world where disc brakes are considered a scary, radical change is pretty sad, if you ask me, but that's the world we're in - one where only a relatively small improvement like that is considered safe to really make a push for in the industry.
The problem goes beyond merely limiting what's available for racing (I know RX pointed this out already, but stay with me). Because of the marketing effect of racing success and trickle down of technology, what's available to recreational riders is limited, yes, but so is even our imagination of what and how good a bicycle can be! Just look at the ridiculous Internet debates over putting hydraulic disc brakes on road racing bikes, a pretty low bar for innovation - but it's too easy to convince oneself that the bikes we have are "good enough." Imagine someone arguing that about cars! I know, people do, stick-in-the-mudism can never be done away with, but even in relatively mainstream circles, the idea that modern cars are "good enough," that they aren't ripe for improvement, is preposterous.
Professional racing could certainly improve the breed, but with the UCI rules as they stand, we're improving it in very limited and arbitrary ways. And it's only going to get worse, word on the street is that the UCI is planning to ban wheels deeper than 60mm or so in mass-start races. Why? Where does it stop?
It makes me wonder about chilling effects, too. As technology has advanced, the trade-offs in weight or aerodynamics or power loss become more favorable to bicycle improvements that weren't practical before. I'd love to see a return to efforts to build suspended race bikes - I'm sure that there's some speed to be found there, especially in cyclocross. But do you put millions of dollars into developing something radically new when the UCI might up and ban it on a whim? I'd be pretty nervous about giving the OK on a project like that if I ran a big bike company. A world where disc brakes are considered a scary, radical change is pretty sad, if you ask me, but that's the world we're in - one where only a relatively small improvement like that is considered safe to really make a push for in the industry.
#9629
Senior Member
And in 90 seconds, you've just eliminated field sprints and pack riding as we know it. Anyone for bumping shoulders with the dude in the Obree position (either one)? In his original position, he couldn't even stay on the track by himself without putting his chest on his bars. Roadies like to complain about triathletes riding in unstable postures...
#9630
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Western MA
Posts: 15,669
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#9632
Making a kilometer blurry
I don't even have a TT bike yet. Or race wheels. I have one track bike with crappy wheels, and one road bike with open pros and a PT. The road bike is a Ridley Noah, but the rest of my stuff is cheap. I have a long, long way to go on the engine before I can even try to convince my wife that we need more bike stuff.
Lame, I guess. At any rate, I'm at the point of diminishing returns on enjoyment of bike races. It would take a lot more time and money to get significantly more enjoyment out of it, and I have RC gliders to build, boy scout camps to go to, little athletes to coach, and a marriage to enjoy.
Last edited by waterrockets; 07-02-13 at 10:00 PM.
#9634
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
You must have been reading the UCI's version of the Obree position. Quick Q n A...how many times did Obree crash?
You ever ride a team pursuit or team time trial? Nah. To dangerous. Much safer sprinting.
Jesus H. are you serious? I go downhill at 55-60 MPH with my chest on the bars. I've banged elbows dozens of time in the aerobars.
Last edited by Racer Ex; 07-02-13 at 11:13 PM.
#9635
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I would quarrel with this continual zero sum game that people like to play about equipment vs. training and what you should focus on. Hey, how about both? Because that sure has seemed to work for me and it's hard to argue that in this sport wins or losses don't often come in a split second. Quick, you think Sagan would have liked an extra 3w the other day?
+3 for every bike i have with di2. it's incredible.
#9636
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I don't doubt it. I'll check it out when I start losing races because of equipment and not because I'm slow So far, only the latter is the case.
#9637
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
Nah, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I was commenting more on my feeling that there are sooo many variables at play on the road that I find it hard to buy into 'this frame is faster no matter what' thing. As a scientist I question any sort of blanket statements like that, but I fully admit that I have not sought out the data. I think what gets to me the most is that almost all of the data comes from people selling something. I know there really isn't a way around that either, not like the government is going to start funding bicycle aerodynamics research so we can have peer-reviewed publications.
Some stuff is a slam dunk. Other stuff leaves you trying to wrap your head around why.
#9639
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Posts: 21,843
Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1173 Post(s)
Liked 927 Times
in
612 Posts
Pretty much similar equipment on my part, but I'm not waiting for the engine to improve before buying the gear... I'm just not buying the gear. Results in this sport haven't been important enough for me to continue adding budget line items for the benefits. I am a believer in the technological innovations and their effects on performance, I'm just not interested in participating at that level.
Lame, I guess. At any rate, I'm at the point of diminishing returns on enjoyment of bike races. It would take a lot more time and money to get significantly more enjoyment out of it, and I have RC gliders to build, boy scout camps to go to, little athletes to coach, and a marriage to enjoy.
Lame, I guess. At any rate, I'm at the point of diminishing returns on enjoyment of bike races. It would take a lot more time and money to get significantly more enjoyment out of it, and I have RC gliders to build, boy scout camps to go to, little athletes to coach, and a marriage to enjoy.
It's pretty obvious that equipent matters .... but it's the cost benefit analysis that is up for discussion many times. Big teams and affluent amateurs can buy the best for every advantage, but others have to pick and choose. So, yes, $1500 wheels will make a difference, but is that the best use of $1500 ? Depends.
__________________
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Last edited by Homebrew01; 07-03-13 at 06:18 AM.
#9640
Senior Member
I don't even have a TT bike yet. Or race wheels. I have one track bike with crappy wheels, and one road bike with open pros and a PT. The road bike is a Ridley Noah, but the rest of my stuff is cheap. I have a long, long way to go on the engine before I can even try to convince my wife that we need more bike stuff.
cutting beer out of my diet would probably do far more for my performance.
#9641
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Western MA
Posts: 15,669
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
i'm kind of the same way. i've got one road bike (and a fixed gear but that's just a grocery getting, bar bike, etc.). it's a tarmac expert so a pretty nice frame but nothing special. my wheel set (my only wheel set) is a hodgepodge mavic ksyrium elite/fulcrum setup that is basically all I have left on functioning wheels. it has an ultegra group and stock seatpost/handlebars. i changed the stem because the stock one broke. i would love some carbon wheels for racing, but I have a hard time convincing myself it's "worth it."
I could not afford $2500 for a new Dura-Ace Di2 group. I bought the gearset used. A friend gave me the sprint shifters. The climbing and TT buttons were $7.99/set on closeout at Performance. The seatpost battery cost $15, and another $10 for connectors.
Same deal for my wheels. $500 for the used set of 404's, and about the same for the used set of psimet clinchers.
#9642
Making a kilometer blurry
Yeah, no one ever crashes in our current position bumping another rider.
You must have been reading the UCI's version of the Obree position. Quick Q n A...how many times did Obree crash?
You ever ride a team pursuit or team time trial? Nah. To dangerous. Much safer sprinting.
Jesus H. are you serious? I go downhill at 55-60 MPH with my chest on the bars. I've banged elbows dozens of time in the aerobars.
You must have been reading the UCI's version of the Obree position. Quick Q n A...how many times did Obree crash?
You ever ride a team pursuit or team time trial? Nah. To dangerous. Much safer sprinting.
Jesus H. are you serious? I go downhill at 55-60 MPH with my chest on the bars. I've banged elbows dozens of time in the aerobars.
#9643
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Western MA
Posts: 15,669
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The guy on the front looks familiar. I think he's the jerk that took my Strava KOM away.
#9649
Making a kilometer blurry
Crashy's team was in front, about to get passed by RX's team as they approached a right-hand corner. He missed the corner while RX's team was passing on the left. When they missed the corner, RX's team maintained their line going straight, planning a turnaround to get back on course. When Crashy realized he missed the turn and had caused another team to go straight, he inexplicably freaked out and swerved left, sweeping his own front on RX's wheel.
#9650
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: FFLD CTY, CT
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts