Blue Order
03-22-07, 02:29 PM
Anybody have any experience or thoughts on touring with a biopace crankset?
Touring - Biopace
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : Biopace
tacomee
03-22-07, 02:47 PM
I rode biopace for years...it worked fine for me.
Speedo
03-22-07, 02:55 PM
I found biopace chainrings to be annoying. I was pleased when the new and improved "roundtech" chainrings came back.
The level of annoyance with biopace is not big enough to make any kind of big effort to swap them out if that is what is currently on your bike.
If you don't currently have biopace chainrings and are thinking of adding them, my advice would be not to do it. Biopace chainrings are not shaped extremely enough to have the claimed mechanical advantage, and, you might find them annoying.
Speedo
The level of annoyance with biopace is not big enough to make any kind of big effort to swap them out if that is what is currently on your bike.
If you don't currently have biopace chainrings and are thinking of adding them, my advice would be not to do it. Biopace chainrings are not shaped extremely enough to have the claimed mechanical advantage, and, you might find them annoying.
Speedo
Blue Order
03-22-07, 03:03 PM
If you don't currently have biopace chainrings and are thinking of adding them, my advice would be not to do it. Biopace chainrings are not shaped extremely enough to have the claimed mechanical advantage, and, you might find them annoying.
SpeedoYep, I was just toying with the idea of adding them. Some people love them, some people hate them. Thought it would be worth trying out, that a loaded touring bike going uphill might be the ideal rig for biopace, but wanted feedback first.
SpeedoYep, I was just toying with the idea of adding them. Some people love them, some people hate them. Thought it would be worth trying out, that a loaded touring bike going uphill might be the ideal rig for biopace, but wanted feedback first.
tacomee
03-22-07, 03:09 PM
Nah, I wouldn't buy them. I wouldn't mind running them if they were already on the bike, but I wouldn't install them.
Lolly Pop
03-22-07, 03:41 PM
I have a set from my bike. They were original equipment, and I didn't realise they were different til I took a closer look. I switched them last year to get lower gearing. You want 'em?
Blue Order
03-22-07, 03:45 PM
I have a set from my bike. They were original equipment, and I didn't realise they were different til I took a closer look. I switched them last year to get lower gearing. You want 'em?I'll think about it. Now that you've used both, what was your impression?
Lolly Pop
03-22-07, 03:49 PM
I can't tell the difference.
pmseattle
03-22-07, 08:12 PM
Anybody have any experience or thoughts on touring with a biopace crankset?
I have used both biopace and round and canīt tell the difference.
I have used both biopace and round and canīt tell the difference.
jcm
03-23-07, 02:34 AM
You folks gotta be on medication. ;) :D How can you not notice the difference when pulling a load with BioPace/OvalTech? To me, there is no comparison in the reduced muscle fatique over many miles, not to mention the instantly obvious ease of stepping into the power stroke on hills. It's like pushing down on an object that is progressively getting lighter/easier to move. This system is central to why I can't decide which bike I like best for very long rides - my roadified, OvalTech equipped MTB, or, my Trek 520. In fact, I wish I had a BioPace road triple for the 520.
Okay, I'll grant that the big ring probably doesn't need to be BioPace, but there is a real advantage in having it on the mid and low range rings, where the effect is most pronounced.
Okay, I'll grant that the big ring probably doesn't need to be BioPace, but there is a real advantage in having it on the mid and low range rings, where the effect is most pronounced.
Speedo
03-23-07, 06:40 AM
You folks gotta be on medication. ;) :D How can you not notice the difference when pulling a load with BioPace/OvalTech? To me, there is no comparison in the reduced muscle fatique over many miles, not to mention the instantly obvious ease of stepping into the power stroke on hills.
Is that :D because you are pulling our collective chain? Biopace came and went as a brief fad in the early eighties. It came because the idea of shaped chainrings seemed like a good idea. It went because the aspect ratio of the biopace chainrings was not sufficient to actually achieve the mechanical advantages claimed by biopace. Bicycle Science by Whitt and Wilson had a section on shaped chainrings. It turns out that to give shaped chainrings a useful mechanical advantage, you'd need an aspect ratio of something like 2 to 1. At that aspect ratio they would be really annoying to ride, and present some challenges to the front derailleur. So, most people either noticed no difference, or found the slight pulsing annoying.
I have, in my spares box, some unused chainrings that I bought at the time I replaced the biopace chainrings. This was at the end of the biopace era. The packages are marked "Roundtech" to indicate that these are the new and improved round chainrings! :D
Speedo
Is that :D because you are pulling our collective chain? Biopace came and went as a brief fad in the early eighties. It came because the idea of shaped chainrings seemed like a good idea. It went because the aspect ratio of the biopace chainrings was not sufficient to actually achieve the mechanical advantages claimed by biopace. Bicycle Science by Whitt and Wilson had a section on shaped chainrings. It turns out that to give shaped chainrings a useful mechanical advantage, you'd need an aspect ratio of something like 2 to 1. At that aspect ratio they would be really annoying to ride, and present some challenges to the front derailleur. So, most people either noticed no difference, or found the slight pulsing annoying.
I have, in my spares box, some unused chainrings that I bought at the time I replaced the biopace chainrings. This was at the end of the biopace era. The packages are marked "Roundtech" to indicate that these are the new and improved round chainrings! :D
Speedo
VT_Speed_TR
03-23-07, 08:02 AM
You could also check out these guys
http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/
That have a product called q-rings and a much more expensive product rotor-cranks,
Brian
http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/
That have a product called q-rings and a much more expensive product rotor-cranks,
Brian
n4zou
03-23-07, 09:21 AM
You folks gotta be on medication. ;) :D How can you not notice the difference when pulling a load with BioPace/OvalTech? To me, there is no comparison in the reduced muscle fatique over many miles, not to mention the instantly obvious ease of stepping into the power stroke on hills. It's like pushing down on an object that is progressively getting lighter/easier to move. This system is central to why I can't decide which bike I like best for very long rides - my roadified, OvalTech equipped MTB, or, my Trek 520. In fact, I wish I had a BioPace road triple for the 520.
Okay, I'll grant that the big ring probably doesn't need to be BioPace, but there is a real advantage in having it on the mid and low range rings, where the effect is most pronounced.
Same here! I love the 48/38/28 BioPace chain rings on my touring bike. I've rode with standard and BioPace and I can tell a big difference after riding 60+ miles hauling myself, an additional 30+ pounds of self-supporting gear.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r154/n4zou/loaded.jpg
Okay, I'll grant that the big ring probably doesn't need to be BioPace, but there is a real advantage in having it on the mid and low range rings, where the effect is most pronounced.
Same here! I love the 48/38/28 BioPace chain rings on my touring bike. I've rode with standard and BioPace and I can tell a big difference after riding 60+ miles hauling myself, an additional 30+ pounds of self-supporting gear.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r154/n4zou/loaded.jpg
jcm
03-23-07, 10:04 AM
Is that :D because you are pulling our collective chain? Biopace came and went as a brief fad in the early eighties. It came because the idea of shaped chainrings seemed like a good idea. It went because the aspect ratio of the biopace chainrings was not sufficient to actually achieve the mechanical advantages claimed by biopace. Bicycle Science by Whitt and Wilson had a section on shaped chainrings. It turns out that to give shaped chainrings a useful mechanical advantage, you'd need an aspect ratio of something like 2 to 1. At that aspect ratio they would be really annoying to ride, and present some challenges to the front derailleur. So, most people either noticed no difference, or found the slight pulsing annoying.
I have, in my spares box, some unused chainrings that I bought at the time I replaced the biopace chainrings. This was at the end of the biopace era. The packages are marked "Roundtech" to indicate that these are the new and improved round chainrings! :D
Speedo
Guilty as charged, I'm afraid :D No one on this forum would be so reckless as to ride while chemically impaired. Why, the very idea of operating a 25lb vehicle in and amongst speeding, steel behemoths would be counter-intuitive, to say the least :eek:
Seriously, I don't know anything about the engineering. I just know that the concept, as expressed on my bike and in my experience, actually relieves stress on my knees and makes hills flatter. This is anecdotal and hard to actually measure, but, among riders of my relative abilities, I basically rule the inclines. Climbing steadily and overtaking almost all others, and recovering quicker. This, on a Trek 930 with North Road bars. When pedaling on the occasional loose or grassy ground at incline, the OvalTech is superb at keeping the rear tire from spinning out.
On my Trek 520, which weighs about 4lbs less (naked bikes compared), the extra effort on hills is much more pronounced, and I'll tend to stay with the group more.
I understand that alot of people find the pulsing to be a little weird, but I've never been bothered by it, since I expect it at lower ranges but don't really notice too much in the higher gears.
OKay, I'll let go of the chain so you can all throw rocks. I just duck down here... :)
I have, in my spares box, some unused chainrings that I bought at the time I replaced the biopace chainrings. This was at the end of the biopace era. The packages are marked "Roundtech" to indicate that these are the new and improved round chainrings! :D
Speedo
Guilty as charged, I'm afraid :D No one on this forum would be so reckless as to ride while chemically impaired. Why, the very idea of operating a 25lb vehicle in and amongst speeding, steel behemoths would be counter-intuitive, to say the least :eek:
Seriously, I don't know anything about the engineering. I just know that the concept, as expressed on my bike and in my experience, actually relieves stress on my knees and makes hills flatter. This is anecdotal and hard to actually measure, but, among riders of my relative abilities, I basically rule the inclines. Climbing steadily and overtaking almost all others, and recovering quicker. This, on a Trek 930 with North Road bars. When pedaling on the occasional loose or grassy ground at incline, the OvalTech is superb at keeping the rear tire from spinning out.
On my Trek 520, which weighs about 4lbs less (naked bikes compared), the extra effort on hills is much more pronounced, and I'll tend to stay with the group more.
I understand that alot of people find the pulsing to be a little weird, but I've never been bothered by it, since I expect it at lower ranges but don't really notice too much in the higher gears.
OKay, I'll let go of the chain so you can all throw rocks. I just duck down here... :)
Speedo
03-23-07, 10:19 AM
OKay, I'll let go of the chain so you can all throw rocks. I just duck down here... :)
No, no rocks. It just goes to show how diverse an audience Bike Forums is. It's possible to find the two sides of just about any issue! With you and n4zou that's two people who are happy with their biopace.
I wasn't surprised by the people who had a take it or leave it attitude. I am surprised to hear that there are people who legitimately like it. There are reasons it disappeared from the market.
Speedo
No, no rocks. It just goes to show how diverse an audience Bike Forums is. It's possible to find the two sides of just about any issue! With you and n4zou that's two people who are happy with their biopace.
I wasn't surprised by the people who had a take it or leave it attitude. I am surprised to hear that there are people who legitimately like it. There are reasons it disappeared from the market.
Speedo
jcm
03-23-07, 12:32 PM
No, no rocks. It just goes to show how diverse an audience Bike Forums is. It's possible to find the two sides of just about any issue! With you and n4zou that's two people who are happy with their biopace.
I wasn't surprised by the people who had a take it or leave it attitude. I am surprised to hear that there are people who legitimately like it. There are reasons it disappeared from the market.
Speedo
Dirt clods, then? :D
I really think alot of the reason it phased out was because it didn't fit the accepted paradigms. Roadracers didn't favor it and off-roaders were really still just beginning to carve their niche in the periodicals of the day. Marketing Rules, and what goes fastest gets the press. As time moved on, roadies and MTB'rs have widened the equipment gap between them, becoming more specialized. Thus, I believe that things like BioPace got lost in the growing chasm. Writers don't write where there is no news. They move to the latest story. Just a theory...
That, plus I have to believe that it must have been more expensive to manufacture - maybe cutting down the profit margin a little, in an experimental marketing environment??
Computer models aside, I notice very distinct advantages with BioPace/OvalTech. Solidly in the Favorable Review camp. Lord Sheldon of Brown has a brief write-up on his website somewhere that may be of interest.
I wasn't surprised by the people who had a take it or leave it attitude. I am surprised to hear that there are people who legitimately like it. There are reasons it disappeared from the market.
Speedo
Dirt clods, then? :D
I really think alot of the reason it phased out was because it didn't fit the accepted paradigms. Roadracers didn't favor it and off-roaders were really still just beginning to carve their niche in the periodicals of the day. Marketing Rules, and what goes fastest gets the press. As time moved on, roadies and MTB'rs have widened the equipment gap between them, becoming more specialized. Thus, I believe that things like BioPace got lost in the growing chasm. Writers don't write where there is no news. They move to the latest story. Just a theory...
That, plus I have to believe that it must have been more expensive to manufacture - maybe cutting down the profit margin a little, in an experimental marketing environment??
Computer models aside, I notice very distinct advantages with BioPace/OvalTech. Solidly in the Favorable Review camp. Lord Sheldon of Brown has a brief write-up on his website somewhere that may be of interest.
Speedo
03-23-07, 08:34 PM
Dirt clods, then? :D
I really think alot of the reason it phased out was because it didn't fit the accepted paradigms. Roadracers didn't favor it and off-roaders were really still just beginning to carve their niche in the periodicals of the day. Marketing Rules, and what goes fastest gets the press. As time moved on, roadies and MTB'rs have widened the equipment gap between them, becoming more specialized. Thus, I believe that things like BioPace got lost in the growing chasm. Writers don't write where there is no news. They move to the latest story. Just a theory...
That, plus I have to believe that it must have been more expensive to manufacture - maybe cutting down the profit margin a little, in an experimental marketing environment??
Computer models aside, I notice very distinct advantages with BioPace/OvalTech. Solidly in the Favorable Review camp. Lord Sheldon of Brown has a brief write-up on his website somewhere that may be of interest.
Wierd. Or not. Your opinion is exactly oposite mine. My opinion is that Shimano, in an attempt to create a new market, added biopace to the line. It was near in time to another "inovation" the U-brake which replaced cantilever brakes. Niether inovation survived in the market. I never had a bike with the U-brakes of that era, their reputation was so bad that I searched out one of the only mountain bikes that didn't have it, a Bridgestone. I did have a bike with biopace chainrings. I didn't find them helpful, I found them annoying. Most people I talked to at the time found them either useless, annoying or both.
I just read the Sheldon Brown article. Not that I want to disagree with the master, but I disagree. He says that the failure in the market was a failure of marketing. It's just not so. I was talking bikes with lots of people back then, the biopace product just wasn't working for most people. Products that are truly useful don't rely on marketing buzz to keep them going, people just recognize that they work.
I, ahem, don't want to tell you that you're dreaming when you find these things better. Maybe for some reason they do work for you. But if you search out the first edition of Bicycle Science, it does have an analysis of non-round chainrings. They can give a mechanical advantage, need to have a fairly large aspect ratio.
Oh well, happy riding!
Speedo
I really think alot of the reason it phased out was because it didn't fit the accepted paradigms. Roadracers didn't favor it and off-roaders were really still just beginning to carve their niche in the periodicals of the day. Marketing Rules, and what goes fastest gets the press. As time moved on, roadies and MTB'rs have widened the equipment gap between them, becoming more specialized. Thus, I believe that things like BioPace got lost in the growing chasm. Writers don't write where there is no news. They move to the latest story. Just a theory...
That, plus I have to believe that it must have been more expensive to manufacture - maybe cutting down the profit margin a little, in an experimental marketing environment??
Computer models aside, I notice very distinct advantages with BioPace/OvalTech. Solidly in the Favorable Review camp. Lord Sheldon of Brown has a brief write-up on his website somewhere that may be of interest.
Wierd. Or not. Your opinion is exactly oposite mine. My opinion is that Shimano, in an attempt to create a new market, added biopace to the line. It was near in time to another "inovation" the U-brake which replaced cantilever brakes. Niether inovation survived in the market. I never had a bike with the U-brakes of that era, their reputation was so bad that I searched out one of the only mountain bikes that didn't have it, a Bridgestone. I did have a bike with biopace chainrings. I didn't find them helpful, I found them annoying. Most people I talked to at the time found them either useless, annoying or both.
I just read the Sheldon Brown article. Not that I want to disagree with the master, but I disagree. He says that the failure in the market was a failure of marketing. It's just not so. I was talking bikes with lots of people back then, the biopace product just wasn't working for most people. Products that are truly useful don't rely on marketing buzz to keep them going, people just recognize that they work.
I, ahem, don't want to tell you that you're dreaming when you find these things better. Maybe for some reason they do work for you. But if you search out the first edition of Bicycle Science, it does have an analysis of non-round chainrings. They can give a mechanical advantage, need to have a fairly large aspect ratio.
Oh well, happy riding!
Speedo
Speedo
03-23-07, 08:37 PM
P.S. my wife just looked over my shoulder. She wants to know if the biopace chainrings in our basement are worth their weight in gold.
Can you even get them anymore?
Speedo
Can you even get them anymore?
Speedo
Sheldon Brown
03-23-07, 08:49 PM
My opinion is that Shimano, in an attempt to create a new market, added biopace to the line.
Of course! Shimano is constantly introducing new products, because they want to stay in business and grow their company. This strategy has put them on the top of the heap, and they would be fools to change it!
It was near in time to another "inovation" the U-brake which replaced cantilever brakes.
Actually, the U-brake replaced rollercam brakes, and a Good Thing that was! The U brake is still alive and well in the BMX/Freestyle world, where the protrousion of cantilevers would be a problem.
I agree that rollercams/U brakes were a Bad Idea for mountain bikes.
Niether inovation survived in the market. I never had a bike with the U-brakes of that era, their reputation was so bad that I searched out one of the only mountain bikes that didn't have it, a Bridgestone. I did have a bike with biopace chainrings. I didn't find them helpful, I found them annoying. Most people I talked to at the time found them either useless, annoying or both.
I just read the Sheldon Brown article. Not that I want to disagree with the master, but I disagree.Huh? That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. ;-)
I like Biopace because I find it gentler on my knees.
Read all about it at http://sheldonbrown.com/biopace
Sheldon "Point-Symmetrical Egg Curve" Brown
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Shimano's policy was that ten percent of their work |
| force must be graduate engineers...By the mid-1970's, |
| Shimano probably had more people working on research and |
| development than all of their competitors combined... |
| the (1985) SIS Dura-Ace was the first computer-optimized |
| rear derailleur...In 1985, Shimano had about 40 percent
| of the U.S. market...By 1994, Shimano had more than 90 |
| percent of the U.S. market." |
| --Frank Berto: "The Dancing Chain" |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Of course! Shimano is constantly introducing new products, because they want to stay in business and grow their company. This strategy has put them on the top of the heap, and they would be fools to change it!
It was near in time to another "inovation" the U-brake which replaced cantilever brakes.
Actually, the U-brake replaced rollercam brakes, and a Good Thing that was! The U brake is still alive and well in the BMX/Freestyle world, where the protrousion of cantilevers would be a problem.
I agree that rollercams/U brakes were a Bad Idea for mountain bikes.
Niether inovation survived in the market. I never had a bike with the U-brakes of that era, their reputation was so bad that I searched out one of the only mountain bikes that didn't have it, a Bridgestone. I did have a bike with biopace chainrings. I didn't find them helpful, I found them annoying. Most people I talked to at the time found them either useless, annoying or both.
I just read the Sheldon Brown article. Not that I want to disagree with the master, but I disagree.Huh? That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. ;-)
I like Biopace because I find it gentler on my knees.
Read all about it at http://sheldonbrown.com/biopace
Sheldon "Point-Symmetrical Egg Curve" Brown
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Shimano's policy was that ten percent of their work |
| force must be graduate engineers...By the mid-1970's, |
| Shimano probably had more people working on research and |
| development than all of their competitors combined... |
| the (1985) SIS Dura-Ace was the first computer-optimized |
| rear derailleur...In 1985, Shimano had about 40 percent
| of the U.S. market...By 1994, Shimano had more than 90 |
| percent of the U.S. market." |
| --Frank Berto: "The Dancing Chain" |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
n4zou
03-23-07, 09:18 PM
P.S. my wife just looked over my shoulder. She wants to know if the biopace chainrings in our basement are worth their weight in gold.
Can you even get them anymore?
Speedo
Typical auctions for BioPace 48/38/28 chain rings with 170 or 175 crank arms and matching BB go for $200 or more on Ebay. Not exactly gold but command a high price for an old and used crank setup. Long distance and loaded touring bikers love them.
Can you even get them anymore?
Speedo
Typical auctions for BioPace 48/38/28 chain rings with 170 or 175 crank arms and matching BB go for $200 or more on Ebay. Not exactly gold but command a high price for an old and used crank setup. Long distance and loaded touring bikers love them.
n4zou
03-23-07, 09:27 PM
Dirt clods, then? :D
That, plus I have to believe that it must have been more expensive to manufacture - maybe cutting down the profit margin a little, in an experimental marketing environment??
No more expensive to manufacture than any other stamped out sprocket. Once you have a tool and die machinist make the die you can stamp out hundreds of them a day on a press. I bet Shimano still has the complete BioPace die set sitting in a box somewhere and could crank out new sets with just a few days lead-time. Making a few hundred sets on a CNC mill would be easy as well but if Shimano has retained the patents on them I am sure they would make your wallet turn red if they got wind of that!
That, plus I have to believe that it must have been more expensive to manufacture - maybe cutting down the profit margin a little, in an experimental marketing environment??
No more expensive to manufacture than any other stamped out sprocket. Once you have a tool and die machinist make the die you can stamp out hundreds of them a day on a press. I bet Shimano still has the complete BioPace die set sitting in a box somewhere and could crank out new sets with just a few days lead-time. Making a few hundred sets on a CNC mill would be easy as well but if Shimano has retained the patents on them I am sure they would make your wallet turn red if they got wind of that!
n4zou
03-23-07, 09:31 PM
I like Biopace because I find it gentler on my knees.
Read all about it at http://sheldonbrown.com/biopace
[/CODE]
Me too, especially after 60 or more miles on a heavy loaded touring bike.
Read all about it at http://sheldonbrown.com/biopace
[/CODE]
Me too, especially after 60 or more miles on a heavy loaded touring bike.
NoReg
03-23-07, 11:39 PM
Isn't the basic issue whether you mash or spin. I think I spin until I fall into the deep end of a steep hill. Then when I have to reach down deep I find capacity in my lungs I rarely use, and I also usually find some extra spin. Turns out I wasn't getting all the power around the 360 degrees. So isn't biopace for those who are not spinning as well as a more scientific cyclist might. For instance someone who doesn't even use clips or clipless, we have a few of those around here.
"...says that the failure in the market was a failure of marketing. It's just not so. I was talking bikes with lots of people back then, the biopace product just wasn't working for most people. Products that are truly useful don't rely on marketing buzz to keep them going, people just recognize that they work."
There is a third category of products, those that are better, but don't get adopted because the "installed base" won't switch soon enough to sustain the market. The classic example is the keyboard that is "better" (particularly when typing required some serious muscle) than the "qwerty" board we all use, but people who could already type did not want to learn the letter positions all over again so it never took off.
The problem with a lot of sports gear is you get people who are serious, and they will do what is required. If that involves strapping their feet to pedals and wearing special shoes, and spinning, that's OK by them. The stupider it seems to the average person the more they like it.
Then you get the others. Mention anything about superior performance and they have a negative reaction. They know to be wary of the first group's behaviour. Sure they don't want to pedal junk, but they probably won't get all fired up about some new weird thing unless their neighbours already have it and the benefit is overwhelming, from within their comfort zone.
The biopace is a techie thing for people who care, that helps people who "don't cycle right". Bit of a mismatch, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. It also doesn't mean that eggheads who love complexity enough to write books, will necessarily ask the right questions about it.
I thought the whole thing had gone away, but apparently there is a group wedded enough to the idea to develop a ring calculator and build the rings by hand:
http://www.mozbike.com/giles.html
http://www.fleettrikes.com/tthindex.htm
"...says that the failure in the market was a failure of marketing. It's just not so. I was talking bikes with lots of people back then, the biopace product just wasn't working for most people. Products that are truly useful don't rely on marketing buzz to keep them going, people just recognize that they work."
There is a third category of products, those that are better, but don't get adopted because the "installed base" won't switch soon enough to sustain the market. The classic example is the keyboard that is "better" (particularly when typing required some serious muscle) than the "qwerty" board we all use, but people who could already type did not want to learn the letter positions all over again so it never took off.
The problem with a lot of sports gear is you get people who are serious, and they will do what is required. If that involves strapping their feet to pedals and wearing special shoes, and spinning, that's OK by them. The stupider it seems to the average person the more they like it.
Then you get the others. Mention anything about superior performance and they have a negative reaction. They know to be wary of the first group's behaviour. Sure they don't want to pedal junk, but they probably won't get all fired up about some new weird thing unless their neighbours already have it and the benefit is overwhelming, from within their comfort zone.
The biopace is a techie thing for people who care, that helps people who "don't cycle right". Bit of a mismatch, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. It also doesn't mean that eggheads who love complexity enough to write books, will necessarily ask the right questions about it.
I thought the whole thing had gone away, but apparently there is a group wedded enough to the idea to develop a ring calculator and build the rings by hand:
http://www.mozbike.com/giles.html
http://www.fleettrikes.com/tthindex.htm
bhchdh
03-24-07, 07:46 AM
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2005/probikes/?id=julich_csc_cervelo
jcm
03-24-07, 09:04 AM
No more expensive to manufacture than any other stamped out sprocket. Once you have a tool and die machinist make the die you can stamp out hundreds of them a day on a press. I bet Shimano still has the complete BioPace die set sitting in a box somewhere and could crank out new sets with just a few days lead-time. Making a few hundred sets on a CNC mill would be easy as well but if Shimano has retained the patents on them I am sure they would make your wallet turn red if they got wind of that!
Of course. I should have known that. I've spent alot of years in a machine shop. Many companies keep their old tooling around forever.
I agree with peterpan1. My daughter has her masters in marketing, and I've often discussed variuous aspects of that nebulous 'trade' with her. She says, in short, that marketing is a fickle thing at best.
n4zou:
The anodized BioPace road rings that came on some of the vintage Centurion's are highly $ought after by those who like them. As I said before, I'd love to have a set on my 520.
seedo:
I ran across a set of those. The guy doesn't like 'em either, but he won't sell them to me. The anodizing kinda looks like gold plate! ;)
Of course. I should have known that. I've spent alot of years in a machine shop. Many companies keep their old tooling around forever.
I agree with peterpan1. My daughter has her masters in marketing, and I've often discussed variuous aspects of that nebulous 'trade' with her. She says, in short, that marketing is a fickle thing at best.
n4zou:
The anodized BioPace road rings that came on some of the vintage Centurion's are highly $ought after by those who like them. As I said before, I'd love to have a set on my 520.
seedo:
I ran across a set of those. The guy doesn't like 'em either, but he won't sell them to me. The anodizing kinda looks like gold plate! ;)
NoReg
03-24-07, 10:30 AM
Well maybe it's the exact opposite of what I thought! 1) 5 seconds a KM could only mater to a racer! (of course that doesn't have to be the sole benefit) 2) I thought it did work to take greatest advantage of the the power point in the stroke, what the heck is the point of the maximum load being in the weakest position?
robow
03-24-07, 12:13 PM
I tried them for a few months back in the mid to late 80's, but I started developing knee problems for the first time in my life. I switched back to round rings and spinning (which is more natural to me) and the knee aches went right away. Everybody's different. I thought I saw one of the riders in the California tour using them on the last time trial, was it Julich?
Sheldon Brown
03-24-07, 01:23 PM
I tried them for a few months back in the mid to late 80's, but I started developing knee problems for the first time in my life. I switched back to round rings and spinning (which is more natural to me) and the knee aches went right away.
I think it may have been the spinning that helped your knees, not the round rings.
Sheldon "Biopace" Brown
I think it may have been the spinning that helped your knees, not the round rings.
Sheldon "Biopace" Brown
n4zou
03-24-07, 03:27 PM
I believe the BioPace design is very helpful where you're using them on a loaded bike where speed is not required or even wanted. I have BioPace on my touring bike and the only way someone else gets them is when I'm dead. I however would not want them on my road bike! As for marketing, just remember that touring bikes pretty much retired from the market at the same time Shimano started marketing them so the primary sales source simply evaporated as touring bikes were discontinued. If you could convince Surly and other touring, long distance, or work bike manufacturers to request a new production run of BioPace I believe they would become a must have upgrade for any bike of that type. I know when I first purchased my ($5 thrift store) bike with the BioPace chain rings I was thinking I would be removing that "crap" and replacing it with a modern crank set. I left it in place just to try the bike out before upgrading it and my first loaded test ride convinced me of the BioPace advantages. No one knew they would be so good for a niche market they were never designed for.
Speedo
03-25-07, 08:50 AM
Man, I'm glad that I've got this alias, and that I'm not recognizable in my avitar. Otherwise I'd be afraid that the next time I poke my nose into Harris Cyclery and am standing, staring wistfully at the Rambouillet, I'd be struck by lightning! :D
My opinion is that Shimano, in an attempt to create a new market, added biopace to the line.
Of course! Shimano is constantly introducing new products, because they want to stay in business and grow their company. This strategy has put them on the top of the heap, and they would be fools to change it!
Nothing wrong with innovation, as long as the decision to place the innovation makes sense in the product. I'm sure that there is pressure on the manufacturer to come out with something "new" each year. The marketing department goes down to the engineering department and says "Whatcha got?". If there is a useful innovation, we'll see a useful innovation on that year's bikes. If there's nothing useful, we'll see what they have, useful or not!
It was near in time to another "inovation" the U-brake which replaced cantilever brakes.
Actually, the U-brake replaced rollercam brakes, and a Good Thing that was! The U brake is still alive and well in the BMX/Freestyle world, where the protrousion of cantilevers would be a problem.
I agree that rollercams/U brakes were a Bad Idea for mountain bikes.
The U-brake may have been intended to replace rollercam brakes, but I can assure you that in 1987 and 1988 they had replaced cantilever brakes on virtually every mountain bike on the market. I bought a Bridgestone MB-2 in 1988 because Bridgestones were the only mountain bike I found without the U-brake.
My opinion about the path of innovation in bicycles is based on the U-brake experience. When I was looking for a mountain bike with cantis, the sales people in the shops I visited kept telling me how great the U-brakes were. How they were much better than the cantilever brakes. A few years later, when the tide had turned and cantilever brakes were back on mountain bikes, I made a point of asking some of those very same salespeople about the change. They assured me that the change was made because the U-Brakes were crap.
Niether inovation survived in the market. I never had a bike with the U-brakes of that era, their reputation was so bad that I searched out one of the only mountain bikes that didn't have it, a Bridgestone. I did have a bike with biopace chainrings. I didn't find them helpful, I found them annoying. Most people I talked to at the time found them either useless, annoying or both.
I just read the Sheldon Brown article. Not that I want to disagree with the master, but I disagree.
Huh? That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. ;-)
Which part?
Not wanting to disagree with the master? Believe me, I know that disagreeing with the great Sheldon Brown puts me on shaky ground right from the get go!
There was a nationwide experiment with U-brakes on mountain bikes. The U-brake failed to catch on on mountain bikes because it was a bad application of an innovation.
There was a period of time when the vast majority of bikes on the market were sold with biopace chainrings. This represents a nationwide experiment with biopace chainrings. It's not the case that people were told about biopace, and some few people tried it, but huge numbers of people tried biopace because that's how their bikes were delivered. I was a part of that experiment. I'm not bitter about that because I happily bought a biopace crank because it seemed like a good idea. My personal experience with biopace is that it was not useful. I did not find it easier on my knees. (Oh, and I'm a natural "spinner" as opposed to "basher") Others I talked to at the time had a similar experience. I have to believe that the vast majority of users did not find biopace useful because it disappeared from the market. Useful innovations are adopted and become common, non-useful innovations disappear.
I do find it interesting that there are still happy biopace users out there. Maybe there is a niche for it.
Speedo
My opinion is that Shimano, in an attempt to create a new market, added biopace to the line.
Of course! Shimano is constantly introducing new products, because they want to stay in business and grow their company. This strategy has put them on the top of the heap, and they would be fools to change it!
Nothing wrong with innovation, as long as the decision to place the innovation makes sense in the product. I'm sure that there is pressure on the manufacturer to come out with something "new" each year. The marketing department goes down to the engineering department and says "Whatcha got?". If there is a useful innovation, we'll see a useful innovation on that year's bikes. If there's nothing useful, we'll see what they have, useful or not!
It was near in time to another "inovation" the U-brake which replaced cantilever brakes.
Actually, the U-brake replaced rollercam brakes, and a Good Thing that was! The U brake is still alive and well in the BMX/Freestyle world, where the protrousion of cantilevers would be a problem.
I agree that rollercams/U brakes were a Bad Idea for mountain bikes.
The U-brake may have been intended to replace rollercam brakes, but I can assure you that in 1987 and 1988 they had replaced cantilever brakes on virtually every mountain bike on the market. I bought a Bridgestone MB-2 in 1988 because Bridgestones were the only mountain bike I found without the U-brake.
My opinion about the path of innovation in bicycles is based on the U-brake experience. When I was looking for a mountain bike with cantis, the sales people in the shops I visited kept telling me how great the U-brakes were. How they were much better than the cantilever brakes. A few years later, when the tide had turned and cantilever brakes were back on mountain bikes, I made a point of asking some of those very same salespeople about the change. They assured me that the change was made because the U-Brakes were crap.
Niether inovation survived in the market. I never had a bike with the U-brakes of that era, their reputation was so bad that I searched out one of the only mountain bikes that didn't have it, a Bridgestone. I did have a bike with biopace chainrings. I didn't find them helpful, I found them annoying. Most people I talked to at the time found them either useless, annoying or both.
I just read the Sheldon Brown article. Not that I want to disagree with the master, but I disagree.
Huh? That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. ;-)
Which part?
Not wanting to disagree with the master? Believe me, I know that disagreeing with the great Sheldon Brown puts me on shaky ground right from the get go!
There was a nationwide experiment with U-brakes on mountain bikes. The U-brake failed to catch on on mountain bikes because it was a bad application of an innovation.
There was a period of time when the vast majority of bikes on the market were sold with biopace chainrings. This represents a nationwide experiment with biopace chainrings. It's not the case that people were told about biopace, and some few people tried it, but huge numbers of people tried biopace because that's how their bikes were delivered. I was a part of that experiment. I'm not bitter about that because I happily bought a biopace crank because it seemed like a good idea. My personal experience with biopace is that it was not useful. I did not find it easier on my knees. (Oh, and I'm a natural "spinner" as opposed to "basher") Others I talked to at the time had a similar experience. I have to believe that the vast majority of users did not find biopace useful because it disappeared from the market. Useful innovations are adopted and become common, non-useful innovations disappear.
I do find it interesting that there are still happy biopace users out there. Maybe there is a niche for it.
Speedo
Speedo
03-25-07, 08:54 AM
Typical auctions for BioPace 48/38/28 chain rings with 170 or 175 crank arms and matching BB go for $200 or more on Ebay. Not exactly gold but command a high price for an old and used crank setup. Long distance and loaded touring bikers love them.
Wow! In the early eighties my brother-in-law gave my wife a set of biopace chainrings. She never mounted them, and we still have them in the original box. Glad we didn't toss them!
Speedo
Wow! In the early eighties my brother-in-law gave my wife a set of biopace chainrings. She never mounted them, and we still have them in the original box. Glad we didn't toss them!
Speedo
Speedo
03-25-07, 08:55 AM
I think it may have been the spinning that helped your knees, not the round rings.
Sheldon "Biopace" Brown
I've noticed a few posts where it was noted that to make use of biopace you should be spinning. Perhaps it is the spinning that helps, and not the biopace chainrings! :)
Speedo
Sheldon "Biopace" Brown
I've noticed a few posts where it was noted that to make use of biopace you should be spinning. Perhaps it is the spinning that helps, and not the biopace chainrings! :)
Speedo
Speedo
03-25-07, 09:00 AM
I believe the BioPace design is very helpful where you're using them on a loaded bike where speed is not required or even wanted. I have BioPace on my touring bike and the only way someone else gets them is when I'm dead. I however would not want them on my road bike! As for marketing, just remember that touring bikes pretty much retired from the market at the same time Shimano started marketing them so the primary sales source simply evaporated as touring bikes were discontinued.
While it is true that touring bikes were disappearing from the market, they were replaced by large numbers of mountain bikes. In that application there is still plenty of slogging up hills at low speeds that biopace should have helped.
Speedo
While it is true that touring bikes were disappearing from the market, they were replaced by large numbers of mountain bikes. In that application there is still plenty of slogging up hills at low speeds that biopace should have helped.
Speedo
Sheldon Brown
03-25-07, 11:18 AM
The U-brake may have been intended to replace rollercam brakes, but I can assure you that in 1987 and 1988 they had replaced cantilever brakes on virtually every mountain bike on the market. I bought a Bridgestone MB-2 in 1988 because Bridgestones were the only mountain bike I found without the U-brake.
I'm afraid you missed an intermediate step, the Cunningham, later SunTour Rollercam brake which began to come in in 1986. This was not Shimano's idea, but bikes were starting to be spec'ed with these, and their non-standard, below the chainstay braze-ons, so Shimano had to respond somehow.
SunTour had bought the patent from Cunningham, and Shimano doens't like paying license fees. In addition, the Rollercams made wheel removal/replacement unusually difficult in practice.
Shimano's "U brake" design was a considerable improvement on the Rollercam, and much simpler mechanically. It used the same braze-ons, so they could be directly substituted.
Blaming Shimano for the silly fad of mounting the rear brake under the chainstays is a bum rap. For that you should blame Cunningham and Sun Tour. Shimano just made the best of a bad situation.
There was a nationwide experiment with U-brakes on mountain bikes. The U-brake failed to catch on on mountain bikes because it was a bad application of an innovation.
Actually, it was worldwide, not just nationwide. You're right about it being a bad application.
The bikes did "look" neater due to the clean, unobstructed seatstays, and I believe this was the main "benefit."
However, the under-the-chainstay mount location was a bad idea. Brakes of any sort mounted there were difficult to adjust, and prone to getting clogged with mud.
You may not be old enough to recall the problem that these brakes were introduced to solve, but I am.
I owned a 1985 Fat Chance that came with Shimano wide profile cantilevers. These were great brakes, but not for mountain bikes. Because mountain bikes had lower frames than road bikes, for the same size rider, the seatstay-mounted cantilevers were also lower. As a result, the rider's heels would sometimes bump into the projecting ends of the cantis. This happened to me several times, and a couple of times my heel accidentally unhooked the transverse cable.
The later development of "low profile" cantilevers pretty much fixed this. Indeed, on my Fat Chance I installed a Dia Compe 986 in back for this reason.
In summary, you're right that below-the-chainstay brakes were a Bad Idea, but you're wrong to blame this on Shimano. It was't them! Given the foolish fad, the U-brake was the best implementation of it.
Sheldon "Experimentation Is A Good Thing" Brown
+--------------------------------------+
| Without deviation from the norm, |
| progress is not possible |
| -- Frank Zappa |
+--------------------------------------+
I'm afraid you missed an intermediate step, the Cunningham, later SunTour Rollercam brake which began to come in in 1986. This was not Shimano's idea, but bikes were starting to be spec'ed with these, and their non-standard, below the chainstay braze-ons, so Shimano had to respond somehow.
SunTour had bought the patent from Cunningham, and Shimano doens't like paying license fees. In addition, the Rollercams made wheel removal/replacement unusually difficult in practice.
Shimano's "U brake" design was a considerable improvement on the Rollercam, and much simpler mechanically. It used the same braze-ons, so they could be directly substituted.
Blaming Shimano for the silly fad of mounting the rear brake under the chainstays is a bum rap. For that you should blame Cunningham and Sun Tour. Shimano just made the best of a bad situation.
There was a nationwide experiment with U-brakes on mountain bikes. The U-brake failed to catch on on mountain bikes because it was a bad application of an innovation.
Actually, it was worldwide, not just nationwide. You're right about it being a bad application.
The bikes did "look" neater due to the clean, unobstructed seatstays, and I believe this was the main "benefit."
However, the under-the-chainstay mount location was a bad idea. Brakes of any sort mounted there were difficult to adjust, and prone to getting clogged with mud.
You may not be old enough to recall the problem that these brakes were introduced to solve, but I am.
I owned a 1985 Fat Chance that came with Shimano wide profile cantilevers. These were great brakes, but not for mountain bikes. Because mountain bikes had lower frames than road bikes, for the same size rider, the seatstay-mounted cantilevers were also lower. As a result, the rider's heels would sometimes bump into the projecting ends of the cantis. This happened to me several times, and a couple of times my heel accidentally unhooked the transverse cable.
The later development of "low profile" cantilevers pretty much fixed this. Indeed, on my Fat Chance I installed a Dia Compe 986 in back for this reason.
In summary, you're right that below-the-chainstay brakes were a Bad Idea, but you're wrong to blame this on Shimano. It was't them! Given the foolish fad, the U-brake was the best implementation of it.
Sheldon "Experimentation Is A Good Thing" Brown
+--------------------------------------+
| Without deviation from the norm, |
| progress is not possible |
| -- Frank Zappa |
+--------------------------------------+
jcm
03-25-07, 03:44 PM
Well, call me a fool, but my U-brakes and the OvalTech chainrings have served me well since 1988 til just a few months ago, when a dropout snapped. :rolleyes: :D The rings live on, mounted to another oldie, a roadified Trek 930 for light touring and general purpose.
Speedo
03-26-07, 07:10 AM
I'm afraid you missed an intermediate step, ...
Thanks for the history lesson.
Blaming Shimano for the silly fad of mounting the rear brake under the chainstays is a bum rap. For that you should blame Cunningham and Sun Tour. Shimano just made the best of a bad situation.
Am I blaming Shimano? I guess I was. But really, I don't hold Shimano in poor regard. Maybe it's naieve of me, but I don't think "the industry" made the best of a bad situation. There were other cantilever brake sets out there. The Dia-Compes that came on my 1988 Bridgestone are the same as the Dia-Compes that came on my 1983 Univega (except for some black paint.) They did not suffer from beeing too wide and have served me well for 24 years. None of the salespeople in the stores were saying "Yeah, these U-brakes stink, we're making the best of a bad situation."
The point I was making about the U-brake is that what is touted as an innovation might very well be dross that's put on bikes due to marketing, as opposed to engineering, reasons. Your history lesson shows that that's the case with the U-brake. I'm whining and complaining about the industry, but really it's a cautionary tale for consumers to probe for the truth about supposed innovations. I'm not a retro-grouch. I like lots of new things that have come along. I'm just a little bit suspicious about what is being sold until it is proven in the field.
Sheldon "Experimentation Is A Good Thing" Brown
I totally agree. Experimentation is a good thing. But most of that experimentation should be done in the lab, not on the products sold to unsuspecting consumers!
Speedo
Thanks for the history lesson.
Blaming Shimano for the silly fad of mounting the rear brake under the chainstays is a bum rap. For that you should blame Cunningham and Sun Tour. Shimano just made the best of a bad situation.
Am I blaming Shimano? I guess I was. But really, I don't hold Shimano in poor regard. Maybe it's naieve of me, but I don't think "the industry" made the best of a bad situation. There were other cantilever brake sets out there. The Dia-Compes that came on my 1988 Bridgestone are the same as the Dia-Compes that came on my 1983 Univega (except for some black paint.) They did not suffer from beeing too wide and have served me well for 24 years. None of the salespeople in the stores were saying "Yeah, these U-brakes stink, we're making the best of a bad situation."
The point I was making about the U-brake is that what is touted as an innovation might very well be dross that's put on bikes due to marketing, as opposed to engineering, reasons. Your history lesson shows that that's the case with the U-brake. I'm whining and complaining about the industry, but really it's a cautionary tale for consumers to probe for the truth about supposed innovations. I'm not a retro-grouch. I like lots of new things that have come along. I'm just a little bit suspicious about what is being sold until it is proven in the field.
Sheldon "Experimentation Is A Good Thing" Brown
I totally agree. Experimentation is a good thing. But most of that experimentation should be done in the lab, not on the products sold to unsuspecting consumers!
Speedo
Speedo
03-26-07, 07:16 AM
Well, call me a fool, but my U-brakes and the OvalTech chainrings have served me well since 1988 til just a few months ago, when a dropout snapped. :rolleyes: :D The rings live on, mounted to another oldie, a roadified Trek 930 for light touring and general purpose.
Nope, you've found something that's obviously making you happy. Stick with it.
Speedo
Nope, you've found something that's obviously making you happy. Stick with it.
Speedo
NoReg
03-26-07, 09:07 AM
"I've noticed a few posts where it was noted that to make use of biopace you should be spinning. Perhaps it is the spinning that helps, and not the biopace chainrings!"
I'm confused (obviously). I thought biopace was principally an answer to the question of how to improve things for non-spinners. Doesn't mean it won't work well for spinners also.
Funny this "spinning" thing, since spinning is certainly a non-continuous pedal motion, where the pedal is linked often with a thong or at least a flexible rod.
I'm confused (obviously). I thought biopace was principally an answer to the question of how to improve things for non-spinners. Doesn't mean it won't work well for spinners also.
Funny this "spinning" thing, since spinning is certainly a non-continuous pedal motion, where the pedal is linked often with a thong or at least a flexible rod.
robow
03-26-07, 09:49 PM
Sheldon that's the point, I had difficulty spinning with a smooth moderately high rpm with those biopace rings, too herky-jerky for me.
Sheldon Brown
03-26-07, 09:52 PM
Sheldon that's the point, I had difficulty spinning with a smooth moderately high rpm with those biopace rings, too herky-jerky for me.
I find the opposite effect, since the foot direction changes occur at the times when the crank is moving slowest.
I could generally spin faster, comfortably, with Biopace rings.
Sheldon "Bee Oh Pa Chay" Brown
I find the opposite effect, since the foot direction changes occur at the times when the crank is moving slowest.
I could generally spin faster, comfortably, with Biopace rings.
Sheldon "Bee Oh Pa Chay" Brown
jcm
03-27-07, 01:57 AM
Nope, you've found something that's obviously making you happy. Stick with it.
Speedo
Nah, I'll let the U-brakes go. Adjusting them was a bit of a pain. They worked well enough, but are certainly not any better than the cantis on the 930.
Speedo
Nah, I'll let the U-brakes go. Adjusting them was a bit of a pain. They worked well enough, but are certainly not any better than the cantis on the 930.
jcm
03-27-07, 02:02 AM
I find the opposite effect, since the foot direction changes occur at the times when the crank is moving slowest.
I could generally spin faster, comfortably, with Biopace rings.
Sheldon "Bee Oh Pa Chay" Brown
Same here, especially after I put SPD pedals on the bike. I like the way the power stroke drops away under my foot. It can feel "herky-jerky" I suppose, inless you are attenuated to it and expect it as normal.
I could generally spin faster, comfortably, with Biopace rings.
Sheldon "Bee Oh Pa Chay" Brown
Same here, especially after I put SPD pedals on the bike. I like the way the power stroke drops away under my foot. It can feel "herky-jerky" I suppose, inless you are attenuated to it and expect it as normal.