thehammerdog

OK, before some of you go nutzs here give me a second. Given that the current crop of Carbon Advancement is not coming from the Bike industry but other places and that at least currently those who do make the stuff in Taiwan have it figured out, what is behind the cost of R&D? Bike regs limit what can be done to a frame to make it legal and only a handfull of companys make the Carbon & build the bikes...all use CAD programs to design a new bike...where is the High Cost of R&D coming from.

StanSeven

A senior engineer costs a company maybe $250,000 annually with everything factored in. So you have three people working on a new design for a year and it's a million dollars by the time travel and everything else is added. Cervelo spend a couple years and who knows how many people developing the S5. Wind tunnel testing is $2000 an hour.

That's why Di2 is so expensive? Shimano worked years developing it.

loreley

why does it really matter?

tagaproject6

Are the bike companies really going to divulge that information?

UberGeek

Engineers costs a lot...

One-off designs costs a lot... And, may never be re-sold.

Testing of materials costs a lot.

pgjackson

Ok, here's a follow-up question...after all that money spent where is the real innovation? All the bikes look essentially the same, frame weight and durability is about the same, aerodynamics about the same...the only significant difference appears to be paint. DI2 seems to be the only real cycling innovation on the horizon. What are the tangible differences between a CF frame built 5-10 years ago and one built 5 minutes ago? Don't tell me "verticle compliance" and all that marketing BS. I would submit that Brand-X's 2012 bike will be virtually identical to their 2011, 10, 09 bike despite what their marketing says about "revolutionary innovative design".

Garfield Cat

I think the next step forward will be less of the frameset and more of the rider issues. I mean racing. From racing, the rest of the riders will benefit according to the improvements and riding styles. It won't be Cervelo unless they do joint work with the saddle makers Fizik types, the clothing guys like Assos, Castelli, the hydration delivery systems, even the fairings. The rider's core temperature control might be the big thing. For helmets it might be more aero and at the same time, integrated with the kit to generate turbulence where its desired.

In the past, we thought of aero as a solution to turbulence. But maybe now, some turbulence in the right areas would be used to solve heat dissipation issues.

asgelle

What high cost of R&D? Data?

Seattle Forrest

It sounds like we have a testable prediction on our hands.

SoreFeet

Bike companies are ripping you off. The so called modern designs are nothing new. Every year the company changes the look of basically the same exact product. I'd rather have vintage gear that weighs less than modern gear for a fraction of the cost. Is 3 year old Ultegra really that inferior? I don't think so.

rbart4506

Ok boys....I have a 2008 Tarmac Expert and 2010 Tarmac Expert...Ride them both, with same wheels and tires...I swap a psimet powertap set...I notice a marked difference between the bikes...

The 2010 sprints better, front end tracks straight, and the the bike transfers less road chatter...Smoother ride...

So there are subtle difference between frames as development years go by...

Commodus

I think that the frames get lighter and stiffer every year. Further, I think that the changes are significant, in objective engineering terms.

However, I do not think that most of these changes are significant for most riders. Most would be as well-served by a 20 year old steel bike as anything made of carbon. That's not to rubbish people buying the carbon, they buy what they like and enjoy. Nothing wrong with that.

It's useful to spend time on an early carbon bike, and then ride a current model. The differences are easily noticeable, even by your average schlum.

So the changes are happening, the bikes are getting better, but in ways that are mostly irrelevant for the vast majority of the riders and in much smaller increments than the marketers would have you believe.

But that's what happens when people insist on buying cutting-edge racing equipment. They are essentially buying the wrong tool for the job, unless they are racing at a high level. As a result, much of what they're paying for are solutions to the problems that pros have, leading to posts like this questioning the usefulness of the advances.

carpediemracing 

There's examples of trickle down technology. It used to be a defense secret working with titanium. Now it's used for bike frames and white paint pigment. Hydroformed steel was innovative. Not sure where it was first used but a Corvette (2 gen ago?) used hydroformed rails. Now it's used for all sorts of stuff.

Bikes are not a big business. Look at military and large industry for new technology.

It's like blue LEDs. Red and yellow were quick. Blue was tough to figure out. I think the guy who found the right gas combination was trying for 20 years. What's that worth? Now we can have green LEDs which means we can have LED traffic lights which means a gazillion lights out there.

lmcq784

Engineering improvements may not see significant to most people... but the "simple" development of a new tube shape can be the result of many months of designing, and testing, by many engineers. Much like corrugated cardboard, sometimes, redesigning existing material can give you better results (for the money) than using current design with a more costly material. Tuning tubing shape and existing material lay-up can give engineers and designers completely different ride properties.

And material testing isn't easy either. Using a slightly different lay-up or alloy may change ride properties enough that warrants a redesign in shaping or arrangements.

Of course, as others have said, most riders probably can't tell a difference between 1, 2, or even 3 model years, and others may not even care. But if you're actually looking and comparing, you'll see incremental differences.

Very rarely do you see companies come out with "revolutionizing" changes that stuns everyone and shocks the industry. The general public is (most people are) much more receptive to smaller, incremental changes over time, rather than shocking big differences.

And when you think about changes that happen to every bike in every company's line-up every 1-2 years, they have to be incremental.

halfspeed

Hey now, those of us racing at a low level very much appreciate any small improvement that just might make the difference between finishing in the pack and OTB.

halfspeed

Why would ask whether or not there are differences between current and ten year old carbon bikes and then make an assertion that there are not? Try riding an old carbon bike and then get back to us with your impressions. You might be surprised.

Commodus

My argument is that at low levels, disparity in fitness levels are so great that equipment advantages mostly neutral.

pgjackson

Word to that.

asgelle

That is demonstrably false. Time gaps are pretty much the same regardless of level or category.

thehammerdog

compare a CAD 3 to a CAD 10....are younutzs???

Commodus

It may well be false, but the second sentence here means nothing.

halfspeed

WTF are you talking about?

halfspeed

Right. Because there's never a pack finish in cat 4/5 race.

pgjackson

I will submit that in most amatuer sports, winning and losing is very rarely due to superior or inferior equipment.

Commodus

Me too.

It is simply very rare that you will encounter an opponent so evenly matched to your ability and desire that the handful of seconds to be gained for an aero bike, for example, will make the difference. In the pro leagues, this is far more common - this is a much more homogeneous population.