Originally Posted by
Jeff Neese
I hate to point out this well-iknown fact, but TDF winner's average speed, measured over all stages and across all years, has not significantly improved since the mid 90s. It's really, really hard to make a case that bikes made today are faster.
The industry of course needs to keep introducing new product with "higher tech" in order to keep the industry alive. Non-racers may in fact be faster because their cool new CF bike with electronic shifting and hydraulic disc brakes makes them get out there more, and motivates them to go faster.
There's nothing wrong with the way bicycles are marketed. If they couldn't find new ways to sell bikes by constantly introducing new features and "innovations", the industry wouldn't thrive. People on BF get butt-hurt when anyone says that, but it's worth pointing out that this same exact thing happens with ANY consumer product. Anyone else here seriously into home theater? Talk about pushing product. These same discussions are had in those forums.
I see you might have read a question as a statement...
However to your point, it's possible that many bikes targeted to consumers may in fact be slower than top tier racing bikes of old. And that's a good thing. Consumers do not need TDF-level racing bikes. They need good ergonomics and gearing that allows them to get up hills as well as brakes which allow them to descend safely.
Using TDF average speeds to determine whether bikes have improved over the years is like comparing engine sizes in formula 1 to determine whether family cars have gotten safer over the years. The two things are in no way or form related.
If I think of road bikes before the time of brifters for example, they really weren't that compatible for your average joe. Horrible bar ergonimics wih thin tubed drop bars with massive reach and drop numbers, thin bar tape, weak brakes you could only properly use from the drops, atrocious brake hoods (did anyone even use the hoods position?). There weren't cut out saddles or really that many different saddle shapes so numbness was just something you had to deal with or stop riding. Frame sizing was pretty uniform but if you didn't fit that uniformity, well SOL... Corncob cassettes with 53-39 cranksets must have been a blast beginners. Shifting while releasing a hand from the bars is always fun and safe in all situations.
Compare that to today's bikes which have large diameter compact drop bars, thick bar tape, brifters which actually fit the hand and allow you to shift whilst holding the bar. Saddles galore! With todays wacky saddle shapes anyone can find a saddle that fits. There's all sorts of bike geometries even inside a given segment of cycling (road, gravel etc) and anyone who's still having a really hard time is a short person with long legs. You have huge dinner plate cassettes with enough gears to have reasonable gear spacing and sub compact cranksets to allow almost anyone to get up even challenging hills. I should probably write something about brakes, but let's not go there again.