Originally Posted by
Cruiser7
This comment was posted in the video you suggest; does it make tooooooooooo much sense?....
Instead of using high volume tires at low pressures, would it not be more optimal to use some form of actual, real suspension (maybe even tunable) plus lower volume tires at higher pressures to prevent flats? Formula 1 cars use suspension to go faster on the smoothest tracks in the world, so why don't racing bikes use suspension, especially on roads like these? Air-filled tires seems like a VERY PRIMITIVE form of suspension, which has the downsides highlighted by this race. I know suspension has been used previously in Paris-Roubaix, so why are high volume tires now seen as a better solution?
It would need to be tested, whether larger tires or suspension were more optimal, but in theory a full suspension bike with narrower tires could make a faster machine than a bike with larger volume tires.
But then there's other factors, such as aerodynamics, weight and stiffness. Making an aerodynamic full sus road bike to rival other aero offerings would be challenging. Suspension components would also bring a lot of additional weight. Not necessarily a problem on a flat course such as
PR, but there are other rowdy races as well which are not flat. Making a bike for a single classic wouldn't make much financial sense. And having linkages, stanchions etc. would inevitably bring unwanted wallowiness to the bikes, unless reinforced, which again brings the weight up.
But in reality full suspension road bike would be a difficult sell, because racing is sponsored by companies selling bikes to consumers. Road bikes are simple machines and the additional maintenance of front and rear suspension would make many potential buyers nope at the prospect. I don't even have a full sus MTB, because I just can't be bothered with the rear shock and linkage maintenance.
So no specific reason why it couldn't be done, but it's a big risk. It would be interesting to see though.