Originally Posted by ridelugs
you doubt dual suspension is in the near future for road bikes? have you been blind to trek and specialized and thier move towards elastomers and other vibration isolating "technology"? i guarentee that if you could make a dual suspension road bike within a pound of current bikes, they would be on the market in a flash. electronic shifting doesnt use a traditional shifter, therefore the gears or cogs in the shifter cant wear out. also, no one makes a sealed bearing bb as light as a cup and cone, and i would contend it cant be done. as to increased cost and weight, yeah its true, now. my whole argument was based on a hypothical future, not current situations. i was taking the sealed bearing philosphy to its possible zenith.
I've seen the move to vibration isolation and elastomers, yes. I don't see dual suspension as the logical conclusion of that effort, however. What I envision is increasing refinement of the more "passive" solutions currently in use.
Electronic shifting has been tried in the form of the mavic mechtronic drivetrain. I believe it created more problems than it solved, in that form at least. Radio interference, dead batteries, and finicky motors in the derailers from what I've heard! I agree that worn-out indexing in Shimano STI shifters is definitely a problem, but the solution is to make easily rebuildable shifters. Every single Campy brifter is easily rebuildable (for a cost of about $30 I believe), and the new SRAM Force and Rival groups are rebuildable too. I think this is mainly a case of "planned obsolescence" by Shimano, rather than any real problem with brifters.
There are currently cartridge BBs weighing around 110 g for some of the new external BB designs. They have fancy-dancy ceramic bearings and hollow titanium spindles and they're outrageously expensive ... not something I can afford or am interested in, but weight weenies sure seem to be excited about 'em
Maybe a cup-and-cone BB employing similar high-zoot materials would be even lighter, but frankly no one's making them.
There are a number of cases where the bike industry seems to have settled on solutions that are less-than-perfect in terms of weight. Shimano came up with a 10 mm pitch chain about a decade ago, I'm told, but it never caught on despite the fact that it would've saved a bit of weight without significant effect on longevity of components. The movement from cup-and-cone bearings to cartridges reduces the cost of manufacturing a lot of parts and increases longevity of bearings, even though it ultimately increases weight a bit.
I dunno why I even care so much to argue about this stuff
... my commuter is a hunk of 1980s steel with threaded headset and square taper BB, and my aluminum road bike has a 1998 Shimano 105 drivetrain and steel fork, so it's no lightweight either.