Your first bike is pre WW2. But otherwise,

1. All diamond-shaped, steel-tubing bikes.

2. All pneumatic tires

3. All drop bars (except the time trial bike, but it isn't a road bike like the others)

4. All caliper brakes

5. All parallelogram derailleurs

6. All with saddles on a post

7. All with chain-driven gears

8. All with spoked wheels

9. All with forks

10. All with hubs

11. All with cranks/pedals

12. All with quick releases

Ya sure. A lot of evolution. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=iab;17444114]

Your first bike is pre WW2.

It is 1940, the 1st post war pro races were on pre-war tech, call it a reference point.
Note the ST lever derail control, controls moved to the DT post war and bar-cons were introduced.
Note the Steel cottered cranks & bits 'n bobs. Post WWII aircraft technology allowed lightweight aluminum alloy to replace steel in critical components.
See bike #2 as an example.


1. All diamond-shaped, steel-tubing bikes.
Not Bike #3 . Once again aerospace tech provides innovative new materials: Carbon fiber framesets.
Note the difference in geometry from bike #1 to #4 as road surfaces improved allowing quick nimble but comfortable machines built w/ lighter strong tube sets. Reynolds 753 and Columbus SLX are introduced followed by aluminum, titanium and CF in this era.

2. All pneumatic tires
All tubulars, as pros ride today. For the rest of us high performance clinchers in 700C are introduced.

3. All drop bars (except the time trial bike, but it isn't a road bike like the others)
The Time Trial is decisive in many ,if not all, stage races.
Aerodynamics are given priority: Specialized timed event equipment in road racing replaces the standard road bike.
Aero bars become TT standard post Lemond vs. Figon in the TdF.
There is a distinct "fork in the road" for racing bike design and construction from this point in time.

4. All caliper brakes
Brifters integrate shifting and braking into a single unit, see bike #4 , with more powerful better modulated brake designs.

5. All parallelogram derailleurs
Indexed shifting is (re)introduced, see bike #4 .

6. All with saddles on a post
Synthetic saddles replace tensioned leather in racing.
An integrated seatpost/clamp replaces separate units.

7. All with chain-driven gears
4 cogs become 2X8 with a wider and tighter range.

8. All with spoked wheels
As mountain pass roads are paved post WWII light weight spoked wheels become available that would never have survived pre-war gravel roads.
As aluminum alloy technology is refined stronger more resilient spoked wheels are available for the pave' of the Spring Classics.
Disc wheels, see bike #5 , transform timed event equipment.

9. All with forks
Aluminum forks are introduced, see bike #3, CF to come.

10. All with hubs
Aero tech allows extremely precise mfg tolerances to produce smooth spinning strong/lightweight designs.
Cassettes replace freewheels.

11. All with cranks/pedals
Clipless pedals and alloy cranks in various lengths to accommodate rider size, see bike #4 , are introduced.

12. All with quick releases
Not on Bike #1 , Thank you (apocryphally) Tullio!

Synthetic riding kit replaces wool, foam core helmets replace leather "hairnets" and cycle computers are introduced in this era along with radio communication from team car to riders.

The UCI rules govern how innovation proceeds to a degree, not the designers and manufacturers.

Ya sure. A lot of evolution. :eek:

I see we will never agree. You see the evolution of bikes from 1946 to 1990 like a wolf evolving to a chihuahua. I see it at best as a poodle becoming a toy poodle but in reality see it as a poodle getting a haircut.

Everything you mention for that 1990 bike was readily available prior to WW2. Square taper cranks, aluminum components and frames, lightweight wheels, parallelogram derailleur, index shifting, 2x5 gearing, smooth bearings, rubber, chains, freewheeling, caliper brakes and even composites were ALL developed and on the market by 1940.

So yes, in 1947 you can have a 17 pound aluminum bike with 10 speeds. But if you want to think that moving things literally by a few millimeters is huge steps in evolution, you keep on keeping on.

I do see some significant evolution in 3 areas, 1 is actually bike related.
1. Improved roads, gravel and dirt to tarmac
2. Improved doping, strychnine to epo.
3. Improved aero frames. You completely missed the boat on the carbon thing. The evolution was the ability to mold an aero frame like a Kestrel. The screwed and glued crap with the same weight as a steel frame and the differing materials at the joints is a recipe for disaster and is the very definition of de-evolution and not evolution.

I'm sure that we won't agree.

I did not assert that the tech noted was a 1st instance of a design attempt. These examples are not one-off items from now obscure mfgs or marketplace failures but Full Mass Production tech that was available to any cyclist with the cash to acquire it. The bikes pictured are Pro Team race bikes showcasing quality reliable designs that endured top level competition with tech that was widely adopted in the industry and by consumers.

Indexed shifting, clipless pedals, carbon fiber framesets, synthetic saddles, wide range cassettes, synthetic riding kit, foam core helmets and brifters Replaced previous tech in the peloton and on our local roads. Cycle computers were new, and became a standard pointing to more advanced electronics in the future. Dedicated TT machines are essential for the discipline, and totally replaced the standard road bike.

That's how I see it.

-Bandera

Indeed. René Herse had a sub-18# fully equipped bike (including mudguards and lights) as early as 1946:

http://janheine.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/asbook3.jpg

The Technical Trials | Off The Beaten Path

The key word here being a.
A beautiful one-off handcrafted bicycle suitable for the Concours de Machine, not a Production unit that a consumer would be able to purchase without having Herse make one for them.

I'm sure that custom fabricators are making super lightweight made-to-spec machines for individual customers today that are far below the current UCI weight limit. None are Full Production models that anyone can buy but are an interesting footnote to the technical history of the sport and a display of craftsmanship.

-Bandera

OK so maybe there is another way to put the "Poodle getting a haircut" argument - If you went on a long cycle into the countryside on any of the example bikes provided and developed a mechanical far from home but happened to be in the neighborhood of a reasonably average LBS, then there is a good chance they'll be able to sort you out and get you back on your way with the parts and tools at hand, even if they have to bodge, it will be a tried and trusted bodge that will get you home without risk of further damage. Whereas with the current batch of plastic bikes, even if you take it into the shop you recently purchased it from, they may have to wait on parts as they don't stock all the different standards, a couple of years on an some frame specific parts, funny shaped aero seat tubes etc, may not even be available.

As I said earlier, this isn't a reference to dubious claims of exponential performance gains year on year model to model as seen in recent years, but more the proliferation of incompatible standards that has muddied the waters of parts selection more in recent years than at any other time in the history of bike evolution, in particular the post WWII to pre the 90's madness years.

I haven't been in the industry for quite a number of years but I sympathize with you. A proliferation of new "standards" that may/may-not stick are on the horizon, so it has always been. My CF bike is perhaps one of the last generation w/ a threaded BB, external shift cable routing and a parallel TT, it will do for the foreseeable future.

If you are interested in being hands on w/ the Classic hardware try to find a copy of: "Sutherland's Handbook for Bicycle Mechanics" and Jobst Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel". Both were reference standards in our shop "back when", are very useful, and still reside on my shelf today.

-Bandera

Incorrect.

Caminade's production bikes were aluminum. Were available to the public prior to WW2 and were under 18 pounds. Nothing custom about it.

Incorrect.

Stronglight aluminum square taper - 1933
Ambrosio rims, bars, stems - 1934
Simplex CdM 5-speed RD - 1935
Osgear Super Champion index - 1932
Nivex parallelogram DR - 1938

I have British, French and Italian catalogs from prior to WW2. All of those production items were available to John Q. Public at anytime. There are more, but I think the point you won't grasp has been made.

The Caminargent machines, as they were badged, were very light indeed but as I understand were Randonneur bikes, not professional road racing machines.
Were they ever exposed to the rigors of pro racing to survive that test? A Pro team bike pic of a Caminargent in the pre-war era peloton would be nice.

The scope of my 5 examples is actual Professional European Racing machines, just as a reminder.

-Bandera

Nice that you have the catalogs.
Do you also have pics of the tech mentioned above in use by European Pro teams pre-WWII?
Any of that on bike #1 ?

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=427413

I'm sure that you will always strain yourself for a Last Word, but you have not expressed clearly what Your Point Is.
Nothing is new under the Sun?
Your turn.

I'm leaving this thread to the OP to continue (or not).

-Bandera Done

The 5th bike in the sample set is a TT bike, so only used for very specific stages and infrequently throughout the season, and as for surviving the rigors of pro racing, those lugged aluminium Vitus racers of the 80s were almost single use disposable items and were still used to win races at the highest level. The Caminargent's probably would have fared no worse than the Vitus's but the economics and sensibilities of the world at that time were in a different place.

Off topic in the end maybe.... anyways I'm really digging that René Herse, can see Marlon Brando riding in on something like that, René Herse has popped up a few times in the 'Grail' section but the examples have always looked pretty dull, maybe it's just the angle of the photo or the hue of the blue, but that bike above is a humdinger alright - Thanks for sharing.

Do tell?
Here's a pic of my Vitus 979 still in service decades after being pushed as hard as I could race it, with quite reasonable results.
I'll have to take it out in the AM to see if it disposes of itself:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=427419

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=427420http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=427421http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=427422

Other pics are some Irish bloke, you're around the corner from him: ask Sean how his Vitus fared.

OP: Learn Actual Cycling History. Sorry but you will have to do it yourself.
Marlon Brando was an actor, the only hearse that he rode was at his funeral.
Rene Herse' was a Constructeur with a significance beyond dull paint jobs.

edit: A production run of 979's w/ assploding chainstays that were "were addressed in later batches."? :eek: Really?

-Bandera

If you were involved in cycling as a Sport you would know that the TT is Crucial to stage race placing, a highly refined tool for a specific task that is Essential.
You, as we all, have a Lot to Learn.......

edit: A "race Cat 1" guy who thinks that in Pro Time Trials "the bikes aren't subjected to the same rigours as regular racing"? :eek: Really?


-Bandera (Now Done)

Saying 'Done' is just last worditis.

It is your assertion that racing is somehow the gold standard for testing the durabily of bikes, TTing is crucial but the fact is the bikes aren't subjected to the same rigours as regular racing and to deny that pros have and continue to use fragile equipment, is short sighted, the minimum weight and UCI stickering program are there to ensure manufacturers don't sacrifice structural integrity in favour of performance gains. I race Cat 1 btw. Sean Kelly didn't race on the same Vitus too often due to probs with the chainstays coming loose from the lugs, something that actually happened to my team manager in a race in the 80s. A lot of those issues were addressed in later batches.

It's past bedtime for me so if there's more undone it will have to wait till morning.

Anyway, maybe you could get better answers to your question if your question were more specific. If you don't have a more specific question, just keep reading. Your first post sounds a bit like, "Tell me all there is to know." If we were inclined to write it all at once, would you be ready to read it? :lol:

I'm busting your chops, a bit. Do you have that idiom in Ireland?

Speaking of Sean Kelly, I have a friend in Ireland who rode as a domestique for Kelly.

Actually, I think the 1970s was pretty nutty on incompatible standards. Take BBs: you had Raleigh, English, French, Swiss, Italian and the one piece style.

Take cranks: you had the standard 22mm, then the TA 23mm, then the Stronglight 23.35mm.

Take freewheels, I have a drawer full of tools and still don't have them all covered.

The list goes on and on.

[MENTION=152773]noglider[/MENTION] Yes I do realize the folly of my first thread post, I guess I just took it for granted that these lists would exist like with today's components Buyer?s guide to road bike groupsets - BikeRadar and someone would point me in that direction rather than expecting them to write a history paper for me - In anycase the links provided by a few of the respondents are very useful, I just have to get better at extracting the information. Reading some of Mike Sweatman's comments on various derailleurs is certainly much more entertaining than simply browsing through a dry ranking list.
[MENTION=109949]wrk101[/MENTION] I think this is just a classic case of baseline bias, I only got into cycling in 2010 and didn't do much more mechanical than frustratingly twiddle the cable adjuster for the first year or so, once over that hump I've learned to do pretty much anything there is to do mechanically on a modern bike. It was only early summer last year when I started to work on some vintage bikes. So my baseline bias is rooted somewhere in 2011 and everything before that just seems normal to me, even the 4 BB types you mentioned - whereas everything after seems like crazy innovation. It just so happens that [MENTION=335281]Bandera[/MENTION] mentions his interests in modern bikes falls off around the time my interests start and his baseline goes back much further and so we have no overlap and have ended up with this crazy internet argument :crash: - It's amazing the clarity a good nights sleep can bring. There are oceans of knowledge that those with experience in the bike industry going back decades have, that even with all the reading I can do, I'll only scratch the surface. so I hope we can get back to where this forum should be, with the exchange of advice and sharing of info and help with all things C&V related.... and lots of pictures of nice old bikes.
[MENTION=152773]noglider[/MENTION] We know that saying alright, most of us were raised on a diet of US TV shows, tho more colourful local euphemistic idioms are more likely to be used :) I imagine your friend has some great stories to tell of his time with Sean Kelly - I've ridden with him the last few years on his holiday cycle camps, despite his reputation from Eurospots commentary he is a really funny guy on and off the bike and has some great tricks he'll show if you are lucky.

Yes. Mostly the Italian bits, not a lot of French bits though. You do realize CdM stands fro Champion du Monde, don't you? Meaning a "European Pro" won the world championship using that very derailleur.

You keep asking questions. It would be rude otherwise.

How ironic.

We sure have some strange if not humorous methods to get info out of folks around here.

I have enjoyed the reading.

You left out hub threading for freewheels, steerer inside diameter, seat post diameter and handlebar clamp area diameter.
All could be dealt with at the time, now of course it is more of a challenge as often the fitting parts are no longer made and easily ordered.
Bike frame interface dimensions are again in flux. Some is due to the desire to move beyond the ISO or English bottom bracket, plenty of engineering solutions and marketing campaigns to promote a solution that is deemed best. Headsets appear to be moving slowly to a mixed diameter convention, although not all equally named dimensioned parts are interchangeable. I attribute that mixed diameter to the realization that carbon fibre does not like to take a 90 degree turn, that was overdue. It will be interesting to see how disc brakes play out. For them to be accepted in the pro peloton by the UCI I feel pretty confident there will be a dimension and maybe even a performance standard range set. Neutral support rear wheels are almost back with 11 cogs, the physical dimensions have dictated some commonality.

As an aside, if one goes back to just after the turn to the 20th century there was very little cross brand compatibility, a bi ke mfg. would try to make as much as possible, drive train, handlebars, brakes, lots if innovative designs and unique parts for those solutions. When I was just learning all the current differences when I was 11 years old I was amazed at how interchangeable stuff was between competing brands, one at the time would never expect brakes or transmissions in a Ford to match another brand ever.

As I've learned from the forums, having joined in recent weeks - there are certain things that people here have fundamentally different interpretations on and it serves no purpose to argue too long over. My own personal take is that a 50km TT here and there throughout the season is not comparable to 3 week Grand Tours, yes they contain TTs but the split is at best 18 to 3 for road versus TT stages), Then you have the 200km + stages that road bikes tackle, poor road surfaces, cobbles, sprint finishes with there massive power forces, not to mention all the accelerations and rough riding that goes into making a road stage. Sure you have 180km Ironman TTs but by comparison the power output is aimed to be steady without the sudden acceleration of road races and the road surfaces are usually quite good. Are they subject to the same rigors our opinions differ there is no need for that to be a bad thing - A world where everyone agrees would be quite boring.

I've heard of computer virus's but have never had one in 20+ years of computing so I'm starting to wonder if it's just media and industry driven hype.