Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged (Post 23733113)

I mentioned this as a point of reference. Touring in the traditional sense of huge pannier’s and duffle bags strapped to your bike is mostly dying off replaced with lighter and more streamlined setups. My touring rigs are either a carbon gravel bike for rides 2 weeks or less and a steel adventure bike for 2+ weeks. Both bikes are 2x11 wide ratio gearing, disc brakes, tubeless and carbon wheels. These bikes are quick, good performing either loaded or not. The rack system is either my Tailfin or Tubus, 12L panniers, 6L handlebar bag and optional 4L fork packs, 10L cargo bag.

Originally Posted by Jughed (Post 23733015)

Could be doughnuts!!

If there is any question to be questioned - its how does a 19 year old not only win a spring classic, but set the 3rd fastest time in history up the final climb? At grades of 15-20% - it's not really about modern bikes, tires, aero - its about pure power.

19 and coming close to or beating times set by world champions, TDF winners, winningest riders of all time...

They are modifying these kids genetics. We can talk tire pressures all day, or waxed chains... something is different with the riders.

Originally Posted by Duragrouch (Post 23733533)

I just read a story today on NPR about using gene therapy to CURE a rare genetic-based cause of deafness in humans. Not theory, works.

So it is not out of the realm of possibility that some gene therapy is going on in bike racing. Tough to detect, and tough to challenge; "Why should someone who won the gene lottery at birth, have that advantage, when the playing field can be leveled?"

Originally Posted by Duragrouch (Post 23733533)

So it is not out of the realm of possibility that some gene therapy is going on in bike racing.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 23733637)

What faulty gene do you think is being corrected in all these pro cyclists?

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 23733709)

Time to pull out the tin foil hats...

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 23733637)

What faulty gene do you think is being corrected in all these pro cyclists?

Originally Posted by Jughed (Post 23733704)

enhanced superior genetics is my guess.

Originally Posted by Camilo (Post 23733722)

what gene is that?

Originally Posted by Jughed (Post 23733704)

enhanced superior genetics is my guess.

Pogi, according to the experts, is second to none in lactate processing and tolerance, being dual fuel athlete, has possibly the highest VO2 max in the history of the sport, highest w/kg…

and who was his coach, and what is said coach’s field of expertise? Cellular energy systems and mitochondrial repair. Of which, they are messing about with genetics for other issues.

Even with EPO back in the day, lactate was the limiting factor. They have figured out how to surpass those limits.

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 23733526)

There's no denying that newer bike tech has benefited touring, much in the same way it has benefited essentially all other types of riding. Who wouldn't want better brakes or tires or such and such. But newer tech has also made reaching low gear ratios with drop bars a nightmare. I did a quick search and Shimano currently has no off the shelf approved combinations for low gearing. That means either going with SRAM (ew) or mixing and matching, which many bicycle tourists aren't comfortable doing, even if that simply means using an MTB crankset instead of the road/gravel one. And these days the only low gearing drop bar options are 1X, which means massive jumps at the low end and severely restricted high end, both of which make riding at one's own pace a bit of a bummer.

Triples were better than what we have now. Triples were even better than what can be customized. I've been riding a 2X with 46/30 and 11-46 (an impossible combination without some heavy customization or bar end shifters) for a while now and it's just not as good as my old Deore triple 22/34/44 and 11-36. For riding at my preferred pace that is. Low jumps between gears is better for maintaining steady power.

But the large panniers aren't going anywhere. Thinking that they are is youtube influence. Panniers haven't been the go-to choice of high performance long distance tourers for a long time, but for your average bike tourist on vacation, they still reign supreme. There simply isn't a better way to carry a lot of stuff. And if you want to go out to town in chinos and a button down shirt after a long day's ride, you're gonna need that space. Your average bike tourist is far more likely to ride a flat bar trekking bike with 20l panniers and a rack pack than a carbon drop bar bike with frame bags.



Debatable. Depends on how much of a hurry you're in. Also lots of small pouches, frame bags etc. is a hassle to take off compared to a couple of quick lock panniers. Being able to load/unload the bike quickly is a real benefit when using public transport or staying at a hotel that doesn't allow bikes in rooms.



Preferred pace is a power output, not speed. On a bike, it doesn't matter how much weight you're carrying when riding at preferred pace. The only variable is distance covered, which again is something that can be important to some and is of no importance to others. How long one can ride and at what comfort level relates to bike fit and ergonomics, which has nothing to do with weight or aerodynamics.



Modern gear can be lightweight but like you mentioned, that brings the cost up. And the cost does go up exponentially. Some would rather use that cash for the actual trip.
But lightweight gear is also fragile. For example one does need to evaluate whether the risk of sleeping pad punctures is worth the decreased weight. Same goes with rain gear, tents, etc.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 23733727)

I think it's called the LR (lanterne rouge) gene.

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged (Post 23733786)

I presently run a 2x 46-30 and an 11-42 (11-speed) and find the gearing appropriate, and although not approved by Shimano, it is a totally stock GRX system. Shifts well and functions well at both extremes. I agree that it would be nice to have factory-approved wide-range gearing available. However, since I am using lighter, modern gear, the extreme low gearing has not been necessary for me as it was in the past (I am older and less fit now). Most people would not agree with your view that past triples were ideal. . . .

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23733846)

Remind us why past triples were less than ideal?

There are those of us who (1) find shifting our triples completely trouble-free (I use Grip-Shift with a friction left shifter on a flat bar, along with bolt-on aero bars for ideal versatility) and (2) appreciate small incremental jumps between gears versus big jumps between chainrings and between cassette cogs.

I'm sure there's some way that 2x or 1x is superior for some people; just curious what that advantage might be.

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23733849)

Remind us why past triples were less than ideal?

There are those of us who (1) find shifting our triples completely trouble-free (I use Grip-Shift with a friction left shifter on a flat bar, along with bolt-on aero bars for ideal versatility) and (2) appreciate small incremental jumps between gears versus big jumps between chainrings and between cassette cogs.

I'm sure there's some way that 2x or 1x is superior for some people; just curious what that advantage might be.

Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 23733881)

Apparently you find at least ONE double advantageous. ;) :roflmao2:

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 23733542)

Nope. Not even close to the realm of possibility.

That deafness cure was one gene in one very specific type of cell in one small location inside the ear and the result was an increase in one type of protein. And that wasn't exactly easy.

The human genome has around 3 billion base pairs, and we don't know what most of those do. I'm almost 100% sure we don't know which genes make for good athletes or why. And even if we did, changing them would be extremely risky, because there's so many interactions between all the cell level processes. Change the wrong one and suddenly you're producing prions.

Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 23733887)

On a different website, years ag, I used to get into arguments with... let's call them "Non-Darwinians", and they would make declarations like "There are no beneficial mutations!" because of course most known mutations are deleterious. We identify deleterious mutations because they do bad thngs that cause people to go to the doctor, where they are investigated and identified

But how would you identify a beneficial mutation? It could be a mutation that reduces the chance of getting a particular cancer, or that prevents you getting hypertension, or that makes you more resistant resistant to cold viruses, or that makes you a better athlete. Nobody's going to go to the doctor because they DON'T get sick, or because they keep winning. So beneficial mutations are out there, but go unidentified. I guarantee you that everyone in the pro peloton has one or more beneficial mutations relative to the general population. It probably isn't the seme genes in everyone - you can get to the same place by different routes.

So, how could we know which gene out of 30,000 should be altered, and how to alter it - which bases to change, and to what?

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23733849)

Remind us why past triples were less than ideal?

There are those of us who (1) find shifting our triples completely trouble-free (I use Grip-Shift with a friction left shifter on a flat bar, along with bolt-on aero bars for ideal versatility) and (2) appreciate small incremental jumps between gears versus big jumps between chainrings and between cassette cogs.
I'm sure there's some way that 2x or 1x is superior for some people; just curious what that advantage might be.

Originally Posted by Koyote (Post 23733892)

Solely on the basis of your username, I'm gonna trust your judgment on this. Unless you are just a rather small man named "Gene" who rides race horses.