Do the math: https://silca.cc/blogs/silca/top-10-...3YKcrwjCLMcn-o
Does not include aero bike, enhanced personalized nutrition, scientific training programs and more.

It’s fairly clear that there is an accelerated increase in the average speed of say the top 10 classics races races since the adoption of wider tubeless tires, disc brakes, carbon wheels, aero equipment and carbon frames. I am sure other innovations also play a role including the athletes conditioning, however even the doping era did not have as dramatic effect as the recent surge in technological improvements.

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.

There hasn't been that much technological improvement, not enough to justify that kind of difference. We've had tubeless, wider tires, disc brakes, carbon wheels and aero frames for a long time now.

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?"

Dope watch, really insightful

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.

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

Imagine what Merckx could have done with the much more scientific and rider-specific training that is done today, instead of "Ride Lots".

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.

Time to pull put the tin foil hats...

The amazing thing is that the coaches with expertise in genetic research also perfected time travel to the past. How else could all those cycling stars have obliterated the competition in their first years of bike racing?

I'm including Greg Lemond, who was known for winning races as a junior in fields that were otherwise all seniors, some of them nationally ranked (e.g., the Tour of Nevada City).

what gene is that?

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

But the whole peloton has sped up and increasingly so over the past 5 years, not a select few individuals. As my previous graph and chart highlight the fastest increase in speeds over the past 50 years. This time frame also corresponds to the maturation of wider tubeless tires, disc brakes, aero gains, and other technological advances in equipment.

Look at the Womens speeds, The women's average of 40.83 km/h is faster than the winning speeds of the following men's races:

2010
Fabian Cancellara
39.33 km/h

2005
Tom Boonen
39.88 km/h

2002
Johan Museeuw
39.24 km/h

1999
Andrea Tafi
40.52 km/h

1992
Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle
41.48 km/h (Slightly Faster)

1981
Bernard Hinault
40.87 km/h (Near Tie)

1977
Roger De Vlaeminck
40.46 km/h

1970
Eddy Merckx
38.90 km/h

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.

The huge panniers of the past, no longer necessary, are not a YouTube thing but rather the result of improvements across all aspects of touring gear. Travel clothing has improved substantially, becoming lighter and more compact. I would never pack a pair of cotton chinos anymore; instead, I would pack lightweight alternatives. I can easily get by for months with smaller, streamlined panniers. All my bags are easily removable, unlike the typical frame bags and seat packs used by adventure racers and backcountry riders.

If the bike and system are lighter and more streamlined, everything becomes easier and more enjoyable for most. I agree pace is determined by the rider; however the heavier the setup, the more problematic everything becomes.

Modern gear is more than durable enough for me and other lightweight activities that use the same gear, notably lightweight backpackers. As they say, light, durable, and cheap, pick two, but you can't have all three. Other items, such as replacing maps with digital sources, are huge weight and space savers. Cooking & Sleep systems are very lightweight and compact. But yes, this comes at a cost. Fortunately, bicycle touring has become an activity of more mature and established individuals, the most affluent demographic.

Regardless, traditional touring with bikes fully loaded with huge panniers, duffel bags, and bar bags is becoming increasingly rare, replaced by individuals using much more efficient systems.

I think I'm homozygous for the deleterious allele of that gene.

Power meters, big data, scientific training and nutrition, and human-body-as-machine in that context. Don't underestimate their impact.

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.

Apparently you find at least ONE double advantageous.

I used to love a good double… But I’ve quit drinking now.

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?

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.

Well, if you don't really look to having a close ratio in gear selections, a 1x certainly is less complicated, especially when 11,12 and now 13 rear cassette. You have only one shifter to consider, and cassette ranges can be very broad for almost all applications. My gravel bikes are 1x and work great, and are still quite nice and fun when on-road rather than dirt... Then there's the Hi-Lo chainring and clutch RD which pretty much eliminate chain drop.
Even banging over some rough terrain, I have never shipped a chain.
Now I do also have an older Roubaix with 10 spd triple -52/39/30 paired with a 13-25. Very nice and covers every possible gear combo I could need. And also never ships a chain. One does need to know the best shift points when moving on the chainrings and for many riders they haven't even figured out the best shift points on a 2x...
I love the close gear ratios on the 3x, but that's a left-over from the racing days. The 2 tooth jumps on modern cassettes in the 13-19 range just annoy me... I live in my 16 and 18,and a 14 sometimes is the special sauce.
... as I age further, the 3x seems to find more favor from me...
Ride On
Yuri

As you should.