We have all heard the old saying racing improves the breed. It can be applied to almost anything that people race, cars, horses etc.

Yet in my opinion I think in the world of cycling, we have reached a point where racing does not improve the breed, and probably hurts cycling for the masses in the long run. Racing did improve the breed at least up thru the 1980s. If you remember it was in the 80s that click shifting and clipless pedals came out.

But then racing forced lightness on us until things began to break. Remember when they drilled out almost every componet to save .0021 grams of weight? The weight craze brought us CF bike frames. While CF bike frames may be good for racers, IMO they are not what the average cyclist should be buying. Simply put CF frames are too tender, may have hidden defects, and are prone to sudden failure. Pro racing teams can afford to throw away a suspect CF frame, while the ave cyclist cant. Also look at the trend to ever increasing number of gears in the rear cluster. Again maybe and only maybe are they of use to a racer, but again IMO moot for the average cyclist.

The bottom line here is the racing community and mfg are bringing us "improvements" that are pretty much uneeded, and at a huge increase in price.

Steel frames, friction shifting, and platform pedals are still available. No one is being forced to buy a race bike.

There do seem to be plenty of regular bikes available at the bike shops I frequent - Cambridge MA, even setting aside the used ones. Are you observing that regular bikes are being crowded out by the pointlessly high-tech stuff?

Slow day?

Well, using 1984 as the anchor year (just on the cusp of indexed shifting), the inflation factor for the past 30 years (to 2014) is a factor of ~2.30.

So, an entry level road bike that is Sora equipped, has a triple crankset and reasonable but generic dual pivot brake calipers, can be had for ~$800-900 at a bike shop. This will have an aluminum frame and steel fork. Perormance will be at least as good or better than an entry level road bike from the earlier era. How about price? 800/2.3=$347, which would have been low-to-mid level in 1984, something better than the Super Mirage (~$200 range), but more around the Grand Touring.

Prices are up a bit, I guess.

Some things haven't changed that much...cranksets, for example. But bottom brackets have gotten better, maybe others would disagree, but I think that external bearing BBs are pretty nice. Shifting has improved, with integrated brake/shift lever technology. No question about that one (despite my preference for friction shifting on the bar end). Freehub and cassette combinations are better than the freewheel predecessors, right?

Lightweight racing saddles are better and more varied today, aren't they?

Maybe the costs are commensurate with the improvements. At least to the bike riding enthusiast.

The shops will stock what they can sell, but the OP is just out to stir the pot with this thread.

I can certainly understand the point, but I think that bicycle racing provides an impetus to undertake developments that might otherwise not be pursued, thanks to the need to win. I also think that development is absolutely necessary, as the bike cannot be a static, timeless machine, because too many of us are using and in love with them.

Per force, we have to bring them into sync with other things in our lives, both on mechanical and aesthetic levels. For example, it's unlikely that Montezemolo, director of Ferrari and deeply involved in his company's F1 racing program, would have partnered with a bicycle builder who only had a regressive vision of the bicycle, and eschewed technology. Instead, Montezemolo's partnership with Ernesto Colnago drove carbon technology and new ways of engineering into the bicycle, creating bicycles that fit with, and engaged, the spirit of the highest level of competition.

Of course we all do not need techno marvel bicycles; I agree with you there. I would like to see more more simple, yet modern, bicycles available throughout the price ranges, but I can honestly say that there is more availability in that regard now than ever before. Whether it's high-performance steel racing frames, utility bikes, or all-terrain fat bikes, the options are amazing.

So within the context of what the market has available, I see no essential problems created by the racing impetus, and in fact, would argue that the bicycle world would be less interesting, less rich, without racing. Fewer people would ride, fewer would take notice of the needs of cyclists without racing setting the stage.

Not the first time.

I think he has a good point or at least raises a good question. It's logical that the equipment naturally becomes more and more specialized for racing, with only UCI rules holding that back. At some point the specializations become meaningless for most riders, or could involve compromises that really aren't beneficial for the rest of us. It's also conceivable that the improvements necessarily become more incremental over time because of the UCI parameters. The differential improvement tends toward zero over time. Are we near any of those points yet? Far past them?

I don't think it actively hurts cycling since I don't have to buy any of that stuff, but that's not to say that racing technology is improving anything either, except for racing. Maybe some specific examples of very recent racing technology to illustrate the latter? It seems like tires would be a likely candidate - have there been recent advances in racing tires that have trickled down to significant improvements for the recreational cyclist?

I've never heard that saying, for what it's worth.
And I'm pretty sure things broke before "lightness" came along. I seem to recall having heavy old steel bikes when I was a kid in the 60's and they broke, too. I've broken a steel handlebar on a steel bike, for that matter, in recent years.

You shouldn't tell people that.

Good point.

I haven't heard the exact saying, but I've always heard that racing pushes boundaries, and eventually, inventions and discoveries made for racing end up in regular consumer vehicles. I disagree with the OP though, I don't think that racing is harming consumer bikes. The problem is that there are very few bikes where utility and racing tech combine - you mostly get racing bikes in shops. Look at the bikes popular on the commuting forum - the Salsas etc. - I think those are good examples of racing tech combining with utility.

I realize I haven't expressed myself well here, but hopefully what I'm trying to say is understandable - racing tech is good, but we just don't have enough utility consumer bikes - we mostly get the racing package.

I would invite you to come race Snelling, Copperopolis, Paskenta, or practically any NorCal road race. I've seen lots of flats, lost bottles, broken computer mounts, and loose dental work, but I have never seen a CF frame fail on those courses. (Unless crashed, of course). Now I admit that's just my observation.

Andy Rooney isn't dead. He is posting on BF, and just as confused and angry as ever.

The OP can't. The cowardly powers that be in the racing world have banned bents as part of their dastardly plot to impede progress.

I agree with the OP. The bike manufacturers build and sell racing bikes. Trek for example offers one touring bike.

Most road bikes are very limited to the tire size that they will accept because clearances are so tight. After a Winter that many of us have experienced I wouldn't like to ride a bike with 23-25mm tires. Its pothole city in the midwest.

The sport/recreation bike catagory has split into cyclo-cross and hybrid bikes. For example the geometry of an old Raleigh Super Course of the 1970's, practical, sporty, versatile, is a forgotten breed. I watched a century/charity ride go by my house last summer. Probably 98% of the riders were on what I would consider racing bikes.

I just wouldn't want a bike that can't accept 32mm tires. Or a bike with straight forks, super short wheelbase, and 16 spoke wheels.

Gravel racing to the rescue. Gravel racing has spawned a "new" category of bikes to meet the demands of gravel racing, that just so happen to be the practical sporty bike you pine for.


And what's wrong with straight forks? A straight fork can have as much or more rake than a curved fork, and it can be as comfortable or more comfortable. When all forks were made of the same sized steel tubing, it may have been desirable to make them curve to absorb some shock. With modern materials, you can design a sufficiently compliant fork without making it curved.

getoutta and others

This is a forum that is open to discussion. Why call it "stirring the pot" when very little is settled. This thread is nothing more that than an open discussion on the thots of others. I stated my opinion on carbon frames. Anyone else is free to post theirs. Please dont get your underlovlies in a bunch if you happen to own a carbon frame. It was your choice and I hope you are happy with it. It is no different than the fact that I chose to ride recumbents, and I am very happy I do.

There are many forms of racing. In recent years, road racing has brought, or played a large part in bringing, hydraulic rim brakes, electronic shifting, heart rate and power measurement. It has also brought carbon fiber wheels and other carbon fiber components, light yet strong enough for cobbled classics. I suspect it has played a large role in developing stronger carbon fiber frames that are light, stiff, and still compliant. Cyclocross racing has helped bring about road disc brakes, tubeless tires, single-chain ring drivetrains. Mountain bike racing was an initial impetus for suspension, disc brakes, tubeless, and many other innovations. There is also recumbent racing which has helped develop that type of bicycle as well as aerodynamic aids.

Uhh, then don't buy a race bike? I'll stick with my 2x10 drivetrain, disc brakes and tubeless wheels, they work great for my mt bikes. Oh ,and 150mm of travel as well.

jyl

Now there you mention one thing that is a huge improvement in my opinion, disc brakes. The main reason I am a great supporter of disc brakes is that they dont ruin what can be a very expensive rim. When the rim is ruined, it also is necessary to rebuild the wheel so it is not just the cost of the rim. Also disc brake rims can be designed for max strength and aero considerations.

Trek sells a lot of different bikes. If everyone seems to be riding "racing" bikes, that's because everyone seems to think differently from you and I, not because Trek is selling the wrong bikes. If all the customers were clamoring for cruisers or touring bikes or whatever, that's what they'd be selling. And if they didn't sell what the customers wanted, they'd shortly be in the dustbin of bicycle history.

Actually, have you even considered the prosumer market that the bicycling industry has created? I imagine--assume--that there are others like my self, who research what is used at the professional level, and pick up what there wallet is able to buy. Only so many people are going to pursue a career in professional sports, but like other industries, photography, home improvement, mechanics the bicycle industry is providing that same level of market share.

Does a recreational rider need a race orientated bike? No! Will people make a purchase based on the product material saying that it provides an avenue to preform better? Yes! Take me for example, are carbon wheels and clip in peddles going to make me a professional peddler? I am also 295 pounds of non-muscle. But in our material society (only discussing america here) consumers are constantly led to believe that only the best equipment will do, which than bleeds across to other areas of interest.

So even though I may only take pictures of my dogs, I use a dslr, the screen door was removed with a dewalt that gets used maybe 1 or 2 times a month, I also just pulled out my trek from a shed after letting it sit for a few years. While none of my belongings may be financially the same as others have, I'm on the low end of the prosumer, I purchase the best equipment that I can afford. So while the racers inspire innovation, the prosumer market is what is driving the bike industry, in my opinion, as a consumer and none industry annalist.

The same thing happened with cars. You can only buy race cars now days. It is impossible to find a good utility truck, minivan, or compact car at the dealers anymore.

The role or not of discs in road racing is an interesting topic. Manufacturers are trying to get discs into road racing. But there are some reasons why they may not belong. Road racers use brakes as little as possible. Aero and weight are very important. Component wear is not important. Mechanics need to be able to change wheels in a few seconds.

But cross and MTB are doing plenty to develop disc brakes.