PoorInRichfield

*** This post is just a theoretical pondering of the future... Don't take it too seriously! ***

By "dark ages", I am suggesting that there won't be any significant changes in road bike technologies for many, many years to come beyond what we already have.

While I love new technologies, especially when it comes to my bikes, I also have a sensible-side that tells me that it makes no (financial) sense to buy a new bike every year. As such, I've gone over a decade in the past where I just rode the bike I had and wasn't tempted much to buy a new one as there just wasn't enough to be gained by purchasing a new bike. To me, it's just not worth spending thousands on a new bike if the only "improvement" is that it's a few grams lighter or a few seconds faster (over 1,000 miles if you ride at > 50 mph)

This last Spring I decided it was time to "upgrade" as there has been quite a few advances in the road bike world that allowed me to justify a new bike and were changes that I couldn't simply "upgrade" on my existing bike. Those technologies being disk brakes, an endurance frame (comfort), and electronic shifting (Ok, so I could've upgraded to electronic shifting, but the upgrade was not cost-effective at all).

So now I'm wondering what technological improvements in road bikes, that don't already exist today, could possibly come-along that would be justify purchasing a new road bike in the next few years... or even decade?

I think we've reached "peak aero" in terms of bike design as most road bikes are starting to look the same. If one really wants to be all-out aero, he/she should be riding a triathlete bike or time-trial bike, which we all know isn't practical for daily road riding so truth-be-told, aero isn't everything in road biking. We also seemed to have reach "peak lightness" in that unless there's some new space-aged material that comes along that is strong enough to be used on all bike parts (wheels, components, frame), new bikes will only be marginally lighter than existing bikes, if they're even lighter at all. While companies have experimented with different frame shapes for road bikes, the "double diamond" frame seems to be the time-tested frame shape that most bikes still use and I don't see that changing. Disc brakes are providing all the stopping power we need... and quite frankly, so did rim brakes. Electronic shifting has been around for quite a while and other than going wireless, hasn't changed much.

So what else is there left to "improve" on a road bike? Clearly the bicycle industry has shifted focus to e-bikes, which makes sense financially, but is yet one more reason why I'm thinking that we aren't going to see any significant changes in the road bike world for years, maybe even decades. Do you disagree? Where do you think there is an opportunity for relatively large changes in road bikes that would justify buying a new bike that is significantly better than what we can already buy today?


While concept bikes such as this one are fun to think about, the reality is that real life bikes still look a lot more like the bikes of 100 years ago than they do this future bike.

rubiksoval

I would think there has to be a complete redesign of the drivetrain at some point. Either belt driven, housed in the rear hub, etc.

That's all I see changing.

Atlas Shrugged

Since the vast majority of changes in the cycling industry have been incremental I can see this continuing for as long as cycling is a thing. Each person has their own threshold for upgrades. Many on this forum are still locked into old school steel bikes with tubulars, rim brakes, triple chainring etc. for others they desire the latest S Works Tarmac SL7. Now its lightweight aero climbing bikes and 13-speed clusters. 3D printing is becoming a thing, carbon still has lots of room for development and innovation as do drive trains so I don't expect the upgrade machine to ever stop.

PoorInRichfield

I think you might be onto something with 3D printing. Perhaps the future of roadie cycling will be affordable personalized fit rather than just having to buy one-size-fits-all. Specialized and Fizik have headed down the 3D printing path with their latest saddle offerings and so far the reviews have been favorable. How cool would it be to be able to get a saddle "printed" for you exact butt's specifications for a minimal upcharge? Imagine the day when you go into a bike store, have a full body scan, and then they tell you, "Your bike will be printed within the next few days to your exact specifications."

PoorInRichfield

I agree. There's got to be a limit as to how many cogs can be crammed into the cassette before the chain literally becomes "the weakest link". There have been several attempts at alternative drive trains in just the past few years, but none of them seem to be gaining traction over the traditional chain and gears, however.

In the nearer future, I could see more road bikes following the 1x trend especially now that a 13 speed cassette is a thing with the new Campy Ekar gravel component set and the ROTOR 1x13 groupset. If Shimano came-out with a 13 speed cassette that offered very comparable gear ratios to what I'm riding right now w/ a 2x setup, I might bite. Then again, unless that change involved a wider frame rear triangle and new rear wheel hub, the assumption would be that I could update my existing bike to a 1x and thus still not need a whole new bike.

Cyclist0108

It seems like a lot of the changes were adopted from mountain bikes, so it is probably worth keeping an eye on what develops with them. (Disk brakes, modern stems, tapered forks, SPD 2-bolt cleats, 1X cranks, etc.).

datlas 

I am afraid it's a roadie dark age because of angry drivers on the road. I hope not.

seypat

This could be the post of the year. Angry or distracted, take your pick.

This trend certainly doesn't help.

https://www.theweek.com/articles/929...an-truck-bloat

tyrion

An efficient gearbox could be a "game changer". It would require a whole new bike (couldn't be retro-fitted on existing bikes), so it's exactly what the industry would like.

genejockey 

I don't know. I feel like we've been hearing for ages about some Great New Thing That Will Change Cycling Forever, and either it doesn't pan out or it's an incremental improvement. The thing about what we have now - disk or rim brakes, chain drive, derailleurs, etc. - if you're even slightly mechanically inclined, you can install, adjust, and repair/replace all of it with simple tools. A gearbox hub sounds to me like "No User-Serviceable Parts Inside". The question I'd ask would be how much improvement do you get for the price, and giving up the ability to fix it yourself?

I mean, look at the bikes themselves - the double triangle form that's way over a century old still dominates, and not JUST because the UCI demands it. It also just works.

Sy Reene

This would be exactly at least one major reason the manufacturers would go this route. Dealer servicing and reliance is a boon to their distribution model and distributor loyalty building. In a number of areas, buyers already have given up some things -- ie. think of proprietary seatpost shapes, 1-piece stem/handlebar systems that make an old-fashioned fitting a pricey proposition. Tubeless rim designs (becoming a default even if you want to run tubes) apparently make it really difficult for some to even change a flat tire. I understand, though haven't done it myself, that running new cables on the fully internal-routed frames is not an easy prospect. Some of the Di2 setup threads make it sound like you need a degree in computer programming. Bleeding disc brakes in my apartment isn't probably something I'd choose to try. Is servicing any of the proprietary shock absorbing systems now becoming common in the frame or headtube, an at-home type of repair? etc etc

datlas 

The CeramicSpeed shaft-drive drivetrain could be a game-changer, but I will believe it when I see it. It could be pure vaporware.

Cowboy905

works for me. it's going to take 10 years before i can afford this years latest tech on my bike anyways.

Psimet2001 

Vaporware. It can not withstand the lateral forces needed to actually drive the bike let alone shift. That's why it keeps being touted as a concept piece. It was simply a way for a company that makes bearings to grab the attention of the cycling world for a little bit.

Shaft drive has been attempted so many times in the history of bicycles and it has always failed for all sorts of reasons.

The "problem" with bicycles is that every concept has been tried and tested in the last 150ish years. There is pretty much nothing new. Only refinements of existing tech.

The improvements and changes for the sake of change have added up so greatly in the last 5-8 years that there is no option left for anyone who simply wants to upgrade. It just makes more sense for them to buy a whole new bike. As such the upgrade area of the industry has greatly suffered.

in fact I would venture the guess that we will only see more and more integration of systems in proprietary ways - pushing independent guys into failure or footnotes. You can have your Trecializiant in any color...as long as it's black.

genejockey 

Hmmmm. I sure hope it doesn't go the way of the Swiss watch industry and their drive to destroy the independent watchmakers. They kept raising the bar to be allowed to source parts from them - necessary training, particular lubricants, etc. making it harder and harder for the independents to be able to service any of their watches, so owners end up having to take them to Authorized Dealers, who then ship them to the Service Centers owned by the companies.

I do wonder, though, how many cyclists even do their own work anymore. A coworker bought a nice Cervelo a few years back, then a Wilier as his riding increased, but to the best of my knowledge, he doesn't even change his own tires. His approach to fixing flats is to call his wife to pick him up and then have the shop fix the tire!

burnthesheep

TT/tri bikes have come a long way in the last 5 years in terms of "out of the box" ability to get a really dialed in bike fit. Without buying a bunch of stems, risers, pad tilters, etc...etc...etc....

I'd buy a new road bike if they figure out how to get the same kind of thing going there.

Right now it goes like this for things you can adjust without buying stuff:

TT bike: grip (pad) width, reach, stack
Road bike: stack, kind of

For a road bike this would mean the bars could adjust width (400mm, 420mm, etc...) and the stem adjust length. I didn't give the road bike a full on "stack" currently as it is a combo of spacers under the stem and the stem angle itself. So, in a way you'd have to buy stems to play with stack in the same range as a TT/tri bike.

That's a silly ask as most folks are used to buying bars and stems to get the right road bike fit..........but does it have to be that way?

PoorInRichfield

While not a game-changer for the bike itself, I'm hopefully that someday we won't have to be so afraid to ride on the road...

MotorTrend: Future Audis Could "Talk" With Pedestrians, Bicyclists Via C-V2X Tech

Ogsarg

There are too many engineers and marketing people in the bike industry and too much competition between brands for it to stand still. Whether the improvements are needed or wanted or whether most people even consider them improvements, they will come gradually as they have for many years.

One area where I can see some possibilities is more integration of electronics. built in speed, cadence, and power sensors on mid-priced bikes. Integrated lighting and/or cameras maybe? Other than 12 speed being more common, I don't see any major drivetrain changes.

genejockey 

Great - "GET OFF THE ROAD!" , but in a German accent.

Amt0571

More cogs, less chainrings and less gear range. They'll make sure we see the range loss as an advantage like they did for mtbs.

Frankly, I don't see IGH or enclosed gearboxes working on a road bike. Too heavy, too draggy, and not worth it on a bike that is not ridden in the harsh conditions that MTBs see.

blacknbluebikes 

In the future... (here's George Jetson...)
Definitely "bespoke printing." Buyer will be laser-measured and the 'composite components' will be ready the next morning, pre-fit to your skeleton & style. No one will know what a "56" is.
No such thing as tire punctures.
Bikes will have beacons to communicate presence with robo-drivers.
A great bike will cost $30,000 and a wal-mart bike will still be $300.
My wife will think I should buy more bikes. Of course she will because I will have 3D printed her myself.

DaveSSS 

I had no problem creating more range, with a SRAM Force AXS 12 speed 10-36 cassette and Campy 48/32 crank, for a 540% range. The standard Force AXS RD works with the new 10-36, so you don't need to buy a new "wide" RD. My setup wraps all 42 teeth. I'd really like a little less top gear and a little more low, so I'm going to experiment with a Shimano GRX 46-30 crank. First, the chain ring teeth must play nicely with the AXS chain, like a Campy 12 cranks does, or the experiment is dead in the water. Then, the chain line is about 1.5mm wider than a Campy crank, so I'll try to shim the chain rings in to correct the chain line. SRAM offers a 43/30 crank, but the range is low and the wide chain line requires a new FD - another loser. If it all works, I'll have a 552% range.

There's some chance that Campy will offer a whole new range of cassettes and chain rings for 12 speed, with 10T smallest cogs. The new Ekar 1x13 speed offers 9-36, 9-42 and 10-44 cassettes, using the new N3W freehub body that is backwards compatible with all of their wheels.

Seattle Forrest

Motors.

wphamilton

The thing about future technology is, you don't necessarily know what it will look like. What is possible, what function - just because you or I can't think of anything doesn't mean that there's nothing more to be done.

I think that every functional piece of the bike can be improved. What if you had a tire that could be run at extremely low pressure but has very little rolling resistance and still feels stiff on cornering? It would be a magic carpet ride and fast, not to mention almost never flatting. I'm thinking super-wide, which by itself will change the geometry of the bike. Even the steering would probably have to adapt.

Speaking of geometry, a better bike would change up the rider position depending on the terrain, road grade and what the rider is doing. How, I don't know but this is future tech.

Make a light weight and sturdy aero shell and I'd have it on my bike, even on a diamond frame.

The steering could be improved also. A bike is already self-steering, which is another way of saying reactive steering. So what if you could enhance that to improve tracking on a line, and to get the rider out of trouble when he makes a mistake? Shoot, make the whole frame reactive.

Pedals are still primitive, and objectively pretty awful. Clipless have drawbacks - regardless of the chorus of "I don't mind", there are still drawbacks. Platforms also have their own drawbacks. While my other "future tech" is fanciful, I do expect some significant improvement in how we connect our feet to the pedals. I have no idea what that would look like though.

Kimmo 

Shimano already improved pedals in the 80s, but the bearing in the end of the crank wasn't up to the loads. Dropped pedals are more biomechanically efficient, so they may well make a comeback if someone can work out the bearings.

The only other low-hanging efficiency fruit I can find is gear ratios, which seem to be getting the wrong sort of emphasis lately, as far as efficiency is concerned - they keep getting wider. 10t and even 9t cogs? No thanks.

First, there's the chordal action, which kicks in around 12-11t, because the cog is effectively more of a polygon than a circle. And then there's the increasing gap between ratios, which gets worse as cogs get smaller, and you go faster. This is the opposite of ideal - you want closer ratios as speed rises, as anyone who understands the 3t/2t/1t gap situation knows. Once you're at 1t gaps, those gaps get bigger as percentage jumps as you go outboard on the cassette. It's an inherent limitation.

The only ways around it are either a dramatically shorter chain pitch to reduce but not eliminate the problem (not really feasible), or more chainrings. I worked out that a half-step triple is the answer: 38/50/52, and pretty much only that combo, gives you the best that can be managed with a half inch pitch chain.

If you plot the ratio against the gear number (or against speed at a given rpm), you'll see any available set of ratios curve upwards, when the ideal is for them to curve downwards. 38/50/52 gives you something pretty close to a straight line, which should be a significant improvement (significant relative to any other currently unrealised efficiency gains, at least).

Of course, nobody wants to shift a half-step manually, but it's pretty trivial for an electronic system. I got a fair way along with testing this idea, even programmed an Arduino to work some servos appropriately, and verified the three rings can be packaged on a double crank without the need for wider Q. Hit a wall when it became apparent that a bespoke FD cage was necessary though, and I suspect shift quality wouldn't cut it without proper CAD shift ramps and gates. Another complication would be the frequent double shifts which would no doubt require Shimano levels of refinement to be reliable, but I reckon if it's at all feasible it'll definitely come to pass.

1x, pff.