PH wrote:bigjim wrote:Are todays bikes nicer to ride and more efficient?
.... Efficient can also be subjective, but those things that are measurable and effect efficiency - aerodynamics, weight, rolling resistance, braking… all seem to have improved greatly and continue to do so....
I'd suggest that 'improved greatly' could be replaced with 'improved incrementally'.
It may appear as if technology has improved things greatly;
56.375 kph
49.441 kph
under the two different regimes the hour record pace is almost 7kph different (with the same rider).
But how much of that is simply the riding position and how much is due to the bike itself?
From a quick examination of the data available, the suggestion is that about 2-3 kph can each be attributed to changing from a standard bike to an aero one, from a standard riding position to tri-bars, and from tri-bars to 'superman'.
In other words (with any given riding position) an aero bike is worth a few percent in speed, and most of that is probably in the wheels.
Instinctively one knows this to be correct; were it otherwise then in road racing, temporary equipment differentials (such as exist for a short while after the launch of new equipment types) would offer a compelling advantage to the riders that have them. However, outside of time trials (eg Lemond vs Fignon), by and large this does not happen; good riders win races on 'old equipment' and less good riders don't win on 'new equipment'.
In terms of aerodynamic components, the AX groupsets of the early 1980s were far ahead of their time and in some respects one might expect a current aero frameset to benefit from the use of similar parts today. I doubt very much that current Dura-Ace parts are much less draggy than old AX parts, for example. Those AX parts weren't game changers in the way they ought to have been if they worked as intended, and indeed Shimano quietly shelved most of the ideas in AX when they produced the seminal Dura-Ace 7400 road-racing groupset, which was a far more successful product.
Each of the claimed areas of 'great improvement' (aerodynamics, weight, rolling resistance, braking) can be subjected to the same scrutiny and the same answer will be seen in each case; an incremental improvement only. Arguably the main difference is that those incremental gains are now more widely available in 'off the peg' form; you can today buy an HP tyre with a Crr that would challenge a good silk tub from 30 years ago.
So in terms of outright speed, modern bikes are better, but not by much. In terms of comfort, many modern bikes (especially road bikes) are a fair bit worse; stiff frames, minimal saddles, and aero wheelsets do not a comfy ride make.
If there is one area in which modern stuff is much better than older stuff, I think it is that today, you can more easily spec stuff that, for a reasonable price, works reliably more of the time than old stuff did. Some of these things appear to be small beer, but they all add up. My suggestions would include;
1) Cables with liners in them.
2) slicker-shifting gears
3) the cassette hub (esp in shimano form)
4) bearings with seals on them
5) puncture-resistant tyres
6) the knowledge of how to build reliable wheels
You will note that supermarket BSOs benefit little from any of these things, but mid-range bikes have more or less been transformed by them.
The really good news is that you can take a 30-year-old bike, and for a relatively small amount of money, you can add all the things that constitute real improvements to bicycle reliability (which does not include many of the things found in the latest generations of racing equipment), without fundamentally altering the character of the bike as it rides. This means you can have your cake and eat it too; an old bike can ride as well as you would like it to, but also benefit from more reliable componentry (at any given price point).
cheers
