Gerard Vroomen on the future of bicycle tech

[Samuel D]

Neat little interview of one of the movers and shakers in the industry by Velonews. Interesting to me for:

• the lack of electric talk, even though the electrification of the bicycle seems to me to be the most significant change happening right now
• the thought, however serious it was, that hub brakes may return
• his compliments to Surly and Salsa.

See what you think.

[reohn2]

A lot of what he says I don't agree with,particularly that the market is customer driven and that there'll be only 1x whatever in the future,also aerodynamic bikes are only an advantage to a small section of cyclists and even then the effect is minimal compared with who's sat on the bike.
I do agree with him about Salsa and Surly though,great bikes but beginning to get pricey,the UK's answer to them is Genesis and to a lesser extent Spa and Thorn IMO.

[belgiangoth]

I don't agree with the 1x14 stuff, there's a limit to how much you can dish your wheel, how much of the rear hub can be gears and how thin you can make your chain. I also think that Allroad/gravel bikes are just rebadged Cyclocross/tourers.
I think real innovation will be the next step in pinon/hub drives, if you could make them 10% lighter and most importantly easier to work with, dérailleurs would exist only on race bikes. I don't see how gravel bikes can transform someone's cycling, if you want a whole new experience, ride a 'bent.

[gregoryoftours]

I also think that Allroad/gravel bikes are just rebadged Cyclocross/tourers.

That's not quite right.

Tourers are designed with slacker geometry and are designed for heavier loads and to be more stable fully loaded, generally don't have as big tyre clearance.

Proper cyclocross bikes tend not to have all of the fitting points, have more nimble geometry and not designed to carry loads, again not designed to take as wide tyres/mudguards.

Gravel/allroad bikes are more of a mish mash of things that already exist, but they are different. They are also more likely to be fitted with very flared drops.

[horizon]

Every innovation there’s resistance. There’s certainly also tons of innovations that aren’t a good idea, so it’s good that there’s that criticism. But it seems to be, for some people, a default reaction.

I think for too long in the last 20 years, regular customers have been buying bikes that really weren’t the best choice for them just because it was what some pro was riding that they liked.

So maybe that default reaction makes sense?

[reohn2]

Every innovation there’s resistance. There’s certainly also tons of innovations that aren’t a good idea, so it’s good that there’s that criticism. But it seems to be, for some people, a default reaction.

I think for too long in the last 20 years, regular customers have been buying bikes that really weren’t the best choice for them just because it was what some pro was riding that they liked.

So maybe that default reaction makes sense?

Well of course it makes sense.
When there's a cartel of two major operators they dictate what the customer wants,which is What's happening with the 1x 11/12> systems now being rolled out,I can't ever remember thinkjng or reading anywhere that what would make cycling better would be a single chainring up front and weaker rear wheel with a stack more sprockets on it
Yet Mr Vroomen thinks it's such a good idea that the front mech and multiple chainrings are a dead end.Oh yeah? I beg to differ and see it for what it is,a limited use system with some limited application.
The market does not dictate,it is dictated to.

[Brucey]

...I think real innovation will be the next step in pinon/hub drives, if you could make them 10% lighter and most importantly easier to work with, dérailleurs would exist only on race bikes....

I think that you would also have to make them cheaper and more efficient too.

IGHs are (in contrast to frame mounted gearboxes) already 'easy to work with' in that you can replace the internal in a few minutes or even the whole wheel (with one the same or different) in less time that that, but this is an expensive fix. The reason IGHs are not more popular is partly perception, partly reality (concerning efficiency, gear ratios etc) and partly the perception that when they go wrong it will be difficult and/or expensive to fix.

My own use of IGHs (usually putting as more miles on a particular IGH in a year rather than on other bikes with different transmissions that I own) was originally based on two things

1) frequency of maintenance and
2) cost of consumables

when the only alternative was a 5,6, or 7s cassette/freewheel based system. Both the above things (in relation to 'state of the art' transmissions) have become worse, not better, in the meantime, so really there never has been a time where there is a bigger incentive to use an IGH rather than the latest de-dangler based transmission. What muddies the waters is that the relative cost of 5,6,7s transmission parts has never been lower, so if you are prepared to chuck 'em in the bin at regular intervals, that route is kind of practical too.

In terms of what sells, a lot of riders 'buy into a dream' (being a road bike, gravel bike or whatever) even if they are only going to nip down the shops or do a short commute. If they were more realistic about their true intentions/uses, then they would/could buy a more practical machine from the start, but that is not how marketing works....

cheers

[mercalia]

well he does say one good thing? if it is true.

"I think pro cycling has become less and less relevant in the cycling world."

[Annoying Twit]

I can see gravel bikes being a good compromise. But, not intending to use the word in a pejorative manner, there is no shortage of 'weight weenies' in cycling. With larger rims and tyres, gravel bikes are never going to have light wheels. Are they really likely to become the most common style of bike?

Being less familiar with mountain biking, I'm not sure how many mountain bike users will switch to gravel bikes. Though, given that it's said that the majority of suspension knobbly tyre mountain bikes are never ridden in proper off-road places, perhaps there is a fair chunk of current mountain bike users who would be better off with gravel bikes than mountain bikes. (Though, most likely not a majority among users on this forum who are more likely to use bikes as they are designed to be used.)

But, skinny wheel road bikes are fine for the road. Why would road cyclists want to switch to gravel bikes?

[mercalia]

I thought that Hybrids were Gravel bikes?

[Annoying Twit]

I thought that Hybrids were Gravel bikes?

Gravel bikes have drop-bars, hybrids have flat bars, typically.

If there is a major new style of bike, would this then work in terms of a N+1 sale to the kind of cyclist who has one of everything?

[peetee]

What better way to maintain a high level of sales year on year than by introducing marketing enhanced 'revolutionary' bike tech each time? We seasoned enthusiasts can overlook the fact that a massive proportion of bike sales are lead by 'must haves' who will happily spend over and over again so as to be seen with the right kit. To them bikes are as disposable as phones when the next trend arrives.

[mercalia]

I thought that Hybrids were Gravel bikes?

Gravel bikes have drop-bars, hybrids have flat bars, typically.

If there is a major new style of bike, would this then work in terms of a N+1 sale to the kind of cyclist who has one of everything?

now that is a big difference to warrant a new name. so what do europeans ride when they go touring, not touring bikes as we all know they have drop bars

[horizon]

What better way to maintain a high level of sales year on year than by introducing marketing enhanced 'revolutionary' bike tech each time?

The trouble is, there have been real improvements and innovations over the years, thank goodness. I think the mountain bike (the original generation) is seen as a brilliant idea. Gravel bikes IMV are quite a good sorting out of various ideas into a single bike. My suspicion is that gravel bikes are, of course, nothing to do with gravel but everything to do with commuting especially as commuting distances by bike might be getting longer. This opens up the quite amazing prospect that far from racing bikes determining what people ride on an everyday basis, what they ride is determining what the pros ride. After all, you might not sell many high-end racing bikes but you do sell a hell of a lot of commuting bikes. I wouldn't be surprised if the top racing bike designers start to come out with statements like "a rear pannier rack seems to aid downhill sprinting on Mount Ventoux and has allowed Chris Froome to carry Jiffy bags more easily en route" etc etc. Are not disc brakes really the perfect example?

[thelawnet]

I thought that Hybrids were Gravel bikes?

A hybrid is a rather general term, meaning basically anything that's designed for use on gravel-type surfaces (but never, say, extreme MTB) as well as asphalt, generally but not always having a MTB drivetrain, often a simple suspension fork, any wheel size 26-29", tyres typically around 1.75-2" wide, and always or nearly always flat bars. It could be effectively a road bike with flat bars and slightly chunky tyres, or it could just be a cheap MTB that's not really fit for use on trails so they call it hybrid.

I think a couple of issues affect the marketing of bikes as hybrids:

1. the cheap £200 hybrids diminish the 'hybrid' image overall
2. flat-barred hybrids are sometimes presented as for people who are too scared the obviously superior drop bar.

A gravel bike is closer to a road or CX bike, having drop bars rather than flat, and usually road drivetrain (but not always). Halfords is yet to sell them for £200, which helps with the street cred for the time being. If there is a suspension then it's typically more minimal than the hybrid and the overall weight is less.