List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

[Brucey]

Didn't gears that you can change without dismounting come after those?

Fixie fans will pour scorn on the rest of us mere mortals' need to change gears, but yes - let's let Mr Sturmey & Mr Archer have their fifteen minutes! Oh and Mr Bowden, too.

Don't forget Mr Reilly (as many do). Without him there would have been no SA gear. In fact it seems that Archer's involvement was mainly to act as a patent proxy for Reilly, who signed away his rights to future gear designs he might make when he severed links with the manufacturers of 'the Hub' (Reilly's 1898 2-speed gear). Had Reilly's name appeared on the three speed patent instead of Archer, Reilly's former employers would have assumed ownership of it.

cheers

[garygkn]

Most new inventions are already in the Data Book first published in 1983.

[garygkn]

Here are a few pictures.

[Sweep]

Am a non techie compared to many on here, but must say I am struggling to think of any genuinely useful advances in bike tech since I dipped a toe back into cycling in 1997.

Some have tried to poo poo folks on the thread as grumpy dinosaurs by referring to lights etc.

But I don't count things like this (definitely a vast improvement) as they aren't actually integral to the bike and you can gratefully accept the advances without having to seriously reconfigure/scrap your bike/s.

For similar reasons I don't count stuff like clothing.

And nor do I count my Garmin etrexs - just plonk them on the bars - one of them on an 8 speed.

I have lots of bikes, started with a 7 speed, now most of my bikes are 9 speed but have one 8.

As I say I'm not techie but I think by 1997 flat bar indexing was around (I had one of course), 9 speed, SPDs.

So, yep, can't think of anything at all really.

[PH]

It looks like the non ex box Rohloffs at SJS are not so popular any more.
I think the ex box is a great bit of kit.
Mike

They've always been a good bit cheaper. But yes, the ex box version will be the bigger seller, at least in part because it's the only one that can be used with disc brakes. I had mine converted for that reason, apart from the brake compatibility there's no big difference, in some ways I preferred the internal shifting.

[PH]

... I am struggling to think of any genuinely useful advances in bike tech since I dipped a toe back into cycling in 1997.
...I have lots of bikes.... So, yep, can't think of anything at all really.
<SNIPPED>

There's a possibility that those things are related to behind the scenes tech that make such things a possibility.
There's never been a time when enthusiasts didn't spend their disposable income on their hobbies, or when there wasn't suppliers producing products to spend it on. If anyone wants to trot out the "there's nothing new" line maybe that should be the starting point.
The huge difference in the last few decades has been the reduction in manufacturing costs in comparison to disposable income. The result is entirely predictable, moaning about it isn't going to change a anything, it's a symptom not the cause.
It isn't all bad, I don't think I have, or intend getting, anything on the OP list, but I have bought a fair bit of stuff I haven't needed along the way and certainly own more kit than I really need, I wouldn't have been able to afford that 20 or 30 years ago.

[Brucey]

I'm inclined to agree with Sweep, but then I am a BOF these days. I can't help but think what stuff that was 25 years old looked like to me when I was a teenager; 'old fashioned' would be a good description.

For example BITD I well remember being slightly perplexed at the affection the 'old' campag track chainsets (with the ~150mm BCD) engendered in older riders than me. I couldn't see why you wouldn't use the 144mm BCD stuff that was then current on both road and track.

However today I have a biscuit tin full of very obsolete 144mm BCD chainrings and both struggle to find workable cranks to use with them and to get a good range of gears if I do. So I'm in the same boat they were more or less. I have modern stuff too of course but I have a strong feeling that most of this will go obsolete (and entirely unsupportable) before they run out of even older stuff on ebay.

Low manufacturing costs (plus competition in the marketplace) breeds ever shorter product cycles and components which are practically disposable.

As an ethos I absolutely hate it, with a passion; it runs contrary to the very reasons a lot of people ride a bike in the first place.

cheers

[Sweep]

... I am struggling to think of any genuinely useful advances in bike tech since I dipped a toe back into cycling in 1997.
...I have lots of bikes.... So, yep, can't think of anything at all really.
<SNIPPED>

There's a possibility that those things are related to behind the scenes tech that make such things a possibility.
There's never been a time when enthusiasts didn't spend their disposable income on their hobbies, or when there wasn't suppliers producing products to spend it on. If anyone wants to trot out the "there's nothing new" line maybe that should be the starting point.
The huge difference in the last few decades has been the reduction in manufacturing costs in comparison to disposable income. The result is entirely predictable, moaning about it isn't going to change a anything, it's a symptom not the cause.
It isn't all bad, I don't think I have, or intend getting, anything on the OP list, but I have bought a fair bit of stuff I haven't needed along the way and certainly own more kit than I really need, I wouldn't have been able to afford that 20 or 30 years ago.

Not sure I really understand your point with regard to useful or non useful core bike tech to be honest.
If you are referring to increased disposable income (for some) to spend on stuff they fancy well then that's an entirely different point and not terribly relevant. One for the cafe.

[PH]

Not sure I really understand your point with regard to useful or non useful core bike tech to be honest.
If you are referring to increased disposable income (for some) to spend on stuff they fancy well then that's an entirely different point and not terribly relevant. One for the cafe.

The point was in it's inevitability, I don't think it is an unrelated one. The primary function of a manufacturing business is to satisfy the shareholders, not the consumer. Moaning about the result is like complaining about the rain.

[Sweep]

Not sure I really understand your point with regard to useful or non useful core bike tech to be honest.
If you are referring to increased disposable income (for some) to spend on stuff they fancy well then that's an entirely different point and not terribly relevant. One for the cafe.

The point was in it's inevitability, I don't think it is an unrelated one. The primary function of a manufacturing business is to satisfy the shareholders, not the consumer. Moaning about the result is like complaining about the rain.

Hell you really are missing the point of the thread.
Talking about practical stuff.
Or maybe you think we are all put on the planet to sing to the great god mammon.

The thread is doubly practical of course because it is still possible to get hold of stuff that is considered passe by some.
So some folk might be encouraged by practical knowledge (of which there is much on here) to keep their older stuff running, or to swerve the siren calls of buying some new pricey thing which might be heading for a dead end very soon. Sooner than their old stuff. While wasting loads of their time in the meantime struggling with entirely gratuitous compatibility questions.
As for your idea that it's like complaining about the rain, also missing the point.
When it rains I put some appropriate gear on.
(and that isn't necessarily what someone thinks is so this year/month).
Feel free to address the issue - recent genuine advances. Or not.

[Bmblbzzz]

recent genuine advances.

Do you mean they're genuinely recent - in which case we need to decide whether to date from time of invention or time of becoming available as a mass-market item - or they're genuinely advances - in which case we need to decide in whose judgment?

[Stradageek]

Comparing my early touring days to now I'd say that my favourite innovations are:

Alloy wheels - you can brake in the wet
Alloy square taper cranks - less weight, no cotter pins
Aheadsets - much less trouble than setting up headset lock rings/races and bye bye rusty quill stems
Clipless pedals - no more hunting for the toe clip
Cassette hubs - no more bent axles
Indexed gears - just nicer
Cartridge bearings - apologies to the purists but 'no adjustment needed' and if it fails you don't trash either axles races or hubs
SRAM style 'power links' - so much easier to remove a chain
Machining tolerances - the wheel fits straight into the drop-outs without any alignment issues

But above all the enormous range of recumbent bikes now available - I have one for every purpose

In the 'Never Bettered' category, the SA AW3 IGH

[mumbojumbo]

[quoteOnce your legs get older why not electrify on old friend.
][/quote]

Are you advocating some older people euthanise their friend,spouses etc to compensate for mobility issues?

[nirakaro]

recent genuine advances.

Do you mean they're genuinely recent - in which case we need to decide whether to date from time of invention or time of becoming available as a mass-market item - or they're genuinely advances - in which case we need to decide in whose judgment?

***Pedantry alert*** "Recent genuine advances" clearly means "genuine advances that are recent". If he'd wanted to refer to genuinely recent advances, he'd have said " genuine recent advances".

[simonineaston]

Don't forget Mr Reilly (as many do)

Am slowly coming to realise that a lot of the leg-work for a whole pile of key inventions appears to have been done by someone other than the person that posterity remembers... thinking: DNA, telephone and so on. Truly, history is written by the victors.