Cycling UK Forum

nirakaro wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Sweep wrote: 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".

As far as grammatical terms go, yes...

Sweep wrote: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.

I disagree, indeed I think it's you who has missed the point of the thread.
Go back to the opening post and read the list, the poster is dismissive of those recent so called innovations, you need to look past the practicality to understand the purpose of those products.
As for why we're put on this earth, I'll leave that for another thread, but greed is older than mankind and isn't exclusive to it.

Stradageek wrote: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

Good point about the recumbents if they are your thing (not mine) - as for all the others in your list above, I agree with the benefit of them all apart from widespread use of cartridge bearings - but weren't ALL of the things in that list available way back in 1997?
(I do by the way have a few bikes with quills - I do like aheadsets tho - both have their advantages and disadvantages)

Sweep wrote:but weren't ALL of the things in that list available way back in 1997?

I was touring in 1974 and I'm not sure how many were readily available then, alloy wheels I certainly envied at the time

The Moulton New Series was launched in 1999 if my memory serves me.

Brucey wrote: but then I am a BOF these days.

plenty of those on here, but not you, may I say.

Brucey wrote: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

Hear, hear. Anyone capable of critical thinking would empathize; would agree. Far too few can think at all these days, I fear.

Stradageek wrote:Comparing my early touring days to now I'd say that my favourite innovations are:
Indexed gears - just nicer

I guess alot of innovations depend upon your own view point, ability and mechanical empathy.. certainly in my younger years if you admitted to having some sort of index gear system, certain members of the group would ask if you wanted your stabilizers bolted back on... learning to use your bike's gears effectively and efficiently was seen very much of the 'learning experience' and went hand in hand with braking and cornering techniques and the ability to keep momentum....
...certainly for some of the more paranoid of us, index shifting was something that had dropped from the devil's bowels - simply as it allowed manufacturers to control more of the market. In days before index shifting you could mix that freewheel (chosen because of the range) with that rear deraileur chosen because of its range (or any feature) and mix it with a shifter from a third manufacturer, without issue. Nowadays indexing has gotten so bad you can't even mix some products from the same manufacturer...
..however all is not lost, some riders who have grown tried of being prescribed whole transmission systems and some who if wish to have a great feel of what it is like to ride a bike are using friction shifters again

Brucey wrote: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.

25 years old?

Shimano pays people to tell you your 10 year old top-of-the-line Dura-Ace is rubbish compared to its new kit.

[youtube]TUfyUUauuoY[/youtube]

(it is twaddle, so I wouldn't bother watching, but there are lots and lots of bikes being trashed in the name of 'upgrades' by people who don't know why, but are influenced by such marketing nonsense)

Speaking of 'innovations' I noticed the latest M9100/M8100 MTB groupsets dumped the Di2 stuff, because it's fundamentally stupid, useless plastic waste, and a terrible idea, so it's a good thing they dumped it.

But, I was amused to read this review by some professional twaddle-pusher

https://marathonmtb.com/2019/05/29/firs ... xtr-m9100/

One thing with the shifter moving from Di2 is getting the MultiRelease back, being able to shift a couple of gears at once each way, and use the upshift lever with a forefinger or thumb is very easy to get used to again.

The M9100 SGS derailleur has larger jockey wheels than the M9000 or M9050 models, and at 243g it’s lighter than the 289g Di2 model.

XTR M9100 shifts under load better than XTR Di2. Di2 will just get the shift done, but M9100 does it faster and potentially more securely depending on conditions and the load it’s under.

Having ridden both M9100 and then moving back to Di2 on my hardtail, I will say it has made the difference more noticeable. My first rides on M9100 were on familiar trails, without the need for dumping gears or general mistreatment. I always knew what was coming. More time since then has shown how well XTR M9100 responded to aggressive use.

But it has been doing some rides on my hardtail with a 3 year old Di2 group that has really shown the difference – primarily in the shift speed and drivetrain smoothness.

Previous twaddle by same peddler of twaddle:

https://marathonmtb.com/2017/11/19/a-se ... o-xtr-di2/

I found XTR Di2 really cool when comparing it to M9000 mechanical. Until The Pioneer in 2017, which was the first week-long stage race I did on it. Then I realised what a difference it made when racing blind, and in a week when you’re racing for more than 30hrs. This is when what seemed like small improvements were huge. The changes in precision, effort, and the ability to shift under load were all amplified.

What's that Skippy?



The stuff you told us last year was much, much better than the previous kit and well worth spending thousands of pounds on is actually rubbish? And we should throw it away and replace it with the new version costing thousands more? Nice one Skip!

cycle tramp wrote:

Stradageek wrote:Comparing my early touring days to now I'd say that my favourite innovations are:
Indexed gears - just nicer

I guess alot of innovations depend upon your own view point, ability and mechanical empathy.. certainly in my younger years if you admitted to having some sort of index gear system, certain members of the group would ask if you wanted your stabilizers bolted back on... learning to use your bike's gears effectively and efficiently was seen very much of the 'learning experience' and went hand in hand with braking and cornering techniques and the ability to keep momentum....

People who've grown up with Old Tech almost always view New Tech as a dilution of skill while those coming in when the New Tech is standard see this attitude as elitist or antediluvian. They're usually both wrong, but understandably so.

...certainly for some of the more paranoid of us, index shifting was something that had dropped from the devil's bowels - simply as it allowed manufacturers to control more of the market. In days before index shifting you could mix that freewheel (chosen because of the range) with that rear deraileur chosen because of its range (or any feature) and mix it with a shifter from a third manufacturer, without issue. Nowadays indexing has gotten so bad you can't even mix some products from the same manufacturer...

This is unfortunately true. Same with pedals. Also bottom brackets but it doesn't matter so much there as they're not something you'd change regularly.

..however all is not lost, some riders who have grown tried of being prescribed whole transmission systems and some who if wish to have a great feel of what it is like to ride a bike are using friction shifters again

Or no shifters. Again, some are coming to this through fashion, some through the viewpoint/experience/philosophy outlined.

thelawnet wrote:25 years old?

Shimano pays people to tell you your 10 year old top-of-the-line Dura-Ace is rubbish compared to its new kit.

[youtube]TUfyUUauuoY[/youtube]

(it is twaddle, so I wouldn't bother watching, but there are lots and lots of bikes being trashed in the name of 'upgrades' by people who don't know why, but are influenced by such marketing nonsense)

Functionality wise, SORA R3000 shifts better than Dura Ace 7700 IMO, I'd say that Tiagra 4700 10 speed is as good as 11 speed 105 and better than Ultegra and possibly DA hidden cable 6700/7900, not sure about 6600/7800 as I missed that gen but they were the benchmark apparently and better than the first hidden cable STIs.
Brakes and chainsets, braking is impacted far more by pad/rim interface, set up, tyre pressure/tyre compound and even the rider themselves, than the calipers/levers IMO. As for chainsets, to me there's not much difference, I can still knock out over 1000 watts in spurts (which isn't that big a deal), I use a carbon chainset on my carbon bike (it matches colour wise), is there much if any difference with a stronglight 99 on my 50s Carlton when I get out the saddle and give it the beans, meh, not enough for me to be thinking I need to 'upgrade' and likely more flex in the BB area of the frame.
Bottom brackets in the last 25 years have gone backwards, the whole mess of differing standards adds to the nonsense, chose my carbon bike on the basis it was one of the last 68mm threaded made for a decent level branded bike.

I like that I've been able to buy robust bikes that are lighter than ever, make cycling easier and haven't cost the earth, being able to go touring using a machine that even with rack/guards and accoutrements is only 10kg, and has space for wide tyres to go off roading would be well beyond my budget 25 years ago.
The other thing is front lights, yes the throw is much improved, so inclement weather, night time riding can be safer, but it's the battery tech and low energy bulbs that makes it so much easier, and again at prices that are so much less expensive than 25 years ago.
One other thing, being able to put more gears in between the highest and lowest so that transitioning whether for work, touring or even a hard ride at the weekend makes riding easier.

Pedals, I actually still don't mind toe clips but for every day use I love SPD/SPD type, foot security and quick exit plus being able to have a chunky/robust shoe you can walk all day in and has brilliant comfort and support.

Tyres, thems the things wots improved most, how joyous to not have a flat at the first sight of a hedge trim.
All that was left to do was to pat themselves on the back have a pint and take satisfaction in a job well done; but no, they had to go and invent tubeless, a complete unwanted waste of time unless you like cycling over porcupines.
AND they're thrusting their unwanted crap on anyone trying to buy a new bike.

I'm not keen on them.

What bad experiences have you had with tubeless?

jb wrote:Tyres, thems the things wots improved most, how joyous to not have a flat at the first sight of a hedge trim.
All that was left to do was to pat themselves on the back have a pint and take satisfaction in a job well done; but no, they had to go and invent tubeless, a complete unwanted waste of time unless you like cycling over porcupines.
AND they're thrusting their unwanted crap on anyone trying to buy a new bike.

I'm not keen on them.

I agree, for some people tubeless might seem to make sense, until they get a puncture that the gloop can't actually fix . Buying into a whole new system costs lots too, the downside for non tubeless users is fewer non tubeless specific/ready tyres, more so at the higher end from what I can see. So if high end non tubeless start to thin out that means a tubeless tyre then becomes a slower tyre if you're putting a tube in compared with a non tubeless tyre with a tube in. The costs due to investment in tubeless seems to have pushed tyre prices up more than you'd expect normal inflation to do.

For the number of punctures one might have in any given scenario and the potential upsides of rr and comfort (whatever that might be) I don't think it's worth it overall, but for some people it is and they think it's brilliant, good luck to them I say.

That video was boring and showed how geeky and techy can become,and did nothing to compare longevity.In my view more modern equpment is hard to service,contains cheaper metal and plastic.It is the same with gas boilers and cookers-items have limited life.

But why does everything have to have a long life? It can be fun to have something new and boring to have to hang on to something that won't wear out.
I won't buy the environmental idea. That went long ago as far as cycling goes.