List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
soapbox
Posts: 112
Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 12:20am

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby soapbox » 18 Oct 2020, 9:53am

The mention of Kindernay interested me, so I clicked on the link to the website. I was halfway through reading the info on the hub when it switched photos and description to the next one.
Websites like that turn me off instantly. I know we live in a world of limited attention spans, but as the punter, I'd like to be the one who determines how long my attention span is. Pity.

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 6706
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby Sweep » 18 Oct 2020, 10:00am

thelawnet wrote:
Sweep wrote:
thelawnet wrote:
Shimano haven't yet dared try to fob people off with this stuff - their touring kit is a 48/36/26 chainset and a 11-36 HG cassette , for the equivalent of a 40 X 9-55 chainset.

)

Agree totally with your post. Out of interest, can you provide a link for ths shimano 48/36,/26 set?
Also, tiddly point, isn't that 9 speed casette 12-,36? Ie not an 11 small?


'Touring' is currently not on trend, so Shimano don't have an obscene number of such groupsets:

https://productinfo.shimano.com/#/lc/xt_trekking/3x10

They spec 3x10 48/36/26 x 11-36/11-34/11-32 Deore or Deore XT.
Or 3x9 48/36/26 44/34/22 x 11-28/11-32/11-34 Alivio/Acera

Both these are flat bar types.

There are also both 11-36 and 12-36 Shimano 9-speed cassettes.

Assuming drop bars then you can put together whatever 3x9 you like, but these aren't a 'groupset' per se.

Also the 10-speed RDs are now all 'Shadow', with a capacity of 47t at most (so 48/26 x 11-36), whereas the 9-speed ones are rated only for 45t and 11-36t using the 'Shadow' design, or 45t and 11-34t using the 'double servo' design; they have not updated the 9-speed T parts to 'Shadow', but you could use a 9-speed 'Shadow' with a 11-36t but in this case your 'total capacity' is only for a 20t chainset gap, so you'd (per the spec) be better off with 11-34t using one of the 'T' chainsets.

Anyway this former part is more marketing - if you want drop bars Shimano wants to sell you a hideously expensive plastic bike with drop bars and hydraulic disc brakes, whereas if you want, say, a steel frame + drop bars with rim brakes then you can do whatever you like but you'll have to seek out older parts if you want high-quality kit.


thanks for all that - will try to digest (not as technical as you). I didn't know about the 11-36T 9 speed cassette but no matter, I prefer the 12-36, available at a decent price from Rose. In fact that 12-36T cassette means I can think of no good reason to go beyond 9 speed for general cycling.
I am flat bar so all is more simple, I can easily bodge and give two fingers to the marketing zealots.
About to set out on a build with a rear mech which may be a 34T limit according to official specs - will tread carefully with on-the-stand testing as am hoping I can push it to 36.
Sweep

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 6706
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby Sweep » 18 Oct 2020, 10:06am

Si wrote:Going back to the original post, and apologies if I'm repeating what someone else has said somewhere in the eight pages of this subject, but the biggest change for me is more an attitude change by bike makers rather than a technological one. When I were a kid (and all this was fields etc) if you wanted a reasonable budget bike to get around on you had a choice between something that looked like a racer (drop bars, high gears, etc), or a sit up and beg that weighed a ton and had few gears.

Nowadays no ordinary person (as opposed to "keen cyclist") needs to swivel their drop bars upside down so that their back doesn't break, or ride everywhere at a cadence of 20 revs per minute, or get off and push up slight rises, etc because we have these wonderful lightweight, fairly well equipped, affordable hybrid bikes..

Agree - when I was a kid it was also all drop bars and tough saddles if you were serious - I wasn't and never liked drops so it was the 3 speed beggers for me. The hybrid of the 90s got me back into cycling - one of the last great advances I think, maybe THE last significant one. I still ride those sorts of bikes and the ones they influenced.
Sweep

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3571
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby The utility cyclist » 18 Oct 2020, 9:44pm

irc wrote:The pinnacle in affordable hybrids was reached IMO 20 odd years ago with the Edinburgh Bicycles Courier.

1*8 gearing Dirt cheap. Reliable. Relatively light weight. A big enough gear range to commute in a hilly city.

Never as popular as they deserved. People perhaps thinking more gears was better.


Even the Ridgeback Velocity with an RRP of £299 in 2002 and the base Specialized Sirrus models from the turn of the century exceeded the EBC bikes IMO. The Velocity had a 28x34 low, 3x8 rapid fire gearing, suspension seatpost, sealed headset, sealed cartridge BB. Ridgeback had by far the biggest range of useable hybrids for all pockets, including women specific models before most of the other players and at great prices.

More gears ARE better, a 1x8 isn't enough for all situations with regards hills, lower gears which the EBC lacked compared to the competition are even better, the Ridgeback models were lighter too, maybe you weren't aware of how other manufacturers had already exceeded what EBC were doing?

cycle tramp
Posts: 949
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby cycle tramp » 18 Oct 2020, 10:08pm

Stradageek wrote:
Sid Aluminium wrote:Availability being the keyword; recumbents have been with us since the beginning. I'm not a recumbent specialist historian, these are just the dates on the pictures from the literature.

Just think where recumbent technology and availability would be now if the UCI hadn't banned them in 1934 just to make sure that their newly sponsored team wouldn't be beaten :x


By denying the use of recumbents in bicycle racing the UCI has blood on its hands.
Motorcycling was still in its infancy and was dominated by how people rode push-cycles. If the aerodynamic superiority of the recumbent bicycles become better known through bicycle racing, motorcycle design would have followed. Feet forward motorcycles are shown to be less hazardous to their rider when compared with 'head first's motorcycle design in an event of collisions, especially in single vehicle collisions. Feet forward motorcycles may have also then lead to further developments of hub centred steering systems, instead of the engineering apology known as the telescopic fork.
The design of the recumbent cycle powered either by engine or feet makes it easier to build in weather protection, and to do so in a manner which increases the cycles performance- its possible that fully faired recumbents may have held off the advent of the motor car had their development been supported by the UCI. As it was due to the UCI's own protectionism they seem more than happy for the bicycle to become a piece of sporting equipment rather than a solution to sort and mid range low cost travel which encourages health and has minimal environmental impact. The best thing anyone can do now is ignore them or view them as some sort of a facist arm of minor religion which is sadly out of touch...

Brucey
Posts: 41402
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby Brucey » 18 Oct 2020, 10:52pm

I agree it was short-sighted of the UCI back then and that changed things for ever but I don't think the brave new world with recumbents, HPVs etc within a UCI umbrella would have been 'all roses' either.

Regarding motorcycles, they were already well established in layout before the UCI intervened. Other riding positions had been tried and rejected. Later efforts fared (geddit?) not much better.

Image

the Quasar and then Phasar models looked interesting and promised much. However they were not successful per se and perhaps significantly this design concept wasn't picked up by major manufacturer and today remains little more than a curiosity. There are all kinds of reasons why seasoned motorcyclists might not have taken well to such machines, but two practical reasons might be a) that you can't see over cars (in contrast to riding a conventional machine) so some of the advantage of a motorcycle in heavy traffic is lost, and b) that the machine might be a real handful in a cross-wind, or on the motorway when passing trucks etc.

Regarding cycling one thing is certain which is that racing with recumbents (faired or unfaired) is/ would be very different both as a spectacle and to participate in. Races such as the TdF would be a different thing altogether; the dynamics of drafting are different, the nature of sprinting would be different, as would be riding alpine climbs. I'm not saying better or worse necessarily but definitely very different. There are big issues with stability in crosswinds as soon as you increase the windage from the side. Also it is fairly 'natural' for non-cyclists to stand on the pedals, and this is lost in recumbent designs.

I kind of live in hope that some kind of practical vehicle comes out of these various approaches, but I have a depressing feeling that if it happens it'll be an electric vehicle with afterthought pedals if you are lucky, a two-wheeled Sinclair C5 or something.... :shock:

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3638
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby Bmblbzzz » 18 Oct 2020, 11:26pm

Was going to say 'Royce Creasey!' but Brucey beat me to it!

Brucey
Posts: 41402
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby Brucey » 19 Oct 2020, 7:01am

Re telescopic forks; in theory some other systems have certain advantages. However in practice they are typically complicated, heavy, expensive etc and for a given 'budget' (cost, development effort and/or weight) a telescopic fork -conceptually flawed though it might be- seems to offer a better solution. There have been many attempts to exploit the potential advantages of other designs in racing machines, but none have been truly successful. This tells its own story I think.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stradageek
Posts: 812
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 1:07pm

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby Stradageek » 19 Oct 2020, 9:07am

Brucey wrote:I kind of live in hope that some kind of practical vehicle comes out of these various approaches, but I have a depressing feeling that if it happens it'll be an electric vehicle with afterthought pedals if you are lucky, a two-wheeled Sinclair C5 or something.... :shock:cheers

Here's an interesting thought from Mike Berners-Lee:

A square metre of solar panels in California sun could power an electric car for 1081 miles per year or an electric bike for 21,000 miles!

Alternatively we could eat the wheat grown on our square metre and use it to cycle 25 miles per year.

But he does quickly add that there is no way he's going to give up non-electric cycling because of the health benefits and because 'it's so much fun'.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 12351
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 19 Oct 2020, 10:56am

Hi,
Brucey wrote:Re telescopic forks; in theory some other systems have certain advantages. However in practice they are typically complicated, heavy, expensive etc and for a given 'budget' (cost, development effort and/or weight) a telescopic fork -conceptually flawed though it might be- seems to offer a better solution. There have been many attempts to exploit the potential advantages of other designs in racing machines, but none have been truly successful. This tells its own story I think.

cheers

Leading and trailing front suspension.
On early Lambrettas? and vespas, Trailing link front wheel would tuck under With disastrous results if you hadn't touched the back brake first.
On Honda C 90 and the like With a leading link suspension, the front would lift under the braking.
Then you had anti-dive brakes With ever increasing complexity.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3571
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby The utility cyclist » 19 Oct 2020, 5:34pm

Brucey wrote:I kind of live in hope that some kind of practical vehicle comes out of these various approaches, but I have a depressing feeling that if it happens it'll be an electric vehicle with afterthought pedals if you are lucky, a two-wheeled Sinclair C5 or something.... :shock:

There are plenty of electric assist vehicles that are in use, some are very spendy, some designed for the climate of the region so are open sided, some very upright. The one that impressed me was one that Grant Sinclair (nephew of Clive) who came up with the iris etrike. I don't know how many he has actually made but ordering one was a non starter for me as it doesn't remotely look like there's any actual production happening. First and only person that appears to have one is an 83 y.o gent, I know of no other units anywhere.
The first ones I saw on his website had a triple chainset and were meant to have Shimano touring A530 pedals attached.
https://www.grantsinclair.com/en/e-bike/iris-black.html
[youtube]HJeXZD7MCCY&feature=emb_logo[/youtube]

cycle tramp
Posts: 949
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby cycle tramp » 19 Oct 2020, 9:25pm

Brucey wrote:Re telescopic forks; in theory some other systems have certain advantages. However in practice they are typically complicated, heavy, expensive etc and for a given 'budget' (cost, development effort and/or weight) a telescopic fork -conceptually flawed though it might be- seems to offer a better solution. There have been many attempts to exploit the potential advantages of other designs in racing machines, but none have been truly successful. This tells its own story I think.

cheers


The telescopic fork is truly an engineering apology - the forks themselves are over heavy to resist the braking/bending forces imposed by the front brake, each leg of the fork operated independently and has to be tied together with an over large front spindle (and a fork brace) to keep the front wheel tracking straight under stress (cornering and under braking) and in addition to this the front forks drive under braking altering the steering geometry of the vehicle...

..was there a better front fork? Yes, the girder fork- the legs operated as one until and so the front wheel tracked better, it was lighter and stiffer, and was only rejected because it gave any motor cycle to which it was fitted 'a dated image' (which many manufacturers were at great pains to shed) Here's a link to a design of girder fork which is designed to be fitted to bicycle;

https://www.daveypushbikes.com/girder-fork.html

...if we were looking for a more radical design there's also hub centre steering which doesn't dive under braking;

https://www.bikeexif.com/hub-center-steering-motorcycle

Its fitted to a motorcycle rather than a bicycle

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15161
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby Si » 20 Oct 2020, 5:43pm

I had a girvin vector, then the profiles xlink . Really liked them:. Great tracking, very good climbing (in the days before many forks had lock out), strong, light, low maintenance. Wish I still had one. If they were good enough for Caroline Alexander then they re good enough for anyone.

I know a few few people who had Amps. They said that they felt nice but tended to snap.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 12351
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 20 Oct 2020, 7:32pm

Hi,
Alternatives to telescopic are heavy, and unsprung weight affects handling.
If not then lateral stiffness, too many moving parts adds to complexity and cost.........then there's maintenance.....
The former may be a compromise but works well..........enough....
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

Brucey
Posts: 41402
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: List of recent 'innovations' of the cycling industry

Postby Brucey » 20 Oct 2020, 7:59pm

cycle tramp wrote:
Brucey wrote:Re telescopic forks; in theory some other systems have certain advantages. However in practice they are typically complicated, heavy, expensive etc and for a given 'budget' (cost, development effort and/or weight) a telescopic fork -conceptually flawed though it might be- seems to offer a better solution. There have been many attempts to exploit the potential advantages of other designs in racing machines, but none have been truly successful. This tells its own story I think.

cheers


The telescopic fork is truly an engineering apology - …....was there a better front fork? Yes, the girder fork- the legs operated as one until and so the front wheel tracked better, it was lighter and stiffer, and was only rejected because it gave any motor cycle to which it was fitted 'a dated image' (which many manufacturers were at great pains to shed)…..


My point was that these things -if they truly were inherently 'better'- ought to have succeeded more in racing, and they have not. Any arrangement you devise which holds and steers the front wheel is going to be a mess of conflicting priorities; it is very much a case of 'choose your poison'.

Hub centre steering looks great until you actually try and build/use it at which point you are liable to struggle. One of the major manufacturers has built and sold a hub-centre steered motorcycle (Yamaha) within living memory and it was a bit of flop. But the concept has been around for donkey's years;

Image
1910 James

Image
Ner-a-Car (1920s)

The concept struggles on in limited production even today from one or two manufacturers.

Image
Vyrus

Linkage forks (eg girder or most types of hub centre steering) are characterised by a non-linear axle path. John Britten gave girder forks a pretty good go but it took him years (literally years) to get the geometry correct for his race bike and when he'd done that he was so protective of the finalised linkage geometry that he refused to allow his bike to be photographed without its half-fairing on, so that others could not benefit from his research. The non linear axle path means the trail also varies in a non-linear fashion; this could be good, bad, or just plain weird.

Image
these days Britten owners are a bit more relaxed about showing their bikes with no clothes on

I can't help but think that there have been so many attempts at 'other' steering arrangements (on both motorcycles and bicycles) that if they were truly advantageous, with real benefits, it would have caught on by now.

One of the things which folk don't seem to give enough emphasis to is how the steering feels. This is important when you are pushing a motorcycle to its limits and many alternative steering systems are characterised by relatively poor steering feel; if there are benefits to be had, but they come with poor feel, it might be a worse compromise overall.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~