How bicycles have changed in the last 25 years
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
When shock absorber systems arrived, we went off road seriously.
When disc brakes hit, rims changed significantly. Centre pull 666 brakes stopped being trendy very quickly.
Gel saddles killed brookes but somehow they came back. Fixies and hipsters?
New bag technology made panniers easier and waterproof.
LED lights made old type generator systems redundant. wicking clothes made riding a lot more comfortable although a lot more pongy: wool and cotton don't stink as much. Bamboo viscose has helped there.
Frames now reflect human biology better. Women ride frames sized and shaped for their bodies by women.
Power assist is normal. Sealed gears like sturmey Archer live on in rental bikes (there used to be plant-and-moon orbitals combined with derailleur systems believe it or not)
You can see shaft drive bikes in the Prague technology museum from 100 years ago. I still wish they were available.
Trikes and quad bikes are trendy again!
I have a leather saddle (brooks knockoff) and have put several 100+ mile rides on it. A stiff leather saddle is much more comfortable after several miles than a cushier saddle. Doesn't press in the same spots the whole time.
Braking didn't go from side pull caliper brakes to disc brakes as the author suggested. Disc brakes are still quite heavy and expensive and unsuitable in many cases. There are still many new bikes today with side pull caliper brakes and V brakes. Over the years, a ton of different designs were tried like U brakes and cantilever brakes.
> Disc brakes are still quite heavy and expensive and unsuitable in many cases.
My Spyke disc brakes weigh little more than the Shimano XT V-brakes I replaced with them. While the cost of the disc brake was higher, they might actually prove cheaper in the long run due to less rim wear and therefore a need to have the wheel rebuilt and hand-trued once the rims go.
Sealed gear drives are quite high end[1] these days, for the folks that ride in messy conditions a lot and don't have the time or money to do lots of drive train maintenance.
Tourers too. On my city bike I don't mind the cheap stock saddle. On the tours I do, typically 4 months on the bike all day nearly every day, a Brooks that adjusted perfectly to my arse after 500 km a few years ago is a godsend.
So what has changed? The sturdy bikes of old were built within the tolerances of the materials and designs of the time. If you pushed the limits, you would break the bike.
It seems the new tech as described by the author didnt solve a reliability problem. What it did was push the materials and construction methods. For instance he talks about hubs, spokes, and rear stays breaking. That never happened. But we laced wheels of 36 holes 3 and 4 cross. Modern wheels are straight laced and 28 or less holes. The change has lightened the wheel while maintaining the strength of the old wheel.
1) suspension forks and full suspension bikes
2) move from 26" to 29" and 27.5
3) dropper posts
4) major changes in geometry, e.g slack head tube angles from 71/72 now the standard is around 66. Shorter chainstays.
5) fat bikes
6) hydraulic disc brakes
7) tubeless tires that use sealant that automatically seal punctures
8) electronic shifting
9) power meters
10) carbon fiber frames and wheels
11) major changes in axles from skewers to through axles
12) internal changes to hubs to increase points of engagement
13) major changes in handle bar lengths
14) drop in gears from 20+ down to 10/11 with no front shifter
15) adjustable geometry with flip chips
16) e-bikes with pedal assist
17) major changes in suspension design, horst, vpp, dw-link, etc.
18) multiple categories of bikes, downhill, enduro, all mountain, trail, xc, gravel/cyclocross
19) bike parks via ski lifts.
I expect there to be bikes that adjust gearing automatically based on a desired power output to allow you to maintain the desired cadence at the desired power.
1) It used to be possible to shift down multiple gears quickly (e.g., when coming to a stop light). Now, many index shifting systems outside of twist shift only allow one gear shift at a time.
2) It used to be all bikes had replaceable chainrings, allowing you to replace worn rings, adjust the overall gear ratio of the bike higher or lower, or change the ratios to create a half-step shift pattern. Now, many bikes have sprockets riveted to the crank arm and derailleur systems so tightly matched to the size of the chainrings that changing chainring size is no longer feasible.
It doesn't work when shifting up, or allow for the truly violent changes I used to pull off with my friction shifters, but the convenience and speed of shifting right without moving my hands from the brakes is well worth the trade-off.
??? I don't understand. You can mount friction shifters next to your thumbs too. They only require moving your hands if you stick with less accessible frame mounting positions that likely only ever existed because it was easier and slightly cheaper to mount that way (one less cable guide, sigh).
I personally love the absolute simplicity of friction shifters. Doing finicky derailleur adjustments to make sure that every index step transitions smoothly is such an annoying process.
On the other hand, non-indexed systems never bothered me much. My favorite commuter bike was from the 80s and had downtube shifters. It became muscle memory and somewhat subconscious when moving my hands to shift to the correct gearing. It always shifted reliably and precisely. Maintenance was dead simple too compared to today's indexed shifting.
Carbon frames are not suitable for the vast majority of riders. Any damage to carbon makes a bike unridable, and it can happen fairly easily. In addition, carbon can fail catastrophically, unlike metal frames.
This is all for a few minor or alleged benefits. The lightest carbon frames are around 700 grams. The lightest steel frame is around 1 kilo, and the racing aluminum frame I use is 1100. That frame is lighter than most people’s carbon frames, and I have had it for 12 years and many crashes. It has some damage, but because it is minor the bike is still safely rideable.
Carbon is billed as stiffer. It usually is, but the energy wasted from frame flex is less than one watt. Carbon can also be minimally lighter. However, 80-90% of energy in road biking goes to aerodynamic resistance. Decreasing weight by a percent therefore has a negligible impact on speed.
The most important thing is to get a reasonably light bike that makes you aerodynamic. It should also be reliable. If it is reliable you will ride it more, and therefore be faster.
Bikes these days have new geometries, exotic materials and everything works way better, but not because we're doing anything dramatically different from 25 years ago.
It's getting harder to find bikes with rim brakes, discs are becoming more and more popular.
Not cyclists with Rohloff hubs. Rohloffs have become a hot item for touring cyclists, but even on the streets of a German or Austrian city you will see Rohloffs on people’s commuting bikes. If not Rohloff, then perhaps a Shimano Alfine.
> road bikes still slow you down by squeezing the rims
Many new road bikes (even BSOs at the local hypermarket) are shipping with disc brakes now.
However, our human muscles are most efficient using specific amounts of force and using specific cadences. If you push on the pedals too hard, then you start going anaerobic and build up lactic acid in the muscles. You can't sustain it for long periods. Similarly if you push too little, you have to spin the pedals incredibly fast to maintain speed. This uses up a lot of energy.
The idea of the gear is to pick one so that you can settle into a rhythm where you are using the same amount of force that you normally do and you use the same cadence that you normally do. This way, no matter what the terrain, wind, etc, you can be as efficient as possible merely by changing the speed that you are travelling.
Normally when I'm riding, I'll use a combination of 4-5 gears. Which gears I use depends entirely on the terrain and the wind. If I'm going up steep hills, then I'll be using the easy gears. If I'm on flats, I'll be switching around trying to find a comfortable gear depending on the force and direction of the wind.
Honestly, you don't need 30 gears (and IMHO, if you don't have a lot of money it's better to spend money getting an overall good bike, than trying to get a couple of extra gears). I particularly like having only 2 chain rings (and I could easily get away with 1) because on cheaper bikes, it's easier to keep the derailleurs set up nicely (on expensive bikes, I don't think it matters much). However, I've got some hills with over 20% gradients, so I need some low gears. Having that extra chain ring can mean being able to get over the hill or not.
If you are riding a lot (like several hours a day), having more gears is nice because you can always find a "perfect" gear for the conditions. This really reduces the amount of fatigue you experience. Again, it's the difference between riding 100 km and being relatively OK afterwards vs riding 100 km and being shattered.
So if you are riding short times for leisure and the terrain is relatively flat (for example, nothing over 10% gradient), then you can save a lot of money to have a bike with less gears. But if you are riding a lot, in challenging conditions, then having a couple of extra gears can make a really big difference.
One thing I should point out is that group set manufacturers are pushing higher numbers of gears into their lower priced offerings. This is because the engineering for those lower priced offerings is improving pretty significantly over time. Some of the cheap gear systems you can buy these days are almost as nice as the pro gear systems you would buy 10 or 15 years ago. The precision is good enough that there is no real reason not to have the extra gears. You might not need them, but if you start cycling in more challenging conditions, you will appreciate them.
A 30 gear bike has three rings on the front. The outer and inner are only supposed to be used on the outer few, or inner few rear rings. Otherwise the chain will be stressed and possibly break. Only the middle ring is used with all rear gears. So you actually have only about 16 usable gears.
A more modern design is to use two front chain rings. This does not strain the chain so much, and you can use the full range of rear gears. It is also much more natural feeling to shift the front gear. A 20 speed bike actually has more usable gears than a 30 but probably less range.
A further iteration is to have a larger inner ring on the rear derailleur that is a bigger step up from the last. Eleven speed cassette's try to give enough range on the rear derailleur to only need one front ring.
Carbon fibre does that.