Lately i've been thinking a lot about the future of cycling - what are road bikes going to look like, what the next big thing is going to be that is real innovation & that would be the norm. For example clipless pedals, carbon part but not necessarily such revolutionary changes. For example the wider production of ergonomic handlebars or even something like the vittoria pit stop. I feel I have so many "bright" ideas that do not exist and Im sure with a bit of discussion with like minded people, perfectly good explanations will come up as to why they aren't in production! But hey! It takes one good idea!

I want to take the opportunity here, for fellow weenies to put forward an idea, that may or may not exist (if it does - how to better it). We are all here out of passion for the sport & technology so do not constrict your imagination to run wild afraid of being made fun of!

For all purposes, lets put the UCI regulations of weight and aerodynamics aside

I think the word for the future will be 'Integration'. More and more parts will be integrated into the frame. For instance brakes. I think we will see many more frames like the Storck 0.6 in the future, and at some point, integrated brakes will probably be just as common as integrated headsets.

New bottom bracket "standard". Again.

In my post apocalyptic world bikes will be more of the "Mad Max" bend. Scavenging will be the norm and they will have great anger towards the "new bottom bracket standards".

_________________
WW Velocipedist Gargantuan

Someone should bring out a stunning monocoque frameset with wheel fairings entirely dedicated to speed and looking droolworthy. A kind of "stuff the UCI" message - afterall how many bikes sold end up being raced in UCI sanctioned events?

Ahum

_________________

2011 Cannondale Flash F1
2010 Cannondale Caad9
2000 Cannondale Caad 4 aero
1999 Cannondale Caad1
???? Concorde SS

World’s Fastest Cyclist Hits 82.3 MPH
By Chuck Squatriglia
September 25, 2008 | 2:07 pm |


Sam Whittingham is the fastest cyclist on the planet, having pedaled his sleek recumbent bicycle to a stunning 82.3 mph to claim the world record for a human-powered vehicle.

The bike-builder from British Columbia bested his previous record of 81.02 mph during a picture-perfect run through the desert during the World Human Powered Speed Challenge outside Battle Mountain, Nevada.

"On the one hand, it’s terrifying, but also completely exhilarating, Whittingham, who’s won the competition every year since its inception six years ago, told the Vancouver Sun after taking home the $26,748 deciMach Prize for Human-Powered Speed. "It’s like going down the steepest hill you can find on your bike, but you get to do that all the time."

Except Whittingham’s bike is nothing like your bike.


Whittingham, who runs Naked Bicycle and Design, set the record on (in?) the Varna Diablo III, a sleek teardrop-shaped recumbent designed and built by bike designer Georgi Georgiev. It features carbon fiber wheels and a carbon frame wrapped with Kevlar bodywork.

_________________
WW Velocipedist Gargantuan

I think road bikes running disc brakes will happen sometime in the far future.

Ah

I forgot about recumbants but I don't find them "droolworthy". I don't like the idea of being garrotted by a truck on my morning commute for starters.

Give us a standard 700c (or 650c) bike that's evolved from the Hottas and Lotus' gene pool.

Yep, I agree discs will come soon...integrated brakes are for TT bikes. I think once discs become more mainstream in cyclocross it will pass over to the road.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-38.166570,145.161257

_________________
"It never gets easier, you just go faster..." - Greg Lemond

"Because technology alone is a poor substitute for experience." - Richard Sachs

I have been thinking of new steerer tube designs. There has to be a better idea out there. Somthing with unlimited adjustability without changing stems for a new angle, length, spacers, etc. Possibly a stem setup that slides up and down the fork without interfereing with the head set so more bikes fit more people. Something more aero as well.

well i do not know how, or why road bikes have remained almost unchanged for the past century. one of the reasons might be because the two triangle shape is mandatory for most professional racing, and let's be honest we like to play pro's. the other reason is that road bikes are like felines, a pinnacle of the evolotionary procces that does not need a lot of change to adapt because the design just works. Let's look at the changes in the last 20 years or so, no innovation has made a change on the dynamics of cycling. there are proponants of the disc brakes and when i started cycling 6 years ago i would have tought that would be great, but as i become a better rider i have gone from ultegra brakes to kcnc which have a weaker bite and i am still able to drop fast on the downhill because i have become a lot better rider. now there is room from improvement but right know that means current technologies being improved or becoming more popular, like the all carbon wheelset. now integration is kind of cool but could be frown because of its limitations. road bikes are not utilitarian veichles, that is why there are not that many changes to its design. on the other hand bicycles as utilitarian veichles have changed and improved, with things like belt drives, elictric assistance with motors that are smaller and more efficient, better tyre sealants, and even trainning bikes like the one posted before that take a large amount of data from the rider, even electronic shifting is more suited to the bike commuting crowd. those are some of the reasons that most of the merchandise that we buy today tries to quantify its advantages with quotes like power saved over x distance=, or better pucture protection, grip, aerodinamics, weight, rolling resistance, all of which are aquired by ceramic, carbon, new alloys etc. of all this advantages the only one that is easier to quantify and feel is weight, and that is this community exists. we always consider yea it might give me better aerodynamics but does it weight more than x product that was really good last year aand that is a good thing.

My Idea is with the Shimano Di2 system with automatic shifting. With todays head units displaying power,GPS, cadence, alttitude heart rate and speed the headunit would process that information and give the correct gear for the terrain for a given speed it would also know when your suffering on a climb with low cadence high heartrate and low power then it would change up or if your on a flat you and spinning a too fast cadence it would change down. It fully adjustable on the fly so You could adjust the default setting or programme your own limits.
There would also be manual overide where the existing button shifters would work.
Also a feature seen on top cars is a tyre pressure monitor linked to the headunit, you will have graphic display of it and if theres a puncture you can take measures and the information would be sent to the team mechanic for quick wheel change.

Ok....... If that's what you want

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000QFQAU ... 363&sr=8-3

_________________
WW Velocipedist Gargantuan

Paragraph breaks would have made that easier to read.

Anyway, the "two triangle" shape is in part dictated by UCI/Racing regulations, but even more so it is a factor of weight and performance.
The "two triangles" you are referring to are ultimately truss systems, which are among the strongest design methods in the world. Reduce the depth of the truss and you will decrease stiffness and strength, however this can be compensated by increasing the properties of the material being used.

Four cases in point (although the concepts of designing a frame and taking it to market, in various sizes, is far more complex) :
-A road bike typically uses the best achievable depth of truss to achieve maximum stiffness from the minimal amount of material necessary, thereby reducing weight.
-A mountain bike is a bit less concerned about weight, more concerned about durability. Depth of truss can be reduced or modified to a certain extent. Still, the best XC race frames out there still use a shape that draws closer to a truss pattern whereas a DH frame is built with increased weight a benefit, the truss can be reduced to increase suspension properties, material can be oversized and robust.
-A bmx bike (or a trials bike) has an extremely reduced truss. This is intentional as the bike frame itself will be spun and manipulated while in motion moreso than any other frame. Materials are exceedingly robust for the amount of abuse it takes. Ever wonder why a small BMX frame can weight three or four times the weight of a much larger road frame?
-A folding bike (with the exception of Ritchey breakway or SS-Coupler modified frames) is intended for minimal volume while in folded position, therefore the truss must be reduced or altogether eliminated, stiffness of frame is instead relied upon a stout beam design approach. Again, reducing the truss depth to basically zero the designer must now utilize material properties to increase stiffness... and the weight of the frame (even the carbon folding frames) is increased dramatically.

Although we have seen designs such as Trek's Y-Foil and the Softride style, and we do have some riders reminiscing about the past as if it were truly amazing (which it wasn't), those frame weights wouldn't sell in today's market. Back then people ignored frame weights.

_________________
Exp001