2018 PRO thread

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

thePrince
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:09 am

by thePrince

I think it's likely we'll see a few more mm beyond TA disc spacing to get to 15 speed. But the bigger companies don't seem to care - in fact they like to change the specs so people will have to buy a new frame to get the latest and greatest.

Regarding chain wear, this would be somewhat offset by centering the ring. And we don't know what other kind of chain technology will come out in the next 5 years. I don't feel like 10-15% less life on a chain would deter the move to 15 speed.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Any wider rear dropout spacing without stretching out the chainstay length some more will surely be starting to interfere with the heels of riders as they pedal. Or maybe they'll just compensate by putting 155mm cranks on and trying to convince everyone how much better they are. It's taken a long time to fine tune road bike geometry and handling characteristics to the point we are at today, or almost yesterday now. A big part of those handling characteristics are achieved through the use of short chainstays, within reason of course, and proportionate to frame size. Center of gravity, balance, tight smooth handling that carves through turns... a few millimeters in chainstay length does make a difference in that regard. The mountainization of the road bike just needs to stop. At this point I sometimes feel the evolution of the road bike is going backwards, not forwards.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

by Weenie


spdntrxi
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

^word !

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2621
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

amen to that!

I remember how sluggish some "pro" frames of 2000' were - I got my first bike with noticeably shorter chainstays circa 2004-5 which was a Look 486 and boy that thing was flying. if I were to sacrifice that for brakes or 15sp rear cassette I'd rather puncture every other ride
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

User avatar
LeDuke
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:39 am
Location: Front Range, CO

by LeDuke

spdntrxi wrote:
LeDuke wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:47 pm
Can anyone explain why 2x is more “efficient”?

Seems “faster” has been retracted already. Let’s hear why “efficient” is the word of the day.

With data and citations, please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dont think it's been retracted... I think it what do you mean by "faster" or "efficient"...

If you must have one example of "efficient" and since this is in the "pro thread".. I dont think it's very "efficient" for team bike mechanics to swapping chains and cassettes and what not, which is what was described as happening in team AB. Besides why is the burden on 2x to prove anything.. it should be on 1x to prove it's for lack of a better term.. "better"

With the hills in my local... 1X is a non-starter... it would be a crit bike only... no fun in that.
My house is at 7200ft. I’m guessing my local “hills” are a bit bigger than yours. And I wouldn’t hesitate to ride a 1x11 or 1x12 road bike on the roads near me.

But, to each his or her own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thePrince
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:09 am

by thePrince

Calnago wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:02 pm
Any wider rear dropout spacing without stretching out the chainstay length some more will surely be starting to interfere with the heels of riders as they pedal. Or maybe they'll just compensate by putting 155mm cranks on and trying to convince everyone how much better they are. It's taken a long time to fine tune road bike geometry and handling characteristics to the point we are at today, or almost yesterday now. A big part of those handling characteristics are achieved through the use of short chainstays, within reason of course, and proportionate to frame size. Center of gravity, balance, tight smooth handling that carves through turns... a few millimeters in chainstay length does make a difference in that regard. The mountainization of the road bike just needs to stop. At this point I sometimes feel the evolution of the road bike is going backwards, not forwards.
I totally agree with everything you are saying! Maybe those extra mms from 135 to 142 could used for a 15spd drivetrain and we could just skip disc brakes altogether. :twisted:

But the tipping point at the pro level has started...disc brakes will be here at some point. And while I'm indifferent on 1x (some pluses, some minuses), I think we are going to see it become the norm, and the pros will sport it, like AquaBlue this year. If bike manufacturers can remove a FD from their costs, they will. We saw the demise of a standard BB because Cannondale didn't want to pay for a BB but instead just the bearings.

maquisard
Posts: 2057
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: France

by maquisard

thePrince wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:07 pm
I think we are going to see it become the norm, and the pros will sport it, like AquaBlue this year.
AquaBlue are about to ditch 1x.
thePrince wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:07 pm
We saw the demise of a standard BB because Cannondale didn't want to pay for a BB but instead just the bearings.
Pressfit BBs grew out of a desire to reduce the tolerances required in frame fabrication. It is widely agreed to have been a disaster with threaded standards starting to make a comeback.

bilwit
Posts: 982
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Seattle, WA

by bilwit

every fred and pro world tour rider needs disc brakes, 1x, 32mm tires, 12 speed, wireless electronic shifting

or so I'm told :wink:

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2621
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

nope, it's the very essence of modern cycling - switching focus from performance, experience, or simply put - riding, towards gear. and while 10+ years ago it was about making stuff lighter, stiffer, better, and mostly it turned out that way, today it's more fashion driven. one look at how dudes dress tells me riding a bike becomes a fashion statement even for seasoned cyclists. so when a manufacturer launches a new product and introduces it on pro scene, it becomes a 'must have' one way or the other. people seem to have lost the grip on what products are really worth to them, instead they fall for ads and all that marketing bubble indiscriminately.

I've written it here before, but today even kids' racing bikes are top of the shelve rigs with every "extra" there is (courtesy of their dads who probably can't stand the idea of their kids not having superior equipment) - how can a teenager, who just starts to ride/race appreciate the gear if he gets the best from the get go? not to mention he won't be able to use what this super-duper bike in theory provides in the first place...
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

User avatar
themidge
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:19 pm
Location: yer ma

by themidge

tymon_tm wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:25 pm
I remember how sluggish some "pro" frames of 2000' were - I got my first bike with noticeably shorter chainstays circa 2004-5 which was a Look 486 and boy that thing was flying. if I were to sacrifice that for brakes or 15sp rear cassette I'd rather puncture every other ride
I dunno, my Vitus 979 has 400mm chainstays, and that's from 1986!

They were known for having quite tight geo though...

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2621
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

my first serious bikes were Trek 4smth (alu-carb), Trek 5200 (briefly) and then Merida 909 (magnesium, I believe our own Adam Hansen raced on one of those back in the day too) - I could fit like two fingers between rear wheel and seattube
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

Hawkwood
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:27 pm

by Hawkwood

themidge wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:54 pm
tymon_tm wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:25 pm
I remember how sluggish some "pro" frames of 2000' were - I got my first bike with noticeably shorter chainstays circa 2004-5 which was a Look 486 and boy that thing was flying. if I were to sacrifice that for brakes or 15sp rear cassette I'd rather puncture every other ride
I dunno, my Vitus 979 has 400mm chainstays, and that's from 1986!

They were known for having quite tight geo though...
Bikes with ridiculously short seat stays were all the rage in the 1970s and 80s. I remember riding a very short wheelbase Colnago in the early 80s, it was hopeless.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

When I said it took a long time for road bike geometry to evolve to where it is now, I was really thinking a time frame of much more than 20 years or so. More like since road racing began, so like the beginning of time . So, let’s just say the finely honed racing bike has chainstay lengths somewhere in the 405-415mm range, give or take a couple mm, with small frames on the shorter side of that range and large frames on the larger side. A few manufacturers take a one size fits all approach which makes zero sense to me except from a production cost saving standpoint. And usually if that approach is taken they opt for the shorter stays across the board. Vroomen took that approach with Cervelo and now again he’s taken it with 3T (all the AquaBlue frames have 405mm chainstays, and that’s a factor that can’t be playing well with their 1x experiment). The smallest frames have always been the biggest challenge for frame builders, especially built around 700c wheels, otherwise you might see even shorter chainstays on the smallest sizes, but then there are drivetrain issues as well, as AquaBlue is painfully aware of by now. It’s easy to make longer chainstays but that does compromise the road race type handling characteristics that make the road bike what it is. Perhaps “compromise” is not a good choice of words, depending on your intended use; the longer chainstays would “change” those handling characteristics. Longer chainstays also provide more clearance which is necessary for the bigger tires which are all the trend now. And as long as they keep widening the dropout spacing they will they have to lengthen the chainstays to accommodate more extreme chainlines at the margins. I love the Porsche like handling of a nice road bike. So, to me it’s the “feel” of the road bike on the “road” that makes it what it is. Changes that even begin turning my Porsche into an SUV (yes it’s an extreme example but these are extreme times ), are unwelcome in my garage. In case you haven’t noticed, any negative consequences of bike design changes never really get much mention in the marketing literature, even when they are blatantly obvious. They simply come up with new marketing spin to downplay those negatives. I have my touring bike. I have my road bikes. “Do it all” bikes are fine and have great utility but they do nothing superbly well. The super refined racing bicycle may be a very small niche of bikes for the big manufacturers but I’d hate to see it die altogether. It might if the manufacturers tell the pros to race the equivalent of mini vans,... Beep beep... on your left... need help with that wheel change buddy? Sure, I’ll wait for you, no problem. Take your time.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

KWalker
Posts: 5904
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

Mountain bikes have to take suspension travel into account and again, seem to do fine. I don't think I have ever dropped a 1x chain on MTB, definitely not with Eagle.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Of course they do, and that’s what long cages and long chains can take care of just fine. But how long are your mountain bikes chainstays? How much clearance is there up front between tire and whatever obstructions might be in the way. What is the BB drop on your mountain bike? I’ll bet all those things are quite different than on the 3T road bike they’re trying to run 1x on. And those differences all contribute to the problems AquaBlue is having. Either in the form of bad chainlines at the margins which adversely affect shifting or clearance issues which adversely affect speed of wheel changes. Also, what is your average cadence on a big technical mountain bike ride. Probably lower than your average cadence on your fast road ride. I seem to have already said all this when you posed the question before about the differences inherent in mtn bikes versus Road Bikes. The two have different requirements in so many respects. Why don’t we just have the entire peloton on mountain bikes then. That would solve everything.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post