Is This As Good As Bikes Will Get? (besides braking)

[XCProMD]

Power assist is already out there. Pinarello and Cube are already selling bikes like that.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[Broady]

A refined, drag free, lightweight box with a large range, wireless shifting, practically maintenence free. Perfect chainline, nothing to get damaged in a crash, low centred weight.

I guess the main problem for a manufacturer with a bombproof system is that you don't sell as many. Suppose there's always Rohloff.

The *main* problem is that we'd have to adjust some of the laws of physics first. Drag free, lightweight AND maintenance free isn't going to happen.
Lots of patents and demonstrators floating around, they never come to anything.

Admittedly 'drag free' was a poor choice of wording, I guess I meant 'less drag than a pinion / nuvinci etc currently has'.

[wheelbuilder]

Can we avoid bringing e-bikes into this? They ruin every thread. I will never believe (regardless of circumstances), that an e-bike has any relation to cycling.

[Stickman]

Can we avoid bringing e-bikes into this? They ruin every thread. I will never believe (regardless of circumstances), that an e-bike has any relation to cycling.

Then don't post inflammatory elitist comments in a public forum

Cycling covers the spectrum from grandma popping down to the shops to get a loaf of bread, up to the Tour de France. Ebikes can help many on the lower spectrums of casual cycling stay mobile and out of their car. More bikes, less car journeys, more bike infrastructure = winning.

I would have zero interest in ever watching an e-bike race though.

[elSid]

I agree about keeping e-bikes out of the discussion. In my view, a line is crossed when the bike isn't merely optimized to respond to human input, but actively aided by secondary power.

[mattr]

Admittedly 'drag free' was a poor choice of wording, I guess I meant 'less drag than a pinion / nuvinci etc currently has'.

TBH, even that is going to be a massive struggle.

[themidge]

Then don't post inflammatory elitist comments in a public forum

Of course we should all be respectful and level headed etc etc. But in this case I totally agree with @wheelbuilder. This is weight weenies, and even though I haven't been here long I can see that e-bikes are not really what this site is about, and hopefully never will be. Can you imagine all the Freds and Hubbards coming here and showing off their 5.2 kilo gearboxed e-bikes with custom aero fairings to fit their beer bellies. "Its been great, I've been able to beat all the grannies and small children in the sprint away from the zebra crossing in the park!" Yeah no thanks.

[rajMAN]

Then don't post inflammatory elitist comments in a public forum

Of course we should all be respectful and level headed etc etc. But in this case I totally agree with @wheelbuilder. This is weight weenies, and even though I haven't been here long I can see that e-bikes are not really what this site is about, and hopefully never will be. Can you imagine all the Freds and Hubbards coming here and showing off their 5.2 kilo gearboxed e-bikes with custom aero fairings to fit their beer bellies. "Its been great, I've been able to beat all the grannies and small children in the sprint away from the zebra crossing in the park!" Yeah no thanks.

+1 this is Weight Weenies, theres a clue in there somewhere!

[TobinHatesYou]

I agree about keeping e-bikes out of the discussion. In my view, a line is crossed when the bike isn't merely optimized to respond to human input, but actively aided by secondary power.

You expend power leveraging a mechanical shifter. Electronic shifting expends battery stored energy rather than human energy.

[sawyer]

It's still pretty hard to get "stock" bikes down to 6.8kg without getting into the boutique componentry. I think once something like graphene becomes affordable (or whatever else is created in the future that's a better alternative to straight up carbon fibre), normal road bikes will start to look like TT frames -- we're already headed that direction with aero bikes, the weight issue is the only thing that's stopping them from taking over completely.

Not if you're on tubular wheels. It's very easy.

Pretty much any combo of (!) pro level frame (2) top end group (3) any "normal" weight 30-50mm carbon tubular wheelset will give you a bike in the 6.3 - 6.8 ish weight range

Once you're on clinchers there is a 200g odd penalty so you have to choose light to hit 6.8

[dcorn]

I agree about keeping e-bikes out of the discussion. In my view, a line is crossed when the bike isn't merely optimized to respond to human input, but actively aided by secondary power.

You expend power leveraging a mechanical shifter. Electronic shifting expends battery stored energy rather than human energy.

Cool, and that has nothing to do with propelling the bike forward.

[dcorn]

To answer the actual question of the thread, I think we're possibly reaching the peak of pro race bikes within the rules or scope of the UCI. Yes, there are a few top level road bikes that don't meet UCI specs, but not many. Lighter sure because it's easy to just add weight to a bike to meet the limit. But frame shape, hardly any. Manufacturers are now optimizing road bikes to be super light weight, stiff, and aero. It used to be one or the other, but now we're getting all of them due to advancements in composites.

Honestly, I think the limit right now is what people want to pay. If you want to get into crazy exotic metals and other materials, a bike can be insanely light and stiff and aero, but it might cost you $25k and nobody wants to pay that much. If the UCI weight limit was lowered to something crazy like 12 lbs and discs were fully adopted, I'm sure we'd all be getting 12 lb disc brake bikes.

As far as aero advances, this is where the UCI rules really come into play. You can only do some much with tube shapes in the standard geometry and without crazy aspect ratios. As soon as those rules are lifted, we'll probably end up with crazy TT-like frames that are actually super light because they still need to go up hills. Aero disc calipers will come, or at least fairings to cover them, but I'd argue they are pretty aero as it is.

I could totally see having a bit of assist on board and using it to enhance rides. For example, say your aren't in shape for an epic 60 miles with 5,000 ft of climbing. With some assist you might go out and do that ride much more often. Maybe there are a few painful hills in your area which means you avoiding them or not riding - no problem with some assist. Or you are 70 and can't keep up with 30 year olds but aren't ready to hang it up.

Sure, at some point you might as well be riding a motorcycle and we'll debate that in the future more than we debate the benefits of electronic groupsets, disc brakes, or aero frames.

Edit: it doesn't make sense for professional racers but there's no reason there couldn't be an assist category in some races though standardizing assist to make it fair introduces many other complications.

1) If I know a ride is too long or a hill is too steep, I'll pick another route or not go on the ride. I've been on some absolutely miserable rides when I overestimated my ability or fell apart at the end. You either HTFU or call someone to pick you up. But resorting to electric assist for the 'tough stuff'? What's the point in riding it then?

2) I'm not going on a ride with you if you have an electric motor in your bike. It's usually about friendly competition on the sprints and climbs, I'm not going to have some clown zipping by me because he can press a button and get a power boost just to screw with everyone else.

3) Again, there is no sense in racing bikes that combine human power with electric assist. If everyone's assist is the same, the race still comes down to who is stronger, so why have it in the first place?

[bilwit]

It's still pretty hard to get "stock" bikes down to 6.8kg without getting into the boutique componentry. I think once something like graphene becomes affordable (or whatever else is created in the future that's a better alternative to straight up carbon fibre), normal road bikes will start to look like TT frames -- we're already headed that direction with aero bikes, the weight issue is the only thing that's stopping them from taking over completely.

Not if you're on tubular wheels. It's very easy.

Pretty much any combo of (!) pro level frame (2) top end group (3) any "normal" weight 30-50mm carbon tubular wheelset will give you a bike in the 6.3 - 6.8 ish weight range

Once you're on clinchers there is a 200g odd penalty so you have to choose light to hit 6.8

not so sure about that, I agree that we're slowly getting to that point but nearly every pro bike previewed on GCN is well over 6.8kg by 500g or more a lot of the times, especially the "aero" frames

[Shrike]

Some pro aero bikes push the 8kg mark. This site is called weightweenies, yet how many aero bikes do we see sub 6.8?

They have been coming down in weight, but jumped back up about half a kilo on average due to DB models.

[mattsurf]

Some pro aero bikes push the 8kg mark. This site is called weightweenies, yet how many aero bikes do we see sub 6.8?

They have been coming down in weight, but jumped back up about half a kilo on average due to DB models.

I have got my DB Canyon Ultimate di2 Ultegra, with a decent set of wheels down to 7.1kg, could get to 7.0kg with different tyres, but tough to go much lower will require more significant modifications