is roadbike evolution at a standstill ?

MungoMan

Am i right in saying that for about the past 10 years, professional quality roadbike technology is at a standstill, i.e. they have probably reached a stage where everything is optimised to it's maximum ?

What innovations has there been in professional quality roadbikes in the past 10 years ?

Beasty

Electronic shifting.

Mycroft H

Beasty wrote: »

Electronic shifting.

Electronic shifting is nothing new, it existed twenty years ago. Mavic had a system. The 1992 Zap and the later Mektronic

Skip to about 1:30 for the shifting.

CardinalJ

Im sure if bikes didn't have to weigh a certain amount it'd be different.

kincsem

There must be improvements in the stem and handlebars. Why do we need a stem? Just have a connection from the steerer to the hoods. And when not on the drops why have drops? They should fold up, or disappear. You should be able to make the distance between the hoods bigger or smaller on the move, say 40 cm, 42 cm, 44 cm. Or the hoods move down and become the drops.

Cookie_Monster

MungoMan wrote: »

What innovations has there been in professional quality roadbikes in the past 10 years ?

electric hub motors :pac:

rab!dmonkey

Looking from the outside in, I'd disagree. There appear to be genuine improvements regularly cropping up, but diminishing returns are definitely coming into play. I'm definitely watching the development of drop-bar disc brake bikes with interest

What I'd really like to see - maybe not in a race - would be a road bike with adjustable geometry like the Bionicon bikes. No suspension, but the ability to switch from super-steep climbing geo to downhill-slack descents at the flick of a switch.

el tel

Dont worry they'll still come up with some marginal 'improvement' and will market it with fanfare and we will fall for it hook, line and sinker. These improvements won't be dictated by what the market demands but rather what the manufacturers need to do to justify next years model range.

Bottom brackets areas will be made 0.5 % stiffer year on year as last years optimal stiff one was not quite stiff enough. Contrarily, 'vertical compliance' will be improved be thatrwduced or increased depending on whether stiff bottom bracket areas are flavour of the month. oh and there is plenty more scope for cranking out some **** about directional stability in the 'cockpit' (who ever coined that expression in terms of bikes needs shot), perhaps having even more tapered head tubes cos the previous headtubes were apparently wholly deficient in their taperedness. its all bollocks really.

endacl

Aerodynamic helium based lighter than air paint. The next leap forward. Deffo.

studiorat

I suppose since most road bikes are based on professional race bikes the UCI rules for those bikes governs any major changes to the technology, particularly geometry etc. . As someone said already if they didn't have to weigh a certain amount it'd be different.

Outside of the road bike market there's been improvements in belt and shaft drive. Suspension has gotten much more sophisticated in the last 10 years as have disc brakes.

How about this for instance :

Or this :

Chips Lovell

BX 19 wrote: »

Electronic shifting is nothing new, it existed twenty years ago. Mavic had a system. The 1992 Zap and the later Mektronic

But it works this time around.

dermur

el tel wrote: »

Dont worry they'll still come up with some marginal 'improvement' and will market it with fanfare and we will fall for it hook, line and sinker. These improvements won't be dictated by what the market demands but rather what the manufacturers need to do to justify next years model range.

Bottom brackets areas will be made 0.5 % stiffer year on year as last years optimal stiff one was not quite stiff enough. Contrarily, 'vertical compliance' will be improved be thatrwduced or increased depending on whether stiff bottom bracket areas are flavour of the month. oh and there is plenty more scope for cranking out some **** about directional stability in the 'cockpit' (who ever coined that expression in terms of bikes needs shot), perhaps having even more tapered head tubes cos the previous headtubes were apparently wholly deficient in their taperedness. its all bollocks really.

So much anger. And on such a lovely day too!

Lumen

11 speed from Campag, and now Shimano (shortly).

In the next 5 years we'll have 12 speed and 135mm rear spacing, I reckon. We're being softened up by the use of 135mm spacing on cyclocross bikes.

Whilst it'll be a PITA for road bike compatibility it will mean that 29ers and road bikes can use the same wheels. Maybe. Apart from possible freehub compatibility issues.

AstraMonti

Super light (cheap) carbon frames.
Super light (cheap) carbon components.
Super light (cheap) carbon wheels that can descend the alps without exploding.
Integrated frames.
Internal cabling (that works).
Aero frames.
Electronic shifting.
Hydraulic shifting (not yet widely available).

Did we have all this 10 years ago? Unless you are referring to the shape.. which yeah, i don't think much will change on that.

And if the idiots in UCI could lower the weight limit we would see lots more of interesting things.

Mycroft H

Bicycle evolution has not come to a standstill but its moving very very slow. Things have become cheaper, but thats a result improved manufacturing processes rather then technological improvement.

The Freehub and the Hyperglide cassette were the last two tangible big improvements IMO. Both of those were inventions of the early 90's

Electronic shifting has taken an age for shimano to pick up, nearly 20 years after Mavic tried it.

Jawgap

Pedal based power meters......


......oh wait.......

dave2pvd

AstraMonti wrote: »

Super light (cheap) carbon frames.
Super light (cheap) carbon components.
Super light (cheap) carbon wheels that can descend the alps without exploding.
Integrated frames.
Internal cabling (that works).
Aero frames.
Electronic shifting.
Hydraulic shifting (not yet widely available).

Did we have all this 10 years ago? Unless you are referring to the shape.. which yeah, i don't think much will change on that.

And if the idiots in UCI could lower the weight limit we would see lots more of interesting things.

^ Totally agree.

That's quite a lot of innovation.

The twin triangle roadbike frame will be with us until the UCI say otherwise. (Conversely, their weight limit is not impacting consumer market development at all, IMO).

For me, the biggest innovations are in frame design. Sub-1000g monocoques that are relatively durable and have ride and stiffness qualities that are considerably better than what was around 10yrs ago.

Second would be wheel rims design/manufacturing. Robust carbon rims that I can almost afford to crash on. Did not exist 10yrs ago. At my income level.

CX and TT show even more evolution than conventional roadbikes. Another discussion for a different day, I'd say.

Overall, I see a LOT of money being poured into cycling technology these days; whether frame technology, components or data devices.

(Aside: I don't know much about MTB, but frame and rear suspension design seems to be evolving at a respectable pace).

Rofo

On the weight front, this shows what's achievable if you ignore the UCI weight limit (and win the Lotto!)

mrbike

BX 19 wrote: »

.

The Freehub and the Hyperglide cassette were the last two tangible big improvements IMO. Both of those were inventions of the early 90's

The freehub was invented in late 30's. Shimano brought out a Dura Ace freehub in 1978.

S.T.I./Integrated shifting was a pretty big leap, which again goes back to the 90's