What's the single greatest cycling invention in the world?
Discussion
Banana Boy said:
If you ask this question in a couple of years time I wonder how many people might say 'electronic/wireless gearshift'? Or even 'Gates Carbon Belt Drive'?! (I love the belt drive concept and would love to have a touch and feel of a bike running it!)
I suspect that electric gears will trickle down - having used them briefly on a road bike I'm sold!I suppose it depends on what your time frame is?
Indexed gears and moving the shifters off the down tube was a cracker, but obviously been around for ages.
After that, I'd say all of the real innovations have been in mountain biking, which I suppose is hardly surprising, given the scope for increased technology gains when riding on bumpy stuff.
Hydraulic discs are a thing of wonder in a country like the UK where we ride much of the year in mud, and proper, working suspension has also massively improved the comfort of riding and what people can ride over.
Without a doubt though, the biggest development for me personally is the dropper post. It just makes everything soooo much smoother!
The one thing I really don't see the point of is electric gear shifting. Why take something which works perfectly well and then add complexity and the risk of a battery dying mid ride?
Indexed gears and moving the shifters off the down tube was a cracker, but obviously been around for ages.
After that, I'd say all of the real innovations have been in mountain biking, which I suppose is hardly surprising, given the scope for increased technology gains when riding on bumpy stuff.
Hydraulic discs are a thing of wonder in a country like the UK where we ride much of the year in mud, and proper, working suspension has also massively improved the comfort of riding and what people can ride over.
Without a doubt though, the biggest development for me personally is the dropper post. It just makes everything soooo much smoother!
The one thing I really don't see the point of is electric gear shifting. Why take something which works perfectly well and then add complexity and the risk of a battery dying mid ride?
Kermit power said:
The one thing I really don't see the point of is electric gear shifting. Why take something which works perfectly well and then add complexity and the risk of a battery dying mid ride?
Ironically something battery dependant has one of it's main benefits in endurance riding; it's not uncommon for long distance riders to lose sensation in the hands and a non-mechanical button requires very little pressure (it may sound daft unless you've been there, granted). Also being able to place shifter buttons wherever you like so on the drops, tops, bar end extensions, aero bars; the latter has a real benefit for TT riders.
Auto trimming front mech, the system shifts the front by tiny amounts dependent on which cog of the cassette you are on, reducing friction, wear and noise.
Programmable shifting, you can set the buttons up however you like, so you can dispense with conventional left is front mech right is rear mech and have front mech on say your thumbs and rear mech on fingers.
Auto-box shifting is also possible on some systems, take all the possible gear inches on your bike and put them in order, oftentimes the next closest gear shorter or longer available on your chainset/cassette combination will require shifting both, manually that requires a very detailed verging on nerdy knowledge to be most efficient, with a well set up e-system it's a button press.
I've got two road bikes. A 2015 Trek Emonda, and a 1997 Falcon Pro-Line.
Visually, they look all of the 18 years apart that they are. But very little has really changed between them.
Derailleur gears? 7-speed cassette old; 11-speed cassette new. But still a lever, pulling a cable, to move a parallelogram.
Frame? Cheap Chro-Moly lugged steel frame and forks old; Carbon fibre new. But still a 'double triangle' tubular frame with all the components slung onto it in the same places.
Wheels? Apart from weight, the only real difference between them is the introduction of cartridge bearings. NOT a welcome development from a home mechanic's point of view.
Brakes? Still caliper rim brakes, but advancements in weight, quality, and multi-point pivots have moved things on in terms of available braking power. Marginal gains? Probably more that than 'game changer'.
Everything else is pretty much the same. Yes, cables have better friction treatment now, so are smoother and remain reliable longer, tyres are lighter, and puncture protection has moved on. Geometry has moved on a fair bit, and more is done now to fit bikes to the human body, rather than fitting a person to the bike. Contact points are better. Saddles certainly are more comfortable that I remember them, and bar tape is thicker and lasts longer.
In the nearly 20 years between the two bikes, the only significant changes that I notice when I swap between the two bikes are the gear shifter position and the weight of the bike. Going back to downtube shifters is an eye-opener! It really forces you to consider when, and where you shift between gears, and there aren't really any 'last minute' shifts on a climb once you've started to 'dig in' on the way up, so you need to work out a gear that'll get you all the way up, or go low just in case. Even this difference isn't an insurmountable issue. About £10 for a pair of cable stops to replace the shifters, and I'm away with STI shifters and ten-speed gearing from the spares box.
So for me, personally? The greatest development in modern cycling is frame material, geometry and lower weight. All three are combined in the core component of a bike, it's frame, and make the most difference to me as a rider.
If I did the same comparison for MTBs the answer, I think, would be hydraulic brakes operating on a hub-based disc as opposed to the rim, with the modern suspension fork in close second.
The greatest invention in cycling of all time must be the pneumatic tyre, in terms of being a game-changer. Or the the move from direct-drive large wheel bicycles to the 'safety' bicycle design with a roller chain.
As for GPS/Strava? It plays a huge part in modern cycling, and can act as a massive motivational boost if you need one. It means you can no longer kid yourself about the frequency and pace of your rides, and used right can encourage you to ride beyond yourself. But it's not unique to cycling, and plenty of quick riders manage to ride oodles of miles without it.
Visually, they look all of the 18 years apart that they are. But very little has really changed between them.
Derailleur gears? 7-speed cassette old; 11-speed cassette new. But still a lever, pulling a cable, to move a parallelogram.
Frame? Cheap Chro-Moly lugged steel frame and forks old; Carbon fibre new. But still a 'double triangle' tubular frame with all the components slung onto it in the same places.
Wheels? Apart from weight, the only real difference between them is the introduction of cartridge bearings. NOT a welcome development from a home mechanic's point of view.
Brakes? Still caliper rim brakes, but advancements in weight, quality, and multi-point pivots have moved things on in terms of available braking power. Marginal gains? Probably more that than 'game changer'.
Everything else is pretty much the same. Yes, cables have better friction treatment now, so are smoother and remain reliable longer, tyres are lighter, and puncture protection has moved on. Geometry has moved on a fair bit, and more is done now to fit bikes to the human body, rather than fitting a person to the bike. Contact points are better. Saddles certainly are more comfortable that I remember them, and bar tape is thicker and lasts longer.
In the nearly 20 years between the two bikes, the only significant changes that I notice when I swap between the two bikes are the gear shifter position and the weight of the bike. Going back to downtube shifters is an eye-opener! It really forces you to consider when, and where you shift between gears, and there aren't really any 'last minute' shifts on a climb once you've started to 'dig in' on the way up, so you need to work out a gear that'll get you all the way up, or go low just in case. Even this difference isn't an insurmountable issue. About £10 for a pair of cable stops to replace the shifters, and I'm away with STI shifters and ten-speed gearing from the spares box.
So for me, personally? The greatest development in modern cycling is frame material, geometry and lower weight. All three are combined in the core component of a bike, it's frame, and make the most difference to me as a rider.
If I did the same comparison for MTBs the answer, I think, would be hydraulic brakes operating on a hub-based disc as opposed to the rim, with the modern suspension fork in close second.
The greatest invention in cycling of all time must be the pneumatic tyre, in terms of being a game-changer. Or the the move from direct-drive large wheel bicycles to the 'safety' bicycle design with a roller chain.
As for GPS/Strava? It plays a huge part in modern cycling, and can act as a massive motivational boost if you need one. It means you can no longer kid yourself about the frequency and pace of your rides, and used right can encourage you to ride beyond yourself. But it's not unique to cycling, and plenty of quick riders manage to ride oodles of miles without it.
yellowjack said:
So for me, personally? The greatest development in modern cycling is frame material, geometry and lower weight. All three are combined in the core component of a bike, it's frame, and make the most difference to me as a rider.
Actually geometry is a good shout - and perhaps even more applicable to MTB. It is crazy to look at home much our understanding of geometry has changed in even the last 5 years - head angles and top tube length particularly.JD
JustinF said:
Kermit power said:
The one thing I really don't see the point of is electric gear shifting. Why take something which works perfectly well and then add complexity and the risk of a battery dying mid ride?
Ironically something battery dependant has one of it's main benefits in endurance riding; it's not uncommon for long distance riders to lose sensation in the hands and a non-mechanical button requires very little pressure (it may sound daft unless you've been there, granted). Also being able to place shifter buttons wherever you like so on the drops, tops, bar end extensions, aero bars; the latter has a real benefit for TT riders.
Auto trimming front mech, the system shifts the front by tiny amounts dependent on which cog of the cassette you are on, reducing friction, wear and noise.
Programmable shifting, you can set the buttons up however you like, so you can dispense with conventional left is front mech right is rear mech and have front mech on say your thumbs and rear mech on fingers.
Auto-box shifting is also possible on some systems, take all the possible gear inches on your bike and put them in order, oftentimes the next closest gear shorter or longer available on your chainset/cassette combination will require shifting both, manually that requires a very detailed verging on nerdy knowledge to be most efficient, with a well set up e-system it's a button press.
That said, I think the deraileur is the greatest cycling invention, irrespective of how it is activated.
Given the criteria of modern (What the ***K is that anyway?) I would have to say Strava- it has changed cycling for more people than anything else, even though its not a cycling specific bit of tech.
Who regularly used the word "Segment" before Strava, unless you where in the Orange business?
Who regularly used the word "Segment" before Strava, unless you where in the Orange business?
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff