RE: Lotus gets back on its bike
Discussion
Ares said:
Their win will be weight, and even more so, aero. Thing is, 30yrs ago, bike brands didn't obsess about aero, now they do. 30yrs ago, Lotus brought that tech.
I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
The bit I think you're missing, is the aero they've achieved are by following exceptionally tight regs - this won't look any different to any of the other track bikes built to the new rules. I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
30 years ago, they were one of the first to really care about aero (although it certainly wasn't the bike that pushed the boundaries the most) - since then, the cat has been out of the bag, and just like formula 1 there's been very, very little variation as the constraint has been the regs holding things back.
As I said, there might be some weight advantage within the wheels - but that'll only provide benefit on those events where accelerating is important...
Sway said:
Ares said:
Their win will be weight, and even more so, aero. Thing is, 30yrs ago, bike brands didn't obsess about aero, now they do. 30yrs ago, Lotus brought that tech.
I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
The bit I think you're missing, is the aero they've achieved are by following exceptionally tight regs - this won't look any different to any of the other track bikes built to the new rules. I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
30 years ago, they were one of the first to really care about aero (although it certainly wasn't the bike that pushed the boundaries the most) - since then, the cat has been out of the bag, and just like formula 1 there's been very, very little variation as the constraint has been the regs holding things back.
As I said, there might be some weight advantage within the wheels - but that'll only provide benefit on those events where accelerating is important...
Europa1 said:
I'd also be surprised (but delighted to be wrong) if "Their win will be...even more so, aero". Team GB has set the benchmark for attention to every single detail (taking their own pillows everywhere, and preferring the women to not trim their ladygardens), so I'm struggling to see how they haven't already maximised aerodynamic gains (although the forks on the new bike look pretty funky).
It's a new set of regs, that permit wide spaced forks and stays. So, just like Formula 1 when they change the permissible width of the wings, every national team will be running bikes looking almost identical...
rockin said:
I think you're behind the ball. In the long list of Lotus cars whose names begin with "E" there's going to be a new, more mainstream hybrid sports car to benefit from the hype around their £2m Evija.
It will be the exciting, new, Lotus h-Ethel.
No it will be Lotus EVe...and they'll make a killing! It will be the exciting, new, Lotus h-Ethel.
Sway said:
Ares said:
Their win will be weight, and even more so, aero. Thing is, 30yrs ago, bike brands didn't obsess about aero, now they do. 30yrs ago, Lotus brought that tech.
I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
The bit I think you're missing, is the aero they've achieved are by following exceptionally tight regs - this won't look any different to any of the other track bikes built to the new rules. I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
30 years ago, they were one of the first to really care about aero (although it certainly wasn't the bike that pushed the boundaries the most) - since then, the cat has been out of the bag, and just like formula 1 there's been very, very little variation as the constraint has been the regs holding things back.
As I said, there might be some weight advantage within the wheels - but that'll only provide benefit on those events where accelerating is important...
Rather like F1, cycling eventually had to put rules in place to stop an expensive arms race developing, even going so far as to require bikes to look like something from the 1970s when attempting the Hour record - carbon frames and aerodynamic but unstable riding positions being banned.
Good luck to the Lotus and Hope teams with this new bike.
SalsaJason said:
I am all for this, but it doesn't look that adventurous compared to what other cycling brands are producing now.
Cervelo PX Series for example.
Different regs. Cervelo PX Series for example.
PX is a TT bike (pretty much the loosest regs).
They don't ride PX in TTs or GTs, as they're not legal.
Equally, track cycling has had pretty much the most stringent rules regarding bikes, for the last near 3 decades, they've effectively been the same as the bikes ridden in the 70s.
The UCI are finally allowing some very narrow tweaks, changing the width of fork, chain and seat stays. So Lotus (and everyone else) will be making bikes to meet those regs.
Cycling is not a sport that is a fan of technology influencing the competition - level playing field is key (hence Sky spending their dosh on things like custom clothing, mattresses and pillows instead of new bike tech).
Sandpit Steve said:
Sway said:
Ares said:
Their win will be weight, and even more so, aero. Thing is, 30yrs ago, bike brands didn't obsess about aero, now they do. 30yrs ago, Lotus brought that tech.
I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
The bit I think you're missing, is the aero they've achieved are by following exceptionally tight regs - this won't look any different to any of the other track bikes built to the new rules. I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
30 years ago, they were one of the first to really care about aero (although it certainly wasn't the bike that pushed the boundaries the most) - since then, the cat has been out of the bag, and just like formula 1 there's been very, very little variation as the constraint has been the regs holding things back.
As I said, there might be some weight advantage within the wheels - but that'll only provide benefit on those events where accelerating is important...
Rather like F1, cycling eventually had to put rules in place to stop an expensive arms race developing, even going so far as to require bikes to look like something from the 1970s when attempting the Hour record - carbon frames and aerodynamic but unstable riding positions being banned.
Good luck to the Lotus and Hope teams with this new bike.
I do think the big records (like the Flying Hour) should be split into a "traditional" and "enhanced" categories. One being the absolute mano a mano, the other showing the progress that can be made in integrating man and machine for performance.
ArnageWRC said:
Wish them all well, and hope it's a success. However, I find track cycling to be a bit 'mickey mouse'..... I wish we in the UK paid more attention to the other disciplines.
We do.....? Did you miss the Road World Championships in the UK last month?But Team GB doesn't get chance to compete in other cycling disciplines to anything like the same extent.
Sway said:
Cycling is not a sport that is a fan of technology influencing the competition - level playing field is key (hence Sky spending their dosh on things like custom clothing, mattresses and pillows instead of new bike tech).
Not true. Take a look at a bike from just 10yrs ago. And take Sky (Or Ineos now), they, like all teams, don't develop bikes, their bike supplier/partner does. And I have a Dogma 65.1 as ridden by Sky up to 5yrs ago, and a Dogma F10 as ridden by Sky until they became Ineos in May the year. The technological advancement between the 2 bikes in just 5 years is significant.
FA57REN said:
MikeGalos said:
The original Elite cost in the same range as a Jaguar.
The original Elan cost as much as a Porsche 911T.
The original Europa was nearly double the price of an MGB. (And it was created as a low-price, mass-market, entry-level Lotus)
Well yes if you selectively omit the Seven and Cortina Lotus... The original Elan cost as much as a Porsche 911T.
The original Europa was nearly double the price of an MGB. (And it was created as a low-price, mass-market, entry-level Lotus)
Is it really impossible for Lotus to develop and produce a warm-performance mid-£20k MX-5 rival? Other than ringfencing the brand.
Mazda sell about 50,000 a year and keep the same platform for about 10 years, that is around £12 billion of revenue to spread to development costs over. Mazda have a whole range of other vehicles to share parts with and the design and engineering teams plus facilities can be shared with other products. The cost of introducing a new car is going incrementally up due to increased regulation and customer demands, Mazda turns over around £24 billion a year so a slightly less successful MX-5 also won't sink them.
Lotus don't have the scale to produce a £22k sports car and globally that segment is in decline hence why Mazda was willing to make the Fiat 124 for them.
The world market has space for precisely one Mazda MX-5 class vehicle, currently that is occupied by the MX-5
If Lotus were sensible they should have clung to Tesla like a limpet and basically been a technology partner producing sports cars out of Tesla parts.
Ares said:
Sway said:
Cycling is not a sport that is a fan of technology influencing the competition - level playing field is key (hence Sky spending their dosh on things like custom clothing, mattresses and pillows instead of new bike tech).
Not true. Take a look at a bike from just 10yrs ago. And take Sky (Or Ineos now), they, like all teams, don't develop bikes, their bike supplier/partner does. And I have a Dogma 65.1 as ridden by Sky up to 5yrs ago, and a Dogma F10 as ridden by Sky until they became Ineos in May the year. The technological advancement between the 2 bikes in just 5 years is significant.
All tightly controlled by the regs, hence they're all still double diamond frames, etc.
Unconstrained, and we'd see mountain stages on bikes weighing an appreciable percentage lower than they are now (some suggest certain teams/riders are doing this today, with a convenient 'mechanical' at the summit/before stage end with a bike swap from the team car). Shrouded brakes, Z frames, etc.
As can be seen by the bikes made for the disciplines with looser regs.
Conversely, track bikes have been held back even more.
Yes, advancements have been made - but not in ways that couldn't be achieved by pretty much anyone.
What we really don't see (especially at things like World Champs) are nations who's teams are having to put in appreciably higher watts in order to maintain the same speed on the road.
SalsaJason said:
I am all for this, but it doesn't look that adventurous compared to what other cycling brands are producing now.
Cervelo PX Series for example.
Only legal in triathlon, however the market for tri bikes is much larger than that for UCI legal TT bikes for time trial competitors.Cervelo PX Series for example.
Thus Cervelo are addressing a larger market and also it is likely that the UCI will end up adopting triathlon standards as the manufacturers baulk at having to make small numbers of UCI compliant frames.
Sandpit Steve said:
Can't believe it was as long ago as 1992, when Chris Boardman turned up in Barcelona for the Olympics with 'that' carbon fibre Lotus bike, when everyone else still had metal ones that were much heavier and slower.
Rather like F1, cycling eventually had to put rules in place to stop an expensive arms race developing, even going so far as to require bikes to look like something from the 1970s when attempting the Hour record - carbon frames and aerodynamic but unstable riding positions being banned.
Good luck to the Lotus and Hope teams with this new bike.
Chris Boardman was a superior competitor, he still won world TT championships and TDF yellow against people on comparable kit. Rather like F1, cycling eventually had to put rules in place to stop an expensive arms race developing, even going so far as to require bikes to look like something from the 1970s when attempting the Hour record - carbon frames and aerodynamic but unstable riding positions being banned.
Good luck to the Lotus and Hope teams with this new bike.
He wasn't the first British rider to ride the Lotus bike either it competed unsuccessfully earlier in the same year. The benefits of the extreme position that Boardman achieved on that bike was much more important than the aerodynamics of the bike itself.
Also look at the bike that the German he caught in the final was using, he was wearing aero clothing and helmet and running an aerodynamic bike developed by the East German sports institute which prior to the Lotus bike was generating press attention and being called unfair.
As for the reaction against innovation I suspect it had more to do with who was winning rather than how they won, it is also notable all the effort to ban frames and wheels but little action in the 90's on all the drugs which was more the province of the traditional cycling nations.
Sway said:
Sandpit Steve said:
Sway said:
Ares said:
Their win will be weight, and even more so, aero. Thing is, 30yrs ago, bike brands didn't obsess about aero, now they do. 30yrs ago, Lotus brought that tech.
I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
The bit I think you're missing, is the aero they've achieved are by following exceptionally tight regs - this won't look any different to any of the other track bikes built to the new rules. I've got three variants of the same bike, spanning 10yrs. The latest version is significantly more aero...but then it spent 100s of hours in a wind tunnel.
30 years ago, they were one of the first to really care about aero (although it certainly wasn't the bike that pushed the boundaries the most) - since then, the cat has been out of the bag, and just like formula 1 there's been very, very little variation as the constraint has been the regs holding things back.
As I said, there might be some weight advantage within the wheels - but that'll only provide benefit on those events where accelerating is important...
Rather like F1, cycling eventually had to put rules in place to stop an expensive arms race developing, even going so far as to require bikes to look like something from the 1970s when attempting the Hour record - carbon frames and aerodynamic but unstable riding positions being banned.
Good luck to the Lotus and Hope teams with this new bike.
I do think the big records (like the Flying Hour) should be split into a "traditional" and "enhanced" categories. One being the absolute mano a mano, the other showing the progress that can be made in integrating man and machine for performance.
All that was achieved was Boardman beating Mercks 1972 record by 10m in 2000
Which actually occurred for two reasons:
1: 2000 Boardman was not 1996 Boardman
2: Boardman did it at sea level Mercks did it at altitude, there is around a 2km advantage to doing it at altitude.
A doped up Russian then beat Boardman's record and then that was that for 14 years.
The "athletes record" held no interest for riders, teams and sponsors.
To beat the record on a Mercks style bike still means you have to use the best optimised kit, do training time on the bike and spend time optimising your position. All of which is separate from your day job of being a pro cyclist.
This is why since they moved it back to allowing the rider to use a UCI legal bike there has been so many attempts (19), you get valuable exposure for your team sponsors and best of all your training and preparation is on your trade/national machine.
Sway said:
Ares said:
Sway said:
Cycling is not a sport that is a fan of technology influencing the competition - level playing field is key (hence Sky spending their dosh on things like custom clothing, mattresses and pillows instead of new bike tech).
Not true. Take a look at a bike from just 10yrs ago. And take Sky (Or Ineos now), they, like all teams, don't develop bikes, their bike supplier/partner does. And I have a Dogma 65.1 as ridden by Sky up to 5yrs ago, and a Dogma F10 as ridden by Sky until they became Ineos in May the year. The technological advancement between the 2 bikes in just 5 years is significant.
All tightly controlled by the regs, hence they're all still double diamond frames, etc.
Unconstrained, and we'd see mountain stages on bikes weighing an appreciable percentage lower than they are now (some suggest certain teams/riders are doing this today, with a convenient 'mechanical' at the summit/before stage end with a bike swap from the team car). Shrouded brakes, Z frames, etc.
As can be seen by the bikes made for the disciplines with looser regs.
Conversely, track bikes have been held back even more.
Yes, advancements have been made - but not in ways that couldn't be achieved by pretty much anyone.
What we really don't see (especially at things like World Champs) are nations who's teams are having to put in appreciably higher watts in order to maintain the same speed on the road.
Biggest factor with wattage is the person's weight though. I ride with a Team Ineos rider. He can ride at a NP of 300w for 4 hours. I can do 200w for the same.....but he is 20kg heavier than me, so our w/kg is that far off. For a closer example, take a look at TTT stages. The average power of the riders on the same team varies hugely.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff