Change come hard in the cycling community

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

T4tomo

Legendary Member
Solved with TA's.

In the context of the UCI per the message you quoted and racing in general, solved by carrying ever more bikes on top of the team cars and swapping bikes with your hopefully nearby teammate, rather than simply changing a wheel like "in the old days". the neutral service bike has disappeared as its no long a case of "do you want a campag or Shimano cassette with that rear wheel mate"
 

Ian H

Ancient randonneur
apparently someone is trying to get companies to take on his idea walkable 3 bolt shoes but is not getting much interest,
View attachment 746631
https://road.cc/content/tech-news/could-walkable-cleat-revolutionise-cycling-shoe-design-310183

Look made winter cycling boots with recessed 3-bolt cleats decades ago.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
That must have only happened this year, then, as I'm sure they were carrying two standard size rotor disc-braked wheels last year. Racers could still choose to ride something else, but then couldn't take a neutral service wheel. No rim-braked bikes on the neutral service car any more, though. Here's a summary from two years ago: https://roadbikeaction.com/every-bi...-6-more-facts-about-shimanos-neutral-service/

They were carrying a selection of wheels on the neutral service bikes this year as well. Those were often the only thing that could get to the riders in a reasonable time if they had an issue on a mountain breakaway.
 
Two things I can remember that caught on very quickly in my club days were indexed gears and the wearing of helmets. Even the older club members who were normally most resistant to change embraced indexing, agreeing that it made gear shifts quicker and more precise. Helmets went from not existing to almost universal use virtually overnight, despite little or no instances of head injuries up till then. I was and remained one of the refuseniks on that score, and I am not trying to start a debate or get into one on that subject. It has and is continuing to be done to death elsewhere.

Clipless pedals caught on fairly quickly, though brifters met with a bit of resistance for a while, being the first in the club to adopt them the question I was frequently asked was, "What if you damage them in a crash?" My answer being that if you crashed badly enough to damage the internals in the shift mechanism being unable to change gear was going to be the least of your worries.

Change however is driven by the young, a couple of decades from now metal frames, mechanical shifters and rim brakes will be just historical curios to those who have never used them, Just as three speed Cyclo gears wing nuts were to my generation.
 
OP
OP
R

rydabent

Guru
Indeed, but you're probably in something of a minority there (I'm in that minority too) Carbon frames were adopted as rapidly as the technology could be delivered.

Before you ask "why", ask "if".

I agree with Lone Wolf in this case. Carbon being light may be the darling of racers, but not the ave cyclist. They are too high priced and fragile.
 

Ming the Merciless

There is no mercy
Location
Inside my skull
In the context of the UCI per the message you quoted and racing in general, solved by carrying ever more bikes on top of the team cars and swapping bikes with your hopefully nearby teammate, rather than simply changing a wheel like "in the old days". the neutral service bike has disappeared as its no long a case of "do you want a campag or Shimano cassette with that rear wheel mate"

Time for riders to fix their own punctures.
 
In the last 30 or more years, there has been three really big improvement in cycling. They are click shift, clipless pedals, and disc brakes. I have been around long enough to see the introduction of all three. And in the case of all three, the cycling and especially the racing communities, pushed back really hard. Since all three had common sense and logic behind them, can anyone tell me why the cycling community resists change with such vigor?

I'd say that's a personal list; if they help you enjoy cycling, it's all to the good.

  • I recently "regressed" to friction shift on my front wheel for my touring bike and really like it because I can trim the shift when it clicks; I'd hesitate to do the same on the rear gears though.
  • Clipless pedals don't go well with work clothes, so I've never considered them, especially as they'd mean more money for the appropriate shoes.
  • Disc brakes, as others have pointed out, are more complex than other types, and I'm far too lazy to ride at the sort of speeds that need them.

My list, off the top of my head, would be:
  • Dynamo hubs, and LED lights with a stand light function: no need to worry where the heck I put my clip on lights last night when I came home and if I remembered to charge the batteries.
  • V-Brakes: dead simple, cheap and easily available parts but more than enough stopping power for this slowpoke.
  • Puncture proof tyres making cycling a reliable way to get to work instead of a sort of Russian roulette. Spiked tyres that make winter commuting an option...
  • Also, cargo bikes...
Looking at that, I think it's clear I value reliability and simplicity, because I ride every day for most transport needs. I don't ride fast, but I want to know the bike either won't break down or if it does, I can fix it quickly and have spares to hand.
 
Internal cabling, like several other "improvements" comes with the unstated assumption that you have a captive mechanic on hand to sort out any problems.

External cabling, a fool like me can fix if problematic.

Speaking as a captive mechanic, I think anyone buying bikes with internal cabling should have to sign a contract stating they will do all their own cable changes.
 
Looking at that, I think it's clear I value reliability and simplicity, because I ride every day for most transport needs. I don't ride fast, but I want to know the bike either won't break down or if it does, I can fix it quickly and have spares to hand.

There are two main types of cyclist, those whose primary interest is competition and/or leisure riding at speed and those like yourself who cycle mainly as a means of transport. Being in the former camp my ideal bike was light, aero and equipped with kit that would give me a performance advantage. I was content to put up with tyres that offered little puncture protection and a bike that needed a bit more maintainance in pursuit of that goal. Were I in your camp I would go for simplicity and longevity above all else, as you do.

It's all horses for courses.
 
There are two main types of cyclist, those whose primary interest is competition and/or leisure riding at speed and those like yourself who cycle mainly as a means of transport. Being in the former camp my ideal bike was light, aero and equipped with kit that would give me a performance advantage. I was content to put up with tyres that offered little puncture protection and a bike that needed a bit more maintainance in pursuit of that goal. Were I in your camp I would go for simplicity and longevity above all else, as you do.

It's all horses for courses.

Exactly; I don't think it's 'resistance to change', more looking at what is best for individual needs. I remember someone saying that the word "Cycling" covers an incredible range of activities enjoyed by an equally incredible range of people, so it's only natural that there will be a lot of different systems.

That said, I'm known for being a bit of a Luddite: in my carpentry apprenticeship my trainers often questioned why I used hand tools when there were machines to do the same job...
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Top Bottom