Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => Freewheeling => Topic started by: Afasoas on 11 January, 2024, 12:47:59 pm

Title: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Afasoas on 11 January, 2024, 12:47:59 pm
What cycling technology causes more problems than it solves? What is all hype and no substance?
What cycling technology belongs in room 101?

My first nomination - solid tyres. You'd have to be a extreme massochist to keep these on your bike, even if going fast doesn't matter to you.

What would you nominate?
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: sam on 11 January, 2024, 12:51:39 pm
Gears.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Kim on 11 January, 2024, 01:03:45 pm
Drop handlebars:  Let's replace controls that do one thing well with integrated units with all the serviceability of a Swiss watch, and that require the hands of a gorilla to apply the brakes properly from the normal riding position.  And then, because they're too awkward to fit proper moulded grips to, bodge it up with grubby-after-5-minutes tape like they're some sort of tennis bat.  Ostensibly for a meagre gain in aerodynamics and even less in comfort, but more likely because it means your bike can look a bit like those of your mid-20th-century sportsing heroes if you don't look at it too carefully.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: citoyen on 11 January, 2024, 01:08:45 pm
Saddles
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Tim Hall on 11 January, 2024, 01:32:38 pm
Magic Hats
The unrelenting march of New! Improved! bottom bracket "standards".
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: T42 on 11 January, 2024, 02:00:31 pm
Internally-routed cables, not just the abjectly daft through-the-headset variety but the ones that go under the bar tape as well.  One thing I used to love on my old 3x9 setup was that the gear cables sprang out of the sides of the shifters and I could rest my thumbs on them as an alternative to wrapping them round the bars. Now there's no thumb relief and I've got to unwrap the bars to put in a new outer: what rubbish!

Ditto profiled "aero" seatposts that you can't clamp anything onto.  Seatposts should be cylindrical and 27.2 mm in diameter, as God designed them.

You can sell an arsehole anything if you call it aero.

And not aero, but let's include sloping crossbars that make the frame too tight to take 2 x 1-litre bottles.  Call it stiffer if you like but the change was really made so that manufacturers could save money by making bikes in 4 or 5 sizes labelled S, M,L, XL etc rather than to real measurements with 1-cm increments between sizes. And with that that great long seatpost, is the setup really any stiffer?
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: mzjo on 11 January, 2024, 03:44:40 pm
Drop handlebars:  Let's replace controls that do one thing well with integrated units with all the serviceability of a Swiss watch, and that require the hands of a gorilla to apply the brakes properly from the normal riding position.  And then, because they're too awkward to fit proper moulded grips to, bodge it up with grubby-after-5-minutes tape like they're some sort of tennis bat.  Ostensibly for a meagre gain in aerodynamics and even less in comfort, but more likely because it means your bike can look a bit like those of your mid-20th-century sportsing heroes if you don't look at it too carefully.

Do you mean integrated controls or drop bars? I am with you on integrated controls, less so on drop bars (there I speak as one who started on flat bars 55 years ago - before that it was roadster bars with rod and stirrup brakes_ went to drops, changed after several decades to flat bars and ended up going back to drops on the same bike). I have a mixture of drop, flat and USS. If you want an honest opinion, if it weren't for the frequent complications in fitting mirrors and bar-mounted accessories I would say the only bar worth having passes under your seat! (BTJM)
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Kim on 11 January, 2024, 04:12:21 pm
Saddles

I'd like to say that, but that would rule out mountain bicycles (which are great fun if you're at least 20 years younger and have any triceps worth speaking of) and a lot of pragmatic choices that make cycling a practical form of transport.

Saddles are fine on appropriate bikes.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: citoyen on 11 January, 2024, 04:17:19 pm
Saddles

I'd like to say that, but that would rule out mountain bicycles (which are great fun if you're at least 20 years younger and have any triceps worth speaking of) and a lot of pragmatic choices that make cycling a practical form of transport.

Saddles are fine on appropriate bikes.

But if only they'd spent a bit more time thinking about seating arrangements when they first invented the safety bicycle, we wouldn't have had to spend the next 150 years constantly reinventing saddles in a vain bid to make them comfortable.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Kim on 11 January, 2024, 04:19:12 pm
And not aero, but let's include sloping crossbars that make the frame too tight to take 2 x 1-litre bottles.  Call it stiffer if you like but the change was really made so that manufacturers could save money by making bikes in 4 or 5 sizes labelled S, M,L, XL etc rather than to real measurements with 1-cm increments between sizes. And with that that great long seatpost, is the setup really any stiffer?

I'm too young to remember bicycles that fit properly, but assuming that there's stand-over height for a normal-sized person, is it actually possible to have a level top tube and a decent amount of space inside the triangle?

While we're on the subject of one-size-fits-none designs, I'm going to nominate "you can have any size you like, as long as it's 170mm" cranks (especially when combined with Exciting! New! bottom bracket standards, or clever things like e-motors or gearboxes which leave you stuffed for alternatives), and pretty much every item of women's cycle clothing that's designed for someone with the proportions of a Second Life avatar.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: sam on 11 January, 2024, 04:39:07 pm
I'm almost but not quite ashamed to admit that curvy bars were a fashion choice for me, after many miles on straights.

(https://i.imgur.com/Da7pj5f.jpg)

Can't abide brake levers that are anything other than brake levers though.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: T42 on 11 January, 2024, 04:50:55 pm
And not aero, but let's include sloping crossbars that make the frame too tight to take 2 x 1-litre bottles.  Call it stiffer if you like but the change was really made so that manufacturers could save money by making bikes in 4 or 5 sizes labelled S, M,L, XL etc rather than to real measurements with 1-cm increments between sizes. And with that that great long seatpost, is the setup really any stiffer?

I'm too young to remember bicycles that fit properly, but assuming that there's stand-over height for a normal-sized person, is it actually possible to have a level top tube and a decent amount of space inside the triangle?

Decent amount of space? Those are 950 ml bottles.

(https://pbase.com/johnewing/image/151837433.jpg)

Re stand-over, I'll admit that there's a good polish on my top tube. I'm a low-down bum, though.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Hot Flatus on 11 January, 2024, 04:52:59 pm
recumbents
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: rogerzilla on 11 January, 2024, 05:15:14 pm
All bottom bracket standards after square taper.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Hot Flatus on 11 January, 2024, 05:38:15 pm
All bottom bracket standards after square taper.

Which square taper standard?

 ;)
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Pingu on 11 January, 2024, 05:39:50 pm
Rat trap pedals.









Waits...
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Afasoas on 11 January, 2024, 05:57:36 pm
single pivot calliper brakes.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: zigzag on 11 January, 2024, 07:42:20 pm
cottered cranks and canti brakes
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 11 January, 2024, 07:55:32 pm
There probably aren't any that shouldn't have been invented but there are plenty that are inappropriately used. Even cables through the headset are probably fine on an aero-is-all pro TT stage with a pro mechanic to fettle everything every time.

Okay, I've thought of one that is plain daft because it offers no advantages to anyone, whether racing, touring, commuting, faux-racing or whatever: L-shaped cranks.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Afasoas on 12 January, 2024, 10:26:32 am
One piece cranks ... like those seen on bike shaped objects.

Gel saddle covers.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Canardly on 12 January, 2024, 10:50:01 am
Tubs.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Kim on 12 January, 2024, 11:51:30 am
Gel saddle covers.

These are actually useful:

1) For identifying bikes belonging to people who've kept the nasty stock saddle but don't cycle far enough to consider replacing it as a matter of course.

and subsequently:

b) For disguising Brooks saddles in a way that doesn't scream "There's an expensive leather saddle under this plastic bag!"
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Lightning Phil on 12 January, 2024, 12:16:01 pm
Does cycling cupboards with hooks on trains count?  They should not only be moved into room 101, but should be buried with instructions not to excavate for 1,000,000 years.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Kim on 12 January, 2024, 12:16:46 pm
Does cycling cupboards with hooks on trains count?  They should not only be moved into room 101, but should be buried with instructions not to excavate for 1,000,000 years.

This Unit hereby endorses the product, service or sentiment.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 12 January, 2024, 01:06:10 pm
Very much so.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: rogerzilla on 12 January, 2024, 07:00:02 pm
single pivot calliper brakes.
The Shimano ones with a ball race, like the 6400 ones, are about the best racing brakes ever made.  The centreing problem goes away, they track rim wobbles, and they're light.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: road-runner on 12 January, 2024, 08:05:34 pm
(https://www.thebikestoragecompany.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/elementor/thumbs/Floor-Mounted-Cycle-Rack-o6stmakacbefzqiouth7d89a37v9qxipadyh1meq6s.png)

Bike stands like this.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: slope on 12 January, 2024, 08:39:32 pm
(https://www.thebikestoragecompany.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/elementor/thumbs/Floor-Mounted-Cycle-Rack-o6stmakacbefzqiouth7d89a37v9qxipadyh1meq6s.png)

Bike stands like this.

+1
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Zed43 on 12 January, 2024, 09:23:11 pm
What cycling technology causes more problems than it solves? What is all hype and no substance?
What would you nominate?
Anything after the penny-farthing.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Lightning Phil on 12 January, 2024, 09:23:50 pm
Those barrier gates on Sustrans routes.  Steps on Sustrans routes as well.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: sg37409 on 12 January, 2024, 10:14:31 pm
single pivot calliper brakes.
The Shimano ones with a ball race, like the 6400 ones, are about the best racing brakes ever made.  The centreing problem goes away, they track rim wobbles, and they're light.
I've kept an old pair of 105 brakes like this because theyre so nice.  I dont use them, but they're nice to come across when delving in the spares box.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 January, 2024, 10:16:38 pm

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

...

they've been reinvented quite a few times...

J
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Paul H on 12 January, 2024, 10:26:44 pm
Cheap suspension forks (Some expensive ones as well)
They add nothing, except weight, to most of the bikes they're fitted too.  The idea seems such an obvious advantage it's hard to argue against.  They've become standard on most hybrid bikes and sadly that's transferred to E-bikes. 
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Robh on 12 January, 2024, 11:43:09 pm
The current issue of Cycling UK's cycle magazine carries an ad for this:

https://www.saddlespur.com

In spite of the claims of supportive research, I don't think I'll be buying one.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Kim on 12 January, 2024, 11:47:18 pm

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

Indicator lights for cyclists.

...

they've been reinvented quite a few times...

J

Objection:  They have their uses in some niche applications.  Much like saddles.  Which have also been invented a few more times than seems strictly necessary (see previous post).
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Jaded on 13 January, 2024, 12:08:21 am
Hemlocks.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: quixoticgeek on 13 January, 2024, 12:16:53 am


Bike thieves.

J
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: TimC on 13 January, 2024, 05:44:14 am
What cycling technology causes more problems than it solves? What is all hype and no substance?
What would you nominate?
Anything after the penny-farthing.


Surely the bicycle reached the pinnacle of its development with the hobby-horse in 1817. Any frippery attached since then is, of course, redundant decoration.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: rogerzilla on 13 January, 2024, 07:25:53 am
Those barrier gates on Sustrans routes.  Steps on Sustrans routes as well.
Ah, that's better.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Mr Larrington on 13 January, 2024, 08:03:17 am
The useless workshy twat who forgot to specify a dropped kerb here… (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQZmR3gnnKEd3NcLA)
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: rogerzilla on 13 January, 2024, 09:02:57 am
The useless workshy twat who forgot to specify a dropped kerb here… (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQZmR3gnnKEd3NcLA)
It's so you can show off your mad skillz.

https://youtu.be/Viszek1LlpA?si=3yme2P-a_ToYBu6H
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: mzjo on 13 January, 2024, 09:16:09 am
single pivot calliper [brakes.

Who needs them when you've scrapped the rest of the bike except frame and wheels!
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: MartinC on 13 January, 2024, 11:22:49 pm
The useless workshy twat who forgot to specify a dropped kerb here… (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQZmR3gnnKEd3NcLA)

It is in Folly Lane.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Lightning Phil on 14 January, 2024, 02:19:27 pm
The car
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Regulator on 15 January, 2024, 01:18:31 pm
The current issue of Cycling UK's cycle magazine carries an ad for this:

https://www.saddlespur.com

In spite of the claims of supportive research, I don't think I'll be buying one.


It's not as bad as the sixthreezero Super Max Cush Extra (https://www.sixthreezero.com/products/sixthreezero-super-max-cush-extra-extra-large-comfort-seat-with-back-rest).
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 15 January, 2024, 02:58:09 pm
I can see that^ having a use on, say, those cycling bars associated with places like Munich (though I saw one in the centre of Bristol t'other weekend, presumably a stag party or similar) and more prosaically on semi-recumbent cycles such as cycleman's ES3 (if I've got the name right).
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: citoyen on 15 January, 2024, 03:24:10 pm
The current issue of Cycling UK's cycle magazine carries an ad for this:

https://www.saddlespur.com

In spite of the claims of supportive research, I don't think I'll be buying one.

That looks like something you'd buy from a 'special interest' website.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Robh on 15 January, 2024, 04:57:11 pm
The current issue of Cycling UK's cycle magazine carries an ad for this:

https://www.saddlespur.com

In spite of the claims of supportive research, I don't think I'll be buying one.

That looks like something you'd buy from a 'special interest' website.
Well, I did wonder about how one got one's leg over when mounting.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: paton on 20 January, 2024, 02:46:44 pm
Carbon fibre that can not be recycled.
Metals can be recycled, but carbon fibre not so much.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 20 January, 2024, 05:47:02 pm
Carbon fibre can be recycled by pyrolysis. Whether it is, in the case of bike frames, is another matter; but I doubt if most metal bike frames are actually recycled either.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 January, 2024, 02:17:06 am
Carbon fibre can be recycled by pyrolysis. Whether it is, in the case of bike frames, is another matter; but I doubt if most metal bike frames are actually recycled either.

The ones fished out the canals in .NL certainly are...

J
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: phil dubya on 21 January, 2024, 08:43:38 am
Integrated one-piece handlebars and stem on shop brought bicycles, especially on hybrids.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Mr Larrington on 21 January, 2024, 11:25:55 am
One of the Sprockettes was railing against some piece of New! IMPROVED!! shite handlebar tech in Battle Mountain last year, on account of it meant the bars couldn’t be turned sideways which in turn meant she couldn’t take her #1 bike to PBP coz it wouldn’t fit in the flight bag/case.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: vorsprung on 21 January, 2024, 11:56:40 am
SKS mudguards
  - the fittings are difficult to fit and not that reliable.  Better systems do exist

carbon fibre seatposts
  - second failure out of two owned last week.  They seem to get a deep mark where they join the seat tube and then it's just a matter of time.  It's a shame coz i like the "split pin" flexi ones

press fit bottom brackets
 - I agree about the bottom bracket remarks above.  I have 4 lots of specialised tools for removing different types of bottom brackets.  I am bemused why the sealed UN-52 units seem to be out of vogue.  The best tool for removing a press fit BB is a sledge hammer

Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 21 January, 2024, 01:19:02 pm
Integrated one-piece handlebars and stem on shop brought bicycles, especially on hybrids.
When I was a teenager, an elderly neighbour gave me his old Philips roadster. I think it was from the 1950s. Sit up and beg, integral steel mudguards with carriage lining and a white patch on the rear, etc. That had a one-piece handlebars and quill stem.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: canny colin on 21 January, 2024, 03:32:32 pm
Two wheeler bikes , dangerous wobbly things . Three wheels should be the limit ,but not all ways in contact with the ground  ;D
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: cycleman on 21 January, 2024, 07:01:03 pm
Incompatible groupsets. Infact all component's should have some ability to mix and match
The bicycle used to be made to last and simple to repair. The only real improvements have been in lighting and hub gears. (Old retro grouch  ;) )
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: hubner on 22 January, 2024, 09:10:37 am
Yeah I was going to say indexed derailleur gears.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: grams on 22 January, 2024, 09:15:06 am
If you need a so-called “safety bicycle” to feel safe you shouldn’t be on the road.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Kim on 22 January, 2024, 01:58:27 pm
Yeah I was going to say indexed derailleur gears.

They made a lot more sense in the 6-speed days, where it was easy for a friction shifter to be between gears.

A modern $manylots-speed derailleur transmission really doesn't want to be between gears, so works surprisingly well with a friction shifter.  Which cycleman uses to good effect.

Indexed front derailleurs, while sometimes necessary, have always been a work of Stan.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Karla on 23 January, 2024, 09:30:56 am
Carbon fiber is the perfect bike material  O:-)
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: paton on 23 January, 2024, 10:36:55 am
Yeah
https://twitter.com/sticky_bottle/status/676915464208048130

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqrg_QhW_ac

Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: joy of essex on 23 January, 2024, 10:57:11 am
Large parts of London's cycling infrastructure and LTN 1/ 20.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: grams on 23 January, 2024, 11:31:22 am
Large parts of London's cycling infrastructure and LTN 1/ 20.

I like that this comment could equally come from a vehicular cyclist fossil or someone who wants proper Dutch infrastructure and not the weird hybrid shit TfL often builds.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: joy of essex on 23 January, 2024, 11:55:42 am
Proper Dutch infra would be wonderful.

In London or in my home borough of  Waltham  Forest there are small stretches of it; but as for the rest, it's a bodge job.  What infra we have has been built to please LCC and their cycling separatist fundamentalists,  it does little to promote real active travel.

The heart of the problem is that there's not the space in WF to put in Dutch level infra in that doesn't cause a conflict between cyclists, pedestrians, and bus users. But LBWF and LCC are in denial- see their response to the complaints about floating bus stops

As for me, I am a pragmatist.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Arellcat on 23 January, 2024, 02:51:35 pm
If you need a so-called “safety bicycle” to feel safe you shouldn’t be on the road.

To be honest, I'd rather take my chances falling off a safety bicycle than an ordinary.

Shimano's Dura Ace 9-spd bar end lever is the cause of, and the solution to, most of touring cycling's problems.  High single pivot swing arm suspension can also go in the bin.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Karla on 08 February, 2024, 05:58:27 pm
Yeah
https://twitter.com/sticky_bottle/status/676915464208048130

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqrg_QhW_ac

You really need to define an acceptable level of resource usage which you won't complain about, before posting those sorts of pictures. 

"I won't buy a CF bike frame (that could carry me thousands of miles over many years for 2kg of material)" is getting worryingly close to the "I need to kill myself right now" level of puritanism.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 12 February, 2024, 04:41:02 pm
Yeah
https://twitter.com/sticky_bottle/status/676915464208048130

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqrg_QhW_ac

You really need to define an acceptable level of resource usage which you won't complain about, before posting those sorts of pictures. 

"I won't buy a CF bike frame (that could carry me thousands of miles over many years for 2kg of material)" is getting worryingly close to the "I need to kill myself right now" level of puritanism.
How do you propose it should be recycled?
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 12 February, 2024, 05:15:16 pm
Quote
Currently, carbon fibre waste or other fibre composites can be recycled using four types of technologies. There are two main types of carbon fibre waste. The first type of waste is virgin carbon fibre offcuts of the product generated from dry fibre and the non-used expired material, which are also called scrap. The second type of waste is the reclamation of fibres from carbon fibre-reinforced composites (CFRC). Figure 2 shows all types of recycling processes for both scrap and the composite type of carbon fibre waste.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9324376/

Where you can actually take your broken CF frame as an individual is an exercise left to the zealous reader. It would be great of some type of WEEE-like legislation were in place.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: De Sisti on 12 February, 2024, 05:53:13 pm
The useless workshy twat who forgot to specify a dropped kerb here… (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQZmR3gnnKEd3NcLA)
If you're local to it, could you report it to the council/highways department to sort it out?
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 February, 2024, 07:36:48 pm

The problem with carbon fibre, isn't the 2kg of carbon fibre frame the end user ends up with, it's the many multiples of that waste produced in manufacture.

J
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 12 February, 2024, 07:39:14 pm
Quote
There is no argument that carbon fibre is environmentally friendly and exhibits a longer life cycle. However, carbon fibre consumes almost 14 times more energy in its creation compared with steel. This significant energy-intensiveness has led to huge emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the recycling process could be one of the best ways to reduce this environmental impact while meeting global demand for this material in industrial applications.
From the same source I quoted earlier (same paragraph even).
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: ElyDave on 21 February, 2024, 07:34:31 pm
Ahem, pyrolysis and turning it into e.g. SAF is not much of a solution, its still fossil carbon emissions (just recycled carbon) and likely to take a lot of additional energy to produce that fuel.

A lower energy reuse might be shredding and throwing into a road surface?
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: nextSibling on 21 February, 2024, 09:15:55 pm
* Press fit bottom brackets (a convenience for the manufacturer, not the end-user)
* Rim-driven generators
* 'Mini' (short) v-brakes for use with regular drop-bar brake levers (that still require the blocks to be adjusted within a couple of micrometers of the rim surface to be useful)
* Hi-vis anything (scant robust research suggesting it makes a significant difference)
* Any kind of apparatus for charging devices from a hub generator (just carry a battery/power pack and avoid the faff)
* 12-speed anything, or even 11 (or 10?), for that matter
* 'Solid'/'airless' tyres
* 'Dumbell' multi-spanners
* Bickerton folding bikes
* Short mudguards
* ...that'll do for now

Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: sam on 21 February, 2024, 10:19:58 pm
* Press fit bottom brackets (a convenience for the manufacturer, not the end-user)

The dumbing down of the bottom bracket.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: mr ben on 26 February, 2024, 04:17:02 pm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53552831637_25b7e68eae.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pAhg6p)

(Topped off only on the return journey when someone had vomited on the floor, but that's not exactly cycling technology's fault).
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: Arellcat on 27 February, 2024, 10:11:41 am
Unfortunately +1n=1 even when n→∞, but otherwise dangly bike spaces, and especially LNER dangly bike spaces, might be top of my list.
Title: Re: Cycling Room 101: Cycling Technology That Should Never Have Been Invented
Post by: quixoticgeek on 27 February, 2024, 10:46:27 am


I thought these dangley bike cupboards were cycling room 101!

J