Author Topic: March of bike technologies... (Read 9604 times)

andyoxon · « **on:** 13 February, 2013, 10:12:46 pm »

Interesting looking back to what was around when...

Found this on wiki... even 17yrs ago MI had paddle shifters. I like the o-ring wireless bike computer fork unit... quill stem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinarello

Torslanda · « **Reply #1 on:** 13 February, 2013, 10:37:39 pm »

Steel frame . . .

Rhys W · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 February, 2013, 12:17:13 am »

He probably used a carbon frame in the mountains though - the TVT 92 had been around for a while, I remember Pedro Delgado using one - like a Vitus made with carbon tubes instead of aluminium. Not sure why they only used them in the mountains then, maybe they were a bit flexy?

The Ergolevers were of course merely 8-speed, I think the pros started using them around 1992 but they weren't on sale until 1993.

The narrow tubes, horizontal top tubes and shallow rims look much nicer than modern bikes. Meh.

Fab Foodie · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 February, 2013, 04:33:56 pm »

Quote from: Rhys W on 14 February, 2013, 12:17:13 am

The narrow tubes, horizontal top tubes and shallow rims look much nicer than modern bikes. Meh.

.... and no helmets either, deep joy!

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 February, 2013, 05:50:04 pm »

Miguelon always rode the same frame size as when he was a junior, that's why there's a spacer between the top race of the headset and the retaining nut. It's still a good way of raising the bars. Heather had some very twitchy forks on a GT, so I replaced them with some Gipiemmes from an old 60cm Concorde.

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 February, 2013, 06:07:34 pm »

I looked up Mig on Image Google. This picture of him with Lance must have been in 1995. Motorola were on Caloi bikes.

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 February, 2013, 06:30:01 pm »

The big advances were STIs and twin pivots, which came in the 1991 season.

Biff · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 February, 2013, 07:28:06 pm »

Motorola Caloi = Merckx. But you prolly knew that.

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #8 on:** 14 February, 2013, 07:39:18 pm »

Quote from: Biff on 14 February, 2013, 07:28:06 pm

Motorola Caloi = Merckx. But you prolly knew that.

Worth pointing out. That's supposed to be Steve Bauer's 1991 season bike, the tubes seem quite large diameter for that period, the seat tube angle is pretty relaxed. Shimano had the lead on technology at that point, but didn't win a Tour until 1999. I suppose they've lost the Lance victories now. So their first victory is when?

giropaul · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 February, 2013, 08:20:37 pm »

Quote from: Exit Stage Left on 14 February, 2013, 07:39:18 pm

Quote from: Biff on 14 February, 2013, 07:28:06 pm
Motorola Caloi = Merckx. But you prolly knew that.

Worth pointing out. That's supposed to be Steve Bauer's 1991 season bike, the tubes seem quite large diameter for that period, the seat tube angle is pretty relaxed. Shimano had the lead on technology at that point, but didn't win a Tour until 1999. I suppose they've lost the Lance victories now. So their first victory is when?

It's Columbus Max tubing, larger diameters and ovalised in different ways. Mega-good on pave, but pretty weighty, and pretty well done only for Merckx. I've got one that will get sold by my inheritors at some point.

Bauer was big into relaxed seat angles - in fact he had Merckx build him an extreme version for Paris-Roubaix - it wasn't pursued further as they say!

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=steve+bauer+paris+roubaix+bike&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1259&bih=656&tbm=isch&tbnid=4n9GRyVit_Q3rM:&imgrefurl=http://cyclingart.blogspot.com/2010/01/steve-bauers-stealth-bike.html&docid=VtNHPhowBS0P8M&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_I4Snyzw2IMM/S0yLpYyK4UI/AAAAAAAAEmA/UMXr6nqJFUg/s400/bauer_93_roubaix.jpg&w=400&h=255&ei=q0YdUbyNHuua0QXZqIDYAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=2&vpy=127&dur=93&hovh=179&hovw=281&tx=108&ty=67&sig=104498050881704564884&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=198&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:82

Biff · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 February, 2013, 08:33:56 pm »

That stealth was hideous. I wonder if it would be permissible under current UCI regs? I know that there are rules about saddle being forward of the BB, but backwards? 60 degree seat angle

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 February, 2013, 10:15:21 pm »

The most interesting period of upright bike development was the mid 90s from the Lotus of the 92 Olympics to the Giant MCR which Andy Wilkinson fielded so well in 96 and 97, essentially the Mike Burrows era. It's ironic that the UCI took exception to those developments and let chemical enhancement rule the roost.

mattc · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 February, 2013, 10:32:11 pm »

Darn the UCI! Burrows and co would no doubt have gone on to rival F1 for gorgeous designs

Tewdric · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 February, 2013, 12:07:01 am »

Quote from: Giropaul on 14 February, 2013, 08:20:37 pm

Motorola Caloi = Merckx. But you prolly knew that.

Who do you think (or know!) made Inurain's Pinarello? Just AAMOI of course.

BucksBrompton · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 February, 2013, 12:50:43 am »

Very little has changed in the last 100 years imho! Ok a few tweaks here & there & lighter materials, but the similarity is a testament to great design way back..

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #15 on:** 15 February, 2013, 01:00:32 am »

Quote from: BucksBrompton on 15 February, 2013, 12:50:43 am

Very little has changed in the last 100 years imho! Ok a few tweaks here & there & lighter materials, but the similarity is a testament to great design way back..

That rather begs the question of what the epitome of cycle design is, a fully faired recumbent or a conventional fixed, or any of the intermediate stages between those that various regulations have forced upon is.

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #16 on:** 15 February, 2013, 11:48:11 am »

I don't know if anyone would have predicted the survival of the perimeter framed safety bicycle in the early 90s. It is essentially still dominant due to nostalgia.

http://www.cyclorama.net/viewArticle.php?id=256

Biff · « **Reply #17 on:** 15 February, 2013, 02:42:01 pm »

Quote from: Tewdric on 15 February, 2013, 12:07:01 am

Quote from: Giropaul on 14 February, 2013, 08:20:37 pm
Motorola Caloi = Merckx. But you prolly knew that.

Who do you think (or know!) made Inurain's Pinarello? Just AAMOI of course.

Strongly rumoured to be Pegoretti.

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #18 on:** 15 February, 2013, 02:57:13 pm »

It was quite normal for bikes to be made by outside firms. Boardmans prologue bike wasn't made by Merckx.

Litespeed made a lot of Tour team bikes.

Kim · « **Reply #19 on:** 15 February, 2013, 03:03:26 pm »

Quote from: BucksBrompton on 15 February, 2013, 12:50:43 am

Very little has changed in the last 100 years imho! Ok a few tweaks here & there & lighter materials, but the similarity is a testament to great design way back..

I don't think that's true. It's just that to see the real innovations you have to look away from the UCI legal race machines and consider things like Moultons, recumbents and so on.

There have been revolutionary changes in the design of tadpole trikes over the last two decades, for example.

If you're going to ignore radically different designs, you might as well say that very little has changed in high-wheelers over the last 140 years, other than a few tweaks and better materials...

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #20 on:** 15 February, 2013, 03:14:51 pm »

The interesting thing for me is how cycle sport has been kept looking pretty much the same. There's no general appetite for HPV racing for instance. It's to do with the place of the Tour as a stop-gap for the sports pages in the absence of football.
The Tour is cycling to most TV viewers, and they value the continuity provided by technical conservatism. Take the helmets away and the machines are much the same as they ever were. The exceptions are TT machines, where there's an overlap with Triathlon.

Pancho · « **Reply #21 on:** 15 February, 2013, 03:23:36 pm »

Fags to clear the lungs

rogerzilla · « **Reply #22 on:** 15 February, 2013, 03:55:30 pm »

Rumour has it that most of the pros still race on tubs, but these may be labelled as mass-market clinchers for the sales. The rolling resistance gap has narrowed to virtually nil, but a tub can be ridden on for a while when flat, which may be important in a race.

mrcharly-YHT · « **Reply #23 on:** 15 February, 2013, 04:01:23 pm »

I believe that carbon rims for tubs are significantly lighter than carbon rims for clinchers.

erm - just checked

Reynolds Assault rim.

Tub version: 314gm

Clincher versin: 489gm

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #24 on:** 15 February, 2013, 04:19:01 pm »

Quote from: rogerzilla on 15 February, 2013, 03:55:30 pm

Rumour has it that most of the pros still race on tubs, but these may be labelled as mass-market clinchers for the sales. The rolling resistance gap has narrowed to virtually nil, but a tub can be ridden on for a while when flat, which may be important in a race.

They tend to go for tyres made by FMB and Dugast.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/bikes-and-tech/frances-fmb-tire-maker-for-the-cobbled-stars_164665

http://www.fmbtires.com/sky_team_special_edition_fmb_tir.htm