Bicycle Tech/Gear Discussion Thread

Mar 15, 2015 at 10:49 PM

Adam said:

Think that this is what Terprsta is about in that picture:

http://road.cc/content/news/133598-want-ride-faster-hunker-down-hoods

The research, as cited by the article, doesn't make sense to me. There seems to be no control for the drop between the saddle and the stem, nor any for the reach nor the bar selection nor stem length. We also don't learn whether there's a reason theorized for the improvement. Maybe it's that the riders they tested had their bars really low to begin with and moving to the drops didn't lower their torsos at all. maybe the bars weren't low but the people were inflexible. Maybe there's something about the angle of the wrists on the hoods.

If we go up to the Terpstra pic, his back seems flat and nearly parallel to the ground. If he moved his bars higher but had the same position, would he be less aero? The only difference in frontal area would be some stem spacers, is that a real loss or a marginal one. And can he actually use his bike in that position in all conditions? Climbing, racing cobbles, doing a long road race? My guess is he'd have a hard time holding the drops, or even the hoods for any length of time if he sat back on the saddle, where he'd be most of his rides and races.

Thierry Bonnaire

Mar 16, 2015 at 05:00 PM

Fellow teammates,

I need a 100mm road stem, 31.8mm clamp. Email me if you want to get rid of one.

Thanks!!

Mark Taylor

Mar 16, 2015 at 10:38 PM

Has anybody had any luck getting continental gator skins 28mm fitting the cannodale frame

twoyacks

Mar 17, 2015 at 04:52 AM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/powertap-p1-pedal-and-c1-chainring-power-meters-launched

JoshuaC

Mar 19, 2015 at 02:35 PM

I did a long ride (200km) and my Garmin 1000 only recorded half of the ride.
After this, it stopped being able to connect to my Stages.

I first thought it was related to the Garmin, but to knock out some variables I tried connecting with another head unit and that failed as well. So I replaced the Stages battery. Then I went for a ride (with the 1000) and I got cadence and power #s for only a short time, then they went blank. The Garmin says it is connecting to the Stages now, and it even calibrates it, but I don't get any readings as I ride.

Any ideas ?

thanks.

twoyacks

Mar 20, 2015 at 04:30 PM

ooohhh

http://www.lezyne.com/product-gps-supergps.php#.VQxJkVX3-iw

vlad

Mar 20, 2015 at 04:42 PM

Cut the price in half and then maybe we have something noteworthy.

Adam

Mar 20, 2015 at 05:12 PM

Not overly sure that that is much debate on the computer front. Garmin annoy me because their HR straps are shitty. I got the newest version and it is better for sure but still not their greatest product. Their computers, however, are by far the market leader. The reasons are simple. Unlike shitty companies like Apple, that make your hardware obsolete via unnecessary software "upgrades" Garmin computers are a set hardware that you update periodically with new firmware that is designed to run on the older models. I have a Garmin 500 (originally released in 2008 I believe, although mine is from 2013) and a Garmin 800 (2010 release, I got mine that same year). Still work super great after thousands of miles. Just updated them both this week for the newest version of firmware. The computers do not get slower over time because of excessive demands of the firmware so they work as good as ever. One really good thing about Garmin is that although not cheap (I don't think over priced either) they really make each unit with a 5-8 year expectation of use. I mean, their new release of the Garmin 810 is for all intents and purposes a Garmin 800 so you don't even feel like your computer is "old" compared to "newer" models. This sort of MO was why I purchased dual Garmin Vector PMs last week. They openly said that for the Vector nothing is going to change hardware-wise for years; only firmware. I like knowing that when I buy a product. Couple that with the fact that the PM links seamlessly to their computers (and other brands I assume) and their Garmin Connect software got a massive upgrade (I thought it was shit a few years back, if you have not been on it in the last year, try it. You'll be impressed. Basically Strava.) means that I really feel that the cycling computer market is Garmin's right now and until something totally left-field comes from another company, it is going to stay that way.

eloy

Mar 20, 2015 at 05:55 PM

I agree that Garmin is by far the dominant player, and for the market where you want to display and train with power they are the standard today.

Totally agree that the hardware should last as a long as a good bike. Which is kinda long in computer world.

But otherwise, I am brutally disappointed by how far behind this whole market is --- let's call it connected gear.

The technology to make these devices dramatically smaller, own more focused selectable features and for them to be ALWAYS connected (to each other and the cloud), has been around for a few years, but no one is taking advantage.

When it comes to hardware, this is a space without a state of the art.

Garmin is best, but has not cracked it yet. Neither has Apple. Or Samsung. Or Nike. Powertap should be embarrassed by the ugly monsters they just announced -- wtf, don't they have designers in house?!? Stages and Wahoo are also not even close, but they seem aware and willing to make bets in the right direction.

I look forward to what the future will bring. And to perhaps involve myself in that conversation.

vlad

Mar 20, 2015 at 06:31 PM

Apple Watch

eloy

Mar 20, 2015 at 07:46 PM

vlad said:

Apple Watch

Possibly, yes.

If they crack it and get traction. This suggests, as you have mentioned, Vlad, that bluetooth would become the standard protocol, and ANT + could soon become obsolete.

mugwump

Mar 20, 2015 at 08:02 PM

vlad said:

Apple Watch

for applications that last hours on end, I don't see it. Battery life is a serious limiter.

eloy

Mar 20, 2015 at 08:19 PM

mugwump said:

vlad said:

Apple Watch

for applications that last hours on end, I don't see it. Battery life is a serious limiter.

Correct, they are claiming 18 hours of normal use. But will likely be so much less.

That said, Turlington is aiming for a 4 hour marathon time, it is clear that the device needs to at least support that and then some.

Apple is aware that battery life in all their product is an abysmal problem. It is taking them longer than it should, but they have the smartest experts working on it.

Another limiter is the need for the watch to be tethered to an iPhone.

Tim Heckman

Mar 20, 2015 at 09:01 PM

I'm a bit of a luddite in this regard. I don't think I want a general purpose consumer computing device as my bike computer (or run tracker, either), let alone one that's always connected to the internet. I want something that does one thing reliably for many many hours without a) running out of battery or b) crashing.

An Android device or iWhatever getting frequent software updates is going to have problems with both of those. Even if your battery life is acceptable in v1.0, don't worry, updates will take care of that. Plus the UI will change more frequently that you'd like. Sure maybe it gets prettier. Probably slower, too. And the way to do anything gets more and more hidden.

(Yes, I work in software... What do you mean, "bitter"? )

JohnMalcolmson

Mar 20, 2015 at 09:19 PM

http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/

vlad

Mar 20, 2015 at 09:43 PM

But you already carry a device that's constantly connected to the internet when you ride, or do you leave your phone at home?

My stages and quarq already work with Bluetooth. Personally I'm primarily looking for a data recorder with a minimal display that, at a glance, can give me important info (watts/hr/speed/dist). Watch fits that bill.

I'm a minimalist, so the better device will replace the other.

Tim Heckman

Mar 20, 2015 at 09:44 PM

Favorite moments from that video:

Sentence completion ("The aardvark admitted its fault" etc) at about 1:04

The guy trying to type an email at 1:46

Tim Heckman

Mar 20, 2015 at 09:58 PM

@vlad Sure, I just don't want to have to rely on it as a data recorder and display.

To be honest, in many cases, it would probably be "good enough most of the time", but my preference is for a simpler, dedicated device.

vlad

Mar 20, 2015 at 10:20 PM

I don't blame you nor do I fault you for feeling that way. The option you want will likely endure.

This trend in technology known as dematerialization will continue despite that. It's why we all don't carry around MP3 players anymore.

JohnMalcolmson

Mar 20, 2015 at 10:56 PM

@Vlad Are you saying you'd use it as a head unit on the bars?
The haptic notifications are cool, one concern though; if I work out with this thing, how can I avoid the dreaded wrist funk?

vlad

Mar 20, 2015 at 11:27 PM

Yeah, or on my wrist for TT (where it's actually further out and easier to see). Regarding the funk, they've got lots of straps and I expect a deluge of 3rd party ones. Perhaps Garmin will make an ANT+ strap and/or mount.

To Adam's point, Garmin hasn't 'innovated' specifically because there is no competition in the space. Why spend money on R&D, personnel, and newer tech? What value is that to shareholders?

This is also exactly why Garmin is now heavily marketing new wearables. Check out their homepage. Someone's about to eat their lunch.

mugwump

Mar 21, 2015 at 01:08 AM

vlad said:

To Adam's point, Garmin hasn't 'innovated' specifically because there is no competition in the space. Why spend money on R&D, personnel, and newer tech? What value is that to shareholders?

This is also exactly why Garmin is now heavily marketing new wearables. Check out their homepage. Someone's about to eat their lunch.

or the competition just isn't that good.

Garmin has already had their lunch eaten on GPS. They've been branching out for years.

The problem with wrist units is not as simple as suggested here. So many industries want smaller, more efficient batteries, yet they have yet to appear.

twoyacks

Mar 21, 2015 at 02:42 AM

$199 retail for a gps head unit that will display your text messages....and that price needs to be halved?

ian ellis

Mar 21, 2015 at 02:43 AM

I know I am very much in the minority here, but I am kind of with Tim. The more interconnected, interdependent and indispensable technology becomes the more I loathe it.

I have a garmin 510. It is not as good as my SRM PC 7, because it takes longer to start each time and I have found it to be less reliable. I don't need GPS to know where I have been. That is what my memory is for.
I have an iphone. But is absolutely hopeless as a phone. So I am going back to a flip phone.
I ride with an MP3 player. Because it does one thing well and I can also use it when running.
The best cycle rides I did last year were in the Yorkshire moors and southern Tuscany, where, coincidently, there is zero cell coverage. And so I had to refresh my map reading skills.

twoyacks

Mar 21, 2015 at 01:40 PM

This one is for you Vlad
http://www.erbbike.com/#buy

twoyacks

Mar 21, 2015 at 01:44 PM

Don't tell me it doesn't work...there is a video with science
http://www.erbbike.com/index-1.html

Marc Bertucco

Mar 21, 2015 at 04:27 PM

ian ellis said:

I have an iphone. But is absolutely hopeless as a phone. So I am going back to a flip phone.

I love my scratched-up flip phone. I love it more, when I'm out with Peter and see other moms, dads and nannies with their noses buried in their smart "phones."

mattie davitt

Mar 23, 2015 at 04:17 AM

mugwump said:

Adam said:

Think that this is what Terprsta is about in that picture:

http://road.cc/content/news/133598-want-ride-faster-hunker-down-hoods

The research, as cited by the article, doesn't make sense to me. There seems to be no control for the drop between the saddle and the stem, nor any for the reach nor the bar selection nor stem length. We also don't learn whether there's a reason theorized for the improvement. Maybe it's that the riders they tested had their bars really low to begin with and moving to the drops didn't lower their torsos at all. maybe the bars weren't low but the people were inflexible. Maybe there's something about the angle of the wrists on the hoods.

If we go up to the Terpstra pic, his back seems flat and nearly parallel to the ground. If he moved his bars higher but had the same position, would he be less aero? The only difference in frontal area would be some stem spacers, is that a real loss or a marginal one. And can he actually use his bike in that position in all conditions? Climbing, racing cobbles, doing a long road race? My guess is he'd have a hard time holding the drops, or even the hoods for any length of time if he sat back on the saddle, where he'd be most of his rides and races.

Pretty sure they kept the bar/stem/stack constant. The difference in aero is theorized to be from reducing frontal area. Arms bent straight down present more of a frontal area then forearms parallel to the ground. Gerard Vroomen has written about it. http://gerard.cc/2011/08/02/body-vs-bar-2/

mugwump

Mar 23, 2015 at 01:24 PM

Don't be so sure. If you look at the other Terpstra picture, specifically of him in the Dutch national champion jersey, his position is definitely different. He's got more stack under the stem and look at where his arms and elbows are relative to his hips.

Here's Vroomen discussing why bars should be higher
http://gerard.cc/2011/07/26/2-points-lubberding/
http://gerard.cc/2011/07/29/body-vs-bar-1/

mugwump

Mar 23, 2015 at 01:40 PM

I think it's a TT-only position. Here are two pics from Qatar in 2014. One is from a TT, one from a RR. The way you an tell is the depth of the wheels. The UCI has limited rim depth for road races. Now some might point to the TT shot and tell us he's doing it for aerodynamics. But he clearly doesn't ride in that position for long. Besides the lower, longer stem, the hoods are much higher. Don't think he's riding for hours in the TT position, and he's certainly not taking in hills.