I love riding modern bikes but to be honest I'm not sold on a lot of the "advances" made in the cycling world over past decades; it seems that what we have now isn't necessarily simply "better" than what we had 30-40yrs ago.
Granted there have been some very welcome and legit improvements; but it seems there have also been a lot of changes made in the interest of speed / performance (to the sometimes disproportionate detriment of other factors) or worse "developments" / new standards that are actually worse than the things they replace and simply up-sold to the consumer to suit the manufacturer's agenda.
A few examples of my own:
Winning
- Integrated brakes and shifters over downtube-mounted friction shifters for their speed, control and convenience
- Hydro disk brakes for their lightness of use, modulation, all-weather performance and elimination of braking-induced rim wear
- Compact drop bars for their less crippling / greater usability for those without the flexibility of a rubber band
Not Winning
- Press-fit bottom brackets; sacrificing reliability and service life compared to square-taper / to a lesser extent other threaded designs in the name of improved (if questionably relevant) torsional axle stiffness; to serve the real purpose of being cheaper / easier to make and integrate into composite frames.
- Aluminium frames; yes they're lighter than steel but arguably less pleasant to ride, more susceptable to failure through fatigue and generally not as durable IME.
- The demise of the mainstream triple crankset; sold on the idea of lower complexity and mass (both of which are of course true) however I personally think a close-ratio 11sp cassette with a triple up front could give both great overall gear range and minimal jumps between them; keeping everything spinning along nicely with minimal real-world penalties. Doubles I can deal with; 1x I just can't get my head around (although admittedly I don't do MTBs).
What do you think are the best and worst examples of "progress" in the bike industry over its recent-ish history?
Granted there have been some very welcome and legit improvements; but it seems there have also been a lot of changes made in the interest of speed / performance (to the sometimes disproportionate detriment of other factors) or worse "developments" / new standards that are actually worse than the things they replace and simply up-sold to the consumer to suit the manufacturer's agenda.
A few examples of my own:
Winning
- Integrated brakes and shifters over downtube-mounted friction shifters for their speed, control and convenience
- Hydro disk brakes for their lightness of use, modulation, all-weather performance and elimination of braking-induced rim wear
- Compact drop bars for their less crippling / greater usability for those without the flexibility of a rubber band
Not Winning
- Press-fit bottom brackets; sacrificing reliability and service life compared to square-taper / to a lesser extent other threaded designs in the name of improved (if questionably relevant) torsional axle stiffness; to serve the real purpose of being cheaper / easier to make and integrate into composite frames.
- Aluminium frames; yes they're lighter than steel but arguably less pleasant to ride, more susceptable to failure through fatigue and generally not as durable IME.
- The demise of the mainstream triple crankset; sold on the idea of lower complexity and mass (both of which are of course true) however I personally think a close-ratio 11sp cassette with a triple up front could give both great overall gear range and minimal jumps between them; keeping everything spinning along nicely with minimal real-world penalties. Doubles I can deal with; 1x I just can't get my head around (although admittedly I don't do MTBs).
What do you think are the best and worst examples of "progress" in the bike industry over its recent-ish history?
