Thinking Outside the Bike Box
February 11, 2016 3:16 PM   Subscribe

Robert Egger of Specialized Bicycles thinks UCI racing regulations are stifling bike design: His latest prototype, the fUCI, is both a protest and a design experiment. This ultimate go-fast bike features an in-frame motor (previously), aerodynamic windshield, integrated trunk, oversized wheel, and smartphone dock.

The fUCI continues a long history of push and pull between designers and the UCI. Graeme Obree's attempts to set the hour record in the 1990s led to a variety of new regulations (previously). And back in 1933 Francois Fauvre set records on the Mochet Velo-Velocar recumbent before rules were revised to make it ineligible for competition.
posted by sibilatorix (98 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite
 
That's one seriously sexy bike by the specs. Any details on when it would hit production/price point for this snazzy piece of hardware?
posted by thebotanyofsouls at 3:22 PM on February 11, 2016


Years ago in usenet's rec.bicycles.tech somebody asked how best to integrate a motor onto their bicycle. The response was,"The idea of integrating a motor onto a bike was thought of about ten minutes after the bike was invented. The idea has been continuously refined since then, it's called a motorcycle. Buy one"

So, yeah, if I wanted a bicycle with a motor I'd buy a motorcycle.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 3:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]


I would love to be able to but a < 40 pound, all electric motorcycle I could walk up stairs and store inside. Especially if it let me save power by peddling during the flat/downhill parts. Know where I can buy one?
posted by aspo at 3:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]


Here's the thing about "the UCI is stiffling innovation." You try to give that bicycle to a professional bike racer and they'll laugh you out of the room. Nobody wants to race those bikes in road cycling.

if Egger wants to make 'em and Specialized wants to sell them, that's fine.

But don't act like the fact that nobody else wants to mess around with them is the UCI's fault.
posted by entropone at 4:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


“Your bike,” says Egger “doesn’t even have to look like a bike at all. It can be better.”

There's hope for the bike industry yet. <3 <3 <3
posted by aniola at 4:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah the UCI thing is bullshit. Pro riders don't even want disc brakes. And fans don't care.
posted by selfnoise at 4:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


Consider antithesis of this thread, but this bike is not for racers but for the weekend warrior that needs to impress someone. Note the the proscribed gesture the squid uses if you're slightly in his path.
posted by sammyo at 4:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Tron bike we've been waiting for?
posted by redbeard at 4:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Velo Vision for all the inventiveness, none of the racing. (Probably a little racing.)

((Why does the UK produce such great boffin magazines? I get another one that's about coppicing and treen. Is the UK good at it or the US bad?))
posted by clew at 4:11 PM on February 11, 2016


This is just marketing clap-trap. Terry bikes and some triathalon bikes did the two different sized wheel thing BITD. It's a pain 'cos one needs to carry two tubes, shops need to stock more tires and wheels. I guess if one could buy this it'd be over 10,000$ so who is gonna do their own work when they can afford a bike like that.
posted by glip at 4:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


but this bike is not for racers but for the weekend warrior that needs to impress someone. Note the the proscribed gesture the squid uses if you're slightly in his path.

So you're saying this is a bike for the Lone Wolves of the world?

To be fair to the UCI, I think they're trying to make the sport remain an actual sport where the human element matters the most. Even triathlon bikes are mostly not UCI-approved and it's not like they're all that crazy. People trying to break track records have had bikes like this for ages, especially the asymmetric wheels sizing, but the point is (as far as I understand it) to make it an competition bewteen cyclists, not a competition between bike designers.

Regardless it would be interesting to see an "unlimited class" in competitive cycling that would allow anything that's not motorized. I wonder how quickly designs would converge.
posted by GuyZero at 4:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]


I have no opinions whatsoever about UCI, but it sounds like they're a bike racing organisation. Apparently they have a regulation called 'no motors on your bike'. That's not stifling innovation, give me a fucking break, that's pretty central to the concept of cycle racing. Go and find some less stupid hook to market your ugly concept bike with.
posted by Ned G at 4:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah the UCI thing is bullshit. Pro riders don't even want disc brakes. And fans don't care.

Fans don't care? Sure they do. Discs are about durability of wheelsets, which pro teams care little about but consumers care a lot about. Guess what - pro teams run on consumer purchases! They have to work with their sponsor and, ultimately, the consumer in mind. Consumers want to ride the same thing the pros do. Racing builds better technology.

When you have teams adding weight to bikes to meet the minimum, it's not ideal. When you have regulations which stifle innovation, it's not ideal. Of course motors aren't desired, but some other things might be. We want safe bikes, a link to the past and reasonable standards but change is occasionally good.
posted by jimmythefish at 4:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


It really really reminds me of the steam powered motorcycle in the Musée Mécanique.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but the two designs really reflect each other somehow.
posted by poe at 4:28 PM on February 11, 2016


Apparently they have a regulation called 'no motors on your bike'. That's not stifling innovation, give me a fucking break, that's pretty central to the concept of cycle racing.

Not really. You're thinking of the bike bringing its own additional energy supplies to the race. If the only energy the motor is using comes from the cyclist's legs during the race, then it doesn't violate any axiom of racing, any more than putting a gear-shifter on the cyclist's leg's output does.

The KERS recently introduced to Formula-1 did something like that. It was hoped that they would make both the racing more exciting while advancing the efficiency-boosting technologies of the future. (Jury is still out/divided on how well that's working out)
posted by anonymisc at 4:43 PM on February 11, 2016


jimmythefish: Fans don't care? Sure they do. Discs are about durability of wheelsets, which pro teams care little about but consumers care a lot about.

How do discs affect wheelset durability in a way that anyone but a serious competitor cares about? The only thing I can think of is wearing through your braking surfaces, and you have to ride a ton to wear through a rim.
posted by Mitrovarr at 4:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


Fans don't care? Sure they do. Discs are about durability of wheelsets, which pro teams care little about but consumers care a lot about. Guess what - pro teams run on consumer purchases! They have to work with their sponsor and, ultimately, the consumer in mind. Consumers want to ride the same thing the pros do. Racing builds better technology.


I think most fans don't actually care. Fans wanting to buy super expensive pro-style bikes is a big thing in America, but overseas cycling is more like a sport like the NFL or NBA where people are more focused on the athletes and less focused on their clothes. And Americans are sadly a small fraction of fans when you're talking about something like the WorldTour.

Now, if you want to say that fans SHOULD care, you might be right.

Not really. You're thinking of the bike bringing its own energy supplies to the race. If the only energy the motor is using comes from the cyclist's legs during the race, then it doesn't violate any axiom of racing, any more than putting a gear-shifter on the cyclist's output does.

Sure, but I'm not convinced we actually want cyclists going faster. THEY certainly don't want to... the peloton was close to mutiny several times last year over nasty accidents at high speeds in technical environments. And idiot support drivers, but that's another story.
posted by selfnoise at 4:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have no opinions whatsoever about UCI, but it sounds like they're a bike racing organisation. Apparently they have a regulation called 'no motors on your bike'. That's not stifling innovation, give me a fucking break, that's pretty central to the concept of cycle racing. Go and find some less stupid hook to market your ugly concept bike with.

exactly. they're the international league - and they set the rules that define the sport.

the point of road cycling is not to use legs and gears to go the fastest; it's to ride a road bicycle to the finish line. lots of other things can get to the finish line faster than a road bike - but that's not the point. the UCI has tried to define what a road bike is - and that's fine by me. FIFA defines what a soccer field and ball look like. it helps define the sport, and that's fine.
posted by entropone at 4:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't know why people keep inventing new bicycles when the form has already been perfected.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 4:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]


Sure, but I'm not convinced we actually want cyclists going faster.

I would think the most effective use of KERS in cycling would be for uphill slogs rather than for exceeding speed limits. Motors are not efficient at high speed, and wind drag is exponential.
It's kind of neither here nor there though, since it's not going to happen :)
posted by anonymisc at 4:49 PM on February 11, 2016


I've been of the opinion for quite some time the UCI should establish a best technological+human effort hour record, where the only rules for the bike are no engines and three or less wheels.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:51 PM on February 11, 2016


Road cycling isn't necessarily representative of all cycling.

When the UCI went after Graeme Obree, he was competing in time trials on a track with no other cyclists present.

It was a really fucked up situation, because they were clearly OK with some kinds of technical evolution in cycling, but categorically banned every design improvement that Obree introduced. He'd work around the latest set of rules, and the UCI would simply come back and ban whatever he'd come up with next.

By the time he gave up, it was pretty much impossible not to conclude that the UCI had a very personal vendetta against Obree (who was seen as an outsider to the sport, and whose bicycles were seen as tarnishing the sport's image with their "grotesque" riding positions). They changed the rules, and didn't tell anybody that his bike was now illegal until he was literally on the starting line.

Even in the amazingly dismal context of professional cycling, the UCI's battle against Obree stands out as a particularly dark moment.
posted by schmod at 4:55 PM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]


The UCI banned recumbent bicycles in 1934, but they've held the human-powered land speed record for some time. A new record of 85.7 mph was set this past September.

This monstrosity is just a gimmicky toy.
posted by sanedragon at 5:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


Even in the amazingly dismal context of professional cycling, the UCI's battle against Obree stands out as a particularly dark moment.

Didn't know any of that. How petty and evil.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:20 PM on February 11, 2016


This monstrosity is just a gimmicky toy.

As a transportation-oriented recumbent rider, I entirely agree. (-:

Still, I enjoy seeing someone other than myself and other bearded 'bent fanatics protesting UCI's narrow vision.
posted by sibilatorix at 5:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]




Kind of hard to get that Harley onto the CalTrain.

posted by sideshow at 5:53 PM on February 11, 2016


so do you look like The Human Suppository when you're riding it?
posted by indubitable at 5:54 PM on February 11, 2016


Whether bikes with motors are a generally good idea is one thing, whether anyone wants to see them in athletic competitions is an entirely different question.

Anyway, no one gets a Harley on a commuter train because Harleys are primary vehicles, not last-mile public transit solutions. Riding a Harley up the 101 would beat the Caltain every time.
posted by GuyZero at 5:55 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


How do discs affect wheelset durability in a way that anyone but a serious competitor cares about?

If I'm spending my hard-earned money on a pair of Zipp 404s you can be damn sure I'd prefer if the braking surface was on a disc and not on the very lovely carbon.
posted by jimmythefish at 5:57 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sometimes I ride 75 miles on my bike. Would I like the same amount of caloric input to take me more than 100 miles? Yes, yes I would. Mass market that, I'm interested.

I'm not sure why the regulations of a racing standards organization should make a damn bit of difference to the production of such things. There are several hundred times more weekend warrior road cyclists than competition cyclists.
posted by mcstayinskool at 6:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


If I'm spending my hard-earned money on a pair of Zipp 404s you can be damn sure I'd prefer if the braking surface was on a disc and not on the very lovely carbon.

That's a problem easily avoided by not training on your racing wheels.
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


Tldr Big bicycle wants you to abandon the current open source road bike hardware ecosystem for their new proprietary platforms.
posted by humanfont at 6:12 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]


That's a problem easily avoided by not training on your racing wheels.

Or, you know, if they have discs you can ride your nice wheels a lot. Personally I believe in using things and not having them sit in the garage.
posted by jimmythefish at 6:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or, you know, if they have discs you can ride your nice wheels a lot.

Right up until you hit a pothole or something. Racing wheels have almost no durability.

And what's the advantage, that you get to go marginally faster when doesn't even matter? I'd rather train on solid wheels so I wasn't at as much risk of breaking a wheel and getting stranded somewhere.
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:31 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


The "f" is for Fred.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]


Call me a silly goose, but before I actually clicked on the link, I thought that he might have designed a more affordable faired recumbent.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Racing wheels have almost no durability.

No durability? Not true. Exhibit A. They're more expensive, so if you break them it costs more. Same goes for a nice carbon frame. If you crash your carbon frame, it may shatter. Nice stuff costs a lot, yes, but it's also nicer to ride and, yes, quicker. If I'm out on a group ride that matters. If I want to have a crack at a KOM, that matters. I don't really do that myself, but I know guys who've ridden their Dura Ace C30s as regular training wheels. No breaks yet that I've heard. I mean, why have anything nice at all?
posted by jimmythefish at 6:49 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


My dream is to see a mainstream bike manufacturer put out an affordable recumbent done Dutch bike style.
posted by aniola at 7:10 PM on February 11, 2016


Sometimes I ride 75 miles on my bike. Would I like the same amount of caloric input to take me more than 100 miles? Yes, yes I would. Mass market that, I'm interested.

As someone who also rides 75 miles a lot: why?
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, upon the first look, I can tell you one thing; normal cyclists will never ride a bike that looks like this. The first crosswind would kill them. That thing's a kite on wheels.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


RustyBrooks: Transportation?
posted by aniola at 7:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't get the windshield thing. If you're already getting that aero, you're going to want your arms further out in front of you. Plus, you'll probably already be wearing an aero helmet with an integrated visor.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:26 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Racing wheels have almost no durability

Here is a video of impact testing of a Zipp 303.
posted by entropone at 7:34 PM on February 11, 2016


OMG that belt buckle with the logo. I may never buy anything from Specialized ever again.
posted by hydrophonic at 7:35 PM on February 11, 2016


jimmythefish: No durability? Not true. Exhibit A. They're more expensive, so if you break them it costs more. Same goes for a nice carbon frame. If you crash your carbon frame, it may shatter. Nice stuff costs a lot, yes, but it's also nicer to ride and, yes, quicker. If I'm out on a group ride that matters. If I want to have a crack at a KOM, that matters. I don't really do that myself, but I know guys who've ridden their Dura Ace C30s as regular training wheels. No breaks yet that I've heard. I mean, why have anything nice at all?

Well, I was always under the impression that most serious riders had at least two sets of wheels - one light and delicate set for racing, where any weight not strictly necessary for the functioning of the wheel was shaved for speed, and one heavier and more solid set for actual training. You didn't train on your racing wheels, partly because they're fragile, but also because if you did you would beat them up and they wouldn't function as well during competition.

This isn't to say that training wheels aren't nice; they can still be fancy and expensive and even pretty fast. They're just different in that they're made to put thousands of miles on. Racing wheels aren't because that would make them heavier and differently optimized and then they wouldn't race as well.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Most pros have multiple sets of wheels- typically, training wheels get more miles on them, and wear out faster, so a newer set would be used for competition. Training wheels are not necessarily less durable than competition wheels (they may be slightly heavier, however).

The one advantage that alloy wheels presently provide over carbon is in the wet- a machined breaking surface is more effective in wet conditions than carbon pads on carbon wheels. For most top-level pros, this doesn't really matter- they have enough control over their bikes, even in the wet, that they can compensate for less effective braking (or, at least, the stakes are high enough that they are willing to assume the additional risk).

For other people, it's nice to go out for a training ride when it might be a little damp, and know you're not necessarily going to die.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:12 PM on February 11, 2016


Well, I was always under the impression that most serious riders had at least two sets of wheels - one light and delicate set for racing, where any weight not strictly necessary for the functioning of the wheel was shaved for speed, and one heavier and more solid set for actual training. You didn't train on your racing wheels, partly because they're fragile, but also because if you did you would beat them up and they wouldn't function as well during competition.


Nope. It's the tires.
You want durable, flatproof tires on your training wheels - but soft, supple tires on your racing wheels. You don't want to put thousands of training miles on your racing tires.

Because they're more expensive, and will wear out.

It's really hard to wear out wheels.

They're not fragile.
posted by entropone at 8:12 PM on February 11, 2016


oh hai another thread in which we argue about bicycles.

I am a bicycle racer who currently rides for a team sponsored by Specialized, as it so happens. I see what I feel is a fair bit of misinformation in this thread although I'm reluctant to engage with it because in my experience every various clique of bicycle nerds will argue vehemently for the fact that every other clique of bicycle nerds is THE RONGEST RONG THAT EVER RONGED and I just can't even with it anymore.

Sunday I did a 100km midwinter gravel road race here in Boulder County, a week after we had a heavy 18" snowfall, followed by 50 degree days. This meant that of the 80/20 dirt/road route, most of the dirt roads wound up being mud/ice/potholes/slush/sketchballs, including 3k of the route that's a heavily wooded, north facing abandoned narrow-gauge railway, which in Sunday's conditions worked out to be 40 solid minutes of uphill postholing with the bike on my shoulder through thigh to waist deep snowdrifts. There were also several 15-20% gradient climbs and 70kph descents involved. All in all, a solid day out on the bike. I finished under 5 hours which was good for a top 10 and got a nice pair of MTB bar mitts for my pains (I've been wanting to get a set for winter commuting anyway, so that was brilliant) plus a proper load of muddy wet bike kit to toss in the laundry at the end of the day.

I have six different high quality bikes, all race worthy, most carbon, and elected to use this one, my cyclocross racing "A" bike. It has a carbon fiber tubular wheelset, which I prefer for events like this as I run 25cc of high quality latex sealant in each tire and thus needn't worry about punctures basically at all, ever.

All of this blathering to say to the luddites on the thread that I would not on a bet dare enter an event as beyond category as Sunday's Bit O Fun without a properly set up modern hydraulic disc brake bike; the fact that mine is a 'cross bike also meant that I had less than half the weight to haul up the hills and through the woods on the railroad portage than all of the poor blokes who thought their fatbikes were the right tool for the job (protip: they weren't). The guys riding gravel disc road bikes and featherweight fully rigid hardtails were the ones on the front. There was a teammate of mine in the group I was riding with; he was riding the only bike he has, which happens to be an Sworks Tarmac (straight up very high end road bike that costs about $10K) so naturally he'd float away up the climbs on his 5kg greyhound of a rocket, only to be rapidly overtaken on the descents and in the mud bogs as he would go dramatically fishtailing through the slush or else get stood at the side of the road prying the mud from his Dura Ace dual pivots.

Ultimately I see stuff like the OP bike coming out of the Morgan Hill skunk works as being just what it appears: it's a provocative media troll that'll never see production.

In truth, Spesh has been heavily into e-bikes in recent years; their Turbo model is pretty much the flagship of modern "American" style e-bikes (fast, sleek, not dorky looking, fairly practical, neither depressing nor embarrassing to ride). The biggest (quite valid) complaint about them, as with many of Specialized's products, is that they're spendy as all hell.

The biggest problem with e-bikes is that they're a complicated issue in the USA owing to things like the already chaotic hell that is multiuser path infrastructure anarchy that doesn't need a new class of path-holes that can go an effortless 40kph adding to the fracas, not to mention a bit of disconnect with regard to the purist market, specifically the MTB market, as there's a massive fight on about whether or no they're a great idea for wilderness trails. The bike industry is all for it because they're all "but what if you're old or disabled?" which is just code for basically WOO YAY WE CAN SELL MORE SHIT and the MTB crowd, myself included, is skeptical because this isn't Yurp, this is the LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF V8 DUAL CARB POWERRRR. So in sum, god only knows what "mods" you'll see on these things and can you really expect the guys who put superchargers on fucking lawnmowers won't be expecting our understaffed forest service rangers to just look the other way, because seriously.
posted by lonefrontranger at 8:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [20 favorites]


Consumers want to ride the same thing the pros do.

According to Specialized's marketing, yes. In the real world, no, no they don't.
posted by bradbane at 8:46 PM on February 11, 2016


bradbane for the love of god, kindly tell that to the endless streams of fully kitted up MAMILs I see on their team-issue Tarmacs and Pinarello Dogmas cluttering up the Bus Stop Ride and Wash Park trail. Because yeah. They do.
posted by lonefrontranger at 9:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


oh and Mitrovarr, I've been gleefully bashing the shit out of my carbon disc brake wheel rims on sidewalk edges, roots and curbs for three seasons now in 'cross races, mainly because of the low tire pressures required for grip. Happily they're tubies run with sealant so I can get away with this and no worries about flats. Also happily one of my good friends Brady Kappius runs a gig called brokencarbon and he's run a couple of x-rays on them for shits and giggles after a few of my more dubious adventures and reported them fully sound.

From working with smart enginerds like Brady and the other industry guys in aerospace and tech (and also bikes) here in Boulder, I can say with confidence that the myth of carbon being finicky and brittle is just that: a myth, likely perpetrated by grumpy bike snobs who prefer wool and steel and toe clips (which are fine, just not for me).

Fun fact: Correctly laid up modern low void high modulus carbon fibre is actually shockingly resilient and hilariously cheap to repair. Brady's outfit can fix a shattered carbon rim for $250, which is less than the cost of a new alloy build. The repair is not only virtually undetectable, it's actually like a callus on a broken bone: stronger than the original. He fixed a friend's enduro rig that was broken clean through the frame in 3 places with only the brake lines and cables holding the thing together. The repair cost less than a new paint job and my pal was back to hucking it off sick berms within a week.
posted by lonefrontranger at 10:43 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]


Indeed. Carbon is about the design rather than the material, just as many alloy frames are. I'm a daily, year-round commuter on the only bike I have right now, an aluminum frame, carbon fork Brodie Romax cyclocross that I got as a replacement frame for the steel version that broke at the rear lug dropout. Lifetime steel frame my ass. The current bike might have a crack near the bottom bracket. The fork has always been fine.

I've water tested the shit out of the bikes I've ridden and I can say that the carbon bits have been no more or less prone to breakage that any other material. The myth that it explodes under you one day from a tiny nick is just that - a myth. I've actually give up on my 'ideal' dream of a titanium frame as a commuter because of the wear and fatigue-breakage of metal. Put 20,000 hard miles on a frame and if one cable has been rubbing in the same spot unnoticed...

The issue above that one has a set of training wheels and a set of racing wheels isn't so much that it's good stuff, it's that a training bike setup is a whole bike that has worked together and wears together. My commuter/trainer is always mostly fucked up. It gets wet, dirty, and used hard. Right now the XT free hub is GONE. There's a clicking on the frame I can't identify. My brake pads are shit. My cables need replacing. My wheels are Mavic Open Pros on discs with Continental Gatorskins at about 2lbs each. They don't go out of true. My mechanic shrugs when I tell him that the whole thing is an embarrassment. "Daily driver, what you gonna do".

You can easily run really nice shit daily. It'll just cost you more and/or take more time to maintain. I get home and I need to get my kids fed, so I don't often have time to hose off my bike or wash it properly and do all the other shit. It doesn't mean someone couldn't have a $10k bike and ride it daily. It's not going to break on you any more than anything else, but replacing a Dura Ace cassette and chain twice a year just hurts more. Some people have that money. This is why most people have summer/racing setups and winter setups - it's that your winter/trainer is always at least somewhat fucked up.
posted by jimmythefish at 11:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd argue that the newer stuff actually takes LESS time to maintain. Hydro brakes are fully sealed systems, no cables to worry about. The new systems rarely to never need bleeding unless you're like, a downhill racer that is insanely hard on brakes. The pads are drop-in and take a 30 second fix, rotors last forever plus a few eons. All my cables are internally routed with a sensible run and a big door at the BB that takes five minutes to replace. I went ghetto 1x recently, so a cheap ring and no front mech to annoy the shit out of me with mystery noises solves that. A clutched rear derailleur solves a world of wear and grief when it comes to mud. Cassettes, eh I'm a 'cross racer so those are wear items; I usually stick with Rival or 105 level stuff there, because why bother? Thruaxle systems - those nifty new T-end slotted quarter turn ones the road systems are coming out with now? So much faster to remove and replace than faffing around with cable releases, straddles and all that BS, especially with a Type 2 clutch mech. I run tubeless tires on my everyday set and tubies on the race wheels, and over the last 3 years I've worn every one of them down to the threads without even having to think about flats. Canti brakes and inner tubes can go die in a fire along with toe clips, nail-in cleats and those unholy Simplex abortions of the 80s.

Sunday's 5 hours worth of sandy gritty mud immersion did a lot of bad things to my bike for sure? But because 1X, BB30, DT Swiss hubs with grease ports and sealed hydro brakes I was able to tear the whole thing down to the bare frame, completely wash, service, inspect, grease, lube and rebuild it to showroom in 45 minutes. My friends with Di2 say it takes even less fuss to maintain, you just plug it in once a month.

When SRAM releases their eTAP wireless shifting system for hydraulics (anticipate next fall) it'll cut that time in half I expect. Modern bikes are getting faster and easier to maintain by virtue of everything becoming solid state and modular and slowly eliminating stuff like the anachronism of century old tech that is steel cable pull technology.

I mean fuck it the thing that takes me the longest these days is swapping out the stupid bar tape :p
posted by lonefrontranger at 11:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]


UCI technical regulations dictate all these things and more, stunting bicycle design over the years.

Are "most" bikes sold really "road racer" type bikes?

As far as I can tell the biggest trend in "consumer cycling" in the last ten years has actually been the huge rise in retro single-speed and fixed gear bikes. - or just retro bikes in general. Which clearly has absolutely NOTHING to do with some competition regulation body. its just complete nonsense.
posted by mary8nne at 4:49 AM on February 12, 2016


Once again, I am surprised by the grar in a thread that I expected would have a lot of mefites hopping from foot to foot and clapping with delight.

Then again, I don't know anything about bicycle rules, regulations or organizations that run the events.

Like most concept vehicles, it's designed radically to inspire. It's likely not ever going to be a production bike, but it hints at possibility.

Personally, I love anything that stimulates my imagination that way. I think it's a damn cool design.
posted by Thistledown at 5:20 AM on February 12, 2016


Can we please stop calling sport-racing-cycling "road cycling"? I ride my upright Dutch bicycle on the road.

Also while we're doing that can we stop gendering step-through and diamond frames? That'd be swell. Thanks!
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:52 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd argue that the newer stuff actually takes LESS time to maintain

Ain't it the truth. I don't race bikes (I was a competitive distance runner for almost two decades, done with that life) but my dream commuter bike setup looks like a race bike - the SRAM CX1 set with hydro brakes, thru-axle, carbon tubular wheelset. Cleaner is better. I hate cable discs. Hate. I also hate it if the front derailleur goes wonky, because I'm endlessly tweaking and wondering if it's actually bent from hitting something, or not. The 1x removes a ton of shit.
posted by jimmythefish at 6:06 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Once again, I am surprised by the grar in a thread that I expected would have a lot of mefites hopping from foot to foot and clapping with delight.

The OP is literally a guy flipping you off.

I think a lot of the confusion of the thread is:

1. This guy is flipping off the UCI because he wants to design frames for road racing (presumably at the WorldTour level) that they won't allow.

2. Some people seem to think that the UCI is telling Specialized what they can or can't sell. Of course not, Specialized could sell this bike to idiots tomorrow. I see people on recumbents daily, you certainly can't race those in the Milan Sanremo!

3. Some people seem to think that by pointing out that many athletes dislike the idea of changing the sport through technology, that this means that posters themselves dislike technology. This is not true (for me). Technology is rad. I just think that it's really assy of this guy to act like THE MAN is keeping him down. It's actually a lot of different people who don't want this, including many well-known athletes.

4. And again, we are talking about the UCI WorldTour and lower-ranking pro road cycling competition, which is a very weird and hermetic world and certainly lonefrontranger's MMV in his neck of the woods.
posted by selfnoise at 6:27 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also just a note because I think I may have been misleading: the UCI is going to allow disc brakes and I think they are actually going to start this year. I know Cancellara basically said 'Fuck that, I'm retiring after this year so I'm not using them" so I think they must be putting them in for 2016.
posted by selfnoise at 6:32 AM on February 12, 2016


You can certainly BUY hothouse flower carbon racing wheels, I guess, but almost no one I know (short of cat1/2 types) swaps wheels. They buy a good wheelset, and roll with it all the time. They're plenty durable.

Now, I question the use of carbon wheels for urban riding just because of comfort, but that's just me.
posted by uberchet at 7:20 AM on February 12, 2016


Can we please stop calling sport-racing-cycling "road cycling"?

No because that is what the sport is called to differentiate it from track cycling, mountain biking or cyclocross. Swimming is also just called swimming whether I go splash in the pool or swim a competitive race. Running for the bus is running, as is running a 50 mile ultramarathon.

Once again, I am surprised by the grar in a thread that I expected would have a lot of mefites hopping from foot to foot and clapping with delight.

So a) I am generally skeptical first of industrial designers who claim to have revolutionized the bicycle because yes, it's a neat exercise, but these bikes are crazy showpieces and probably aren't really great bikes and b) because this guy has not been silenced all his life by the UCI, sheesh.
posted by GuyZero at 8:07 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


No because that is what the sport is called to differentiate it from track cycling, mountain biking or cyclocross.

Also, I should have added, time trials, which are also often done on open roads but are completely different from a standard road race.
posted by GuyZero at 8:09 AM on February 12, 2016


GuyZero, please just call it road racing or something. Pretending cycling is All About Sport is keeping people from considering it for everyday transport. I'm sick of the death-by-a-thousand-cuts that ensures bicycles are something you Load Onto Your Car Rack and Drive To An Approved Cycling Facility.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 8:26 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I made a snarky comment above but not retracting it but the cycle(no pun intended) of innovation is often a bit wacky. I doubt I'd ever want to buy this particular extreme bike but some of the ideas would be nice. A 'trunk' built in for stuff. A bit of assist on some days to get up to speed sure seems good on some days :-) Some functional aerodynamics but actually the wind guard on the handle bars would but a dream on an icy cold day when everything is wonderful except frozen fingers.
posted by sammyo at 8:28 AM on February 12, 2016


No one is pretending that and no, it's not. American road infrastructre is keeping people away from cycling for everyday transportation.
posted by GuyZero at 8:28 AM on February 12, 2016


A 'trunk' built in for stuff. A bit of assist on some days to get up to speed sure seems good on some days :-) Some functional aerodynamics but actually the wind guard on the handle bars would but a dream on an icy cold day when everything is wonderful except frozen fingers.

Am I the only person who owns a bike rack and gloves?

This bike is fine, but it hardly invented storage, motor assist or a way to keep your fingers warm.
posted by GuyZero at 8:30 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


GuyZero, two forces can act on a particle at once.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 8:39 AM on February 12, 2016


GuyZero, two forces can act on a particle at once.

The average American - I'm assuming we're talking about cycling advocacy in the US here - does not wake up in the morning and think that they'd rather bike to work, but man, they'll never be good enough to ride with Cannondale-Garmin.

The existence of competitive cycling is unknown to the vast majority of Americans.

if your issue is more the stereotype of needing to wear spandex to get on a bike, I dunno, sure, maybe, I think other factors vastly outweigh that.
posted by GuyZero at 8:51 AM on February 12, 2016


I have to admit that my thinking is indeed more like "I'd rather bike to work, but man, I'd probably be casually murdered by a commuter".
posted by selfnoise at 8:57 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, road infrastructure is primary.

But you're not helping by normalising everything about cycling toward fit white dudes in spandex. Fix that: it's free!
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 9:18 AM on February 12, 2016


There are a lot of issues to overcome with biking to work. First, there's the distance. A lot of people have commutes too long to be practical, or even possible. Then, there's the winter. Or the summer (no shower at work?) You can't carry significant amounts of cargo. I really like the idea of biking to work and have done it before, but it doesn't work out for a lot of situations.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:18 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


But you're not helping by normalising everything about cycling toward fit white dudes in spandex. Fix that: it's free!

All I'm doing here is calling a sport by its name.
posted by GuyZero at 9:44 AM on February 12, 2016


I'm a fairly dedicated bicycle commuter (4-5 days/week for the past 5 years). I put on a fair number of miles, and have done some very long rides on my own. However, I see absolutely no appeal in competitive cycling, and find a lot of the high-end stuff to be absurdly overpriced and unnecessary.

With that out of the way, there is no way that I am never, ever going back to rim brakes.

If you are buying a bicycle, get one with disc brakes.

They are superior in every way imaginable -- better stopping power (consistent across all conditions), don't need to be disengaged/adjusted when you take a wheel off, don't really require many adjustments, have fewer modes of failure, and require less maintenance overall.
posted by schmod at 9:57 AM on February 12, 2016


There's still a cost premium to disc brakes isn't there? They seem to be nearly ubiquitous on mountain bikes, gaining on cross bikes but still pretty rare on road bikes and mostly on high-end bikes. That said, by the time I get around to getting a new road bike years from now yeah, it'll probably have discs.
posted by GuyZero at 10:03 AM on February 12, 2016


GuyZero that's basically how the bike industry works. It's like cars somewhat in that racing drives development at the high end that you see trickle down through the various disciplines, and people complain bitterly about costs until suddenly...they don't, because economies of scale have caught up with the mass market. It's certainly not overnight but short of the very cheapest kids department store bikes (which are death traps that no one should buy tbh) or the decades old rubbish held together with old grease, zipties and rust that the hipsters are pasting together at the local co-op, when was the last time you saw a one piece crank or a quill stem on a new bike at any price point? Even internal gearing is going electronic if Shimano has their way. I think that's a good thing for the consumer ultimately, because cable systems, as have widely been discussed here, are obsolete last-century headache inducing garbage.
posted by lonefrontranger at 10:58 AM on February 12, 2016


Okay GuyZero, thanks for that Well Actually response. I'm sure pedantry is its own reward.

To everyone else: specifying road racing cycling will help fight the situation I run into every week or so, where someone gushes about my Gazelle and wonders why the guy at the shop who sold them an uncomfortable "road bike" didn't recommend anything even close to it.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:11 AM on February 12, 2016


Disc brakes are probably important if you're going 30MPH. I find that my 3-speed planetary hub's own coaster brakes do just fine stopping me at any speed I ever reach. Again, racing is very little like the kind of cycling normal people do.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:22 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


The existence of competitive cycling is not what makes bike shops terrible. If your point is that bike shops mostly sell bikes that are terribly suited to what the average person actually needs/wants to do, I am with you on that. If the argument is that the big box stores sell bikes that are terrible for any use, I am also in complete agreement. The fact that the term "road bike" exists to differentiate against bikes for track racing is indeed irrelevant to 99% of the world but that doesn't mean that it's not the right term.

My point is that you're tilting at windmills with quibbling about what to call things when the actual issue is that bike shops are often mediocre, bike companies are out of touch, US road infrastructure is actively hostile to casual and commuting cyclists and that there are numerous other issues standing in people's way. I don't drive my station wagon to a station either but it's still a station wagon. And most people who own an "estate car" in England don't own estates either.

Specialized actually used to sell Globe as a model, not a brand and those were great bikes for casual/commuting use. My wife has one. I can't find a web presence for them any more and I'm not sure if they're still sold, which is too bad. It is way to hard to find a reasonable casual-use bike in the US.

As for quill stems, funny enough... we bought my daughter this Public bike for Christmas and pretty much all their bikes have quill stems. So YEAH ACTUALLY there are a fair number of quill stems still sold, just not on "road bikes".
posted by GuyZero at 11:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just specify racing is all I'm asking. We actually say "competitive swimming" to distinguish it from an afternoon down the pool. It's not hard.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:30 AM on February 12, 2016


I think that's a good thing for the consumer ultimately, because cable systems, as have widely been discussed here, are obsolete last-century headache inducing garbage.

and also... on this point, meh. Cable systems are mostly fine. I have a 20 year-old bike with cables and it still shifts fine, although it's one of those transitional deore XT systems from back then that does both indexed and friction shifting. My beef with wireless systems is that I already have way too many tiny batteries that need charging.
posted by GuyZero at 11:30 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


> Are "most" bikes sold really "road racer" type bikes?

This page from the Natl Bicycle Dealer Association has the breakdown (scroll down to Table 39).

For 2012 it is 25% mountain bike, 24% hybrid/cross, 20% road/700cc, 13% comfort, etc on down to 0.5% electric and 0.4% folding.

I'm not sure where retro/single speed fits into that scheme (maybe "comfort" or "cruiser" which are 13% and 5% of the market, respectively), but it is pretty clear that the vast bulk of bikes sold are mountain bikes, road, or "hybrid/cross" which is aptly named as they are indeed sort of a hybrid or cross between the road & mountain bikes.

The hybrid/cross design was created basically because people were buying mountain bikes for road use, because they "liked" them better than road bikes. (Mountain bikes didn't meet UCI guidlines for various reasons, so that type of bike wasn't widely available before.) So manufacturers hit on the bright idea of making a bike like a mountain bike in some ways--flat handlebars and such--but better suited for road riding with smoother tires and more appropriate gearing. This is actually a great example of how UCI regulations warp the market--it's pretty obvious that something like a hybrid bike could have been wildly successful before, but it didn't meet UCI regulations and so no one thought of offering it until the mountain bike revolution struck and changed a lot of things.

(Pro tip: Mountain bikes are terrible for road riding. If you're using a mountain bike on the road, at least do yourself a favor and put smooth tires on it.)

10 years ago, mountain bikes were dominating the market to a far greater degree but that is decreasing now. It is more of close 3-way race between mountain, hybrid/cross, and road.

Given that many/most mountain bikes are indeed actually bought and used for trail riding vs road riding, the vast majority of bikes bought for and ridden on the road are either road bikes or hybrid/cross (which is derived from road bike design).

Also relevant, mountain bike design is driven by the requirements of racers and ruling bodies in much the same way road bike design is. So putting those two together (road bike and mountain bike design, both driven to a larger degree than you might think by requirements of governing sports bodies) we have nearly 50% of bikes sold with their design directly influenced by cycling governing body requirements of one type or another.

FWIW.
posted by flug at 11:34 AM on February 12, 2016


Mountain bikes became popular with the general largely because all other bikes trended toward razor-thin hunch-over racing designs. The result was that a largely ignorant consumer base became easy marks for really bad mountain bike designs (see Moen's Law of Bicycles). These days you often see things written about the "full-suspension Bike-Shaped Object", which is the extension of this.

But it shows that there's a vast market of people trying to find a comfortable and possibly durable bike, and they largely don't care how fast it is. Mountain bikes looked like they fit the bill to a lot of people.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:41 AM on February 12, 2016


Also yes, I'd expect roadsters end up in the "comfort" category there. They could eat away at a lot of the hybrid market if given half a chance.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2016


A minor point.

decades old rubbish held together with old grease, zipties and rust that the hipsters are pasting together at the local co-op

Ouch.
Community bike shops — sometimes also called bike kitchens, bike collectives or bike cooperatives — are not-for-profit, volunteer-run organizations that offer such low-cost and free services as do-it-yourself bicycle repairs, bicycle education and bicycle recycling, often with a special focus on serving youth, low-income populations and otherwise underserved communities.
I see your point, who likes dealing with single-piece cranks. However, for people with low incomes or no income, that bike may be their primary method of transportation. The thing that gets them where they need to go. They may or may not be low quality bikes, but they're definitely not categorically "rubbish" to the people who ride them.
posted by aniola at 11:56 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm again, reluctantly engaging with yet another pointless semantics war between minuscule sects of bike nerd culture that are ultimately meaningless to the public at large, mainly because English is a tricky language and different words mean different things across large ponds and so forth (c.f. cookies vs biscuits vs crackers vs chips...)

BUT for the year I lived in Europe, everyone, and I do mean everyone, called the everyday daily driver bike that you rode to work, the pub, school, etc (typically upright, 3-speed, generator hubs, etc) a "city-bike".

which is to say that they were calling it that to distinguish from what they called a "road-bike", which was the term they used for a thin tired, drop bar lightweight bike that was most frequently (but not always!) used for touring, sportives, charity events or racing.

on preview aniola I totally get what you're saying and I understand that this is a big deal for large inner city mobility/access however here in White Privilegeville our local co-op is the cycling equivalent of the local bodega or St Vincent thrift store that got priced out of their lease, closed down and gentrified into a twee brewpub and consignment store. People here have the balls to ask $500 for a "vintage" 1970s Murray Roadster and think nothing of that AND IT SELLS, generally to some young white male be-mustachioed cans-wearing hipster slacktivist. I'm mostly pissed at this point because it meant I couldn't find anything affordable for my colleague who is a young Latino guy with very little money, lives in subsidized housing within easy biking distance of work, and has a baby on the way. So you know, that hits a nerve. my husband and I are trolling our network of teammates and knowing my network I bet we'll find something for the guy that not only fits properly, it'll be cheaper if not actually free not to mention light years newer, easier to find replacement parts for and generally more reliable

/beanplate
posted by lonefrontranger at 1:01 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I like the term city bike for that. Among my friends we mostly call them "bar bikes" because of what they're for (for us), but the sentiment is basically the same.
posted by RustyBrooks at 1:50 PM on February 12, 2016


The semi-recumbent babel bike looks more my speed. Anyone out there ridden a semirecumbent and how do they compare to the generic mountain bike/hybrid for city riding?
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:48 PM on February 12, 2016


Now if you want a concept bike you can get behind, here it is: The Growler City Bicycle.
posted by GuyZero at 2:51 PM on February 12, 2016


schmod: They are superior in every way imaginable -- better stopping power (consistent across all conditions), don't need to be disengaged/adjusted when you take a wheel off, don't really require many adjustments, have fewer modes of failure, and require less maintenance overall.

I like disc brakes, but every time I've had them they're fiddly and obnoxious, with constant adjustments being required and often I can't get the damn things to stop squeaking or rubbing at all. Hydraulic ones are especially bad because they're 'self-adjusting', which means they go out of adjustment on their own and are almost impossible to fix when they need it, which is all the time.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:55 PM on February 12, 2016


um... user error? bad shop guys? I'm lost because seriously we have twelve bikes in the garage, ten of which are hydro disc and the entire reason we have so many is they literally never need messing with. I had sticky pistons with a (known) badly designed set of 2010 Avid Elixirs and after reading all the problems online I warranty replaced them with the next gen model.

I mean seriously especially with new sealed systems and a thruaxle bike there is literally nothing you can do short of warping the rotor (which does happen and is easily fixed) to cause them to be misaligned or go out of adjustment.
posted by lonefrontranger at 8:15 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


every time I've had them they're fiddly and obnoxious

Hard to armchair-mechanic this, but my guess would be lower-end (or older) disc brakes. Some of them are absolute garbage, at least from a maintenance-and-repair standpoint. Even some ostensibly mid-range sets can be pretty finicky. I've only encountered the really nice new disc setups occasionally, and would agree that when put together properly they seem to just work. (My perspective on "nice" and "new" may be skewed, though, as I mostly wrench at the local co-op.)

People here have the balls to ask $500 for a "vintage" 1970s Murray Roadster and think nothing of that AND IT SELLS

OUCH. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm glad your colleague has connections in the local racing circles!

Anyone out there ridden a semirecumbent and how do they compare to the generic mountain bike/hybrid for city riding?

I haven't spent much time on semirecumbents, but that looks like an update of the BikeE and Giant Revive, if you want to search for reviews of comparable older products. I would HIGHLY recommend recumbents because they are ever so much more comfortable than upright bikes. In my experience, most casual riders don't realize the amount of pain they get from cycling until they switch to a recumbent for a while and then switch back. That's what I did, and the difference is incredible.

Keep in mind that there is as much variation and innovation within the world of recumbents as there is in the entire road/mtb industry. If you're interested it's best to try a variety and see what you like - just as you should when getting any other type of bike!
posted by sibilatorix at 9:22 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm kind of surprised that cycling's weight weenies aren't up in arms about disc brakes coming to road bikes: heavier forks, beefier rims needed to compensate for the decreased hub flange spacing, higher spoke count since you can no longer radially lace the front wheel. Do they mount the caliper on the front side of the fork, or are they still counting on the quick release to keep the wheel from twisting out of the dropout? They're not actually going to thru-axles on road bikes, right? I hope?
posted by indubitable at 4:19 AM on February 13, 2016


sibilatorix: Hard to armchair-mechanic this, but my guess would be lower-end (or older) disc brakes.

It's probably that, because they're the stock brakes on a $1k bike. But still, the mechanical discs on the $600 bike before it didn't rub and squeal, and the rim brakes on the $300 bike before that didn't rub and squeal, either. So that's not really an excuse.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:52 AM on February 13, 2016


I'm kind of surprised that cycling's weight weenies aren't up in arms about disc brakes coming to road bikes

There are many many stock road bikes that are so light now that they need weight added to them to meet UCI standards (although I think they are relaxing the weight standards)

I think the real barrier to adoption is that they are significantly less aero, especially considering that most top tier bikes really hide their rim brakes pretty well.
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:18 PM on February 13, 2016


Yeah, conventional road bikes might need weight added to race in a UCI-sanctioned event, but TFA is all about some bike called "Fuck UCI" and some d-bag design bro flipping you the bird from behind his modeling clay bike. So if you're going to throw out UCI restrictions, you might as well make it as light as possible, which I imagine would mean using rim brakes (a quick perusal of Zipp's website confirms that at least their wheels are lighter in rim brake configuration).

Well, that's the weight weenie perspective on it, anyway. No word on whether you want to have a featherweight braking surface up against your tires, sounds like a recipe for popping tires on a hot descent, but your bike's a delicate flower already so might as well just slap a warning label on there to not take it out on hot days and call it good.
posted by indubitable at 1:40 PM on February 13, 2016


Racing sucks.
posted by rocketman at 8:29 AM on February 14, 2016


Racing sucks.

Your favorite sporting event sucks
posted by RustyBrooks at 9:34 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sigh... This is why I ride bike, but I'm not a bicyclist. Jobst Brandt, we need you more than ever!
posted by 2N2222 at 9:38 PM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older Majmuna's Tombstone   |   "I didn't expect it to be very driver friendly," Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments