Reply to: Slowest advancing technology ever?

[TimberWolf]

What I find interesting about the wheel is the ultimate size.

There is some debate, but skinny high pressure tyres mostly seems to win the day, but more interesting perhaps is the ultimate diameter. And of course the road surface and tyre material makes a difference, with slick usually being best for road efficiency.

And wheels are interesting for lots of other reasons. They work a bit like levers, where small force acting over a long distance at the perimeter can overcome a lot of frictional force at the bearings, hence why early wheels comprising a wooden log in a circular wooden thing (the tyre) worked. Rolling is also far more efficient than sliding, though some super slippery graphite material allegedly works at microscopic scales, and then there's bearings. What size spheres to use and how many sets, though by this stage efficiency gains would be marginal.

New EU tyre labels coming to a wheel merchant near you:

The new stickers are designed to grade:
How good the tyre is at stopping in the wet
How fuel efficient they are
How much noise the tyres make

BBC News - EU tyre labels start being rolled out

[d000hg]

Mudguards?

You never see those much these days. Or bells. I guess getting to your destination clean and safe isn't cool

[TimberWolf]

Mudguards?

Or badger guards?

[TimberWolf]

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an improved wheel

They've been the same shape for flipping ages

What I find interesting about the wheel is the ultimate size.

There is some debate, but skinny high pressure tyres mostly seems to win the day, but more interesting perhaps is the ultimate diameter. And of course the road surface and tyre material makes a difference, with slick usually being best for road efficiency.

[Bunk]

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an improved wheel

They've been the same shape for flipping ages

[d000hg]

you pick up an entry level carbon framed bike for £1000 if you shop around and don't mind buying last years model.

Exactly - £1000 is expensive. I'm talking about a bog-standard bike bought for a 12-year-old by non-contracting families, for £100-200.

[TimberWolf]

I think the problem with fairings is that they give you a greatly increased cross sectional area from aspects other than head on, so in any sort of crosswind they are a bit of a liability. That's certainly the case with disc wheels.

Maybe, until these things are allowed on long distance bicycle races (away from indoor cycle tracks) we may not know. Sure, covering the entire wheel appears dodgy outside on a windy day.

There are also gains to be made from considering rider position, as you can greatly decrease frontal area however this comes at the price of being a bit uncomfortable and if you aren't careful you end up screwing the biomechanics somewhat so that your power output decreases which cancels out the benefit of being more aerodynamic. I don't know to what extent this is an issue with recumbent.

Interestingly, IIRC, recumbent don't appear to be massively better performers in practical circumstances, based on a wholly unscientific comparison to the tune of one not entirely scientific valid comparison:

Land's End to John O'Groats
Upright bicycle: 2001, 44h 4m
Faired recumbent bicycle: 1996, 41h 4m
Cycling records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7% difference wouldn't be enough to get me laying on my back.

[xoggoth]

and the gears are clearly of the non-indexed veriety (sp?)

Gears used to be easy. My mountain bike has a gear changer on each handlebar and I can't make head nor tail of 'em. Fortunately, I only use it for exercise on a local way which used to be a railway track and is pretty flat so I can just leave it in the same gear.

PS How do you stop a rear wheel spraying mud up your back so you end up looking like a badger?

[doodab]

At speeds above about 14 mph and aerodynamics account for the biggest losses. And yet people are willing to spend hundreds of pounds on the latest space age materials that do little for efficiency except at slow speed or going up hill.

Yes, practicality may outweigh efficiency considerations for the average user. It may have neared its practical pinnacle in the 1950s. Or maybe not. I'm not sure much has been done in selling aerodynamic efficiency, with the expedient of fairings for example that may or may not have an impact on practicality.

I think the problem with fairings is that they give you a greatly increased cross sectional area from aspects other than head on, so in any sort of crosswind they are a bit of a liability. That's certainly the case with disc wheels.

There are also gains to be made from considering rider position, as you can greatly decrease frontal area however this comes at the price of being a bit uncomfortable and if you aren't careful you end up screwing the biomechanics somewhat so that your power output decreases which cancels out the benefit of being more aerodynamic. I don't know to what extent this is an issue with recumbents.

[TimberWolf]

The axe hasn't changed much.

Perhaps because if it changed it wouldn't be an axe any more.

Chain saw?

[TimberWolf]

Perhaps because, outside of speed record attempts and very long journeys, aerodynamics aren't that important.

At speeds above about 14 mph and aerodynamics account for the biggest losses. And yet people are willing to spend hundreds of pounds on the latest space age materials that do little for efficiency except at slow speed or going up hill.

There have been plenty of more aerodynamic designs but other factors such as safety, comfort, practicality, weight & load carrying ability are all as important or more so than aerodynamics for day to day use, hence the enduring popularity of the basic double diamond design and the fact that "aero bars" such as Greg LeMond used to win the tour de france in the 80s have never caught on outside of racing circles.

I do think that if the UCI were to relax their rules that we would see some evolution with seats moving further back on certain types of bike but like the aero bars or the "flat backed" time trialiasts bike position that minimises frontal area it wouldn't really catch on for the trip to the local shops.

Yes, practicality may outweigh efficiency considerations for the average user. It may have neared its practical pinnacle in the 1950s. Or maybe not. I'm not sure much has been done in selling aerodynamic efficiency, with the expedient of fairings for example that may or may not have an impact on practicality.

[MarillionFan]

The axe hasn't changed much.

[doodab]

What I found interesting is that something that would appear wanting in the aerodynamic department (the changes you mention are pretty insignificant) hasn't evolved the shape of the average bike or use of fairings for example. Did you know a bike is less aerodynamic than a car for instance? It is aerodynamically tulip, but yet it hasn't evolved.

Perhaps because, outside of speed record attempts and very long journeys, aerodynamics aren't that important. There have been plenty of more aerodynamic designs but other factors such as safety, comfort, practicality, weight & load carrying ability are all as important or more so than aerodynamics for day to day use, hence the enduring popularity of the basic double diamond design and the fact that "aero bars" such as Greg LeMond used to win the tour de france in the 80s have never caught on outside of racing circles.

I do think that if the UCI were to relax their rules that we would see some evolution with seats moving further back on certain types of bike but like the aero bars or the "flat backed" time trialiasts bike position that minimises frontal area it wouldn't really catch on for the trip to the local shops.

[doodab]

Sliced bread hasn't evolved much.

Well, apart from all the crap they put in it to increase the shelf life. I used to get this perfectly square stuff in Germany that would last for two weeks or more.

[doodab]

Only top-end ones. Your basic bike is still metal and low-tech. Comparing a modern expensive bike isn't fair. Unless that WAS a top-end bike but I doubt it.

Well it depends on your idea of expensive, and your idea of low tech. There aren't many mid market cars made of aluminium or carbon fibre, but get past the very cheapest stuff on sale in Asda and Argos and a few hundred quid will buy you something made of aluminium alloys that were the preserve of spacecraft and fighter jets 40 years ago, in fact those alloys are the bread and butter of massed produced bikes these days. Carbon fibre frames are a bit more expensive but they are turned out en masse in Taiwanese factories and you pick up an entry level carbon framed bike for £1000 if you shop around and don't mind buying last years model.