Thanks to the brilliant minds at the UCI, we have been safe from any major advancement in bicycle design for several years now. Instead of re-invneting the bike, manufacturers have stooped (or climbed) to the level of "games" and "Gimmicks." example, "Our head tube is ten percent more aerodynamic than say, company B. Company C, "our wheel cut-out is faster than company d," ect.... The problem is then, other companies either, have to come up with something better, or just downplay the new design.
Even tube shapes have started to all look the same. A double-triangle frame is a double triangle frame. There really aren't many more possible configurations to try (and even fewer that have any redeeming qualities what so ever. That will change. Why? Becasue it has to. Bike companies have squeezed the UCI envelope for all it's worth, and because of it, all of their bikes are starting to look the same. Don't believe me? Take a glance at BMC, Time, Look, and Pinarello. To a dedicated (addict) bicycle pornographer, you can see the suttle differences, but to the average $5000 dropping-on-a-new-ride-to-be-cool crowd, they can't tell the difference. You have major discusions about whether the Trek TTX is any more aero than the Litespeed Blade, if Cannondales are really any better than Giants, ect.... The "public" has to have something major to grasp on to. A Cervelo wheel cut-out, a Lance Armstrong ripping the competition apart, a Colnago paint job. They need soemthing physical that stands out, not just a "Product X is ten seconds faster over a forty k, than Product G." Thats to easy to debate. They need something they can point to, and say, "see you bike doesn't have an aero chainstay. Doesn't matter if it works, it's gotta look like it really works.
So, what's next? I have no idea. What's gonna happen in several years? This would be my guess:
"Tube Bumps" Come up with a better name if you want, but I think these will find there way on to bike frames.
Zipp came out with the infamous "dimple disc." Is it any faster? Not much, but boy does it look cool. It looks like it should work; that's what's important.
Now I can describe why I think these "bumps" will help aerodynamics, but you guys will just put on your "aerodynamic tophats" and explain principles to me. They aren't principles you've tested, or have experience with, they've just been told to you by someone. Those principles don't quite line up with this new idea, so this new idea won't work. I think your wrong, but mostly, that's why I stated that this will probably hit in five years. The industries not quite ready for this.
Even tube shapes have started to all look the same. A double-triangle frame is a double triangle frame. There really aren't many more possible configurations to try (and even fewer that have any redeeming qualities what so ever. That will change. Why? Becasue it has to. Bike companies have squeezed the UCI envelope for all it's worth, and because of it, all of their bikes are starting to look the same. Don't believe me? Take a glance at BMC, Time, Look, and Pinarello. To a dedicated (addict) bicycle pornographer, you can see the suttle differences, but to the average $5000 dropping-on-a-new-ride-to-be-cool crowd, they can't tell the difference. You have major discusions about whether the Trek TTX is any more aero than the Litespeed Blade, if Cannondales are really any better than Giants, ect.... The "public" has to have something major to grasp on to. A Cervelo wheel cut-out, a Lance Armstrong ripping the competition apart, a Colnago paint job. They need soemthing physical that stands out, not just a "Product X is ten seconds faster over a forty k, than Product G." Thats to easy to debate. They need something they can point to, and say, "see you bike doesn't have an aero chainstay. Doesn't matter if it works, it's gotta look like it really works.
So, what's next? I have no idea. What's gonna happen in several years? This would be my guess:
"Tube Bumps" Come up with a better name if you want, but I think these will find there way on to bike frames.
Zipp came out with the infamous "dimple disc." Is it any faster? Not much, but boy does it look cool. It looks like it should work; that's what's important.
Now I can describe why I think these "bumps" will help aerodynamics, but you guys will just put on your "aerodynamic tophats" and explain principles to me. They aren't principles you've tested, or have experience with, they've just been told to you by someone. Those principles don't quite line up with this new idea, so this new idea won't work. I think your wrong, but mostly, that's why I stated that this will probably hit in five years. The industries not quite ready for this.