Curious what everyone anyone thinks about this. Any performance benifit to changing out…
Competative Cyclist has a limited production run which they’ve removed the standard bearings and replaced with ceramic. They say they will spin forever…no resistance or drag…
Thoughts…
The best article I’ve seen about this is in the December 4 issue of Velo-News on page 40. It is an actual test of ceramic bearings versus standard original equipment manufacturer bearings.
Don’t plunk down the cash until you read the article. It’s the first really credible opinion I’ve seen.
Here’s an article from Cycling News. Seems a little optimistic. I’d like to see the Velo News article.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2006/reviews/FSA_MegaExo
"Don’t plunk down the cash until you read the article. It’s the first really credible opinion I’ve seen. "
If by credible you mean “doesn’t tell you very much at all about how these things actually function in the real world,” then I would have to agree…
.
Well, anecdotally speaking, I think they are completely ineffective in creating a tangible difference in my own performance. I was completely underwhelmed. But that’s just me.
I’d love for these to work- I could make a ton of cash off selling them. At this stage though, I am at best luke warm.
I think there is evidence to support the efficacy of the ceramic bearings in certain applications - read some of Cees’ posts.
What I was reacting to was your characterization of the Velonews report as credible.
I’m amazed that you can read something like that, and believe that it is supportive of meaningful conclusions vis performance, yet still persist in your “the jury is out on Tufo tires” line of reasoning.
Very confusing.
.
I still somewhat skeptical about ceramics, on paper they look good, but the real world performance leaves me unsure.
are they better, yes
are they better enough to warrant the price? up to the user I guess.
I think at this stage there is more value in reducing seal drag on the bearings than in high tech materials.
Well part of the reasoning has to do with history.
When *Inside Triathlon *magazine was founded it was called *Triathlon Today!. *I was the original technical editor and worked for publisher Lew Kidder.
The magazine was sold by Lew to VeloPress and re-named *Inside Triathlon. *I continued as the technical editor until the current editor, a much more qualified writer, Lennard Zinn, took over. Lennard is a graduate of the Colorado School of Mines in Engineering and has been a cyclist and frame builder for decades.
Since Lennard took over my job I have been very, very impressed with his work. He is constrained by the normal issues surrounding writing technical articles for a magazine supported by advertisng, but he moderates those politics as well as possible.
I regard Lennard’s work as highly credible and well informed.
Wow, now that’s funny!
You think the article has credence, despite holes in the methodology you could drive a truck through, because *Lennard *was involved?
Oh good grief.
Look, I like Lennard, but his technical reportage isn’t exactly reknowned for it’s accuracy - hell, the guy has mis-quoted me regarding the technical details of a product under review.
That’s a great one. Thanks, made my day.
.
Just finished reading the cyclingnews.com article. Thanks for pointing that out. I just jumped of the bike so I’m not really in a mood to venture down to Barnes and Nobles to track down the Velo News Article…but rest assure I will tomorrow! Thanks Tom
I like what they said about drag / friction…something we as athletes do not think about on a consistent basis. With all the aerodynamic hype / nonsense in wheather or not a frame has been tunnel tested…we seem to forget elements like position, rolling resistence and any other natural element which slows us down or robes power!
I’m in for the bearings. If the article is true and a standard external BB is robing 4% of the watts displaced to the rear wheel. Do the math. Lets take an Average of 210 watts accross an Ironman with the standard BB vs. 218-220 with the ceramic with the same power output. I’ll take that bit of extra speed and energy.
If your Faris or Norman and average 300+ watts…well that an extra 12 watts and maybe .5 miles an hour accross 112 miles. Thats the difference in coming accross the matt in 4:30 (24.9) vs 4:25 (25.4) with the same output…
I should receive them late next week. I get them installed and then write up a review on them. Maybe I’ll be able to pass along a bit more information regarding the actual feel vs. computer data…
Thanks…