My initial discovery was the new Cervelo wonder-frame--dubbed "Project California"--which was supposed to set a new world record for having customers pay more money for less material, or something. The frame retails for $9,600, and weighs in at an estimated 700g. For those not well versed in matters of metric weight, this equals about 1.5 pounds.
Low-quality, fuzzy images make the product seem more intriguing, don't ya think?
To be frank, product releases that taut more carbon fiber and lighter weight are boring.
The second product not only interested me, but actually excited me. In March, SRAM plans to release a 9 speed version of their XX cassette. All but two cogs are machined from a single piece of steel, and the result is a cassette that is (surprise) lighter, and more expensive, then the original.
Shiny things always catch my attention.
So once again, we have a product that is lighter and comes with a significantly higher price tag (around $300 for the XG999). However, the technology behind this cassette, as opposed to the Cervelo frame, feels more progressive. The machining on the cassette is magnificent and actually improves functionality in the case of shedding mud. In addition, as SRAM increases the production to different gear ranges, we should start seeing this technology seep into their road groupos.
Is there logic behind my bias? I like to think I have justification. Although a good frame makes a significant difference in ride quality, the difference between a great frame and a super-great frame is imperceivable (though your bank account will certainly discern the difference). Drivetrain components, however, have much more noticeable effects on performance. In the end, I just don't consider a new product "news-worthy" just because the company made it lighter. We should be admiring products and bikes that promote cycling to larger populations and improve functional characteristics rather than unnoticeable performance differences.
Although, I will always have a soft spot for shiny components. Nobody said I was unbiased.
Sounds like someone clearly isn't an engineer. A price tag isn't set by just market value and production costs, but also by the amount of engineering and research that goes into development of such a frame. And before you ask "why would they bother engineering something so stupidly light?" let me tell you a little something your high school gym teacher doesn't think about: It's called trickle down effects and borrowed engineering. The same lessons on tube shape and material thickness learned at the high end can one day be applied to more economic models. Look at tapered head tubes, and integrated bottom brackets. It wasn't too long ago that these features were only found on elite pro models with a high price tag. Nowadays, you can find these features (which actually do a great deal to improve performance and handling), on very affordable models, made from both carbon and aluminum. And in response to your "placebo theory" my only advice is for you to spend less time at a recumbent shop and more time in physics and dynamics class. It's called strength of materials, and no it's not just measured in labs by instrumentation, it's an exact and calculated science (you know, with numbers and things).
ReplyDeleteAs for the one piece cassette, have fun cleaning mud out of all of the crevices of that after you're done riding without being able to separate the cogs, lol. All I'm saying is there's a reason all of the pros racing cross in Europe opt for the PG-1070 instead of the OG-1090...
K. First of all, way to be a fucking jackass. Elitest jackass engineer assholes (like you) are the reason I hate being a fucking engineer. Second, I think you completely missed the point. Technology is cool and all...but when does it become irrelevant for the mere mortal? Especially, in amateur racing (like we do). You have a point with trickle down, and how research helps the lower end bikes. But seriously, I'll beat you on my single speed cross bike, even if you're riding your big show full carbon, deep dished cross rig. At our level, it comes down to the engine and not the machine. Shut your mouth and get on your fucking bike.
ReplyDeleteDenny
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your insight on this topic, but I think you may have missed the point of my post. Although I bring up the issue of price on both products, it is not what perturbs me most. The sales pitch which follows any new frame is always comprised of the same components: weight, compliance/stiffness, and aerodynamics. Though I applaud engineers’ ability to continually improve these attributes, I do not believe that these goals always lead to a better product for the general cycling population. In the case of tapered head tubes, integrated BB, and even modern frame geometry, the changes represented significant departures from standard frame design and were met with enthusiasm from the industry. However, I do not feel that the ability to push the limits of carbon fiber frames will drastically improve the cycling experience for the majority of riders, and in general this change to frame models becomes sales minutia to help persuade the high ticket customer. In the early stages of these smaller advancements, before the trickle-down effect takes place, there is little practical application to any population other than world-class racers. Even after “economical models” receive these new production techniques, the overall improvement of the quality of the ride is indiscernible to most riders. The “placebo effect” is in reference to the perception of increased frame stiffness/compliance when one is expecting these increases through sales or technical literature, and is not an assumption that frame designs forego the use of “numbers and things” when dictating frame improvements.
As you rightfully, though scornfully, assume, I am not an engineer. My course of study focuses more on the physiological and biological aspects of cycling, and my experiences as a cyclist bias my opinion towards practical applications of products. With our shared enthusiasm for cycling also comes a shared set of goals: our viewpoints are complimentary, not contradictory, towards the advancement of cycling at all levels. Your focus is the methodology, whereas mine is the end result.
You are correct on the matter of cassette use in professional level cyclocross. However, the OG-1090 cassette was machined in a noticably different manner than the XX and XG-999 cassettes, and the results are visually apparent. The issue with the former product was the ability to shed mud during competition, not afterwards, and they were terrible at this. The newer machining techniques create a more open body to the cassette without sacrificing rigidity, and greatly improve the ability of the cassette to shed mud, thus making them ideal for off-road applications. The fact that the cogs are inseparable is unimportant to the cleaning process; any cassette or freehub may be adequately, and quickly, cleaned of mud and grime with a rag and a flossing between cogs (I recommend placing the wheel in a truing stand for this technique).
Finally, I hardly see how my high school gym teacher has any involvement in this topic.
I hope you continue to read and comment, as your viewpoint offers an appropriate contrast to my own, and healthy debate is never a bad thing.
I apologize if I may have come across as a bit of an elitist earlier, but I think I'm entitled to a defense/rebuttal of some sort.
ReplyDeleteMr. Anonymous the second, aka "Denny", your comments were very harsh and completely uncalled for. I kindly request that you apologize for your inappropriate language. This is a public blog, after all, and children may be reading you know.
Second, I am quite sure that you would beat me in a bike race, and truly wish I could get on my "f***ing" bike and ride. But unfortunately, I have lost all movement in my right leg due to a crash caused by a drunk driver that occurred during a training race 8 years ago. Yea it sucks, but I've managed to live and am thankful to the God above for that.
Now here's a little background info for the both of you. Since my accident ruined any chance I had of riding a bike again, and brought my 17 year racing career to a complete halt, I have managed to give something back to this sport in a completely unselfish way: I've worked as a race official in past years, regularly volunteer at charity rides, and also continue to work in the industry as much as possible.
I'll admit, keeping my interest in bike design is quite hard when I know I will never get to enjoy the fruits of my labor, but seeing a rider enjoying my products and winning races on equipment that I design makes it all worth it. And then there are people like you two that make me want to stop trying.
Myself and many others put a lot of work into building custom bikes for people with disabilities to enjoy. When I read stories such as Tim's post about people who are ungrateful for new frame technologies, I tend to get more than a little flustered. I wish I was fortunate enough to still be able to enjoy these new designs and love that engineers in the industry continue to push the limits of frame design. Sure shaving off grams now may seem ridiculous to you, but that's how new designs work. There aren't any giant leaps. Technology tends to advance in baby steps so that people ten years from now can ride cool bikes that make your current models seem like penny farthings. And I cannot wait for the technologies that engineers like those at Cervelo design come to the disabled-cyclist market.
As for the cassette issue, I'd bet my hat that if you did a blind test between your current cassette and this $300 "wonder cassette" in the absolute muddiest of conditions, that you wouldn't even notice a difference. But I will say thanks for the tip on cassette cleaning, I'll have give that a try that the next time my daughter brings home a mud covered bike from a ride.
And about the gym teacher comments....yeah, I got nothing, lol.
Well this is turning into quite an interesting discussion...
ReplyDeleteMy turn to interject!
Denny, who are you kidding, you're definitely not just a "mere mortal", haha. And way to totally be a jerk when there may be children reading!
Tim, your reply is long, and I don't feel like reading through all of it again, but I'm sure it was just another rave about mustache wax or some fresh indie band that I never heard of. (BTW, did you hear that T-Swizzle is single again??? Sooooo excited!)
Anyway, the point that all three of you wascally wabbits seem to be missing is that once again, Cervelo can do something with such a minimal effect on the cycling world, and with only shady pictures as proof, yet Tim will still find away to mix up which form of "then/than" goes where (see last line of paragraph 5 of Tim's post for evidience).
AND, can you believe that it's been WEEKS since he last referenced shpants?!?! (Why would I-or anyone else for that matter-read this blog for anything but the articles on high fashion?)
Anyway, I'm off to pick up my new Brooks saddle for my sweet Cervelo soloist, now where did I put my 808's....
I will not apologize for my comments earlier. You were completely out of line with your elitism and disrespect of Tim, and if you can't deal with it, then you should not have commented. As far as children on the internet, you should also be far more worried about porn/child exploitation than some curse words. I am sorry for your accident, and that you can't race any more and I am grateful that you officiate and remain active in the community. I too have helped with putting on races and work in a bicycle shop and know how disrespectful people can be, but that doesn't mean I want to quit, or have to deal with it when I'm not on the clock. If someone would come in to a shop I was working at and acted the way you acted towards Tim, I would be respectful and cater to their needs. But seriously, "spend less time in a recumbent shop and more time in a dynamics class" ? I have taken dynamics classes, strengths of materials classes, physics into the quantum range classes, etc. etc. and they teach very little about how materials act in the real world. So touting these "numbers and things"...it just doesn't hold water in this case. (I know you're going to dispute this, but theory is not practice)
ReplyDeleteDenny
Just because I DO happen to be interested in frame design and technology, what company do you work for?
ReplyDeleteDenny