Why I'm going back to rim brakes for road.....

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I think this gets to the real challenge that a lot of rim-brake aficionados present to the cycling companies--they want the same products they're already using, and they want them to be cheap, and they wanted them to be marketed as top of the line. Rim brake frames and groupsets are still available and will continue to be available, and compare favorably to what was available in the past. But they're no longer being marketed as top-tier, and some of the rim-brake die-hards seem to lament the loss of status more than anything else.

You said it.

[gdw]

Originally Posted by BobbyJones

I kinda put the words “gravel” and “tactical” in the same bucket.

Anyone else get my drift?

Yup. The industry is doing it's best to convince the consumer that their life won't be complete without a modern sporting bicycle.

[lavi]

Originally Posted by gdw

Yup. The industry is doing it's best to convince the consumer that their life won't be complete without a modern sporting bicycle.

They are correct. Life without bikes (and beer) is not a life.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I think this gets to the real challenge that a lot of rim-brake aficionados present to the cycling companies--they want the same products they're already using, and they want them to be cheap, and they wanted them to be marketed as top of the line. Rim brake frames and groupsets are still available and will continue to be available, and compare favorably to what was available in the past. But they're no longer being marketed as top-tier, and some of the rim-brake die-hards seem to lament the loss of status more than anything else.

100% for sure correct.

None of my bikes are so incredible or display worthy that I expect only the best on them.
My main road bike though, its a frame I built in a class almost 5 years ago and I kinda think its a pretty good ride. I have good solid components on it, but nothing elite.
Ultegra shifters, Ultegra RD, 105 FD, TRP 957 brakes, Praxis Zayante crank, some bitex hubs and archetype rims, a CC40 headset, some alloy Ritchey bars, etc.
All in all- a mix of solid and nice components. Hardly elite, but still quite good.


I will absolutely say that I dont want to hang some new generation Tiagra on there in a handful of years. I also dont want to put LTWOO on there. I am ok with this being viewed as snobbery, but I view it as fulfilling a simple vision of how the bike should look and feel.
I accept that DA is di2 only. It took time, but I accept that Ultegra is di2 only. 105 though? Come on now. Lame.

[openwheelracing]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I think this gets to the real challenge that a lot of rim-brake aficionados present to the cycling companies--they want the same products they're already using, and they want them to be cheap, and they wanted them to be marketed as top of the line. Rim brake frames and groupsets are still available and will continue to be available, and compare favorably to what was available in the past. But they're no longer being marketed as top-tier, and some of the rim-brake die-hards seem to lament the loss of status more than anything else.

oh man you are giving the anti-rim brake crowd a genuine bicycle orgasm. What you are saying is basically disc brake is "top tier" and rim brake is for jealous peasants.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

I don't understand your point. A lot of people have been hoping electronic shifting would migrate to lower end group sets for a long time.

Originally Posted by tuscanyswe

Point beeing that if you dont want to buy one of the lowest tier groupsets you are going to get di2 and that is more expensive than the previous versions of mid tier groupsets. Or at least thats what i think is his point .)

Yeah, tuscan summed up the point quite well.

While many people hoped electronic shifting would be cheaper, I dont know of anyone who wanted to pay 68% more for 105. And I am unaware of anyone who said they want mechanical 105 to go away.

[NHAero]

We seem to agree that more cyclists is a good thing. Do we also think that restricting bikes to electronic shifting and hydro discs, which the evidence seems to show makes bikes more costly, is a reasonable compromise that won't dampen the enthusiasm or basic ability to purchase of that new bike buyer?

Not argumentative here. Is the industry trend going to lead to sticker shock?

In 2020 we bought my niece a Spesh Allez Elite road bike with mech/rim 105 for (IIRC) about $1,300. At the time I thought that was a good value. Now that bike is $1,700 with Rival (maybe this is a supply chain issue with Shimano?) Do we think the equivalent of this bike will be around in 2-3 years, or it will be Rival/105 electronic/hydro disc? If the latter, what will it cost?

[NHAero]

Spoonrobot, I'm very interested in really understanding what you are saying about the Fed regs and frame design. Was there a particular date/year when regs got more stringent? And do they apply to all bikes, such that the road bikes (especially metal in the CAAD or Allez or Emonda ALR modes) got heavier and stiffer? Or are there different regs for Spesh Diverge Elite and Spesh Allez Elite?

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

When you've been around as long as I have, the changes in gravel the past few years have not been good. We used to be mostly outliers with neat bikes doing neat stuff and now it's 100 cardboard cutouts with the same USWE packs and recycled content from Velominati doing their best interpretation of UCI road race style riding and racing.

Ah yes, the OG has spoke. It has to suck to sit there and blissfully remember how it used to be before the current generation ruined everything. Kids these days, right?

What's funny is all this started when you declared the gravel trend to be awful. In reality, what you meant was that you dislike how many others are into gravel and that its become so popular that brands market to it. Waah waah, why couldnt 'they' just leave you alone and let you have all the fun in the strict narrow way you define fun!

Cycling really isnt as bad as you frame it. Gravel riding really isnt as bad as you frame it. Group rides and races are consistently well attended around me and the range of abilities within a race is typically quite wide. And frame design really isnt as bad as you 'frame' it. <---levity!
From my vantage point, gravel rides and races are similar to marathons- some are there to try and win, some are there to compete and set a pr, some are there to just accomplish the goal of finishing.
Are rides and races down by you really not this way? Something really crazy(but not crazy as its normal)- there are fat bike and tandem categories in some races up here. Thats how non-UCI things are.

I dont think I have seen or participated in a gravel race or group ride where I look around and mistake everyone around me for UCI pros.
I still see neat bikes when I do ride with others.



Dont shake your fist too hard when yelling at those clouds, Grandpa.

[EB]

*checks in on epic rim brake thread at page 29* *finds dumpster fire*

I’ll just see myself out here…

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by NHAero

Spoonrobot, I'm very interested in really understanding what you are saying about the Fed regs and frame design. Was there a particular date/year when regs got more stringent? And do they apply to all bikes, such that the road bikes (especially metal in the CAAD or Allez or Emonda ALR modes) got heavier and stiffer? Or are there different regs for Spesh Diverge Elite and Spesh Allez Elite?

Spoonrobot is kinda talking out his behind with regards to testing making stiffer bikes. I posted this link to the official ISO testing regulations for bicycles earlier:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:...:-6:ed-2:v1:en

Here's video of some bikes running through the tests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMlm...nnel=FUBifixie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfKn...el=LightCarbon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qbx...estingMachines

Note - it doesn't seem like there's any maximum amount of movement allowed. Rather, it just tests if a frame/fork can withstand the force applied for a given amount of cycles, or that the frame doesn't exhibit too much permanent deformation after a given amount of cycles. So while a "stiff" frame might have much less deflection than a more flexible frame they should both pass the test.

Now it's generally easier/cheaper to create frames and forks that pass the tests by making said frames/forks stiffer, so that might be an unintended consequence. But there are plenty of examples of frames and forks which are for sale right now that aren't stiff but pass the tests. I cited one, the Ritchey Outback, and Tom Ritchey has long been a proponent of flexy frames and forks leading to better ride quality and overall enjoyment. Also the new Aethos cannot be mentioned as a stiff bike, but it passes the test. The Open U-Turn fork passes the test, but it's nowhere near as stiff as other Gravel forks.

Also the forks mentioned above weight around 445g for the Ritchey, 300g for the Aethos and 380g for the Open. Hardly boat anchors as Spoon had decried.

And to note, the "stiffness is everything" mantra was ever-present way before the gravel craze became a thing. Up until basically 2015 or so every new road bike was touted for its stiffness to weight ratio, but disc brakes and large tires weren't really a trend at that point.

And ironically on the new podcast from the old CT guys they discussed stiffness vs comfort and mentioned Ritchey. And Rome also mentioned how the move towards larger tubes (fork steerers, handlebars, seatposts, etc) indeed oftentimes makes things stiffer as well as stronger. But over the past few years or so the industry is slowly moving back towards a holistic approach to riding that takes into account the different attributes that make a ride enjoyable.

[KonaSS]

I live in a smaller town. 130k ish population.

For the 20 years I have lived here, the riding population has been about the same. Some folks come and go, but our overall numbers have been about the same.

But in the last 3 years, more people on bikes. Groups rides that struggled to get 10, now get 30-40. Most folks have bought new road bikes and are branching out and buying these horrible gravel bikes. People are having a great time, and they are loving it.

The one thing I haven't heard from anyone is how horrible their fork is or how their bike is too stiff and they just hate riding. But they are probably dolts, what do they know?

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

Spoonrobot is kinda talking out his behind with regards to testing making stiffer bikes. I posted this link to the official ISO testing regulations for bicycles earlier:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:...:-6:ed-2:v1:en

Here's video of some bikes running through the tests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMlm...nnel=FUBifixie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfKn...el=LightCarbon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qbx...estingMachines

Note - it doesn't seem like there's any maximum amount of movement allowed. Rather, it just tests if a frame/fork can withstand the force applied for a given amount of cycles, or that the frame doesn't exhibit too much permanent deformation after a given amount of cycles. So while a "stiff" frame might have much less deflection than a more flexible frame they should both pass the test.

Now it's generally easier/cheaper to create frames and forks that pass the tests by making said frames/forks stiffer, so that might be an unintended consequence. But there are plenty of examples of frames and forks which are for sale right now that aren't stiff but pass the tests. I cited one, the Ritchey Outback, and Tom Ritchey has long been a proponent of flexy frames and forks leading to better ride quality and overall enjoyment. Also the new Aethos cannot be mentioned as a stiff bike, but it passes the test. The Open U-Turn fork passes the test, but it's nowhere near as stiff as other Gravel forks.

Also the forks mentioned above weight around 445g for the Ritchey, 300g for the Aethos and 380g for the Open. Hardly boat anchors as Spoon had decried.

And to note, the "stiffness is everything" mantra was ever-present way before the gravel craze became a thing. Up until basically 2015 or so every new road bike was touted for its stiffness to weight ratio, but disc brakes and large tires weren't really a trend at that point.

And ironically on the new podcast from the old CT guys they discussed stiffness vs comfort and mentioned Ritchey. And Rome also mentioned how the move towards larger tubes (fork steerers, handlebars, seatposts, etc) indeed oftentimes makes things stiffer as well as stronger. But over the past few years or so the industry is slowly moving back towards a holistic approach to riding that takes into account the different attributes that make a ride enjoyable.

Can you please post the full details for these tests?

5 Fork test methods
5.1 Suspension forks — Tyre-clearance test
5.2 Suspension forks — Tensile test
5.3 Front fork — Static bending test
5.4 Front fork — Rearward impact test
5.5 Front fork — Bending fatigue test and rearward impact test
5.6 Forks intended for use with hub or disc brakes

ISO testing regulations are not free to the public and are not linked in detail where you posted. You do not understand the full battery of testing under the ISO (and equivalent) testing. Nothing you posted in readable, literally everything inside the black box is blocked from viewing. What a waste of time.


Specifically you need to read this, watch videos of the test, and realize what it means for fork design.

https://www.speedercycling.com/Carbo...10-Test_22_d22

3) Rearward Impact Test

Mount the fork and assemble a roller of mass less than or equal to 1kg and with dimension conforming to torque 80N in the fork. The hardness of the roller shall be not less than 60 HRC at impact area.

Rest a striker of mass 22.5kg on the roller in the fork dropouts such that it is exerting a force against the direction of travel and in the plane of wheel. Position a deflection measuring device under the roller and record the position of the roller in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the fork steerer and in the plane of the wheel and note the vertical position of the fork.

Remove the deflection measuring device, raise the striker through a height of 640mm, and release it to strike the roller against the rake of the fork. The striker will bounce and this is normal. When the striker has come to rest on the roller, measure the permanent deformation under the roller.

Our test result shows deformation 5mm, which is much lower than standard 45mm.

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I think this gets to the real challenge that a lot of rim-brake aficionados present to the cycling companies--they want the same products they're already using, and they want them to be cheap, and they wanted them to be marketed as top of the line. Rim brake frames and groupsets are still available and will continue to be available, and compare favorably to what was available in the past. But they're no longer being marketed as top-tier, and some of the rim-brake die-hards seem to lament the loss of status more than anything else.

I think you made a few logical leaps with some healthy helpings of generalisation there. Which of course is your prerogative, but here's my point of view.

I think a lot of people have a cache of equipment that is fit for purpose and they have added to that cache over the years.

The introduction of disc brakes - which introduce complexity to which many would argue don't have the same marginal benefit - has basically meant that you can't continue to 'build the arsenal' of bikes in the same way you might have previously.

At the same time, bike manufacturers seem to have awkwardly lent back into threaded bottom brackets, which is a great thing if you ask me.

All of this ends up being bitter sweet. Right now I'd love a modern aero bike with rim brakes and a threaded bottom bracket. That preference for rim brakes is based on having plenty of sets of high end wheels and of course the belief that rim brakes do just fine while being very easy to live with.

I guess the most ironic bit out of all of this is that the bike industry is terrible at standards but they've managed to standardise a braking system in all of two minutes. It wasn't long ago that disc brakes were unusual... then they got approved for racing... and then it's literally impossible to buy anything else (when it comes to a production and high end bike).

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by NHAero

Spoonrobot, I'm very interested in really understanding what you are saying about the Fed regs and frame design. Was there a particular date/year when regs got more stringent? And do they apply to all bikes, such that the road bikes (especially metal in the CAAD or Allez or Emonda ALR modes) got heavier and stiffer? Or are there different regs for Spesh Diverge Elite and Spesh Allez Elite?

The testing standards were revised over a period of time from 2014-2015 and were fully implemented in bike design for those model years and right after. This was done to catch up to disc brakes - especially hydraulic - thru-axles, and a larger portion of drop-bar bikes designed to be ridden off-road. They apply to bikes based on their design intent, which is different for road/city/mtb.

The ISO/EN standards are not free or openly available, they cost 118CHF and are generally not something a hobbyist buys. People who work with them generally are not posting on forums (because it's a waste of time).

This isn't something I randomly started googling today to argue about it. I've been paying attention to this and researching for a while - ever since I found my production randonneuring bike had an almost 3 pound fork for some reason while the 2012 disc cross bike had a way nicer feeling fork that was more than a pound lighter.