I've noticed that there's a similarity now with bikes and headphones where focus on technology actually has left consumers with higher prices and less choice by killing the middle segment. If you want a racer today it's probably going to have hydraulic disc brakes and carbon frame and electric gears, and an entry level bike will cost twice as much as an pro-bike 15 years ago. Besides there are only so many models a manufacturer can make and they also need to fill the electric bikes segment which reduces the middle range even more.
I think we seen this exact same thing since apple killed of the headphone jack forcing people to Bluetooth headphones. Now you either buy super cheep headphones, or super expensive ones. But there's basically no middle range. And since headphone manufacturers not traditionally been doing software they don't have the skills in-house which makes them buy the technology from elsewhere and leaves the consumer with basically the exact same products but with different logos - which means even less actual choice.
I think this is an apt comparison, but for me it comes down to the complication of the products. I used to be able to just plug in my headphones and they worked. Now it's a constant struggle of bluetooth syncing, connection issues, forgetting to charge the battery. I have multiple pairs of wireless headphones sitting around the house, but I've gone back to $19 wired headphones because I was sick of the headache of dealing with wireless.
I feel this is the same thing with bikes. A mountain bike requires nearly constant work/maintenance. I bet a well maintained bike costs 1/10th the value of the bike/year. And this is without any electronics. Maybe electronics will simply maintenance a bit, but when they inevitably break I'm hosed.
I don't want electronic shifters. I want a simple and reliable bike.
Maybe electronics will eventually be the solution to this, but right now they cause more headache than anything.
I like the part where the pump is powered by the rotational forces of the wheel.
Probably best if integrated with a trail or terrain map programmed with your preferences so you don’t have to tap anything while on the go except maybe to override the thing.
Could be useful for downhillers but for all others the less the bike weights while maintaining strength - the better. In my experience bike weight is the single most important thing that matters the most no matter where are you going to ride - over a nice asphalt road or in a woods. It's ok to ride in the woods with overinflated tires compared to riding overweight bike... The latter is just exhausting.
I think optimizing in weight for non-competitive riding often takes it too far. From my experience, you grow accustomed to the weight of the bike (in fact, it makes you stronger). I frequently see people on carbon frames with xtr sets or such, who could've more easily just lost a few kilograms of body fat, rather than spend literally thousands to save a couple 100 grams of mechanical weight.
Not just downhillers, also enduro/all mountain/trail riding. I can see it being great to have tires drop to 12psi for a steep muddy section where you need the traction, come back to 30psi for stability in a hard corner, drop to 20ish to suck up some trail chatter at speed (assuming it's tubeless) then up to 50 for the ride home on tarmac.
The thing that would mainly concern me is not weight but reliability. Everything on bikes breaks eventually and the % of rides that are ruined because the auto tire inflator failed and left me with a flat has to be very low indeed. And on the occasions it does then the % of weeks riding that are ruined because it's not quick and easy to fix back at home has to be low as well. Tech has to be very, very mature before I fit it to my bike.
I used to ride a lot in a rough woods quite far away (10+km of asphalt roads) from home, making on average about 70+km per riding episode. The most convenient generic setup was "inflate the wide and grippy tires up to the limit (4 to 5 bars depending on vendor)" and off you go. It's much easier to ride with overinflated tires over asphalt and their grippiness was mostly sufficient for the most conditions in a woods. Regarding the stiffness - anyway you never ride on rough terrain sitting in a saddle, you just have to stay on peddles to maintain stability. As an added but valuable bonus - overinflated tires are much stronger to withstand puncture attemps (in fact, I can't even remember I had one for a few years back then).
So, I'm quite sceptical about that thing perspectives... I would prefer they invent more durable but cheap main components, btw, b/c that's just not right when a normal bike costs about as much as a car.
By stability I mean the tyre not squirming off sideways under a high-g corner because the pressure is low. Nothing to do with being in or out of the saddle (though I'm assuming you'd be out at this point!)
Agree the price of even mid range bikes is pretty insane though.
Tire inserts like cushcore let you run really low pressures without worrying about squirming the bead off your tire, even on hard corners. They’re really a game changer- I still run decent PSI on the daily as I do a lot of climbing, but you can lower it down like crazy if you go to the bike park or if you’re ending a ride with all downhill. They supposedly decrease rolling resistance too; not sure about that but the increased sidewall stiffness is definitely noticeable.
At last year's UCI worlds one of the riders(I forget who) had a dropper post failure, and it was depressing watching them slowly lose rank simply because of that.
Part of me wants to see all the new advancements, but I also hate it when it ruins an otherwise good spectacle or personal ride.
We also saw it with e-shifting in road, but that seems to have largely been solved. So, perhaps any problems that should arise with this could be shaken out in a couple of seasons too? </fence>
Maybe there is a market for racing and events where you're only allowed steel-framed, canti brakes, SiS index shift monstrosities? Like one of those sub-$1k car rallies or something.
Cantilevers are a pain in the ass to adjust unless you're an octopus. All of the degrees of freedom come loose at the same time with the same bolt: all three rotational axes and the coarse distance to rim are secured by the same nut. They are unemployable to work on, to put it mildly.
I could get on board with linear pull brakes though for the spirit of what you're proposing. Although maybe what you're looking for is a spec series with a really pedestrian (and affordable) component package.
I agree with you, but removing technology arms races from mainstream sport is a lost cause. The controversy around Nike's carbon plate in running shoes, and Speedo's polyurethane mix fabric suits show that not even the simplest sport are safe from it.
However... there are still a few niches.
> Maybe there is a market for racing and events where you're only allowed steel-framed, canti brakes, SiS index shift monstrosities? Like one of those sub-$1k car rallies or something.
You've kind of just described Keirin [1], as a philosophy, if not the specifics. The Secret World of Japanese Keirin Racing is a good introduction if you're curious.
I wasn't suggesting removing all technology, as I agree that wouldn't work even if I wanted it. I just liked idea of a parallel low technology track fighting the good fight against pointy helmet disc-wheeled ten rider weeknight TT. Something odd just for fun, like the 24 Hours of LeMons¹ on beaters from the shed.
I'm kind of aware of Keirin from watching track, but wasn't aware of the depth in the local market. That Chris Hoy video was great, thanks!
My bicycles are all at least 20 years old but cantilever brakes can die. The switch to v brakes made such a huge difference without adding complexity. In fact, they removed complexity, as they are so much easier to set up and maintain.
But otherwise I'm with you. As someone who went mountain biking more days than not for more than a decade, simplicity never watered down my fun.
Yeah. I was using a lot of hyperbole in an attempt to get my point across. However, in the time between writing my earlier comment and this I've actually been out for a lunchtime ride on my fixie. Just good fun for a Friday in February!
The response here makes me think there are others who like the idea though, so I'll try to float it in the local CC forum.
Yeah. It's little wonder most people don't take cycling seriously when their experience is limited to a £100 ridiculously heavy piece of junk with under inflated tyres and non lubricated gears. I tell some people that my bikes cost upwards of £600 and they can't believe it. But if I tell them my car cost £5k second hand they're like "is that all?"
At least for mountain bikes, that's well out of the entry-level tier. Trek's MSRPs start in the $500-$600 US range for decent hardtail mountain bikes (aluminum frame, disc brakes) that are reliable and worth repairing when something breaks, unlike department store crap. $700 US is when they start giving you fancier features like hydraulic disc brakes and suspension lockout. Full-suspension bikes that are worth the trouble are definitely more expensive than that, but I don't think it's fair to say that hardtails are necessarily entry-level.
Good mechanical disc brakes exist. I have Avid BB-7's on my mountain bike, and there's a lot to be said for the fact that every mom and pop bike shop has cable and housing on hand.
Are they as nice as hydraulics? No, but they're pretty damn good and easy for anybody to maintain. At the level I ride, that's a worthwhile trade off.
I've done brake jobs on my cars and I've done every job there is to do on a bike short of replacing a headset or rebuilding a fork; I don't have a burning need to bleed more brakes.
There are some really crappy low-end mechanical disc brakes around, but the TRP Spyke and Avid BB7 are solid and commonly found on touring bikes. If you plan to cycle 30,000 km through lots of remote terrain (e.g. Alaska–Ushuaia or Europe to Cape Town via West Africa), then they are as trivial to maintain as rim brakes, without however destroying your rim.
I have cycled down some of the world's great mountain ranges, and I have never had complaints about my Spyke's stopping power.
Agreed on Spykes and BB7. Mech discs are essential for long touring... who wants to carry a bleed kit? In all other cases though, I will prefer the modulation and stopping power of hydraulics, both on the road and on the trail.
In France you can buy a very decent MTB with hydraulic brakes for less than €400. The sky's the limit if you want to spend more, of course, but for that amount of money you can get something that isn't bad at all.
The single most important thing is having great brakes.
After that a decent enough fit from geometry to your body while not being massively overweight (the bike).
Looking at the photos, I can imagine it is even rotating. Ok-ok, it is near the axle, but you do not see racing bikes with huge internally geared hubs neither, so...
CTIS has been a thing in military contexts (lots of transitions between terrain types and lots of available labor to perform maintenance) for a long time.
It only makes sense that it eventually transitions into other contexts where it's beneficial and there's a lot of labor available to maintain the systems.
This particular system sounds like they found a way to stick a rotary compressor (think automotive A/C compressor) and the requisite CTIS gear into the space of a bike hub which is a non-trivial accomplishment in mechanical trickery if they did manage to do so with adequate performance.
Now this is some great innovation. I’ve never felt comfortable with the electronic shifting, feels too much electronics for mountain biking, but this I can support.
Modulating the tire pressure I can see as an absolute win for safety, which is why I also like disc brakes. Electronic shifting is just a step in the wrong direction. At what point is it no longer a bicycle, when it has an electric motor in the seat tube, always?
I have wired eTap on my road bike and it's so GD smooth. Adjustments with the software are so easy too - I was never too mechanically inclined though.
They have wireless electronic shifting on top end road bikes and I can't help but think that security probably isn't top notch. Can you imagine, the last sprint of the tour de France and shifting everyone into a low gear - you'd likely pop the chain off and cause real hazards and (rightly) face charges.
Yeah but you'd have to get out there with a pump to change pressure, I think that's the real benefit with this technology. I ride on the road to get to my trail head, and ride at about 20-25psi on 2.8" tubeless tires once on the trail. They're a real drag on the road at that pressure, so I have to stop and pump them up or just deal with the drag. If I could hit a switch and have them inflate themselves back up to 40-50psi for the trip home that would be so awesome.
Even on the trail it would be good, downhill at low pressure then put some pressure back in for the climb. Or maybe a bit more pressure for the jump trail and so on.
I don't have a source for that, but I've always thought that low tire pressure doesn't really contribute that much compared to aerodynamic drag, even on the joyride home at 20 km/h on a heavier freeride rig.
I take a scout group on a week-long bike trek on the C&O Canal towpath most summers. That's a flat but unpaved trail, and most of the kids have hardtail mountain bikes because we also do trips for singletrack mountain biking. Over the course of the week, all the kids doing the trip for the first time get faster from day to day. When they start out and don't take my advice about tire pressure seriously, their sustainable cruising speed tends to be in the 8-9mph range. High tire pressure (and careful attention to ensure the brakes aren't rubbing) gets everyone up to at least 11-12mph depending on how hot the weather is. Drafting gets the group up to 14-15mph.
So basically, in my experience on longer rides a low tire pressure will prevent you from getting up to the speed where aerodynamic drag is a big concern. And on hilly terrain you spend a lot more time either climbing at speeds far too slow for aerodynamics to matter, or on descents where you have no trouble at all overcoming drag to reach unsafe speeds.
If you're never going over 20kmph and you have big heavy DH tires on, you will still be experiencing a lot of rolling resistance for the majority of your ride. Considering my ride home is done at like 10-20kmph on a set of Maxxis Minions, rolling resistance should be making up ~50% of my total resistance. At 50psi I find I'm mostly on the centre of the tire, so not even rolling on the full 2.8" width like I would be at 20psi, which I can feel a difference in.
CyclingAbout has a great video about aero and bikepacking which is a good intersection of what we're talking about here, though he's using fast rolling tires:
> By the time you’re cycling at 30KPH, as much as 90% of the resistive force experienced comes from aerodynamic drag. And it’s not until you get down to 12KPH when rolling and air resistance are equal.
Side question, why don't they make a hand brake that breaks both wheels at the same time? For example in mountain biking I was always told you want to brake both the front and back at the same time yet I've never seen a hand brake that you can attach both cables to.
Years ago I read about just this thing in a book Bicycling Science(link below).
It was super clever. The rear brake was on a spring loaded mount. When it clamped down the caliper would travel a small distance to the rear before hitting a stop. It is pulled by the wheel it is grabbing. Attached to that traveling caliper is a cable to the front brake so the motion of the rear caliper would activate the front one. Neat trick effect of all this is it is near impossible to flip over the handle bars. As soon as the rear wheel leaves the ground the spring return on the rear brake pulls the rear brake forward releasing the front braking pressure. The effect is you can potential get max front braking power automatically using a simple purely mechanical system.
This is REALLY COOL! I have that book on my shelf and I need to finish reading it. On my Catrike I would love something like this. It really needs something that balances braking between left and right so I'm not Yawing whenever I brake my left more than my right.
You apply different amount of breaking. Sometimes you would only use the rear break (for example, if you want to take a corner by locking and sliding your back wheel).
To illustrate this point further: the common setup is to have the rear break on the right hand side of the handlebar. But some people ride it the other way around. If you are used to one way and then have to ride the bike that is set the other way (say, a borrowed bike), it completely messes up your riding.
Because that isn't how people use brakes. I'm pretty sure most people use the rear brakes to slow down and as control, whereas the front brakes are for stopping rather than slowing down.
>I was always told you want to brake both the front and back at the same time
This isn't true at all. And even when one does use both brakes, pressure on each is not the same.
Really? I don't know if I'm representative, but I pretty much only use the front brakes. I only use the rear ones if I'm trying to avoid an accident because I'm not slowing fast enough on the front. I don't even know if it helps much, it's just a reflex.
I've seen exactly this on adaptive bikes (i.e. for people with one hand). But most of us are fortunate enough to be better off with regular brakes: two hands means double the power, and as we improve we can modulate front/rear separately in some situations e.g. deliberate endo to get around a tight switchback.
So basically, this is a tiny, motion-powered air compressor built into the hub?
That's pretty clever. And not just limited to bikes. I'd love to have a set of car wheels with this built in. It'd be like the inflation/deflation ability of the Humvee but without the nasty challenge of connecting an air hose to a spinning wheel.
Edit to add: Come to think of it, this could potentially be done as an add-on that bolts on using the lug nuts. I bet off-roaders would go crazy over it.
You are of course totally correct, but that awesomeness is due in no small part to previous generations of innovators creating the tech you take for granted now. And you can bet that at the time someone else would have been saying that mountain biking is just awesome without this.
I can't see myself rushing out to get one but I respect the innovators for trying something new.
Yup, good for them but I do think that something that is fixable by a simple pump and that very few people practice (I know of know one who will change their pressures multiple times per ride) will catch on.
I think we seen this exact same thing since apple killed of the headphone jack forcing people to Bluetooth headphones. Now you either buy super cheep headphones, or super expensive ones. But there's basically no middle range. And since headphone manufacturers not traditionally been doing software they don't have the skills in-house which makes them buy the technology from elsewhere and leaves the consumer with basically the exact same products but with different logos - which means even less actual choice.