imnotverygood – sorry, it doesn’t bring us back to that point. It raises the legitimate questions which you have chosen to ignore.

Lots of things that could be described as progress are not allowed.

If you are going to play the progress card with no regard to genuine safety concerns (which may or may not be founded, and if are founded may or may not be surmountable), then surely you have to say that all types of progress are to be allowed.

I’m no expert on the precise history, but the UCI allowed gears and different frame materials and all sorts of progress. But in the peloton they decided that drop bars and frames had to be basically the same shape they always have been. They have every right to say “disc brakes might be progress, but progress is not always good for the sport.” They seem not to be saying that, they;re just double cheking the safety issues as they pretty much have to unless they don’t give a s*&% about the riders or getting sued.

Yes, I think aesthetics matter, Boardmans Lotus was at the time something new, something different but without the double triangle diamond traditional frame it lacked that traditional look, a traditional look, the look that we know is a bike and not just because it has two wheels.

And yes I remember the very first Clipless pedals,

I distictly remember not having to bend down whilst riding and loosen a buckle that would allow me to prise free my shoes from the outer edge of the pedal cage, one of the most unsafe methods of attaching feet to a bike i can think of, Baring Gaffa taping them on, And yes the first SPD’s were aesthetically pleasing werent they, unlike Disks on road Bikes. i actually like the look of modern callipers,

Goes of to google Bidon, “I wondered what Sean Kelly kept mumbling on about” in between eating Chocolate and Crisps, SWhen did that name crop up? i’ve heard it mentioned but unwittingly didnt asssociate it with a 1980’s Coca-Cola rred & White drinks Bottle.

as they pretty much have to unless they don’t give a shit about the riders

Well they don’t appear to be doing much about riders getting run over/killed by course motorbikes / cars so you have to wonder…

OFFS< The Motorbike “NONE” trial again,

Watch some OLD footage of Road Racing, You might be surprised how long that trial’s been going on.

AND, they do have measures in place to TRY and minimise the risk, a course has to be taken and licence granted, The riders Must have been pro’s and ridden in the Peleton to understand how it works, lines, corners etc, I’m not sure who or how this is controlled though. I only know that Disk brakes on road bikes are being trialled, But thats stopped now.

If we stopped Motorbikes then the Sport would crumble, i dont think we want that do we?
Medical, Security, POLICE, Neutral Service and last but not Least, CAMERAS,

I mean how would we know what was happening with no reporters, cameras, crew, i mean people could just make this shit up?

Lots of things that could be described as progress are not allowed.

Yes, but they aren’t just disallowed on a whim. The safety concerns are as yet unproven.

i actually like the look of modern callipers

which one? some of which don’t work particularly well

last but not Least, CAMERAS,

I like the ones that you Failed to picture, The traditional Campy Calliper or the Ultegra style ones.

The ones that could be assosciated with a traditional style of Bike.

I like the ones that you Failed to picture, The traditional Campy Calliper or the Ultegra style ones.

The ones that could be assosciated with a traditional style of Bike.

You aren’t doing much except reinforcing the view that the real reason people don’t want discs on road bikes is because it offends their sensibilities. The stuff about safety is just BS.

Re the progress argument. You could ask why we aren’t all riding something like this…

Clearly you would have better braking with that setup.

You aren’t doing much except reinforcing the view that the real reason people don’t want discs on road bikes is because it offends their sensibilities.

But….but….TRADITION! AESTHETICS! TRADITION! CHAPEAU! BIDON! TRADITION!
🙁

My word, them spokes look bloody dangerous…….

Re the progress argument. You could ask why we aren’t all riding something like this…

Clearly you would have better braking with that setup.

Er, been tried, was pointless. See also Super Monster T’s, the Karpiel Apocalypse, “Alpine kits” and any one of a number of other OTT contributions over the years. It’s not progress if it has a factor of redundancy far outstripping any progress liable to fill the gap.

On Boardmans Lotus – yet again offending sensibilities. See also Superman and Tuck positions as offered by Obree.

Oddly enough I don’t remember anyone banning PRST1’s despite their oddball design. Maybe we approch things with a more open mind in our world.

Squirrelking you are clearly a traditionalist Luddite 🙂

No one had to ban PRST1’s, They did a good job of that themselves,

Who cares what the pros ride. I think it’s great that bike manufacturers are making bikes for riders rather than racers now hence the new generation of stronger, slightly heavier, relaxed geometry bike with brakes that stop you and clearance for sensible size tyres.

I think it’s great that bike manufacturers are making bikes for riders chubby men who used to play rugby rather than racers now hence the new generation of stronger, slightly heavier, relaxed geometry bike with brakes that stop you and clearance for sensible size tyres.

I have to say that I think a lot of this negative reaction is down to fear of change. It is extremely analogous to the way some people reacted to the innovation of MTB suspension nearly 25 years ago and the really recent 650b introduction.

People understandably dislike the feeling that their pride and joy is being made obsolete and now is not a ‘high performance’ machine. People often distrust new technology.

It’s not helped by the UCI being backward, resistant and stifling innovation.

Disc brakes are likely to be here to stay for road bikes*. Many, many riders will accept them**. A look at a standard change curve will show where we are currently with acceptance and where we will end up. Personally, I don’t think the arguments here will change things either way. Like 650b it’s likely to be a juggernaut…

Whether they are necessary is a different question. The ability to brake harder, later and with more control in all conditions can only be a good thing IMHO. People then have the ability to enhance their riding using the new technical capability and will again be differentiated on skill as they are now but riding harder and faster.

* UCI permitting
** I really prefer the look of road calliper brakes!

Nail head squirrelking

“Re the progress argument. You could ask why we aren’t all riding something like this…

Clearly you would have better braking with that setup.”

“Er, been tried, was pointless.”

Precisely – two discs on an MTB front wheel are pointless, much like discs on a pro road bike are pointless.

When do pro road riders want or need more braking power?

How would more braking power improve the sport for anyone?

Why the fuss about roadies not using disc brakes when no-one bangs on about the numerous other progress-restricting rules?

Cutting down trees and building shopping centres is also “progress” by the ‘new is always good’ posters’ logic, but I presume some people on here prefer that we keep some countryside as countryside.

I think it’s great that bike manufacturers are making bikes for riders chubby men who used to play rugby rather than racers now hence the new generation of stronger, slightly heavier, relaxed geometry bike with brakes that stop you and clearance for sensible size tyres

Designing bikes that only suit people who have always ridden that sort of bike may appeal to the latter’s sense of superiority but it ain’t gonna allow the market to grow.

Discs aren’t just about power.

Better brakes allow better control.

I know – I’ll grow the market for pure racing machines by making them less like pure racing machines!

Seems like relaxed geometry, stronger bikes and disc brakes are a different market to a pure road race bike.

FWIW I own more road / track / time trial bikes than I do MTBs… I would never ride a proper off road bike without decent suspension forks and decent hydraulic discs. It would never cross my mind that I need discs on a road bike. I own two time trial bikes that the UCI would not allow me to compete on because the designers ‘progressed’ the design of the bike in a way which the UCI has now determined was unacceptable. Where is the ‘bring back lo pros’ progress campaign? Or is it simply that the pro discers on here are not even vaguely interested in progress, they simply love discs because off road they are best, therefore make the leap that this makes discs best for the peloton.

CaptainFlashheart – when did you last hear a pro rider complaining that their brakes did not have enough power or were not good enough in any way? How do better brakes make racing better or safer, or ideally both?

when did you last hear a pro rider complaining that their brakes did not have enough power or were not good enough in any way? How do better brakes make racing better or safer, or ideally both?

Well as all they have had is the “best available” I’m sure many don’t know what could be better. I’ve seen plenty miss corners and been out braked in races before eating walls and ditches.
Perhaps the uci could get back to the trial, be proactive, investigate any incident quickly and effectively (maybe add more go pro to the field)

I’ve seen plenty miss corners and been out braked in races before eating walls and ditches.

Luckily we never misjudge corners on our disc equipped bikes 😆

mikewsmith – google risk compensation. I genuinely cannot see how discs would make any difference other than allowing later braking on descents, with the later braking compensating for any safety benefit of better brakes leaving the riders equal safe / unsafe as they were before.

The only real difference would be that the brakes would come on 20m from the corner instead of 25m.

I just don’t see how that benefits riders or spectators.

I just don’t see how that benefits riders or spectators.

How about we have a trial, let the trail sort itself out and see how the pro’s feel having had a chance to use them (as of course none of them have been allowed to use them at all in races up to now)
Just an idea really….

Quite simply if you were never allowed chocolate would you like some chocolate?

Well presumably it would make the riders faster down hill which is the idea behind racing. Going faster, No?
I don’t recall pro riders complaining that their tyres were too skinny, but it appears they were. So now we have pros riding tyres which are more comfortable with a bigger contact patch and which are faster than before, all this flying in the face of years of professional received wisdom.

So now we have pros riding tyres which are more comfortable with a bigger contact patch and which are faster than before, all this flying in the face of years of professional received wisdom.

Hmm so pro’s are willing to rapidly adopt change to previously perceived wisdom and tradition… yet don’t seem to want disc brakes. What could be going on?! 🙂

Hmm so pro’s are willing to rapidly adopt change to previously perceived wisdom and tradition… yet don’t seem to want disc brakes. What could be going on?!

You reckon they could just stick some different tyres on for a race and see? You know use the same bike and have a go?

Disc brakes and roadies is a bit like mini roundabouts used to be in Cumbria, they just stopped and pointed

Who cares what the pros ride…

A great many people – that’s kind of how sponsorship works. See the pros using it this year, buy it in the shops next year.

Worked wonders for the factory built wheel market when Mavic gave a few sets of Heliums (and later on, Ksyriums) to the pros. It’s where Di2 (and more crucially, the acceptance of Di2) has come from.

It’s even how the industry has managed to con slightly overweight middle aged men that aero is everything.

It’s even how the industry has managed to con slightly overweight middle aged men that aero is everything.

Physics a con?

some pro stuff definitely drives popular demand – carbon bikes, aero bikes, aero road helmets are coming in.

but some stuff is not relevant to (most) regular riders – tubs, std. gearing, big deep wheels (for road riding).

and some stuff is in the grey zone (some roadies have it but it’s still niche) – Di2, carbon rims, lightweight tyres.

If the pro peloton stays with rim brakes then it may see bike design split into two camps – ‘old-school’ rim bikes, and the disc-ready designs.

I think it’s a interesting future when the bike in your garage is better than Froome’s 8)

imnotverygood – Member

I don’t recall pro riders complaining that their tyres were too skinny, but it appears they were. So now we have pros riding tyres which are more comfortable with a bigger contact patch and which are faster than before, all this flying in the face of years of professional received wisdom.

And very relevant, since for so long if you fitted wider tyres to your bike as a civilian, you’d have True Cyclists take the piss and assume you’re incompetent.

some pro stuff definitely drives popular demand – carbon bikes, aero bikes, aero road helmets are coming in.

I think it’s Strava driving that stuff into the non-racer market!

And very relevant, since for so long if you fitted wider tyres to your bike as a civilian, you’d have True Cyclists take the piss and assume you’re incompetent.

To be fair, tyre technology has advanced hugely in recent times. If you wanted a soft supple race tyre in days gone by narrow tubs were your only choice. Fat clinchers were heavy, hard and a crap ride. Now you can get some proper decent racer rubber on fat open tubular clinchers.

Interesting that Ryder Hesjedal is no fan, since like us all he started on mtbs, so is more than familiar with a disc brake.

Here is a question, for those of you who have raced on the road, how often have you actually braked on a downhill? I’m genuinely struggling to remember a time I ever did.

imnotverygood

“Well presumably it would make the riders faster down hill which is the idea behind racing. Going faster, No?”

I think the idea behind pro racing is to have an entertaining sport which makes money for all concerned by virtue of the fact people wish to watch it, and obviously part of what makes it entertaining is that people are trying to go as fast as possible within the rules.

Are you campaigning against UCIs minimum weight rules? If not why not?

Should riders be able to run 24″ front wheels to get closer to the guy in front to get more aero benefits? If not why not?

Electric motors are the next big thing in cycling. Imagine if every rider had an extra 500W of power due to an identical motor to every other rider. The best rider would still win but everything would be faster better and newer? Do you agree that motors need introducing to pro cycling?

I’m not sure any of your points make any sense. What is your point chipkorea?

What about 5lb bikes and 24″ front wheels and insane carbon frames? They are all progress – do you think the UCI is wrong to ban them?

I think the UCI is wrong to ban them, if they can be shown to be safe (i.e. strong enough). Particularly with half arsed aero permitted (i.e. as long as it kind of looks traditional/doesn’t use particular geometry/as long as you pretend the aero fairing is a strengthening gusset) where, with the current cost of manufacturing carbon frames far more reasonable, we could have proper (funny looking) aero frames made.

[Quote=”reggiegasket”]I think it’s a interesting future when the bike in your garage is better than Froome’s[/quote]
Future? Already been and gone.
Thanks to the UCI you’ve been able to have a better bike than the pros (aero, weight and possibly fit) for probably a decade.
probably every race I’ve ever done. Just to scrub of a bit of speed. And much of that was when brakes really were shit.