If you had to pick the best innovation what would it be? If your really old school is it just the derailer, or is it pneumatic tires? If your a little new school is clipless pedals, or is it brifters? What is the biggest quantum leap ever in cycling proformance enhancing drugs, making use of areospace materials, (joke) an American could be a great cyclist, and ect?

One thing I can't count out is the aerobar that Lemmond used, he revolutionized the timetrial. At some point saving watts on inefficentcies became more important than the raw watts themselves.

I think of the biggest leaps will be the Powertap or whatever that thing is called. Training via watts is going to be huge rather than simply by HR or whatever. But the aerobar is a good call.

Although you could make a pretty good case for pneumatic tires.

in the whole history of the bicycle, I would choose the innovation produced around 1817 in Germany by Karl von Drais. He built the first wheeled vehicle that had two wheels in line, with the front one steerable. No pedals; the rider just sat on the center bar and kicked. This "running machine" (later called "velocipede" and "draisine") is the ancestor of all bicycles. The wheel arrangement made possible the balance, manueverability and light weight that are the essential characteristics of a bicycle. People had been trying for hundreds of years to build practical human-powered wheeled vehicles and nothing had worked very well; Drais came up with the essential principle that got the bicycle world started.

Is that "old-school" enough for you?

Carbon fiber....

I ride a steel bike, but just about all the pro teams ride c.f. these days. The down side for us is that it has raised the price for bicycles. I remember when 2K was a lot to pay for a bike. Now you are lucky if you can find a frame for 2K.

Non-cycling innovation...the Internet.

For sheer value, I have to go with MB1 and say either chain drive or pneumatic tires.

I'd put the freewheel (as opposed to simply a fixed gear) right up there too.

For astonishing cleverness, I'll go with the parallelogram rear derailler. Simple, durable, adjustable, easy to use, hardly changed since its introduction (as far as I know). A bike milestone.

I'd put the freewheel (as opposed to simply a fixed gear) right up there too.

For astonishing cleverness, I'll go with the parallelogram rear derailler. Simple, durable, adjustable, easy to use, hardly changed since its introduction (as far as I know). A bike milestone.

Do you ride fixed?

Do you ride fixed?
Just 'cause you don't use them doesn't mean they're not valuable.

No, they're not critical to the operation of a bike in the way that chain drive is, but they do increase versatility (and widen the appeal of bikes also, though that's not necessarily a good criterion).

And because you asked, I do not currently ride fixed. I have done so, and currently have a bike set up with track wheels, but I prefer to ride single speed on it.

Er.......Compact frame???!!!!

Please don't flame me all you compact haters! (U know who u are!)

:) :) :) :) :) :)

Er.......Compact frame???!!!!

Please don't flame me all you compact haters! (U know who u are!)

:) :) :) :) :) :)

Not a flame, but how do see that as a major innovation or quantum leap? Seems to me it solves a minor problem (standover height) and a possibly-non-existent one (insufficient stiffness). Is there more I'm missing here?

Not a flame, but how do see that as a major innovation or quantum leap? Seems to me it solves a minor problem (standover height) and a possibly-non-existent one (insufficient stiffness). Is there more I'm missing here?

Their ubiquity speaks for itself.

Prior to the compact, a horizontal top tube was a kind of an irrational design remit. Someone challanged that, and thought out of the box and it changed.

Er.......Compact frame???!!!!

:) :) :) :) :) :)

Compact frames. The solution to a problem that never existed

One thing I can't count out is the aerobar that Lemmond used, he revolutionized the timetrial. At some point saving watts on inefficentcies became more important than the raw watts themselves.

In a recent interview, Lemond claimed that he didn't have an aerodynamic advantage in the time trial, because the aerobars saved him 8 seconds, but the "aero" helmet he used was worse than no helmet and cost him 8 seconds.

IOW, he says he beat Fignon by 40-whatever seconds on power alone.

:D :D Hrmm......

For sheer value, I have to go with MB1 and say either chain drive or pneumatic tires.

I completely agree with MB1 and bikeboy389. The first bicycles (or near bicycles) like the Draisane, the "bone shaker" and the high wheeler were merely play toys for the rich, and not practical transportation. The chain drive and the pneumatic tire, which were introduced just a year or two apart, made the bicycle safe and practical for the masses, and fully made them valid personal transportation alternatives (unlike, say, the Segway, which is still just a play toy for the rich).

Compact frames. The solution to a problem that never existed


not for the public...A step backwards for consumers.

Manufactuers: Hey let's offer 3 sizes and force the public to find fit by seatposts and stems. Small, Medium, Large as opposed to a 48, 50, 52, 54, 56....Absolutely genius for them.

In my case, I am somewhere exactly between a small and a medium, either a crazy long seat post or a super short stem...

Exactly...The only reason for compact frame is to benefit the manufacturer

Carbon fiber....

I ride a steel bike, but just about all the pro teams ride c.f. these days.
Sorry, I don't see how having pros use them makes them innovative. I don't see how carbon fibre frames have solved any problems that existed with steel or aluminum bikes. It's still the same basic design, with a few grams shaved here and there, and a little more fragility. IMO, they should have just stuck with steel.

The down side for us is that it has raised the price for bicycles. I remember when 2K was a lot to pay for a bike. Now you are lucky if you can find a frame for 2K.
What? There are plenty of fine frames out there for around $400, and many full custom frames don't even cost $2k.

This is an interesting question. Like most everyone I've been riding bikes as a child but I've been "more than a recreational" cyclist since the ealy 70's. The challenge, of course, is to select an innovation/improvement that, in a road bike forum, covers the range of bikes in this category (Road, 'cross, single speeds/fixies, touring, commuters, etc). So, in my experience I suggest the best thing is vastly improved reliably due to the use of better materials and manufacturing standards. Today's components - Spokes/nipples, hubs, chains, rims, chainrings/cogs (9 & 10 speed drivetrains notwithstanding), tires/tubes, screws/nuts/bolts (The use of hex screws was a huge step forward), etc. - are greatly improved.

I consider myself just a cyclist not a "Roadie" or a "Dirtie" but I sure am glad not to have to ride through a muddy road dodging steaming piles of fresh horse poop.

MB1
Thankful for the little things.

best innnovation is standard sizing on bikes and parts. Like brake bosses being the same on all frames, so your ultegra brakes will fit your frame no matter where it was made, or your derailler hanger is in the proper place and uses the proper thread. Not having to worry about having to check for sae threads, metric, british or some other variation.

That doesn't mean much.

One thing I can't count out is the aerobar that LeMond used, he revolutionized the timetrial.
No he didn't. Triathletes were using aerobars for years before LeMond. In pro cycling, the 7-Eleven team was using aerobars months before LeMond. They even used them in the TdF before LeMond. The difference is, LeMond is the first to WIN on them.

Mountain bikes. Their development forced road bike manufacturers to rethink their methods of construction and marketing. It also brought more people into cycling who eventually figured out that they need a road bike as well.

IMHO, the biggest contribution/quantum leap of the 20th and 21st century is Monday Night Football, it's football, it is at night, and you can watch it in the comfort of your home after work. It sucks for the east coast people, but it rocks for the west coast.

Integrated brake/shifters is a pretty massive innovation.

I can't imagine having to reach down again to shift. It is possible some people on this board have never know downtube shifters or unindexed gears

A smaller but still significant innovation is the hyperglide stuff.

In a recent interview, Lemond claimed that he didn't have an aerodynamic advantage in the time trial, because the aerobars saved him 8 seconds, but the "aero" helmet he used was worse than no helmet and cost him 8 seconds.

IOW, he says he beat Fignon by 40-whatever seconds on power alone.

:D :D Hrmm......

I love Greg, but sometimes he's full of it. Fignon's long hair in a ponytail was probably one of the draggiest configurations possible. It's very likely the helmet made a significant difference. A lot of wind-tunnel data since that time backs that up.

Started riding MTB in 95' and road a few years later. I still recall two things that knocked my socks the first time I tried them.

For MTB, it was V-brakes. They were such a huge improvement over cantilever brakes it was remarkable.

For road, it was STI. Went from downtube to STI in 00'. I smacked myself for not doing it sooner.

Honorable mentions;

First time I rode a carbon road frame. Trek 5200 in later in 00'. Bought one shortly afterwards. Been riding carbon ever since.

Full suspension on MTB. Took them a while to get it dialed, but it works great now.

Tubeless tire on MTB. The extra traction is well worth any hassle these tires caused.

Mountain bikes. Their development forced road bike manufacturers to rethink their methods of construction and marketing. It also brought more people into cycling who eventually figured out that they need a road bike as well.

IMHO, the biggest contribution/quantum leap of the 20th and 21st century is Monday Night Football, it's football, it is at night, and you can watch it in the comfort of your home after work. It sucks for the east coast people, but it rocks for the west coast.

Yeah, the velocipede, pneumatic tires, and the "safety bicycle" were certainly some of the most important. I would also agree that the parallelogram derailleur was also very important. When it first showed up at the TDF it immediately resulted in a spanking of the field of riders on flip-flop wheels. It was game over for fixed gear or singlespeeds in road racing from then on.

I go back far enough to have ridden road bikes with traps/cages on the pedals, and they sucked big time! So, I'd definitely put clipless pedals up there. They are indispensable for MTB or CX riding especially.

I also enjoy my brifters very much, thank you. I've got some retro-grouch friends that swear by their Campy DT shifters. Sorry, I don't get that one at all. STI or Ergo, it just works better (and is safer IMHO).

I totally agree about mountain bikes giving a major kick in the ass to the bike industry in improving materials, manufacturing improvements, and overall improvements in quality. My first MTB in the 80's easily weighed 30 lbs. How far we've come with developing a myriad of new materials and construction to get that same MTB down to 16 lbs, and with better quality, and probably stronger and more resilient. Sure, it's caused a downturn in the boutique bike builders business, but the stock bikes coming from the big companies like Trek, Giant, Specialized, and etc. are way better quality than they used to be. All in all, very good for the consumer.

I would also rank eBay as a innovation. As someone who has built up most of my bikes from scratch, and kept older bikes going and going, this is a tremendous resource.

Don't agree about night Football though. Lots of people wasting their time watching stupid Football on beautiful Sunday afternoons means wonderfully empty roads and trails for me! :thumbsup:

Not a flame, but how do see that as a major innovation or quantum leap? Seems to me it solves a minor problem (standover height) and a possibly-non-existent one (insufficient stiffness). Is there more I'm missing here?


He's a troll. Check his prior posts. Not much contribution but the occasional flame.

I would also agree that the parallelogram derailleur was also very important. When it first showed up at the TDF it immediately resulted in a spanking of the field of riders on flip-flop wheels. It was game over for fixed gear or singlespeeds in road racing from then on.

That's some fancy re-writing of history you've got going there. In reality, despite the fact that derailleurs had been in continuing development since the early 1900's, the reason that they weren't used in the Tour de France for many years is because they explicitly forbidden by the rules until 1937. They were still used in other races before then however. And when they started using derailleurs in the Tour de France in 1937 they weren't parallelogram derailleurs - the first modern parallelogram derailleur didn't hit the streets until 1951.

Yep..if you asked the riders what the biggest advance, they'd say the sag wagon. Riders were required to carrry all tires and tools needed to preform repairs. They also had to do all repairs themselves. There was one rider that was DSQ'd because he borrowed a blacksmiths welder to fix his frame. The rider welded his own bike but he was still DSQ'd

That's some fancy re-writing of history you've got going there. In reality, despite the fact that derailleurs had been in continuing development since the early 1900's, the reason that they weren't used in the Tour de France for many years is because they explicitly forbidden by the rules until 1937. They were still used in other races before then however. And when they started using derailleurs in the Tour de France in 1937 they weren't parallelogram derailleurs - the first modern parallelogram derailleur didn't hit the streets until 1951.

OK, great. So, Mr. Campagnolo apparently "perfected" the derailleur by 1933 (according to one thing I found on the web), then the TDF allowed them in 1937, and then Campagnolo apparently "perfected" the derailleur again in 1950 with it's parellelogram design. At any rate, these were all points in time where the derailleur constituted significant leaps in road racing.

My vote is for the quick release by Tulio Campagnolo:idea: :eek:

My vote is for the quick release by Tulio Campagnolo:idea: :eek:
Unless they're Performance Q-stix that come open all by themselves.

They are awfully darn handy, though!

Ok. So I'm new to this and possibly don't appreciate the engineering marvels they've produced for the cycling world in the past few years. However, it seems to me that chamois shorts have to be at the top of anyone's list! Would you be able to ride 50 miles sans padding? I certainly couldn't - at least not with any degree of enjoyment.

[QUOTE=GirchyGirchy]Sorry, I don't see how having pros use them makes them innovative. I don't see how carbon fibre frames have solved any problems that existed with steel or aluminum bikes.

Carbon fiber has changed the bike industry. Everyone is concerned about weight. What the pro's ride is tricked down to us (who rode Trek's before you-know-who came along?). I've recently run into riders (mostly triathletes) who have never seen a steel bike. Carbon fiber has not solved any problems, but things are more expensive. I ride steel, I prefer steel, but everything is pointing to c.f.. Carbon fiber might not be innovative, but it's a big change. Bigger than aluminum or titanium. It comes down to marketing. Actually I think carbon fiber might be the worse thing that has happened. Riders are more concerned now about WHAT they ride as opposed to HOW they ride. Carbon fiber has changed the bike world, for sure.

Maybe a better choice for innovative would be clincher tires. Clincher tires used to be junk, now they are right up there with tubulars.

Second choice-decent cold weather gear.

Compact frames. The solution to a problem that never existed
You obviously don't have the same short legs/long torso problem I do. Compact frames are a godsend! I don't know about 'quantum leap,' but certainly a good thing!

I'm gonna hafta vote brifters as 'the quantum leap in my lifetime of riding.' Right after that are clipless pedals. Unfortunately, the mastery of 'the pedal flip and put yer foot into the clip/strap' I learned when I first started riding is a dead skillset. Oh well. Progress I guess.

M

Integrated brake/shifters is a pretty massive innovation.

I can't imagine having to reach down again to shift. It is possible some people on this board have never know downtube shifters or unindexed gears

.

I agree, I remember when I used to ride friction downtube. Such hassle sometimes. Then I tried bar end, indexed. Then bought a new bike with brifters on em, oh my what a difference.

I dunno what i would do if my brifters were to disappear from my bike.

Also, another great innovation, square tapered cranks and bb. I hate cotterpins and one-piece cranks.

While not a quantum leap, I have to say I enjoy the modern fabrics when compared to wool or cotton. Easy to care for, retains it shape, color, etc. I also have to say I like my new shoes compared to the old leather Dettos with the TA cleats nailed to them.

The Camelbak is very innovative.

You're all so wrong that it's pathetic.

Nature published a paper that definitively proved that the single most revolutionary development in the long history of bicycles was the podium girl.

Game, set, match.

Considering this was 1923 it took a long time to come up with something to replace it. Also on my list would be the Tour de France which has also had great staying power

OK, great. So, Mr. Campagnolo apparently "perfected" the derailleur by 1933 (according to one thing I found on the web), then the TDF allowed them in 1937, and then Campagnolo apparently "perfected" the derailleur again in 1950 with it's parellelogram design. At any rate, these were all points in time where the derailleur constituted significant leaps in road racing.

You must have misread the "one thing you found on the web". Although Campagnolo patented his first derailleur in 1933, it was far, far from perfect. It involved reaching back to open a rear quick release lever (i.e axle no longer locked into the frame), backpedaling to make the chain run backwards, and then fiddling with another lever mounted on the chainstay which operated a "fork" on the top run of chain that pushed the chain right or left (similar to how a front derailleur works), and then closing the rear quick release again to lock the rear wheel into the drop outs.

This "cambio corsa" derailleur was very difficult to operate, and had a gear range limitation of only a 3 or 4 sprockets with a total tooth difference of about 10 teeth. I know someone who owns one, and while he can manage to shift it with the bike in the stand, he has never been able to shift it while riding.

Companies like Cyclo were already offering much easier to operate plunger type derailleur systems (using downtube mounted friction levers) with larger ranges of gearing by the Campagnolo came up with his system.