Trance Dance Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 The anniversary of the first moon landing on 20 July has had me thinking about technological advancement. It's 46 years since the last human walked on the earth an I wondered why with all the improvements in technology this was the case. I guess it boils down to cost with the Apollo program costing about the same as the gdp of Hungary... This led me to improvements in bike technology and how much faster bikes are today. A bit of research, some simple maths and one big assumption gives me a figure of about 3%*. 3% improvement in speed over the period 1914 to 2014! Something to consider while you debate whether carbon wheels are going to improve your argus time or not. *Calculation based on a 10.5% increase in the distance run in an hour over the 100 years from 1914 to 2014. This increase is put down to an improvement in physicality as a result of training techniques, nutrition, and drugs. The improvement in cycling amounted to about 13%. So I subtracted 10% for improvement in physicality which left 3% which I attributed to bike technology.
Rigardt@Scott Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Improvements in speed mean nothing to me. It's all about how fun the bike is to ride (mtb), and all I can say is my modern bike is alot easier and more fun to ride than my 2006 Epic, oh and as a bonus it saves my ass more than I care to admit. Tech developments have a lot of advantages for the average joe... but I agree with you that speed is not necesserily one of them - not to the degree we may think anyway. I can't put a number to it, I doubt anyone can, but I do believe it's more than 3% - especially on the mtb xc side of things.
DieselnDust Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 49 years since the first moon landing. 46years since man last walked on the moon... The UCI can be thanked for the lack of progress. They even govern sock length... No jokes
Trance Dance Posted July 30, 2018 Author Posted July 30, 2018 1914 44.2km in an hour 2014 51.1km in an hour
DieselnDust Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Huh? Bike racing sells bikes. People buy what the pros ride. R&D gets paid for by profit. The UCI stiffles innovation. Plentiful great concepts out there. Ever wondered why mtb develops more interesting tech? Less restriction from the UCI. Join the dots man
Trance Dance Posted July 30, 2018 Author Posted July 30, 2018 1919 Tdf ave speed 24.056 km/h2017 Tdf ave speed 40.210 km/hNow that's a significant improvement! But surely a race like that that would be influenced by training and nutrition to a greater extent than a once off hour sprint? Not to mention better drugs...
DieselnDust Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Very different event back then. The bikes aren't so different. Materials have changed and they have more gears. Speed difference is the engine
Eldron Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 1914 44.2km in an hour 2014 51.1km in an hourWind resistance is exponential not linear so your straight 13% calculation is way off. Don't ask me to do the exponential calculation :-)
Spokey Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 As I understand it, drag increases at the square of the speed, so, 4 times the power for double the speed...........from what I remember from flight training all those years ago!
Coolspin Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1919 Tdf ave speed 24.056 km/h2017 Tdf ave speed 40.210 km/hQuality of the roads was also prob a lot different between 1919 and 2017.(Except cobbled part).
Eldron Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1914 44.2km in an hour2014 51.1km in an hour I found a neat calculator online which gives you power required to maintain speed. 44.2km/hr requires 243w51.1km/hr requires 374w. I'm sure some assumptions are off because those power figures are way too low but it does show the exponential nature of wind resistance. It requires 53% more power for the 2014 record.
Eldron Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 Here is a graph that looks too high...but is consistent with the calculator in terms of wind being exponential. The difference looks to be around 45-50% more power for the 2014 record. Wiggins reckons he needed to produce around 440w for his record of 54.526 km in 2015.
DieselnDust Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 I found a neat calculator online which gives you power required to maintain speed. 44.2km/hr requires 243w51.1km/hr requires 374w. I'm sure some assumptions are off because those power figures are way too low but it does show the exponential nature of wind resistance. It requires 53% more power for the 2014 record. Those numbers would be average Watts and therefore pretty impressive
rudi-h Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 Eldron is on the money... the increase in kinetic energy (which is equivalent to power) between 44.2 km/h and 51.1 km/h is +33%. So that means ~22% improvement (after you subtract your 10.5% training / nutrition correction ) in aerodynamic efficiency as bike weight has almost no relevance in track cycling. On hills there would also be a big difference due to better gearing and lighter frames.
Longbarn Killer Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1919 Tdf ave speed 24.056 km/h2017 Tdf ave speed 40.210 km/hBike technology cannot get the credit for this I'm afraid. Much better road surfaces allowing for higher average speed, massive advancements in training, riders earning a living from cycling (hence more time to train) and dare I say it.....................................drugs
scotty Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1919 Tdf ave speed 24.056 km/h2017 Tdf ave speed 40.210 km/hBetter roads, better bikes, better nutrition, better training, near skeleton participants on lighter bikes (TT bikes were unheard of) with better gearing and riders in 1919 had to do all the support themselves with no team mates to support them.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.