Question Quickstep and Grohe move away from Tubeless. How long before pros admit disc brakes and electronic front derailleurs should go?

We've all seen how racing has become more complicated with sponsor mandated equipment. The pros hide some of it with blank sidewalls and rebranded equipment; will it take a major rider losing a classic for equipment suppliers to back down? if so, who and what?
 
I must confess I was a bit puzzled when I first read this.

Quickstep and Bora's move to clinchers seems to be their selected choice among the options made available to them by their sponsors/suppliers. I don't have any experience riding tubulars to argue on the clincher vs tubulars, but apparently someone has measured that clinchers are faster.

What I know from hearsay is that tubulars are more puncture resistant, so I guess that's why teams moving to clinchers may make an exception with the cobbled classics.

I believe powermeters weren't that common back when everyone moved from clinchers to tubulars so they couldn't justify the move with numbers. Maybe if they perceive a rising number of punctures someone goes onto big data to analyse the problem and they move again to tubulars. It's all in the numbers. But what do I know.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I must confess I was a bit puzzled when I first read this.

Quickstep and Bora's move to clinchers seems to be their selected choice among the options made available to them by their sponsors/suppliers. I don't have any experience riding tubulars to argue on the clincher vs tubulars, but apparently someone has measured that clinchers are faster.

What I know from hearsay is that tubulars are more puncture resistant, so I guess that's why teams moving to clinchers may make an exception with the cobbled classics.

I believe powermeters weren't that common back when everyone moved from clinchers to tubulars so they couldn't justify the move with numbers. Maybe if they perceive a rising number of punctures someone goes onto big data to analyse the problem and they move again to tubulars. It's all in the numbers. But what do I know.
Yeah, I didn't mean to be confusing. The question was for more broad discussion on the evolution of bike equipment and it's marketing. My wife just got her beautiful Gerard gravel bike, complete with very useful disc brakes and all that goes with it. She has no clue how to maintain any of it when out in the wild and I don't use any of the gear on my road bikes. She'll learn and prudently loves discs for off road and cyclocross riding.

Anyone watching extended stages of any GT will see riders standing on the side of the road waiting for team cars to replace their bike for nearly any malfunction. For many of them the quick option of taking a teammate's wheel doesn't work with discs and you'll notice many major contenders don't use them, opting for more conventional brakes. There's also the situations where you'll see Alaphilippe or Bardet delivering a heel-kick to their front derailleur while they drift back from the group they rode in.

We know these evolutions typically cost more and options could diminish as the manufacturers' invest deeply in the tech. Do you think notable riders will ride what they want?
 
I mistook the reference to the clinchers vs tubulars an an example of change driven by marketing, and it doesn't seem the case.

Notable riders not riding what they want? There's been the case for riders rebranding frames, wheelsets, drive trains and what not.
Most of them try to keep things under the radar or make low profile comments. At the opposite extreme some others speak loud, abandon races, move teams and crush the Stelvio to prove their point.

It seems to me that everyone acknowlegdes the advantages of disk brakes and electronic gear shifters... until there is malfunction. As long as malfunctions are kept at low numbers I don't see anyone going back to the old technology.

As for me, I also avoid stuff I can't maintain. The gap between what I use and what's available started growing with the introduction of indexed shifters.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I mistook the reference to the clinchers vs tubulars an an example of change driven by marketing, and it doesn't seem the case.

Notable riders not riding what they want? There's been the case for riders rebranding frames, wheelsets, drive trains and what not.
Most of them try to keep things under the radar or make low profile comments. At the opposite extreme some others speak loud, abandon races, move teams and crush the Stelvio to prove their point.

It seems to me that everyone acknowlegdes the advantages of disk brakes and electronic gear shifters... until there is malfunction. As long as malfunctions are kept at low numbers I don't see anyone going back to the old technology.

As for me, I also avoid stuff I can't maintain. The gap between what I use and what's available started growing with the introduction of indexed shifters.
It's always been somewhat opaque what the pros use, for sure. Most would prefer tubulars if they're less prone to flats but clinchers were the next move until tubeless entered the picture and was heavily marketed. They're great for 'cross, gravel and mountain biking but I've witnessed many riders installing tubes in road repairs because they can't quite get them to re-inflate. No doubt due to user error most of the time, for sure.

Disc brakes for road races seem to have deeper complications not because of the brakes so much; just the complication of changing flats. A quick look back suggests none
of the winners of the Vuelta, Tour or Giro for the last ten years have used them for those events. I'd argue that, even on wet pavement the cantilever brake pads and rim technology stop very close to the same as discs as the tire can only grip so much before losing traction. Applying that to everyday riders it seems unlikely that discs provide significant safety vs. the hassle of tire changes and added expense/maintenance.
Specialized sponsored teams seem to be the consistent users even though non-disc frames are in their lineup. Again, much marketing has gone into brakes, carbon wheels and tires and the search for the next new thing IMO.
 
It would take a number of disasters for teams to back away from Di2/discs etc.

^^I agree with the above that wheel manufacturers will figure out a way to make changes easier with discs. In theory it should be slightly easier since you don't have to get the tire past the brake arms. Just need to figure out a setting that will spring the pads away from the disc a couple of cms and keep them there.

I'm not really onboard with remote shifting: I think bikes should remain purely mechanical without any electrons involved...it just dilutes the spirit of cycling.
 
It would take a number of disasters for teams to back away from Di2/discs etc.

^^I agree with the above that wheel manufacturers will figure out a way to make changes easier with discs. In theory it should be slightly easier since you don't have to get the tire past the brake arms. Just need to figure out a setting that will spring the pads away from the disc a couple of cms and keep them there.

I'm not really onboard with remote shifting: I think bikes should remain purely mechanical without any electrons involved...it just dilutes the spirit of cycling.
I agree that the manufacturers should find a way to improve disc brake removal. The embarrassment of racers not even bothering to attempt a wheel change should be motivating.

As for regulating electronic shifting I'm sure you (and me) are in the minority as we cherish the old ways. I do remember (still can, anyway) when the grumpy old guys complained about indexed shifting in the 80's. Coaches would say that the "clicking" of shifts would telegraph your strategic intentions to the other riders......
 
Reactions: Bolder and spalco
Reading the article on the front page of cyclingnews about tubeless tires, I had to laugh, what a nightmare. I get why bicycle manufacturers want to develop and sell new products, and maybe there is some marginal benefit to stuff like this, but come on - who wants a bike you can't even change the *** tire on without a fully loaded workshop?

Doesn't really matter for the pros of course, but still ridiculous.
 
Reading the article on the front page of cyclingnews about tubeless tires, I had to laugh, what a nightmare. I get why bicycle manufacturers want to develop and sell new products, and maybe there is some marginal benefit to stuff like this, but come on - who wants a bike you can't even change the *** tire on without a fully loaded workshop?

Doesn't really matter for the pros of course, but still ridiculous.
At least Froome had the cajones to complain about disc brakes on his new Factor bike; saying what most pros would say if they didn't fear a Specialized backhand. Coming from a GT winner and a good mountain biker that seems like a qualified opinion.
 
Reactions: Cookster15
At least Froome had the cajones to complain about disc brakes on his new Factor bike; saying what most pros would say if they didn't fear a Specialized backhand. Coming from a GT winner and a good mountain biker that seems like a qualified opinion.
I actually like discs better than rim brakes, especially for MTB. You can destroy your rims on a muddy day. Also safer for wet commutes. But I agree with Froomes point that the tolerances are too small.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I like the cut of this thread's jib.
Disc brakes on road bikes are ridiculous, especially in the pro peloton.
And now weekend warriors everywhere are sold the latest tech and fashion that many of them can't even service or repair themselves.
It's what marketing dreams are made of basically.
Good on Froome for speaking out.
 
Reactions: Oldermanish
I like the cut of this thread's jib.
Disc brakes on road bikes are ridiculous, especially in the pro peloton.
And now weekend warriors everywhere are sold the latest tech and fashion that many of them can't even service or repair themselves.
It's what marketing dreams are made of basically.
Good on Froome for speaking out.
And with the next wave of Shimano products going wireless; how long before they follow their habit of obsolescence of prior models by no longer making repair parts, etc? Eventually you'll be riding a bike that could leave you stranded unless you are very mechanically inclined and prepared. Not to be totally grumpy but wasn't the allure of cycling and bikes the relative simple elegance?
 
I actually like discs better than rim brakes, especially for MTB. You can destroy your rims on a muddy day. Also safer for wet commutes. But I agree with Froomes point that the tolerances are too small.
I couldn't ride a fair bit of the stuff I do with rim brakes on a MTB, we're just into stuff that's way too steep. I think for the enthusiast road biker, discs are great, they offer a ton more control, but yeah, they're harder to work with. But I don't need quick wheel changes as I don't race road much except the odd Tri. If I buy another road bike the brake type won't be a deciding factor. Either is fine.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Feb 5, 2021
7
3
35
Reading the article on the front page of cyclingnews about tubeless tires, I had to laugh, what a nightmare. I get why bicycle manufacturers want to develop and sell new products, and maybe there is some marginal benefit to stuff like this, but come on - who wants a bike you can't even change the *** tire on without a fully loaded workshop?

Doesn't really matter for the pros of course, but still ridiculous.
Really good point, it's simply not worth the hassle. Of course if you're a pro thats a non issue but else i don't see it becoming the norm
 
Reactions: spalco

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS