The Fine Line Of Science & Sport

[boardhanger]

Specialized McLaren Venge is stated to save 23watts at 45kph in testing. Whether in 'super nutrition' or tecnology cycling seems adamant in pushing the boundries of science and sporting lines.
Further moving away from the essence of racing culture. We have a sport that is, sadly, the laughing stock of the doping world. Along with an elite financial attitude towards equipment which has alienated 90% of the world from getting envolved.
Is there an need to push the envolope again with bicycles as this new Specialized McLaren Venge when, as history has shown, for instance,

the 1978 Milan San Remo average speed was 42.396 km/hour.

1960s M-S-R ,average speed was 42,640km/hour.

2010s Milan San Remo was @42.82 kph.

Should cycling stop pushing the boundries and accept certain limitations , or are you happy with so called NASA tecnology with cycling??

 

[Jamsque]

Does it have Cancellara's magical golden bearings, though?

 

[avanti]

I have not checked the UCI rules but doesn't riders equipment need to be available for sale to anyone?

 

[Boeing]

why does that frame look like it is humping the front wheel?

 

[dodgyknee]

I have not checked the UCI rules but doesn't riders equipment need to be available for sale to anyone?

i am sure mr button will be getting his hands on one as he likes a wee pedal here and there , so i suppose they made more than one or two!
for sale to anyone with £15,000 to spare

 

[More Strides than Rides]

...Further moving away from the essence of racing culture...

This is were I start to disagree. "Racing culture" is an arbitrary goal, and will have many different definitions between riders, teams, and fans. I think whatever current flux of innovation in racing is an acceptable adaptation. The most productive understanding of "racing culture" will be more inclusive than exclusive and reactionary.

I find myself stumbling to condemn doping while staying on the engineer's side of the fence of pushing boundaries, but at least better nutrition, training plans, and gear are not (directly) harmful to an athlete's health. Accessibility is a different question, but pretty much any individual sport (play along with cycling) has less accessibility than team sports:, golf, skiing, swimming even.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The only science to the Specialized Venge is marketing.

 

[GWAR79]

Specialized McLaren Venge is stated to save 23watts at 45kph in testing. Whether in 'super nutrition' or tecnology cycling seems adamant in pushing the boundries of science and sporting lines.
Further moving away from the essence of racing culture. We have a sport that is, sadly, the laughing stock of the doping world. Along with an elite financial attitude towards equipment which has alienated 90% of the world from getting envolved.
Is there an need to push the envolope again with bicycles as this new Specialized McLaren Venge when, as history has shown, for instance,

the 1978 Milan San Remo average speed was 42.396 km/hour.

1960s M-S-R ,average speed was 42,640km/hour.

2010s Milan San Remo was @42.82 kph.

Should cycling stop pushing the boundries and accept certain limitations , or are you happy with so called NASA tecnology with cycling??

If speeds are not improving in the last 30 years, I suppose that the '90% of the world' that you claim cannot cycle because of costs need only buy older bikes (cheaper), train up, and jump in the peleton since new tech. isn't significantly innovative... Then we'll only see 1 white dude in any race

 

[theswordsman]

It will be for sale. Cavendish rides it at MSR. I don't know how many other Specialized riders will use it - they said the regular road bike is still lighter and stiffer. But the price is in line with other pro road bikes - it's not like they're doing the super expensive custom one-offs that made track cycling a bit elitist.

Did they test improvements on the Tourmalet, or with a team leader in the middle of a peloton, or a breakaway with eight guys in a line?

I

t'll be available in two models: the S-Works Venge will be available to buy in the UK from the end of April, but the model we were shown today – the McLaren Venge – is being held back until September.

Prices will be decribed in more detail later on, but in the UK the McLaren Venge will cost £5,000 for the frame module. US prices for the S-Works Venge are $3800 for the frame module, $8800 for a SRAM Red build and $9200 for a Shimano Dura-Ace build. US prices for the McLaren Venge are yet to be confirmed.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/specialized-mclaren-venge-aero-road-bike-launched-29642

The website is kind of spiffy:

http://venge.specialized.com/#

 

[boardhanger]

If speeds are not improving in the last 30 years, I suppose that the '90% of the world' that you claim cannot cycle because of costs need only buy older bikes (cheaper), train up, and jump in the peleton since new tech. isn't significantly innovative... Then we'll only see 1 white dude in any race

Why does 'cycling' feel it should be at the tecnological cutting edge when it's essentially person(s) against person(s) type sport? I understand the need for adavanced tecnologies in, say, Formula one as it essentially car versus car. Im not stating I know everything and I do love new tecnology, who doesn't?. But is a supposed bike which gives 23wats savings at 45kph any different to Cancellaras 'enginegate' or 'golden ball bearings'?? My point, why is cycling paying over the top to test new products (i.e carbons, titainiums etc) consistenly furthering the grassroots away from the high end. Should pro cycling not take a step back especially in the aftermath of EPO era and look to its grass roots? It seems like the new dope is super expensive gota have tecnologies, IMO.

 

[Boardslide]

Cavendish rides it at MSR. I don't know how many other Specialized riders will use it.

There will be 3 riders from each of the 3 Specialized teams, Saxobank, Astana & HTC. Not sure if it''s Goss or Renshaw who will be riding it with Cav & Eisel as I've read two articles with different lists.

http://venge.specialized.com/#

 

[GWAR79]

I must have missed your point. Your avg. speed illustrations suggest to me that times haven't improved much so new tech. isn't significant to performance. But your last comment says new tech is the new dope...

 

[goggalor]

That is one ugly bike.

 

[Winterfold]

the 1978 Milan San Remo average speed was 42.396 km/hour.

1960s M-S-R ,average speed was 42,640km/hour.

2010s Milan San Remo was @42.82 kph.

THIS.

It is great to know that you can buy a $7000 frame and do 42kmh or get your old reynolds frame and spend $100 on some coke and pot belge ingredients and go just as fast and have tonnes more fun.

 

[El Pistolero]

Why does 'cycling' feel it should be at the tecnological cutting edge when it's essentially person(s) against person(s) type sport? I understand the need for adavanced tecnologies in, say, Formula one as it essentially car versus car. Im not stating I know everything and I do love new tecnology, who doesn't?. But is a supposed bike which gives 23wats savings at 45kph any different to Cancellaras 'enginegate' or 'golden ball bearings'?? My point, why is cycling paying over the top to test new products (i.e carbons, titainiums etc) consistenly furthering the grassroots away from the high end. Should pro cycling not take a step back especially in the aftermath of EPO era and look to its grass roots? It seems like the new dope is super expensive gota have tecnologies, IMO.

The tragedy of the commons

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Marketing crap. It's amazing that people actually believe this stuff.

The Specialized Venge's price tag is a stupidity tax.

 

[woodie]

According to the cycling news article on the home page it'll be Eisel, Cav and Renshaw from HTC.

As far as the grassroots argument I know that the club I am involved in is getting bigger all the time. A decent bike can be bought for $1500 or so and a second hand bike can be picked up for less than $1000.

Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with 'pushing the limits' in terms of technology.

But as boardhangers examples of MS-R show the speeds aren't dramatically different over fifty years so obviously the 'technology' isn't as a big factor as the bike companies want us to believe. It's all marketing.

If people want to spent thousands of dollars on a bike they can but if people only want to spend a thousand or less on a bike they can. I think cycling is actually a very easy sport to get in to, just depends whether you want to race heaps or not...

 

[JPM London]

I find myself stumbling to condemn doping while staying on the engineer's side of the fence of pushing boundaries, but at least better nutrition, training plans, and gear are not (directly) harmful to an athlete's health. Accessibility is a different question, but pretty much any individual sport (play along with cycling) has less accessibility than team sports:, golf, skiing, swimming even.

I don't think you're stumbling at all - there are a couple of very big differences between gear and dope.

First off - two riders can optimise their bike but will still be competing within natural ability, in essence two riders on the same bike (fitted for them individually) are equal. If you put them in a windtunnel and they come out with the same drag that's only democratic.

I'm not getting into dope here, cos this is the pro section not the clinic, but I don't have to. It's exactly opposite...

No gear in the current market is off limits to the teams who want to be competitive at the top level, so it's not even un-democratic in that sense either.

Why does 'cycling' feel it should be at the tecnological cutting edge when it's essentially person(s) against person(s) type sport? I understand the need for adavanced tecnologies in, say, Formula one as it essentially car versus car. Im not stating I know everything and I do love new tecnology, who doesn't?. But is a supposed bike which gives 23wats savings at 45kph any different to Cancellaras 'enginegate' or 'golden ball bearings'?? My point, why is cycling paying over the top to test new products (i.e carbons, titainiums etc) consistenly furthering the grassroots away from the high end. Should pro cycling not take a step back especially in the aftermath of EPO era and look to its grass roots? It seems like the new dope is super expensive gota have tecnologies, IMO.

Boardhanger, why shouldn't pro cycling be at the cutting edge? We're talking about an elite, professional sport here - we're not talking about mr and mrs Doe down the road.

If that's your view of F1 you've clearly never sat in a fast moving car before. That statement is just as stupid as saying cycling is jsut about going faster than the others.

When you talk about grass roots I get pictures in my head of men-only sports where a moustache and a pair of woollen undies are compulsory equipment.

If we couldn't spend at least some of the time being awed and delighted about new gear, then it would be quite a boring world to live in.

There will be 3 riders from each of the 3 Specialized teams, Saxobank, Astana & HTC. Not sure if it''s Goss or Renshaw who will be riding it with Cav & Eisel as I've read two articles with different lists.

http://venge.specialized.com/#

Hmm, just guessing that Tossato and Nuyens will be two on Saxo Bank - really looking forward to the show today!

 

[veganrob]

I've got no problem with all the new stuff coming out. The bike companies make bikes for the pros and if we want the latest and greatest we will pay through the nose for it or wait for the technology to trickle down. That is all fine.
But remember, the pros will ride whatever they are told to and will win or lose on their ability, not because of the bike.
And as far as all these aero bikes saving x# of watts. Forget it. Total BS. That is all wind tunnel with no rider.

 

[boardhanger]

Boardhanger, why shouldn't pro cycling be at the cutting edge? We're talking about an elite, professional sport here - we're not talking about mr and mrs Doe down the road.

If that's your view of F1 you've clearly never sat in a fast moving car before. That statement is just as stupid as saying cycling is jsut about going faster than the others.

QUOTE]

Because we're pushing the limits, making the sport more and more expensive. Less and less attractive to those who can't afford it, IMO. I also gave the F1 opinion as a quick example and used the word 'essentially'. I support what they do in Belguim. Restricting gearing and equipment to juniors. And also in USA collegiate racing where certain highend equipment is not allowed. If I could afford it, i'd be on a Colnago with Record Super 11. But it's not reality. Should econmics dictate our sports future??

 

[TERMINATOR]

Specialized McLaren Venge is stated to save 23watts at 45kph in testing. Whether in 'super nutrition' or tecnology cycling seems adamant in pushing the boundries of science and sporting lines.
Further moving away from the essence of racing culture. We have a sport that is, sadly, the laughing stock of the doping world. Along with an elite financial attitude towards equipment which has alienated 90% of the world from getting envolved.
Is there an need to push the envolope again with bicycles as this new Specialized McLaren Venge when, as history has shown, for instance,

the 1978 Milan San Remo average speed was 42.396 km/hour.

1960s M-S-R ,average speed was 42,640km/hour.

2010s Milan San Remo was @42.82 kph.

Should cycling stop pushing the boundries and accept certain limitations , or are you happy with so called NASA tecnology with cycling??

You people and your average speed extrapolations really annoy me.

Average speed means average speed. It has NOTHING to do with how fast the race was when it matters. Races are much faster today when it matters.

It is most likely the case that in a 1-day road race back in the 1980's they went out as hard as they could and held that pace, which will always give a higher average speed. Nowadays it's a lot more relaxed as teams know this race usually ends in a field sprint and so no teams work too hard in the beginning of the race. The reason why the average speed is still the same is because the last 2 hours of today's race is raced faster than back then.

If you want to look at the fastest times for racing it was circa 1993/94 when the entire Gewiss team showed up with hematocrits in the high 50's/low 60's. Those were still the fastest times up the Poggio since there was no test for EPO back then and guys were taking massive doses.

The fastest Milan – San Remo over the usual course was in 1990. Gianni Bugno rode 6:25. This was an average of 45.8kmh (28.45mph).

 

[JPM London]

Because we're pushing the limits, making the sport more and more expensive. Less and less attractive to those who can't afford it, IMO. I also gave the F1 opinion as a quick example and used the word 'essentially'. I support what they do in Belguim. Restricting gearing and equipment to juniors. And also in USA collegiate racing where certain highend equipment is not allowed. If I could afford it, i'd be on a Colnago with Record Super 11. But it's not reality. Should econmics dictate our sports future??

Ok, I get your point now - in connection with club and amateur riding.
I completely agree with you that all sports needs to be as accessible as possible for the general public and can definitely support restrictions at those levels.
I don't see a need for this to translate through to pro level, though... I like elite sports to be innovative...