Why have bicycle components advanced so much more rapidly thanautomobiles in the last half-century?

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:43:09 -0500, Ben C wrote:

On 2009-08-29, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Ben C? who wrote:
[...]
Bikes have got a bit better too, in particular the bearings and
things seem to last a lot longer (although that might just be that
in the 80s I had a rather cheaper bike).

Which bearings?

All of them. Bottom brackets and headsets seem to have got much better
too.

As I mentioned, wheel bearings failed most often from
excessive preload from forceful QR closure... to make sure the wheel
didn't pop out in use.

It's probably true that good bikes have got cheaper and more
mainstream, (although also true that nasty bikes have got even
cheaper and nastier).

I don't know what you call "good bikes" but paying up to $8000 dollars
is not cheaper than what I believe is reasonable. My LBS sells such
bicycles.

You can get what I would call a "good bike" for probably $1000 or $2000
or so.

This would be a welded aluminium or cromoly frame, and Shimano "105" or
thereabouts. I reckon such a bike is better than what you would have got
for the money (allowing for inflation) 20 years ago.

For sure.

Ben C schreef:

You can get what I would call a "good bike" for probably $1000 or $2000
or so.

This would be a welded aluminium or cromoly frame, and Shimano "105" or
thereabouts. I reckon such a bike is better than what you would have got
for the money (allowing for inflation) 20 years ago.

You can do much better for 2000 dollar = 1100 euro here. For that money
you can get a fully Ultegra equipped bike.
Did anyone mention that today you have much, much, much more choice than
let say 20 years ago.


Lou

On 29 Aug, 03:27, Nate Nagel wrote:
someone wrote:
On 29 Aug, 02:57, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Clive George wrote:
It seems to me that bicycle components have advanced a great deal
more quickly than automobile parts in the last half-century.
Hmm - there speaks somebody who has no idea of how different modern
cars are.
A 1950s car in some respects was superior to the cars you can buy
today for the equivalent money. All that has changed in automobiles
is refinement, and that is often mere complication rather than
added value.
Refinement, economy, performance, reliability, safety. Yeah, the
vast changes in the latter four aren't important at all...
Both bikes and cars have changed a lot. Cars probably more so. But
improved manufacturing techniques leading to higher tolerances is a
significant factor for both.
I guess young folks do not appreciate no more lube racks and constant
oil changes, spark plug gapping, replacing distributor points, fuel
mileage in the teens, bias ply tires and engines that lasted about
50,000 miles at best without major maintenance and bearing
replacement. *When were the valves adjusted last? that's only s short
list.

Besides, automatic transmissions are fore women who don't know how to
clutch properly, was the story... but today most highway "big rigs"
have automatic transmissions. *I know no one who drives a manual shift
car bought in the last 15 years.

Now what has changed with bicycles?

There is a considerable rich market which has taken over from the
amateur or enthusiast market. *This has led to widespread belief that
drivetrain components, brake cables, gear cables, tyres and rims
should be thrown away after low mileages. *This acceptance of low
service life is most peculier. * Perhaps it is related to the creation
of risks to satisfy insurance sales.

on the flip side, we have ramped and pinned chainrings and "hyperglide"
and similar cassettes, which rock. *I remember actually having to ease
off the pedals to shift!

This only became a real problem with dual pivot deraillers. Without
the swinging mount a rear derailler will shift solidly without easing
the pedals on perfect dentures (when correctly set up).

On 29 Aug, 12:33, Lou Holtman wrote:
Ben C schreef:

You can get what I would call a "good bike" for probably $1000 or $2000
or so.

This would be a welded aluminium or cromoly frame, and Shimano "105" or
thereabouts. I reckon such a bike is better than what you would have got
for the money (allowing for inflation) 20 years ago.

You can do much better for 2000 dollar = 1100 euro here. For that money
you can get a fully Ultegra equipped bike.
Did anyone mention that today you have much, much, much more choice than
let say 20 years ago.

Lou

I'd like some Gran sport and record please.

Clive George wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

It seems to me that bicycle components have advanced a great deal more
quickly than automobile parts in the last half-century.

Hmm - there speaks somebody who has no idea of how different modern cars
are.

A 1950s car in some respects was superior to the cars you can buy
today for the equivalent money. All that has changed in automobiles is
refinement, and that is often mere complication rather than added
value.

Refinement, economy, performance, reliability, safety. Yeah, the vast
changes in the latter four aren't important at all...

Both bikes and cars have changed a lot. Cars probably more so. But improved
manufacturing techniques leading to higher tolerances is a significant
factor for both.



Yes. I have worked in the camshaft/crankshaft gaging business. There's
no comparison between how engines were made, then vs. now, as any
insider will tell you.

On 29 Aug, 06:01, Andre Jute wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:51*am, dbrower wrote:



I'd say bicycle development and car development are comparable over
the same period. * While many of today's commonplace technologies were
hinted at earlier, they were not very widely used and very
expensive. * Compare the technology of a New Beetle with an Original
for an eye opening comparison. * * A lot of the change is electronics
and computer driven -- EFI, ABS, traction control, automatic
transmission control; *Some is manufacturing/design/material
improvement - twin overhead cams; long service intervals; non-deadly
handling; much better gas milage; safer in the event of collision;
more comfortable in every way. *At the high end, there are carbon cars
for reduced mass and greater stiffness.

Grouch or not, bikes have got more gears, just like car transmissions
got more; better shifting (ditto); lighter with new (possibly less
durable) materials, and now we are seeing electronic control of
shifting.

Seems about the same to me.

-dB

If you're right it would still be amazing that bikes have come the
same distance as cars in the same time. One has to consider only the
relative dollar value of the bicycle market against the automobile
market to see how amazing your statement is. -- Andre Jute

stop taking the ****.

Suspended saddles - brooks
Aluminium rims Sun
roller bearing chain - Renold
tension wheel - Cayley / Starley
DB cold drwan steel tubes - Reynolds
Ball bearing wheel hubs - (?Starley)
Diamond safety frame - Rover
Pnuematic tyre - Thompson / Dunlop
standard pattern threads - whitworth
Wire and casing brake cables - Bowden


These are the biggest advances is bicycle technology and all occurred
over 100 years ago. All modern refinements pale into insignificance
compared to the steps taken in the early industry.

Nate Nagel wrote:

I *miss* greasable chassis points. (ref: my complaint earlier today
about the "sealed for life" ball joints integral with forged aluminum
control arms. Sure, they last approximately 140K miles... but some of
us keep our cars longer than that.) I'd be willing to put up with more
service required if it meant longer service life.

OT, but: Can't you use the needle tip through the rubber seal trick to
replenish the grease? Even the greased ball joints that were regularly
serviced didn't seem to get anywhere near 140K as I recall.

Peter Cole wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

I *miss* greasable chassis points. (ref: my complaint earlier today
about the "sealed for life" ball joints integral with forged aluminum
control arms. Sure, they last approximately 140K miles... but some of
us keep our cars longer than that.) I'd be willing to put up with
more service required if it meant longer service life.

OT, but: Can't you use the needle tip through the rubber seal trick to
replenish the grease? Even the greased ball joints that were regularly
serviced didn't seem to get anywhere near 140K as I recall.

Probably, but at least to my mind (and, of course, my reasoning makes
sense to me, but I don't have any research to back up my assertions) it
would be better to force the grease in from inside the joint rather than
just pack more in under the rubber boot. I know that my dad's old Chevy
pickup truck, with old school greasable suspension components, rolled on
the original components for decades with indifferent maintenance until
eventually it was torn apart to have drop spindles installed. Now I did
have to rebuild the front suspension in my Stude due to a seized
trunnion (anyone remember trunnions?) although I think I only replaced
about half the bits, the rest are still original, or at least "as found."

Which reminds me, I should check and see if the new ball joint on my 944
is in fact greasable (at least one of the available control arm rebuild
kits includes zerk fittings) but as usual the girl had errands to do and
oddly enough she prefers driving the 944 to a fairly nondescript, aging
F*rd pickup truck. Can't imagine why...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
Unfortunately, there's a significant subset of the
population that still buys tires on the basis of "fits, black, round,
and cheap" rather than actually looking at performance reviews before
going shopping... (or barring that, just buying Michelins if you have
money to burn and don't feel like doing research) so there's lots of
cars running around with really crap tires on them.

Andre Jute wrote:
I was telling my son only the other day what a revelation it was the
first time I drove Michelin X, when I was still in my teens. Those
tires genuinely raised the state of the game. Whereas putting a ton
into the hour on bias-ply tyres, or even other crossplies, was always
dicey, on those Michelin steel belts a lot of cars that before merely
seemed dangerous suddenly merely seemed underpowered.


I had the very same experience with the (then) brand new
Pirelli P3. Well worth the long wait, handling went night
for day over Dunlop bias tires.
Those, and a set of (now no longer made) 13" Michelin VR on
another roadster were the two most dramatic improvements
I've ever made to any cars. Significant road lap time
improvement and exceptionally confidence-inspiring road feel.

Now that we have road cameras, who goes fast enough for good
tires to matter anyway? Haven't been much past 95 in years.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Unfortunately, there's a significant subset of the
population that still buys tires on the basis of "fits, black, round,
and cheap" rather than actually looking at performance reviews before
going shopping... (or barring that, just buying Michelins if you have
money to burn and don't feel like doing research) so there's lots of
cars running around with really crap tires on them.

Andre Jute wrote:
I was telling my son only the other day what a revelation it was the
first time I drove Michelin X, when I was still in my teens. Those
tires genuinely raised the state of the game. Whereas putting a ton
into the hour on bias-ply tyres, or even other crossplies, was always
dicey, on those Michelin steel belts a lot of cars that before merely
seemed dangerous suddenly merely seemed underpowered.


I had the very same experience with the (then) brand new Pirelli P3.
Well worth the long wait, handling went night for day over Dunlop bias
tires.
Those, and a set of (now no longer made) 13" Michelin VR on another
roadster were the two most dramatic improvements I've ever made to any
cars. Significant road lap time improvement and exceptionally
confidence-inspiring road feel.

For me it was Veith radials, very exotic and expensive back in (around)
1970, $36 !!! check out the ad from then: http://tinyurl.com/l8mpjc


Now that we have road cameras, who goes fast enough for good tires to
matter anyway? Haven't been much past 95 in years.

I haven't tried to find the top end of either of my last 2 cars, which
goes back ~25 years. I terrifies me to remember the things I routinely
did in the 60's when top ends were about all cars had.