Don’t be afraid.
I participate on a number of online cycling forums and a conversation on one recently has me thinking. The conversation was about road bikes that incorporate some sort of rear suspension and since I’ve done much work and research in this area I decided to put my 2 cents in. I found the conversation and reactions of the others on the forum to be both fascinating and a bit puzzling.
I think one could take most of the posts from that thread and put them into one of three piles — those that think it is good idea, those that are skeptical but open to the idea, and finally those that feel that this type of thing is unneeded and should not be considered or discussed. The first two reactions were no surprise but the last one has me scratching my head.
I don’t want to use this space to talk about suspension on road bikes and whether it’s a good idea or not but rather I’d like to talk about new ideas in cycling and how they are met in the marketplace. I think one could substitute electronic shifting, indexed shifting, carbon wheels, clipless pedals, aero handlebars, or countless other things in for the suspension idea in this conversation and the results would be much the same.
I’ll date myself and say that I remember very well the reaction in the bike shop where I worked to the change from 5 speed freewheels to 6 speed freewheels. Some of the older and more experienced guys in the shop thought it was a great idea and some thought it was the beginning of the end and that we were looking for a bike that would pedal itself and one that would not require skill or strength of the rider. I think in this case history has shown that races were still won by the strongest and smartest riders and that the addition of that 6th cog wasn’t the end of everything that was good. In time even the naysayers got on board and installed 6 speed freewheels onto their bikes. In the 5 to 6 speed case it was proven through use that it was better because it allowed riders to have more fun and go faster and further.
If one goes much further back and reads articles written in during the time that Mr. Tullio Campagnolo invented the quick release we will see the same reaction. At the time the naysayers said it would ruin cycling and that it reduced the skill and strength needed to be a top shelf rider. It seems silly today to think that riders would be sitting by the side of the road, trying in vein to remove their wheel to fix a flat while the wingnut was frozen in place but that’s the way it was. And some were afraid of a change away from that.
There have been other innovations that were met with a similar reaction in the shop where I worked that proved in the end to be bad ideas. Biopace ovalized chainrings are a good example. They were released and sold and the public decided they sucked and they then went away. A pretty good system we have in place that takes care of such things. If you are an early adopter type of guy you might have invested in those rings only to be disappointed but you switched back to round rings and can now laugh about how bad those Biopace rings were. No one was hurt. No one had any reason to be afraid. It took care of itself. We learned something. I could list a hundred things like this that have come and gone and that we are happy to forget. In all of these cases the marketplace spoke and was listened to and yet at the time there were loud and fearful voices saying this was the beginning of the end and that cycling would be changed permanently for the worse.
I give the above examples to illustrate my point. Designers are constantly coming up with new ideas and concepts and they are released into the marketplace and the marketplace decides if they have merit. Some of the ideas are good and others not so much but anyway you look at it they are just ideas and nothing to be afraid of. No one ever suggested that all bikes would be mandated to have Biopace rings and that Shimano would break into your garage at night and take your round chainrings and force you to ride Biopace. No one said if you want to race you’d have to use them. No one said they were going to stop making round rings and when yours wore out that there would be no new round rings to replace them. There was nothing to be afraid of. It was just an idea. A bad idea in this case but in the end just an idea that you could choose to adopt or not.
This brings me back to the forum conversation about road bikes with rear suspension I spoke of at the beginning. There were some folks that said they think it’s a great idea and about time. There were some that while skeptical were still interested and open to the idea if it proved to work well over time and there were some that to me just sounded afraid of the idea. The last group is the one that really has me thinking. Why such fear of an idea? Where is the threat? There were many posts from members of this last group that said things like ‘no one needs suspension’. There were many posts by people who said it does not work but would only reluctantly admit that they had in fact never actually tried it. There were others still that would pick the worst possible example of a road suspension design and hold it out as proof that the concept will not work while passing over designs that have much more merit. It was as if they were saying ‘this design sucks, so all designs suck.’ There were others that said things like ‘where will this stop?’ and they would then suggest that something like this opens the door to the slippery slope to things like electronic braking or bikes that pedal themselves. It was even suggested by a select few that if you were cool you wouldn’t even consider or talk of such things. It appears that they were trying to censor the conversation by saying “you are a dork if you even think of this and you’ll have to eat your lunch alone.’ Others said that the cool hardmen of the sport don’t need this crap to be good. While that might be true it’s hardly the point. I’m sure LeMond could drop me at will regardless of how many cogs we each have in back or whether I have rear suspension or not. At the core of it one could feel the fear and anger from some of the posters. It appears that they felt threatened by this idea and the change it could bring and so much so that they felt it shouldn’t even be talked about. It was as if they felt that someone (me?) would be coming to their homes in the dark of the night and taking away their Colnago C50 and leaving a Terraplane in it’s place. Trust me. I won’t do this. I don’t even know where you live! There is no need to be afraid.
It might seem odd that someone like myself who favors a frame construction technique that is over 100 years old would be touting innovation and an open mind but I like new ideas and new stuff and at the same time I like ideas that have been proven by the test of time. Most of the new ideas will come and go without ever grabbing much attention let alone market share. But a few of them will stick and improve and add value to the experience of cycling, making it more fun for more people. In my opinion things like this take care of themselves and there is nothing to be afraid of. Change is for the most part good and one can never know for sure if it will be or not and only time will tell. If nothing else the attempt at change is a learning experience and I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t benefit from further knowledge. Change and knowledge is nothing to fear.
Thank you for reading,
Dave
Share this Article:
4 responses to “Don’t be afraid.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dave your example of 5 to 6 speed was great. The one that I remember was the first indexed shift bike we got into the shop. My boss in his infinite wisdom stated with conviction that it was a fad and would NEVER last. Of course this is the same boss who stated several times that Trek was on it’s last legs and Sonne’s was in trouble.
Now I’m one of those people who’s open to ideas that seem to have merit and if a Terraplane should somehow find it’s way into my garage where my old Club Special now hangs I’ll just see it as the cycling gods smiling on me!
By the way Pete and I are talking about making it down for the show.
Parris
I really like your handling of the issue with this post. I’m a “from scratch” old school aesthetic kind of guy and I must say that your terraplane idea is beautiful. Bent seatstays seem to always look goofy, cheap, accidental and unsubstantial. I never thought I would like them until I saw yours that look tuned to each bike and follow a refined line that makes the bike look sophisticated.
I also think that the compliance, if done right could help the bike track in adverse conditions. Maybe not necessary in a well swept crit, but I sure would appreciate it in the middle of Indiana’s winter. My Peugeot px-10 is plenty comfy, but now I’m starting to wonder.
I’m usually pretty skeptical about new ideas, especially with my own bikes. However, I would spend money on a terraplane but it would never touch carbon wheels, electronic shifting, or 11-speed (I’d still be on 8 if sram made an integrated road shifter for it)
James
Conceptually, biopace was a good idea poorly executed. Oval (Rotor) chainrings are raced at highest levels by professionals winning all sorts of races, including world championships. A cynic might say those riders are paid to use them and, certainly, that’s true, but if they had been crap, a company (Rotor) much of whose profits comes from selling the rings to the public wouldn’t still be around in this economy, or at least the product wouldn’t be around anymore.
And I like my Campy 11-speed cassette.
Well said. I read the thread with great interest… I think you summed up the spirit of the thread perfectly. Keep at it I’m looking forward to more DK inspired innovations