Sports Technology? 425
An anonymous reader writes "With the 90th Tour de France starting today, it is fun to marvel at the improvement of road bike technology over the years. Like others, I have traded up from heavy steel to aluminum, and now carbon fiber, ending up with a bike far better than its rider. How have advances in sports technology enhanced your own performance and enjoyment of sport?"
Technology can go too far... Or not far enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Using a bunch of SGI boxes to make a hockey puck look like a comet? Uncool.
It all depends on how it's meted out. I mean, we're talking about the melding of man and machine here, for the most part. I doubt anyone on Slashdot is going to complain about that, unless you are one of those people that are freaked out about genetically modified corn seed. But I digress.
I've got a garage full of Kevlar and Carbon fiber, and all sorts of trick chemicals to do some pretty cool things with it. However, I'm most amazed at the *design* behind technology in sports. It's not enough to have the materials to make something that can outperform a lesser material like wood, metal or even bone. It's the *way* in which it is applied.
My experience is mostly around Motor Sports, and that background is 80 years deep in my family. Hell, my Mom used to race. My last *name* is Race.
All that, and I race in basically a production class. I make the trick bits for other people.
Re:Technology can go too far... Or not far enough. (Score:5, Funny)
Um, this hasn't been true for some time now. F1 cars are now made of exactly 63% Unobtainium and 47% Bolonium.
This combination gives the kind of tremendous horsepower gains you see in street modifications such as stickers, bright blue neon lights and 19" wheels (also made of the Unobtainium/Bolonium alloy).
Re:Technology can go too far... Or not far enough. (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot to mention the -10% Slow-goin-ium that they remove from the alloy. They need this for speeding up the F1 car and for making percentages add to 100%.
Re:Technology can go too far... Or not far enough. (Score:3, Funny)
I need never see any sports broadcast - ever again!
Not at all. (Score:4, Insightful)
They haven't. Sometimes, they've made it worse. Sports and challenges in general are best when there's as few things involved as possible.
Re:Not at all. (Score:2)
What about..
Re:Not at all. (Score:5, Funny)
-a
Re:Not at all. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not at all. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus, advancements in technology have enabled me to start playing a sport I love recreationally again without the fear of being seriously hurt.
Re:Not at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not at all. (Score:2)
Re:Not at all. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just my opinion. But it's right. : )
It goes both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
Golf - While they have done a nice job reiging in club technology, you have ball technology going through the roof. Golf courses are being made obsolete. Expect the governing bodies to put in restrictions very soon to level things off.
Tennis - Due to new racket technology, it is possible to just crush the ball. Because of this new technology, the game is just turning into serve-ace or serve-return-point. Wimbledon, which is played on a very fast surface, has become very boring to watch. Unless this trend is reversed, expect tennis to become extremely boring with all surfaces rendered obsolete.
Swimming - With the new swim suits everyone has started wearing, you have seen records just start to fall like rocks. At first this seemed like a joke, but if you realize it, this is taking away factors that in many ways could be considered unimportant to the sport, like drag in the water. Of course, you could also think of it in a way that the most prepared (ie, do all you can to reduce drag) wins.
Track - new surface technology as well as wind suits (similar to the swimming suits) have allowed people to run faster. Still, you have to accelerated your body to be that fast, and world records are not falling at any serious rate (the world record has only changed .1 seconds in about 15 years).
The list could go on and on. These are just technologies that have improved or altered the ways that athletes interact with the sports. Other things have been done to make the sports more accessable for the viewer. HDTV is probably the most pronounced, but other things (many of which have been mentioned) - constant scoreboards on the screen, 1st and 10 lines in football, glowing pucks, and even instant replay have done a lot to improve what the viewer knows about what they are watching.
It all depends on your point of view. However, when talking about improvments to the game (for the players), IMHO, it all comes down to this: If technology begins to have a bigger impact on the sport than the people who are playing; ie- you hit the ball further because of technology, NOT your skill; then technology is a bad thing. If all it works to level out factors that should not be included in the sport, then it is a good thing.
Re:It goes both ways (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It goes both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It goes both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It goes both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
> possible to just crush the ball. Because of this
> new technology, the game is just turning into
> serve-ace or serve-return-point. Wimbledon,
> which is played on a very fast surface, has
> become very boring to watch. Unless this trend
> is reversed, expect tennis to become extremely
> boring with all surfaces rendered obsolete.
Tennis is now considering reversing the trend somewhat by reducing the width of the face of racquets. In the day
We may see limitations imposed soon. (Score:3, Insightful)
Golf - While they have done a nice job reiging in club technology, you have ball technology going through the roof. Golf courses are being made obsolete. Expect the governing bodies to put in restrictions very soon to level things off.
The USGA and the Royal
They greatly enhance my enjoyment (Score:4, Interesting)
part of the satisfaction is that that I too am an inner tech weenie. I used to lust after the gizmos. But slowly I stripped them off my bike. few really help you. and you spend more time worrying about your bike and tweaking it than riding it.
The other thing is that I found that light-weight does not mean its better. I break light weight gear. heavy may be better if its solid and reliable. Front shock ride less precicely over a rock garden. Back shocks give you less control too.
I've busted handlebars and could easily have gotten impaled on the fragments. Thus no more trick handle bar alloys for me, please--give me something that known not to metal fatigue or fail catastrophically before it bends.
I've broken al lsorts of parts in all sorts of places I did not want to have to walk out of. thus repairable stuff is good too. I carry lots of tools and people laugh at how heavy my bike is--but somehow I end up using them all and not just on my bike.
Re:Not at all. (Score:3, Informative)
Is saving 1
We're computer geeks. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We're computer geeks. (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a geek does not imply that one is lazy, out of shape, or otherwise physically impaired. I would describe myself as one of the biggest geeks in town, both for my prowess at computers, my application of technology in daily life, and my interest in a wide variety of intellectual pursuits. However, this does not mean I sit around eating chips all day, while staring at a huge
What's next... (Score:3, Funny)
Bikes (Score:5, Informative)
Scandium's a pretty new development -- gives you the weight of aluminum with the durability and "liveliness" of steel...
Carbon fiber -- I've never liked, not even Trek's OCLV -- too much of a "dead" feel to the ride...
For my road bike, I too, am on aluminum, but I'm going back to steel this fall -- because, in the end, steel is real. I can get a bike similarly equipped to my aluminum one, at a similar weight (steel's got some great new alloys), with the feel and responsiveness I've always loved...
I could write forever on this subject, so I'll just shut up now.
Re:Bikes (Score:3, Informative)
Scandium? Uh..... I've never heard of that and I'm a materials scientist. I think you mean aluminum-scandium alloys, but those only have about 3%Sc. Scandium is excellent at strengthening aluminum, though.
Re:Bikes (Score:2)
Re:Bikes (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but in materials, we refer to an alloy by its main component. When you have 97%Al and 3%Sc, it is an aluminum alloy. Calling it "Scandium" is marketing BS. Al-Sc alloys have impressive enough properties, I know people who've studied them, but this sort of thing annoys me because in the end, it confuses people. Heck, the alloy probably has more Mg than Sc. Why not call it magnesium?
Similarly, one of the most common titanium alloys is "6-4" titanium, which is 6%Al, 4%V, and 90%Ti. So you can legtitimatly call it "titanium".
Re:Bikes (Score:2, Informative)
I also wonder about the smaller selection of sizes of new bikes, and I haven't heard of any
Re:Bikes (Score:3, Interesting)
Right on. Advances in frame technology/materials hasn't been nearly enough to shift me away from steel, though I admit I don't race often, I prefer a classic bike, and use nothing but Brooks leather saddles, Campy components, and wool clothing(hate nylon/lycra look and feel) which might give me greater b
Re:Bikes (Score:2)
It's okay to say that *current* aluminum frames don't feel as lively as a steel frame, but if Aluminum frames were designed to "feel like steel" rather than designed to "be as light a
My Optical Mouse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My Optical Mouse (Score:2)
After using one about 2 years ago I could never go back. I even find myself constantly annoyed when I use a different computer with a non-optical mouse.
Optical mice are quite possibly the biggest leap 'standard' computer mice have made in the last 15 years.
Re:My Optical Mouse (Score:2)
Furthermore I don't find optical mice to be as responsive or as sensitive as a good ball mouse. I have a razer boomslang [www.razerzone.com] and they are exceptional mice once you get used to their absurd sensitiv
This is slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
All Jokes Aside, here's some real commentary.
I wish i had thousands to spend on a bike. Watching those guys toss those bikes around as they were riding in the tour this morning really wish i had it that easy. When I think of sport, I think of the guys who got it hard, like those kenyan's who run, with nothing but a pair of shoes. I like to see sports where winning or losing isn't about the technology, it's about how good you actually are at the sport.
Re:This is slashdot (Score:2)
Good technology will only get you so far.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is slashdot (Score:2)
That's competition-wise. But from a simple enjoyment perspective, a good racing bike is much better than a bad bike. You really feel as though the effort you put into pedalling is converted entirely to speed, instead of being lost on friction.
And there's something immensely enjoyable about being able to lift your bike with your pinky, although I couldn't really tell you why it is so. It just feels very satisfying
Re:This is slashdot (Score:2)
Re:This is slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
While generally true, it is not always true. A good example is sailing, where having the best boat can almost decide the competition before it is held. Another example may be certain forms of auto racing. Of course, there are those who would argue that the design, engineering and maufacture of the equipment is part of th
Re:This is slashdot (Score:2)
I've heard the PGA tries hard to keep scores comparable over the decades, but I guess there's really no way to tell.
Purity of sport and competition (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. I'm always impressed when I hear about kids in Central America playing baseball naked, barehanded (regulation hard ball) because they can't afford a real glove and only own one change of clothes (if that), and don't want to wreck them.
Lets face it... You are a true gamer if you play at 100% when you're totally naked. (Think sliding without pants on... OUCH! That's dedication...) This is probably off-topic, but this type of dedication you don't see in most professionals who have every technical, financial, and medical advantage (not to mention clothes to protect their bodies when sliding.)
Technology is great, but you have to remember why you play the game (or run the race, or whatever) otherwise it is all pointless. Look how spoiled, whiny, and decadent most pro ballers are these days... Think any of them really remember what its all about?
Reverse-engineered from UFOs... (Score:4, Funny)
Technology in sport... (Score:5, Insightful)
MLB: K-Zone - see the balls and strikes clearly.
MLB: dead-straight camera - judge the strike zone with the naked eye more clearly.
NFL: overlayed first down marker - see where the ball needs to go clearly.
Football (soccer if you must): more cameras - a multitude of viewing angles including in goal cameras.
Cricket: stumpcam - see the ball coming from inside the middle stump.
Cricket: overlayed stump lines - judge LBW decisions more clearly.
Cricket: super magnified replays - see and hear close nicks more clearly.
Formula One: in car cameras - see what the driver sees in real-time.
But the best sporting technical innovation: scores displayed permanently in the top left corner of your TV picture. We take it for granted nowadays but there was a time that you had to wait for the commentator to tell you what the scoreline was - how annoying was that?
There are others but these are the ones that most improve my enjoyment of sports.
Re:Technology in sport... (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who's played football at (amateur) club level, field hockey and cricket for my school, and lacrosse for my university, as well as other non-contact sports, I am in no way ashamed to admit that I get more pleasure out of watching the world's finest sportsmen and -women perform.
Why shouldn't I enjoy watching a Michael Owen hattrick, a Steve McNair scramble for a touchdown, a Barry Bonds home run or a Sachin Tendulkar century? Aren't I allowed to marvel at the feats of others that I can only dream of acheiving?
Pointless as hell if you're a straight man? I don't think so. Are you really suggesting that everyone who's ever watched a sporting event - whether live or on TV - is gay? All those dads who take their kids to baseball games are gay? Every single one of them? Wow.
If you're right, virtually every single man on this planet is a closet homosexual. And John Rocker was only worried about the ones in New York! How little did he know!
Wait a minute though. I've just had a thought. Perhaps you're wrong. Perhaps it's you who's unsure about your sexuality. Perhaps you feel uncomfortable about just watching other men compete because you feel left out of the action. Perhaps you're secretly beating yourself up about watching the NFL on Sundays because you wish it was you that was being wrestled by that offensive tackle.
Why don't you take your "only real men play sports" attitude and shove it. Frankly, the rest of us - straight and gay - can do without your macho bullshit.
Re:Technology in sport... (Score:2)
This, in my mind, was a truly wonderful idea - it made money for the broadcasters while not impacting the physical venue of the sporting event, many of which are revered structures. It was funny, however, during some initial trials of this technology, to see billboards appear a moment after a cut had been made to the wider stadium view. Once they got the timing down, it looks pretty seamless.
nada (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, this is an extremely retarded ask slashdot...what are the answers going to be? My baseball bat is lighter and stronger. Replace baseball bat with golf club, etc. I mean there should be little direct impact of technology on sport, or the sport is sucked out of it. But I suppose we would need to agree on what a sport is for that one...or we run into racecars and other technocentric activities.
A more realistic question would be how has technology enhanced the training aspect of your sport. That makes sense. Golf swing analysis, hell video tapes are an indispensable tool for team sports.
Anyways. Worthless ask slashdot question.
So technology hasn't had an affected wrestling, eh (Score:4, Interesting)
Footware has gotten better.
The mats don't burn as easily as they used to.
Oh yeah -- don't forget the improvements that have been made in diet, training, and physique improvement.
And, there has been improvements in both things like this [gnc.com] and this [gnc.com].
Sure, the equipment hasn't changed much... but technology has altered the preperation for competition in every sport. Cameras. Nutrition. Fitness. Just to name a few.
Re:nada (Score:3, Informative)
Training aids, such as video, have been mentioned and can be invaluable. Certainly not common in my parent's athletic careers. More recent developments, such as tools to measure efficiency [www.ifkb.nl] are helping us to figure out how, exactly, we do swim. Hard to believe, but it's something we simply don't y
This device has proven invaluable. (Score:5, Funny)
Skiing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Skiing (Score:2)
The downside is that race courses have changed too. GS and SG courses are now turnier and tighter. And because parabolics let you carve a turn even while your body does all the wrong things, my guess is that young racers find themselves crashing on fal
ObQuake (Score:3, Funny)
One word: aimbots. mcb
yeah (Score:2, Interesting)
Materials in Sports (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of ethical questions involved here. Improving materials in sports have lead to big improvements in some sports. Take polevaulting. If you plot the polevault world record versus year for the 20th century, you will see significant jumps as the athletes switched from hardwood to bamboo to fiberglass to carbon fiber. Concequently, you can't compare records from different eras.
Golf in another sport where this has become a problem. The advances in golf clubs have made it difficult for the courses to keep up. The USGA has finally had to set limits on the properties of golf clubs for official play because the alternative (making the courses longer) is very difficult and expensive.
College baseball is another one. They have had to slap limits on the properties of aluminum baseball bats because they were starting to affect the game too much. There are now rules governing how much rebound is allowed from a bat. Note that major league baseball doesn't have this problem because they still use wooden bats.
I am a materials scientist, and I'm always amazed how every new material immediately gets made into golf clubs. Titanium, Beryllium-Copper, Cermets, Amorphous metals. Each has been made into golf clubs.
Cross Country skiing (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the biggest change came about with plastic soled ski boots. The Salomon Nordic System boot/binding system turned the world upside down. These boots gave you so much control over your skis that skiers invented a "skating" technique. This technique is much, much faster than the old classic technique, and lead to further technological changes in the construction of skis, poles, and boots. Unfortunately, the skating technique is also murder on my knees, and so I had to quit skiing.
Steel is back! (Score:2, Interesting)
Now is this improvement in frame design, metallurgy??
Trading Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Like others, I have traded up from heavy steel to aluminum, and now carbon fiber, ending up with a bike far better than its rider.
I wouldn't call that trading up in all instances. I have both aluminum and steel frame bicycles, and while my aluminum frames are a few pounds lighter, that's not my only consideration. Steel is generally much more comfortable (especially on crappy roads with three-inch-wide cracks, like around here). This is because it is more flexible and absorbs the jolts better than aluminum - although, it also absorbs a small amount of the energy you put into each pedal stroke too.
Steel frames are a lot more durable too - your steel bike will probably be in better shape after a minor wreck than an alluminum frame. For that matter, I've seen aluminum forks bend while mounted in a car or truck because of potholes in the road, etc. It's not common, but it happens more frequently than people would like.
Unless you're racing or doing time trials, the small weight difference will not be a big factor. I've toured 100 miles on steel and aluminum without noticing the difference in weight.
Bottom line: "newer" technology is not always better. It's all about the circumstances in which it will be used. Get that carbon fiber frame if you've got the money to blow and you want to shave those extra grams off for your next big race. Otherwise, don't worry too much if the bike you've got your heart set on is steel, or aluminum, or even cast iron. :) Get what's comfortable and what suits your style of cycling.
Re:Trading Up (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a very big consideration -- I've primarily ridden 3 road bikes -- my dad's old steel frame, a newer, stiffer alchemy (heavier aluminuim frame), and now a spanking new Giant TCR2 (alloy frame w/ carbon forks and s
Re:Frame materials (Score:3, Interesting)
The technology is really in how the tubes are made these days. By making the tubes ovalized, bi-ovalized, thinning the wall thickness in the middle of the tube where fewer stresses apply, etc., the weight of bikes has dropped, while making them stronger and stiffer at the same time.
Look at old pictures of the tour. The had to fix their own bikes back then (frames, for
Now that I have Nike RocketAirs... (Score:5, Funny)
And it helps to use the RimPop Magneto Homing Ball, too, because at 60mph it's hard to actually make a clean shot.
Heh. Last time I did anything sporting-like was fighting over the last Athlon XP2000+ at Fry's.
Tennis! (Score:2, Interesting)
The same technology can be used to show where a majority of a player's first serves are landing, second serves, returns, etc. and thus make for more interesting and informative sports commentary.
I first saw this at work at the Queen's Club (the pr
it helps in weight lifting... (Score:2)
The Firebolt of course. (Score:3, Funny)
Little *real* change (Score:4, Insightful)
The same basic diamond frame, same chain drive. And that is not a bad thing. THe chain drive on a bike is about the most efficient power transfer device ever designed. Many alternatives have been tried, and we keep coming back to the chain. The riding position closely simulates a walking/running movement. Optimized over several million years.
Go to the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB [af.mil] and look at Orville's bike. No real difference between that and a new bike. Same basic riding position.
Lance could hop on that bike, and trash just about any rider, on any new bike around.
Except for recumbents [ihpva.org], there's been little real change. And even there, the riding position/movement is the same, just rotated ~90 degrees. Possibly better aerodynamics, though.
It's not the bike.
- Lance Armstrong
It doesn't get easier, you just go faster.
- Greg LeMond
Shut up and ride.
-Anon
Re:Little *real* change (Score:2)
Yeah, but "mainstream" is what people tool around on for a couple of miles on a weekend. They aren't going to feel changes much. On the far end, of course, you have the maniac racers, where the tech keeps going and going....
Commuting bikes, though, have gone through a lot. The materials advancements that you mentioned (I never want to go back to steel), cantilever braking, next-gen battery tech for lighting.
Re:Little *real* change (Score:2)
Yes, Chris's Superman bike was banned by the UCI for the same reasons recumbents were banned in the 30's [mindspring.com]. Aerodynamics.
All those little changes only help riders such as Lance or Chris, beat other riders of the same caliber. The real change has been in sports physiology, diet, conditioning.
Put Major Taylor [majortaylo...iation.org], the top racer at the turn of the century (and the best Black bike racer ever), on any new racing bike. Put Lance on any racing bike built in the last 40 years. With relevant
metallurgy for cyclists (Score:2, Informative)
(Google search result used because none of the servers it's on looks able to sustain much traffic.)
Paralympians (Score:5, Informative)
I am involved with prosthetics and orthotics, and technology plays a huge part in the paralympics.
Look at carbon fibre legs. The fastest paralympian is Marlon Shirley who can do the 100m in 11.09 seconds.
But this tech is also used in able bodied athletes. Take for example that carbon fibre plates are used inside runners shoes to act as energy storage devices and allow the runner to be more efficient than his body would be without the shoes.
Talking about Road Bikes... (Score:2)
Re:Talking about Road Bikes... (Score:2)
Climbing (Score:5, Informative)
As an example of the benefits of new technology, consider the American climbing ratings system (the Yosemite Decimal System). Originally there were ten difficulty levels, from 5.1 to 5.10, 5.10 being "physically impossible". Today, it goes to 5.15 -- and thanks to the technical advances in gear, an amateur like myself can climb 5.10 or 5.11 (once considered "advanced" climbs).
-Thomas
$0.02 worth of cycling anecdotes (Score:5, Interesting)
I also work at a local bike shop and therefore deal with a whole lot of people every week who are anywhere from cycling newbies to seasoned professionals.
Granted, there have been leaps and bounds in cycling technology over the years, making bikes lighter, stiffer, smoother, and more tuned for good power transfer and efficiency. But, every week, I get at least half a dozen customers who just want the most expensive bike in the shop and don't even bother to test ride, fit, or anything. These people believe that the bike will make them a fast rider. I try to beat through their thick skulls and educate them that all the technology in the world will not make them a fast rider. These people just don't want to hear it.
But, I'll again scream at the top of my lungs that _it's not about the bike_ !!! It's all about attitude, desire, and that burning spirit inside you that can yell at you louder than your aching legs. It's also about learning good technique on the bike. I see so many "posers" on expensive bikes (almost always Trek, of course) pounding away at a cadence of 50 pushing 53/16 or so going 16 mph, leaning on the hoods. As I whiz by spinning 100, I can't help yelling "wrong wrong wrong!" as I fly by.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's fantastic that so many people are getting into cycling - and at least blowing money on bikes that will serve them well if they learn how to ride. What bothers me are these bike shops that push expensive bikes out the door and don't lift a finger to teach people how to ride.
The other day, I ran into a guy that was out with his two sons. He had dropped 4 large on a pair of Fuji Professionals (the bike I ride) - and the kids were in toe clips!!! I had stopped because I like to acknowledge other Fuji riders, and since they rode the same bike I do, it was a nice conversation. The shop that sold him the bikes didn't do anything to set up the bikes properly, not even doing him the favor of selling him decent clipless pedals for his sons.
I admired the kids' desire to learn to ride - they both hoped to ride fast, which is great. I just hope they take me up on my offer to come into my shop for a free fitting and riding lesson (and, of course, to buy pedals and shoes). Maybe there's hope yet for the pair of teenage boys who both want to be the next Lance Armstrong.
Bottom line - technology helps, but don't forget the cyclist inside of you who needs to be set free to tear up the roads. Only armed with the right technique and skill will the technological revolution in cycling be of any use to you.
virtualspectator (Score:2, Informative)
It has made wacthing Yacthing interested and has come a long way since American's Cup 1995.
Along with yacthing they have also doing golf, WRC and F1.
recreational or competitive? (Score:4, Insightful)
In in practicing such recreational sports, I believe that technology can improve the experience, by providing more comfort for example:
a few years ago, due to back aches, biking was becoming less fun for me. So I got a Trek Y22 - not because it was carbon-fiber, but because I wanted a rear-suspension bike, and in 1997 there wasn't as much choice as nowadays (expecially at the lower end of the market). At clearance prices, it ran for $1000 and I did not mind having a cool bike...
So in this case I have to admit that technology has made biking very enjoyable again. But I had just as much fun, when I was younger and did not have back problems, with a 20-yrs old Legnano!
Titanium bikes (Score:5, Informative)
My wife's bike is built on a frame by Wylder [wylder.com], called the Queen of the Road. Wylder is going out of business; when they were in business, they charged $1800 for that frame, but they are selling the frames they have left for $750. (Their web site says they have 42 cm, 45 cm, 52 cm, and 55 cm frames left. If you know a woman who wants a ti bike and can fit one of those sizes, send her this link!)
My bike -- I'm still amazed, I feel so lucky -- is a Colnago Ovalmaster [trialtir-usa.com]. It's 6/4 titanium, the extra-stiff kind, and it has oddly shaped tubes; the shaped tubes help make the bike very stiff in the ways I want it to be stiff (when I hammer on the pedals, the frame doesn't flex) but still light and springy when I go over bumps. I love it.
I was able to afford my frame because I got it used on ebay. You can get some great deals on bike stuff on ebay.
Anyway, our new bikes have really helped us improve our speed. I didn't realize how much my wife's old bike was holding her back, until she got the new one. Her old bike is comfortable and stable, but it's six full pounds heavier than her new one, which matters when you are spending many hours climbing tall hills. And a lot of the weight savings is in moving parts: pedals, cranks, wheels. (The rule of thumb is that rotating weight counts double, so you should sooner get a lighter wheel than a lighter saddle.)
For me, the biggest improvement with the new bike is not the climbing, but the descending! My old bike was not stiff enough for me, and I got very nervous going down a steep hill. My new bike feels rock-stable under me when I am descending. I am still not a speed demon on downhills, but I'm a lot happier and a bit faster.
The metric I like to apply to bikes is dollars per mile. We ride enough miles that even just this year, both bikes will drop to well under a dollar per mile. If you only ride 10 miles at a time, don't spend serious money on a bike; get an inexpensive starter bike. (But don't buy a $200 bike from Wal-Mart. If you are considering buying a new bike, please read my thoughts on my personal web page about bikes [blarg.net].)
When you think about it, there is a lot of technology going with us on bike rides. We have heart rate monitors that also record speed, distance, and altitude changes (Polar S720+). We have technical fabric clothing, such as CoolMax jerseys or microfiber polyester rainwear. We have helmets that can save us in a bad accident, yet are light and don't make our heads overheat. We carry cell phones while riding, in case a bike totally breaks down and we need a taxi, or in case someone needs medical help.
No matter how much technology I buy, the pro riders could still ride me into the ground on a low-end bike. But our titanium bikes, and our other gear, let us ride up to our ability and have fun doing it.
steveha
Paintball!! (Score:2, Interesting)
not at all (Score:2)
Re:not at all (Score:2)
You want to see technology in sports? (Score:2)
F1 Cars (Score:3, Interesting)
FIA, taking a page from NASCAR's playbook, is considering making drastic alterations to the rules of F1 to make the races more "viewer friendly" than recent seasons. Some of the things under consideration:
-Increasing the number of races an engine must survive
-Forcing all teams to use identical wings, brakes, or transmissons
-Banning driver aides such as torque control or semi-auto shifting
While I can see FIA's reasoning for considering these changes, I hope they do not go through. Even if all cars were identical, the wealthiest teams could still afford the best drivers and would therefore tend to finish better. Limiting budgets could be an option, allowing teams to invest in technologies they felt offered the most return on investment. My guess is that this is not under consideration because it would be too easy for teams to sneak in extra dollars in the form of corporate R&D or deals with suppliers.
Re:F1 Cars (Score:2)
With something like this, it makes it a fair race since the only determining factor is driver skill and not team wealth.
Will never happen, but would be cool.
Baseball Helmets (Score:2)
Today, batting helmets are quite strong and very light. Sure, people get hit in the head with 100 MPH fastballs, and I'm sure it hurts, but nobody really worries about dying anymore because the equipme
Pistols (Score:2)
Professional racing *PREVENTS* bike-innovation! (Score:5, Interesting)
Talking about innovation and using all kinds of supermodern material may sound oh so cool and hip. But after more than 10 years after the first professional Windcheetahs still...
1.) riding in a postion that's not only seriously unhealthy,...
2.) grossly inefective in bringing your legpower to the street and into your movement,...
3.) gives you the aerodynamics of a frigerator box,...
4.) is near to unbearably uncomfortable...
5.) and looks somewhat silly...
The promoters and sponsors of the Tour de France and other races ought to be boykotted completely for their outright childish kiddiecrap traditionalisim.
Sports technology? My ass. If you want innovation, go check the newest sneakers, but don't ask bike-racers.
Re:Professional racing *PREVENTS* bike-innovation! (Score:4, Informative)
There are some of us that actually enjoy riding a bike, which means not just riding on the flat (which is about all a recumbent can do), but going up hills, down them (a very scary proposition on a 'bent) and across rough terrain (either off-road, or just city streets!). 'Bents have some nice properties, but regular style bicycles just work better across more situations.
Get over it.
Re:Professional racing *PREVENTS* bike-innovation! (Score:3)
2.) Which is why recumbents climb slower than hell and I've never had a recumbent rider out-sprint me, right?
3.) Just like a recumbent, when your chest is practically face-on to the wind, right? That's not very aerodynamic, either.
4.) They're perfectly comfortable, again, if you get a bike that fits you properly. I've ridden 24-hour races, both on th
Re:Professional racing *PREVENTS* bike-innovation! (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with you to some extent, however. If you ever read the story of Graeme Obree ("The flying Scotsman"), you'll understand. He invented two new riding positions and BUILT the bikes to accomodate them so he could challenge the world 1 hour record. He was faster, but the UCI declared his bikes illegal, and reverted the record and made sure that you could only use a double
As a geek and a cyclist... (Score:2)
Some sports do have a bigger technology divide. Professional sports car racing is one example I can think of. There is a mostly consistent re
As a Fan.. (Score:3, Interesting)
As a sports fan, the greatest advancement in technology has to be TiVo. I'd say my viewing and appreciation of sports has increased at least by a factor of 3 with the convenience of "automatic" time shifting and TiVo's powerful review abilities.
I now understand what "delayed offsides" is in hockey, "tail braking" is in motorcycling, and why the move from filament to LED starting bulbs on drag racing tracks is throwing the scoring system into chaos.
Skydiving (Score:2)
Also the refinement/design of the parachute containers has made the sport safer than ever.
On the flip side, CAD and laser cutting have transformed parachute canopies into high speed extremely manueverable wings that can be very dangerous to fly without good training. I wouldn't be suprised if in another 10 years more people died under a perfectly good parachutes than t
Hockey Sticks (Score:2)
Best technology by far (Score:2)
A huge addition to my enjoyment of sport.
Tech has changed my sport totally... (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest change to the game occurred in the mid-1970's with the introduction of astroturf hockey fields instead of grass fields. These became common in club-level hockey by about 1985. The introduction of a predictable surface made possible a lot of things that were impossible to do reliably before - stretching the stick out horizontally, on both the "forestick" (right) and "backstick" (left) sides, to trap the ball, evading players by dragging the ball from left to right, faster passing as players needed much less time to control the ball before laying off the pass, and far greater accuracy in passing and hitting.
Just about every other piece of hockey equipment has changed in response. The balls changed from leather to plastic, and dimples were added. Goalkeeping gear was completely revolutionised, with cricket-style pads replaced with huge foam numbers which are great on synthetic fields but would not survive long on muddy grass. However, the greatest changes occurred in stick design.
On grass fields, sticks were designed to have a fairly wide, flat head. This was great for controlling the ball on a bumpy grass field, but was totally unsuitable for swivelling the stick around to drag the ball from left to right - not to mention horizontal-stick trappings (with the old style sticks the ball would often sail straight under the gap formed by the head of the stick on the ground when this was attempted). So the long, flat heads were replaced with a short, stubby surface.
Around the same time, somebody figured out that a stiffer stick hit the ball more efficiently than a less stiff model, and the wood sticks were gradually reinforced with a succession of materials, starting with fibreglass, then proceeding through various fibreglass/kevlar/carbon fibre composites, and so on. Soon, the only wood left in these sticks was in the heads, which at the time was required by law. Easton even released an aluminium stick featuring replacable heads, which was banned after a couple of seasons on (exaggerated) safety grounds. A rule change saw the emergence of pure composite sticks, which is what I play with now. Even a mug like me can hit the ball extremely hard with one, and the top international players strike the ball at upwards of 100 mph - and remember, a hockey ball is heavier and harder than a baseball or cricket ball. Despite the faster ball speed, the synthetic surface has meant that the ball is far more trappable now than back in the pre-synthetic days.
Then, there are the subsidiary technologies. Instead of playing in studded football boots, we wear astroturf shoes, which are much more comfortable and provide much better shock absorption. Our shin pads have improved tremendously. Even the clothing is more comfortable than when I began.
There are a couple of downsides to the changes, though. The first is that with the faster ball speed, defending "penalty corners" has become much more dangerous than it used to be (the game is still relatively safe, compared to many other sports). The second is the massive cost of the facilities and gear. A top-of-the-range hockey stick costs 150 USD or so, and lasts about a season. Goalkeeping gear now costs over 1000 USD. A synthetic field, even the cheaper "sand-based synthetic" fields, costs about 300,000 USD to set up initially, and needs to be resurfaced about once a decade at a cost of about half that, if I recall correctly. An international-standard "water-based" field costs about 750,000 USD. Considering that very few players can play professionally, it is one of the most expensive team sports there is.
But would I go back to the old days of grass fields? Once every so often for a hit-and-giggle game, maybe. But full-time? Not on your life.
Well... SCUBA diving, of course!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
But it always was high-tech, even from the onset when it was invented in the 1920's by Yves Leprieur (Cousteau merely improved the gear - by re-using a 1865 design spurned by Leprieur).
During the last 20 years, we've seen composite materials enter the scene to make suits, fins, masks and other gadgets, very fancily machined balanced regulators, and, of course, computers.
But SCUBA-diving is also high-tech because it calls for a good knowledge of human physiology to properly understand what pressure does to the human body, in order to avoid serious crippling injury.
But most advances in recent years involve more "software" than "hardware"; that is, new methods that use slightly modified diving gear, such as Nitrox mixes, that is, oxygen-enriched gases that offers all sort of benefits.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, special inert gas mixes for deeper diving, once the province of commercial divers, being used by sport divers.
And the rebirth of old technologies, such as rebreathers (used by combat swimmers during World-War II), but with computers monitoring their function to enable mixing a continuously variable breathing mix optimized for the current depth in order to minimize nitrogen exposure without skirting oxygen toxicity.
Re:Ack pfffttt!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ack pfffttt!!! (Score:2)
So there hasn't been a Tour de France every year since it's inception.
Makes perfect sense, too - I'd have been questioning the priorities of the people involved if there had been a Tour de France during either World War.
Re:just a note... (Score:2)
So you are both correct.
Re:just a note... (Score:2)
And Jacques Anquetil took off three years to fight, then came back to win more Tours. It's widely regarded that had not the World War so rudely interrupted, Anquetil would have been the all-time leader by far with eight Tour wins.
Re:What about statistics? (Score:2)
Is this the same system as the 'Hawkeye' system used at Wimbledon this year, or is it different? If the latter, what are the relative (dis)advantages of each system?
Re:Olympic Swimming (Score:2, Insightful)
In a certain Reynolds number regime (function of viscosity and velocity) the turbulent parasitic drag is less than that of the laminar parasitic drag. Therefore in certain cases it pays to make the flow around the skin of the object rough as this will trip the flow into a turbulent regime.
A turbulent regime has the added advantage of making the flow cling closer to the geometry of the object and thus additionally reducing the pressure drag on the object (the main co