Tour De France Showcases Multitude Of Tech

whoda writes "When you think of a bicycle, you most likely think of 2 tires, a chain, some gearing of some sort, and other assorted mechanical bits. However, when Lance Armstrong, Jan Ullrich, and over 180 other riders get together to compete at the Tour de France every year, there is a lot of technology that comes along for the ride too. From Lance's Sunglass'/MP3 Player to the advanced use of composites seen on Tyler Hamilton's time trial bike, there are many examples of high technology making the racers faster through better training, materials and aerodynamics."

The ultimate in technology and bikes...

[g00bd0g]

The HPV world speed championships!

http://www.recumbents.com/whpsc2004.htm

Too bad there's not enough interest to really get some money into the development of these things.

Check out my website...

Recently scoped out new bikes

[m.dillon]

Ok, I'm an old-timer now I guess. My current roadbike is the one I bought in highschool in the 80's. I recently decided I needed a new derailer so I brought it in to a shop.

Of course, with a bike that old, they would have had to replace, well, just about everything in order to put in a new derailer. In fact it would be only slightly more to simply buy a new bycycle!

So I started looking at bikes. I could get a nice road bike for $800 (US) that was far superior to my existing bike. Then I started looking at the carbon composite bikes, like the Roubaix series. I really didn't think I'd feel the difference until I test-rode one.

Holy S*it! If the $800 bike was an order of magnitude better then my existing one, the Roubaix Comp (at $2600) was an order of magnitude better then the $800 bike. All carbon-composite construction, vibration dampening... the works. Unbelievably light, I could lift the whole bike with my pinky pretty much! Smooth ride, ultra smooth shifting, huge gearing range. The technology is really amazing.

-Matt

Re:Spoilers

[oostevo]

No, not kmh (obviously). I've done over 70 (mph ... obviously) going down a hill. You actually don't need a spoiler for going those speeds - the faster you go on a bicycle, the more stable it gets, even to the point where it gets hard to turn at speeds of 60-70mph. Hey ... motorcycle racers don't use spoilers, and they can go twice as fast.

MP3

[herrvinny]

From the Sunglasses/MP3 Player link [engadget.com]:

We have a little addendum to our Tech from the Tour de France feature from a couple of weeks ago: this special pair of Oakley sunglasses with a built-in MP3 player that Lance Armstrong was spotted wearing [weblogsinc.com]. No idea whether they're planning to ever sell these or not, but a little bit of research reveals that the sunglasses only have enough room on them for 35 songs, which makes us think that they probably have somewhere around 128MB of storage somwhere in there.


True, but that doesn't mean Lance plays only 35 songs for the entire Tour. Does anyone know if the Tour rules prohibit changing electronic media and so forth? He could play a new set of 35 songs every day. At least that would be interesting trivia, what songs did Armstrong listen to every day of the Tour..

Re:The ultimate in technology and bikes...

[Anonymous Coward]

And wasn't the story something about technology being used in the Tour de France?

Or would you rather have every F-1 race being led off with the "dragsters are faster than F-1 cars" disclaimer?

You, goob, are a dumbass. Why don't you sit (or lie down) on that dumbass of yours and pedal whatever you want...

Re:It gets a little overboard too

[lakeland]

Everything you're saying is true, but if you lower your standards even more you will see the opposite effect. For example when I go out riding with my wife I use my (20 year old) touring bike while she uses her (new) mountain bike. Now, my bike was pretty flash when it was new, but things have changed in 20 years... And despite her being fitter than me, I have to constantly slow down not to leave her behind -- casual effort on the touring bike is the equivilant of fairly hard work on the MTB.

Conclusion? At the top end the difference between a $500 bike and a $5000 bike may be swamped by the difference in rider ability, but at the bottom end the difference between a bike designed for on-road, and a bike designed for off-road swamps any difference in rider fitness.

Re:Wind tunnels & race numbers

[GeckoX]

Interestingly enough as well is the fact that there is a limit in the rules as to the minimum allowable weight of a bicycle. There are lighter bikes that have been proven to be faster that cannot be ridden in this race.

Haven't been able to decide how I feel about this yet...actually I wish it was one way or the other:

a) riders can use _any_ man powered 2 wheeled vehicle of whatever design they want...

OR

b) ALL riders ride the exact same bike.

Either technology is a factor, or it isn't. I think it's the middle ground stance that annoys me.

Come on Armstrong!

[bobblebob]

You can do it -make it 6

Re:It gets a little overboard too

[Anonymous Coward]

"Guys, you realize a $200 steel road bike would be much faster, right?"

Yes it would be -- but then again, most people riding $2000 aluminum fully suspended, knobby-tired mountain bikes down the street might want the versatility of taking it onto the trails or gosh, in the rain (where the other tires slip like a motherfucker at a fast stop) or feel they might need to jump a curb when some idiot motherfucker decided 3000 pounds of metal trumps your 20 pounds.

I always get a kick out of the fact that some people don't know what the fuck they are talking about but feel they need to comment on how stupid everyone else is because it makes them feel superior!!!

For the record, I ride a $200 aluminum mountain bike that was bought used, but had quite a few of those $2000 parts on it when it was new. I'm all for upgrades because I'll be there to take the old crap off their hands...

Re:It gets a little overboard too

[GeckoX]

I totally agree.
I've got a 3 year old $400(CDN) Peugeot mountain bike I bought just for casual riding at the time. This year I've gotten quite a bit more serious and have taken part in a number of cross-country relay races. Up until about a month ago, I was constantly looking at the 'other guys' $4000+ machines and trying to plan how and when I would upgrade.

I finally realized how stupid that would be.
a) most of the guys I ride with have expensive bikes.
b) i never get smoked by them.
c) their stuff breaks as much as mine does, but their parts are _way_ more expensive.
d) haven't had _my_ bike stolen.
e) I do it for FUN.
f) I will NEVER be taking it to the top level and thus will NEVER be able to actually reap the minute benefits one can get from really expensive bikes.

And unlike cars, where it's easy to argue that a bmw or mercedes is worth the money over a ford as they are more fun to drive, comfortable...blah blah whatever, I have NO problems with my bike and the expensive bikes I've ridden certainly don't feel special, and DEFFINATELY don't feel like they're worth more than 10x the price.

Now maybe if I broke the bank on a new bike I wouldn't be the only one with money to buy the beer after a good ride ;)

Actually, if you wan't to get into a good useless waste of money tech discussion with a hardcore mountain-biker, pull out the v-brake vs disc-brake topic. Oh, I used to fall fully on the 'can't wait to have the cash to buy a nice set of disc-brakes' crowd...but a good slap with common sense brought me around.

Me: Gonna buy me a set of those real soon! (Disc Brakes)
Bike Shop Owner: Really? Why?
Me: Um, they're better...
Bike Shop Owner: Really? Why?
Me: Um, because they work better right?
Bike Shop Owner: Let me ask you this then, what problems are, or have you, had with your v-brake system?
Me: Um...
Bike Shop Owner: And of those problems, which will be solved by a higher price tag, more weight, more parts and generally more complexity?
Me: Since you put it like that, I guess I'm unsold thank you!

And as an interesting aside, the shop owner's success in _not_ selling me something has resulted in some darned solid customer loyalty.

Re:The ultimate in technology and bikes...

[John Whitley]

'bents can be fairly awesome in a number of regards. Not to mention that there are some fantastic recumbent touring bikes. 'bents have a wide spectrum of designs, all with a different balance of strengths and weaknesses than traditional diamond frame bikes. But the problem of "interest" is nonexistant. The problem is that the rather conservative international governing body of cycling (apologies, it's fallen out of my acronym cache -- UCI, maybe?) long ago prohibited the use of recumbents when the first low-racer caused a decidedly middle-grade rider to whomp the competition.

As many sports governing bodies, they must walk the often rather arbitrary line between allowing new technologies and keeping the competition between the athletes instead of between athletes' gear.

As an example of the reverse case, long-track ice skating allowed the introduction of the front-hinged "clap skates" in the 90's (versus older fixed-frame skates). These skates are much more efficient from a biomechanical standpoint. Enough so that every long-track record was broken and re-broken in short order as skaters embraced and trained to the new tecnology. There was some regulatory turmoil at their initial introduction, but only because the new skates weren't available to all skaters who wanted them.

On one hand, as the sports technology has changed, it has become impossible to make meaningful comparisons between today's athletes and those athletes who set records years ago. On the other hand, technological advances have so radically altered athletic training that it's still impossible to "compare" modern athletes with those of yesteryear. How good would one of the great Olympians from the 1950's have been if they'd trained using modern techniques and tools?

Trek 5200

[GPLDAN]

I recently biught a Trek 5200. I could have easily gone with a Trek 2300 or smaller, because I am no power rider. I ride about 10-20 miles in the morning. Every other day. That's it. Many of you could destroy probably cream me on a $99 Huffy.

But the bike is a joy to ride. I owned a crappy Schwinn most of my road bike riding days and so I splurged a bit and got some Sidi shoes and this bike. I enjoy riding it, esp. going up hills.

Maybe I overspent, but I enjoy the bike. The OLCV Carbon is damn light. And if I enjoy riding, I'll ride more. I had my fill of heavy steel bikes, this really is a whole different league. I've read a few responses that mock people for spending too much on the bike. Most of those people have a iPod and a $500 video card just to play counterstrike.

Re:Wind tunnels & race numbers

[haystor]

The fact that there is a minimum weight adds to the safety of the event.

You really don't want them building bikes that just barely make it through the days race. But if they have an extra half pound or so to work with and they can do whatever they want, it can go into reinforcments that *might* but probably won't be necessary.

rampant doping

[SuperBanana]

Look at Lance's amazing biochemistry!

One does wonder what other sorts of biochemistry are going on with riders(I've always thought it was kind of ironic that Lance was sponsored by a major pharmaceutical, and yes, I am deeply suspicious that Lance's chemo and related drugs somehow altered his body to make him much stronger; I don't think he would be stupid enough to be doping himself), seeing as how doping is rampant in virtually all other sports- and the message to little kids has been nothing of zero tolerance but instead "I'm a good guy, I couldn't have been doing drugs, even though my trainer was caught twice before doping his runners and I failed a drug test" etc etc.

Then there's the baseball players, who were TOLD AHEAD OF TIME they'd be tested. When they were tested- ONE QUARTER of them failed! Unbelievable! That's like telling everyone the answer to a one question quiz, and then having 25% fail!

I forget which bike race it was, but police did a raid on the rider's barracks one night, and it was like a scene from animal house- they had riders leaping out of windows in their underwear, hiding in the bushes, running off, etc. They found dozens upon dozens of drug vials, needles, pills, you name it. It was absolutely pathetic.

Re:If they really wanted to go faster

[wk633]

I am sure that in the early 90s there was no specific rule banning recumbants, according to Les Earnest (a UCI official and also a prof at Stanford- you out there Les?) always said there was nothing to specificly rule out a recumbant. Now, there were major changes in response to advances to beat the hour record. I think the 'double diamond' part came in then. I would think a recumbant would be far superior for a TT, and Les's only speculation as to why they were not used then is that it position is different enough from an upright, that it uses a different muscle set.

That is, at that level, one could train for one or the other, but not both.

Sam Whittingham is a (former?) HPPVA world record holder is a pretty mean upright sprinter as well, but he's not world class as a roadie.

I have to run, but google on 'les earnest rec.bicycles recumbant uci' might turn something up.

Don't forget the coverage tech

[Guernica Bill]

I'm actually most impressed by the technology involved in the television coverage. First, you've got about about 20 cameras on bicycles, showing images at race level (almost what the cyclists see themselves). They send the pictures to helicopters overhead, which in turn send the images to satellites. Let's also not forget the cameras on the helicopters themselves, and the beautiful display of flying and camera ability that brings gorgeous and rock-steady shots of 170 bicyclists zipping through fields of sunflowers.

Add to that GPS transmitters on every bike, which brings instant results at the end of the race to the 100th of a second, and (this year on OLN) up-to-the-second time gaps among the groups on the road (this'll really shine when they hit the mountains).

All this, plus entertaining commentary, live worldwide.

GO POSTAL !!!!

[joel_archer]

Nuff said.
US Postal [thepaceline.com]
The Cyclysm [olntv.com]
Wear Yellow [nike.com]

The tracking site

[unixgeezer]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned in all of the posts about the TDF; but, there is a site run by my company's European division that has a real-time [csc-cycling.com] tracking of the cyclists. From what I remember reading, it uses RFID technology to aid the scoring.