Understanding the Cyborg Cyclist

Ryan Atkins atop his Steelwool in a pretty serious stage race.

Jan Heine talks about 'planing' without saying the word in his latest blog post. The human body is a dynamic 'motor' upon a bicycle. The way the machine receives power feeds back into the source of the power, UNLIKE the manner in which an engine delivers power to a drive train  Engines don't tire; they run out of fuel. In my view, this is the fundamental misconception that large bicycle companies perpetuate in their marketing copy espousing the structural design of their products. They lead consumers to believe that the most efficient bicycle system is the one that deflects the least under pedaling load. They use test apparata to quantify their claims. Riders are thus conditioned brainwashed into believing that the stiffest platform is the fastest platform.The paradoxical thing is that in the end, the prophesy might be self-fulfilling.

Humans tire; the question is: how fast? Heine discusses his findings: stiffer and lighter bikes are not faster by virtue of these factors. Rather, they seem to fatigue the rider sooner (due to lack of yielding to the power input), reducing the overall power available for propulsion. Heine thus tacitly references planing. The titanium bike in his experiment does not harmonize with his body's pedaling rhythm, but instead loads his legs with lactic acid prematurely. He is not able to produce as much power on the lighter, stiffer bike. This is thus a slower bike than its heavier steel counterpart.

One might blame perceptual bias, but I suspect Heine's protocols are sound. Heine and his co-tester, Mark, ride steel bikes a lot. They are attuned to the rhythm and resonance of 'flexy fliers.' They know how to work with them. The both believe they are fast bikes, and prove it by riding them fast. On stiffer bikes they are less efficient. At the same time, riders who have grown up riding stiff bikes believe they are faster. These riders are attuned to the resonance of stiff bikes, and feel slower on bikes that yield more to their input. Feeling slower can mean you are slower; the rider's perception of speed versus effort can either enhance or diminish one's power output. That is, if you feel like a hero, you can eke out more power. In contrast, if you feel like a 'zero,' access to your power will be diminished; you will undermine your ability. Cue the excuses.

In the final analysis, I would contend that the fastest bike for a given rider is that which harmonizes with the rider's belief and ability. PRO racers probably really are faster on ultra stiff bikes than they would be on lively steel rigs (it would be fascinating to involve PRO racers in the same experiment Heine undertook).

Rando masters like Jan Heine probably really are faster on flexy, heavier bikes. When you get down to the bottom of the matter, there is no one set of design parameters that is ideal for ALL riders. A great bike is one that the rider feels comfortable and fast on, regardless of how that is accomplished. If you want to change it up, you are going to have to be willing to take the time to get intimate with a new platform in order to get the most from it.

This said, 23mm tires really are slower than 25s on the road. ;)

One Dimensional Man's Bike

'Thought bike' (Wired)

I'm guessing most reading this have heard of electronic shifting for bicycles. The technology is not new, but has in fact  been in use since the early 1990s. Mavic's ZAP system introduced the bike world to electrified shifting, and their components were raced in the PRO peloton for years. In fact, Chris Boardman used the system for eight seasons. It was relatively simple, featuring a couple toggle switches, albeit for the rear derailleur alone. However, the second iteration of ZAP was wireless, and fraught with problems. The project died. 


Fast forward to 2009, and Shimano releases Di2, the electronic Dura Ace group.  Having learned from the ZAP project, Shimano came pretty close to nailing Di2. The system is already in wide use in both the PRO peloton and the amateur ranks, and with the release of the electronic Ultegra group, the technology is nearly certain to secure a stable foothold in the market. 


For all the success Shimano has seen with their electronic shifting system, many a consumer will still ask themselves: 'Do I want this...do I need this?' Sure, some will gravitate toward electronic systems for their wow-factor alone. Others will perceive an opportunity to increase performance. While Di2's performance is not night-and-day better than conventional Dura- Ace, riders do report it is very precise, some going as far as to say it is the 'pinnacle of shifting technology.' Tubulars perform better than clinchers too, but its up to the rider to decide whether the performance gains these technologies offer outweight their added cost, complexity, and when things go wrong, inconvenience? 


For my riding, electronic systems are not justified. That is, for a regular road bike or mountain bike application. However, if I were taking time trialling very seriously, I could see myself attracted to using a toggle switch on the aero bars. This would eliminate the bar end shifters on the bars, and actually make shifting easier. I doubt the aerodynamic savings would be significant, nor would the ease of shifting be drastically improved; however, there would be gains. At least there is a rationale for using this technology. 


While bike companies are working on integrating elecronic shifting systems into road bike designs, others are dreaming up novel ideas for how to apply these technologies in yet bolder ways. One recent example had me checking the story's date to see whether it was recycled from April 1. Why? Because the project featured in the story is ludicrous: Toyota Prius Bicycle.


Posted on Bikerumor.com, the Prius X Parlee (PXP) is indeed the answer to the question NOBODY was asking: 'What if I could make my bike shift by merely thinking it?' Well, nobody except Toyota. Esenially, they worked with Parlee and Deeplocal to develop a super aerodynamic road bike for non-racers that can be shifter via iPhone or brain waves. All you need is you charged iPhone, a backpack of electronic gear, a helmet with neurotransmitters installed, and Di2. This 'mash up' was constructed from off the shelf parts - save the custom, wind tunnel tested Parlee - and does in fact work. But was anybody asking for it? Nope.


The reason nobody was thinking this question is that shifting is already easy, especially with Di2. An experienced rider, you know, the type who actually needs ultra precise shifting, doesn't need to think, 'shift up.' They just do it. Its called neural conditioning, or habituation; its second nature. Toggles can be placed at the hood, in the drop, or on the flat of the bar - wherever hands sit. Is hands free shifting necessary in any way? 


Putting the question of whether there is any rationale for developing a cybernetic shifting system aside, we can consider the 'Prius philosphy' that underpins this project: aerodynamics, innovative design. Ok, neat idea, transfer those ideals. What about low carbon footprint, and energy conservation? Somehow those qualities of the Prius (and yes, those are perceived, as embodied energy and life cycle considerations might paint a different picture) don't come through in the PXP. Instead, we have a bike that requires a lot of electronics to perform a function that was carried out by downtube shifters for generations. In other words, its an environmental abomination. The bike's aerodynamics are moot under a rider who needs cybernetic shifting for lack of bike handling skills and training; one does not benefit much from aero frames below 30kph. So the inevitable question arises: is 'can' synonymous with 'should'? In other words, just because we can build a cybernetic bike, should we? Is cycling, or, more broadly, life, all about making everything easier? If so, to what end? Do we really want to be steered? Is this a paradigm example of technological rationality?