An Amusement & Diversion for The Genteel Cyclist. Daily.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Technology of the Tour: Cue the Old Newsreel

Even the editors of Scientific American, God bless 'em, are getting into the spirit of things this week.




Unfortunately this particular article isn't up to the SciAm's usual standards of insight. (Seriously, I'm not a hater, I'm a huge fan. "60-second Science"? I'm there! Steve "Totally Bogus" Mirsky? Awesome!)

I mean really. Trying to claim that technology plays a significant competitive role is just silly. Pro cyclists compete through technology like writers compete with each other based on which word processing software they use. (PCs and Word monopolize the writing market just as surely as Kent International and Shimano do the cycling market.) This piece argues that carbon and index shifting are major equipment advantages in the peloton. Of course, carbon fiber frames and index shifting have been distributed evenly throughout the peloton for decades. Well, a decade anyway, as far as carbon goes.

Also, since when is index shifting a huge improvement specifically in uphill downshifts? I've been spraining my thumbs, grinding gears and busting teeth for years with my XTR quickdraws. Or are they talking about Rapid Rise? Hell, as long as we're on the topic of shifting systems, why not mention the faux advances of electronic shifting? Didn't Team Telecom run that garbage a couple years ago?

Anyway, all of these advances have been more or less available to everyone in the race, and none of them have given a winner any clear advantage over the losers.


So then, the only sure-bet example of a definite win attributable to better technology is... you guessed it! Yes, Greg Lemond's 8-second TT win over that pony-tailed Luddite Laurent Fignon.



OK, so no one is going to argue the time advantage of aero bars and gay-looking helmets over drop bars and cotton hats. But if we really want to talk about the destabilizing impact of secret technology on the TDF, there's really only one place to start: pharmaceuticals.

No comments: