Centrifugal Gearing?

[Ajax]

Is there such a thing as centrifugal gearing?

I'm thinking of a system where the faster the rear wheel turns the lower the gear, all on automatic.

Incidentally, are the gears fixed at these time trial events, and is there a reason in the rules to make this so? I can see why you wouldn't want to involve gears at the speeds they go, but what if it could be done automatically? With the modern solid, eg spoke less wheels would come this opportunity for enclosed gearing.

Then there's the question of flywheels, but that's for another thread, perhaps.

 

[flecc]

The opposite is needed, the faster the wheel revolves the higher the gear that is needed to keep cadence within bounds.

Shimano make automatic gear hubs, a three speed and I think an 8 speed added now, but I don't know if the switching is via a centrifugal sensor. Gear hubs are nowhere near efficient enough for competition though, single speed and derailleur are almost 100% efficient, well beyond what gear hubs can achieve.

 

[Ajax]

Efficiency, that's what i was looking for. So if the technology existed, would it be allowed in competition? Are there already technologies in competition besides what we know of. Im thinking of the obvious advantages which came with the Boreman's carbon fibre monoframe and the way that was accepted without a mummer. If the athletes had the same cycle the way they now throw the same javelin, the sport would be less a test of technology and more a test of the person.

 

[flecc]

Actually the UCI is always very unwilling to accept new ideas and composite frames took a long time to get acceptance. An example is the way they have always refused to accept that recumbents are bicycles, despite them obviously not being anything else.

I don't know the rulebook provisions, but they have been restrictive enough to provoke a rival organisation being set up, the IHPVA (International Human Powered Vehicle Association) and a chain of national HPVAs. They accept any form of human powered vehicle.

I agree that all having the same equipment makes for a fairer test of the person in any sport, but of course it brings an almost complete standstill to development of the equipment, since the consumer wants what the champions use. That means no money from commerce for development and costly attempts to get any advances accepted.

 

[Ajax]

Actually the UCI is always very unwilling to accept new ideas and composite frames took a long time to get acceptance. An example is the way they have always refused to accept that recumbents are bicycles, despite them obviously not being anything else.

I don't know the rulebook provisions, but they have been restrictive enough to provoke a rival organisation being set up, the IHPVA (International Human Powered Vehicle Association) and a chain of national HPVAs. They accept any form of human powered vehicle.

I agree that all having the same equipment makes for a fairer test of the person in any sport, but of course it brings an almost complete standstill to development of the equipment, since the consumer wants what the champions use. That means no money from commerce for development and costly attempts to get any advances accepted.

I suppose one answer would be to have at least one event which featured a standardized bike. An event which made the field level for all, including the poorest nations.

If i'm honest i am trying to explain to myself in a rational way the reason for our success at these and the previous games. Is it our traditions which spots and nurtures the potential necessary in this sport, or a particular training program which takes and hones raw ability? Is it our infrastructure of veladromes etc, which should in theory be up there for most other developed nations? Or is it the equipment? It would be nice to have a definitive answer, but no one seems to be speculating much in this area. I guess we are simply grateful for our success. The same might be said for the other technologically minded events. What couldn't we do if we shared the same ethos with the other less technically dependent sports? Or does it take technology to give us the edge?

 

[flecc]

There has been much speculation about this, particularly by the rivals. It's a combination of the new technology, in this latest case mostly what the cyclists are wearing om top and underneath, not quite so much the bikes.

The other factor is the training. With unprecedented funds available compared with previously, and access to the velodrome that was used at Manchester for the Commonwealth games, the intensive long term training using all the latest techniques has paid off. These were what was behind the Tour de France first and second as well as these Olympics successes,.

As one of the cyclists said, "The others have just got to do more in preparation if they want to beat us".

 

[Kudoscycles]

I used to be part of a sailboat racing team which had average results,a new helmsman took over the boat and introduced what he called 'the layer theory'. This involved analysing every element that made a boat quicker and putting a value against each element of the 'layer',quantifying the importance of each element.
Initially the improvement was minor but over time the boat was difficult to beat. This was back in the 80's,I suspect that Ben Ainslie employs a similar programme.
The director of UK cycling employs a similar programme,which he calls margins. All obvious stuff but it needs a lot of input from a lot of talent because the individual gains are minor it is the sum of the margins which results in the success we see in the cycling. What makes it difficult for the others to understand is just getting the carbon bikes and the aerodynamic helmets and the fit riders will not necessarily replicate the UK results,its hundreds of other small elements that have also to be considered to produce the whole,they have a lot of catching up to do.
Dave
Kudoscycles

 

[jazper53]

I used to be part of a sailboat racing team which had average results,a new helmsman took over the boat and introduced what he called 'the layer theory'. This involved analysing every element that made a boat quicker and putting a value against each element of the 'layer',quantifying the importance of each element.
Initially the improvement was minor but over time the boat was difficult to beat. This was back in the 80's,I suspect that Ben Ainslie employs a similar programme.
The director of UK cycling employs a similar programme,which he calls margins. All obvious stuff but it needs a lot of input from a lot of talent because the individual gains are minor it is the sum of the margins which results in the success we see in the cycling. What makes it difficult for the others to understand is just getting the carbon bikes and the aerodynamic helmets and the fit riders will not necessarily replicate the UK results,its hundreds of other small elements that have also to be considered to produce the whole,they have a lot of catching up to do.
Dave
Kudoscycles

Its a pity that the same principals could not be applied to our flatlining economy