Slashdot Mirror
Sports Technology?
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?"
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.
[quote]How have advances in sports technology enhanced your own performance and enjoyment of sport?[/quote]
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.
You do realize who you're asking right? For most of us, Surfing the net is the closest we're going to get to sport.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
From a fan's perspective:
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.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I started racing soon after fibreglass skis were turning the race world upside down. Winning times had been pretty steady for decades, and suddenly in the first Olympics where fibreglass skis appeared, times went down by 10%. In the course of a few years, we went to aluminum poles to fibreglass to carbon fibre. Skis also started using carbon fibres and other advanced composites. The technology war got so bad that they had to limit the minimum width of skis to stop people trying to come up with stronger materials to get away with narrower skis.
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.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
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.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Except for materials and gears, mainstream bikes have truly changed little in the last 100 years.
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 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, 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
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!
the shark thing is the same as golf balls.i my/courses/M E%20504%20Lecture%20Notes%20-%20Lecture%2011.pdf
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 component of the drag).
For the full gory details, see pages 9 and 17 of the following:
http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~sam
As a side note, the guys doing the Tour de France are some of the most amazing atheletes in the world and no amount of talking up their technology can take away from this fact. The distances they cover over and over again day after day is a feat of human endurance and has very little to do with materials or engineering.
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".
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
There already are regulations on most every aspect of golf club and ball design, and the USGA is doing an excellent job of protecting the purity of the game. Golf courses are in no way becoming obsolete. The biggest improvement to golf in recent years has been that all the top professional golfers now spend a fair amount of time in the gym, and with coaches. $5 golf balls and $500 clubs do not a good golfer make.
Sure, the poster was probably aiming at humor, and I might even be faling for a troll/flamebait... but, I think this has to be said.
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 TV with two computers on the sides.
In fact, I enjoy bike riding. I have a rather old bike, but it will do until college is done and I have a job which can afford me a newer model. I enjoy working out at the gym, or running through the city. I am a practitioner of martial arts (brown belt in Shito-Ryu karate style, and will soon be training in TKD and Judo). I eat a healty diet, and I make a conscious effort to balance my physical and mental well being.
The point is that being a geek does not indicate that one must fall into the stereotype that your post seems to be enforcing. Please, enough of that.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
my sport is bowling, and over the past few years the technology involved in ball coverings has been incrediable. To use these new balls you have to throw them at 19MPH on a heavy oiled surface, but most serious recreational bowlers through about 15-18 MPH on a lightly oiled surface that's usualy bone dry on the edges; so its amusing to see the "know-it-alls" trying to bowl with the latest $200.00 just been on the TV match bowling ball. These balls are made for pro's that throw 100-200 games a week, they just don't work the same for a serious rec bowler throwing 100-200 games a year, my bigest problem is find new dinosaur eggs to throw. Also these balls are pretty well worn out after a hundred games, or about one league for a year, serious bowlers might compete in 3-5 leagues, so most of the times they are throwing a worn-out ball anyways.
I have found that watching the ladies on the LPBA, and what works for them, give me a much better idea of what might work for me. the strenght and skill levels of the lpba is a better match of what a serius recreational bowler might acheive.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The idea that a steel frame will flex and therefore be more comfortable on bumpy roads is a complete myth. Frames do flex, but hardly at all in the vertical plane. Any microscopic vertical flex that does occur would be impossible to differentiate from the much greater flex of the tyres, saddle, and handlebar tape.
The only possible way in which a steel frame may be more comfortable than aluminium (all other things being equal) is if there is some difference in the way it vibrates.
> 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.
Tennis is now considering reversing the trend somewhat by reducing the width of the face of racquets. In the days of wooden racquets, they all were about 9.5 inches wide, and were limited by the strength of wood - any bigger and they couldn't stand the force of impact.
Now they average about 13.5 inches wide, so that's nearly 40% larger. That's why there's so many clubbers around, and a skilful guy will almost always get beaten by a gorilla.
I believe the proposal is to reduce the size of racquets down to 11.5 inches in the next few years, then down to something like 10 inches after that. The idea is to basically bring some more skill back into the game.
As long as they don't do it before the Wimbledon final, where I'll be happy to watch a clubber win one more time. Go the Poo!!
I think the problem is that technology is way outrunning what we expect in many sports. The result is that there is way too much emphasis on the "power" game and that ruins the experience for everyone in the long run. I expect the following to happen:
.1 seconds in about 15 years).
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 & Ancient Club of St. Andrews are very seriously looking at the issue of oversized clubheads and golf balls with too much "bounce." Expect with a few years a very strict standard for clubhead sizes, materials used etc. As for golf balls, we may see within a few years a standardized golf ball with a lower "bounce" rate than currently.
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.
I expect that within a few years we will see a reference standard for tennis rackets that will limit the size of the head and also limit how much "bounce" it can put on the tennis ball. Also, we may see a slightly larger tennis ball with a lower "bounce" rate, which means the ball will travel slower.
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.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see these new style swimsuits banned after the 2004 Summer Olympics. These new suits are very expensive and offer too much an advantage to any team that can afford them.
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
One thing we may see is that there will be a strict ban on full-body suits in running races up to 1,600 meters. Such full-body suits offer too much an advantage in terms of lowering wind resistance and also are extremely expensive to procure.