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!
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.