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?"
I'm a wrestler, one of the few sports completely unaffected by any technological advances. Maybe the only advances applicable would be in nutrition and biological things like that, but when your sport has no real equipment, technology means little.
Really, this is an extremely retarded ask slashdot...what are the answers going to be? My baseball bat is lighter and stronger. Replace baseball bat with golf club, etc. I mean there should be little direct impact of technology on sport, or the sport is sucked out of it. But I suppose we would need to agree on what a sport is for that one...or we run into racecars and other technocentric activities.
A more realistic question would be how has technology enhanced the training aspect of your sport. That makes sense. Golf swing analysis, hell video tapes are an indispensable tool for team sports.
Anyways. Worthless ask slashdot question.
bike-wise, Titus' Exogrid(?) is pretty cool. Its a titanium grid in the carbon fiber weave. Colnago still continues to blow me away with thier vast experience with carbon fiber (could some of that possibly be coming from thier partnership with Ferrari?) Thiers most certainly doesnt have the dead, woodlike feel of Trek's OCLV. Shimano's new Saint freeride gruppo looks very promising and hopefully will incoperate even more upgrades than the '03 XTR. Also the widespread use of Ti and its associated technologies is pretty sick. Since I also throw discus, carbon fiber side panels, exceedingly fast rotating discs, and shoes that you can spin forever on
---how do you like them f--kin' apples - Lance Armstrong
So technology has made NO positive impact in any sport you play? Comments like this may come across as insightful to others, and that's great, but to me it sounds like you're a grouchy old stick-in-the mud. Does your sport have footwear? Possibly you've forgotten how much improvement there has been in functional, comfortable and durable athletic footwear in the last twenty years. Try putting on a pair of football (oops soccer) cleats from the early '80s, or skates, or running shoes. Maybe your sports don't require specialized footwear (bridge? chess?) but I for one appreciate not having to purchase a new pair of shoes every 6 months because I wore out the old ones.
www.clarke.ca
Didn't most swimmers in the last summer olympics use full body swimsuits which helped them slip though the water faster? I believe they were modeled from shark skin. The shark's skin is rough, not smooth. Almost like a fine grit sand paper. If I remember correctly, this combination of micro bumps and holes made it so that the water would flow by the swimmer and only touch the bumps, thus creating less surface area which "touched" the water.
Anyone else recall how exactally this worked?
And, it wasn't just one country using these suits, Nike offered them to any athlete who wanted one.
And lastly, as the Tour de France begins... GO LANCE!!!!
I've ridden aluminum, carbon fiber, titanium and steel bikes from the 70s, 80s and 90s. I most recently bought a frame built from Reynolds steel - it's light and lively. All the prior bikes were good in some respects and aluminum will remain a favorite of mine, but the latest steel is an AMAZING material when done well.
Now is this improvement in frame design, metallurgy??
The advances in technology that have led to the installation of sensors on the courts (?) that can immediately indicate if a ball is IN or OUT and thus provide the backup to a judge's call OR the successful and irrefutable challenge to the same has been terrific.
The same technology can be used to show where a majority of a player's first serves are landing, second serves, returns, etc. and thus make for more interesting and informative sports commentary.
I first saw this at work at the Queen's Club (the precursor to Wimbledon in London -- on grass). Of course another technology that's been around a bit longer enables the ability to see that Andy Roddick's serve was at 149 mph. Many also agree that the development (technological advance) of raquets is what enables Andy and others (to some degree) to be such power hitters. No doubt, tennis is the most muscular it's ever been.
I disagree.
Footware has gotten better.
The mats don't burn as easily as they used to.
Oh yeah -- don't forget the improvements that have been made in diet, training, and physique improvement.
And, there has been improvements in both things like this and this.
Sure, the equipment hasn't changed much... but technology has altered the preperation for competition in every sport. Cameras. Nutrition. Fitness. Just to name a few.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
In my sport, fencing, technology has beed both good and bad. Most comptitive fencing is done today with electrical equipment. You wear a electicly conductive jacket and when a weapon make a valid contact a light and buzzer go off. You are connected to the scoring machine by means of wire conncted to a reel at the back of the piste.
We are only just now getting wireless scoring that elimiates the reel and wire. (thank goodness)
The problems come in that electical scoring can take place so quickly that the rules of right-of-way which, in short, state that you must defend agaist an attack beofor starting one of your own get thrown right out the window and fencing is reduces to a contest to see who can land a touch first no matter what the rules say.
When you fence dry (without electric equipment) the right-of-way rules are much more likely to be observed due to teh fact that you have 5 judges rather than just one.
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.
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.
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.
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 .1 seconds in about 15 years).
The list could go on and on. These are just technologies that have improved or altered the ways that athletes interact with the sports. Other things have been done to make the sports more accessable for the viewer. HDTV is probably the most pronounced, but other things (many of which have been mentioned) - constant scoreboards on the screen, 1st and 10 lines in football, glowing pucks, and even instant replay have done a lot to improve what the viewer knows about what they are watching.
It all depends on your point of view. However, when talking about improvments to the game (for the players), IMHO, it all comes down to this: If technology begins to have a bigger impact on the sport than the people who are playing; ie- you hit the ball further because of technology, NOT your skill; then technology is a bad thing. If all it works to level out factors that should not be included in the sport, then it is a good thing.
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
There are, of course, pros and cons to each frame material, geometry, tube shape, and so on. I recently purchased an alloy bike with carbon fork and seat stay, which in itself is an interesting piece of work.
I also work at a local bike shop and therefore deal with a whole lot of people every week who are anywhere from cycling newbies to seasoned professionals.
Granted, there have been leaps and bounds in cycling technology over the years, making bikes lighter, stiffer, smoother, and more tuned for good power transfer and efficiency. But, every week, I get at least half a dozen customers who just want the most expensive bike in the shop and don't even bother to test ride, fit, or anything. These people believe that the bike will make them a fast rider. I try to beat through their thick skulls and educate them that all the technology in the world will not make them a fast rider. These people just don't want to hear it.
But, I'll again scream at the top of my lungs that _it's not about the bike_ !!! It's all about attitude, desire, and that burning spirit inside you that can yell at you louder than your aching legs. It's also about learning good technique on the bike. I see so many "posers" on expensive bikes (almost always Trek, of course) pounding away at a cadence of 50 pushing 53/16 or so going 16 mph, leaning on the hoods. As I whiz by spinning 100, I can't help yelling "wrong wrong wrong!" as I fly by.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's fantastic that so many people are getting into cycling - and at least blowing money on bikes that will serve them well if they learn how to ride. What bothers me are these bike shops that push expensive bikes out the door and don't lift a finger to teach people how to ride.
The other day, I ran into a guy that was out with his two sons. He had dropped 4 large on a pair of Fuji Professionals (the bike I ride) - and the kids were in toe clips!!! I had stopped because I like to acknowledge other Fuji riders, and since they rode the same bike I do, it was a nice conversation. The shop that sold him the bikes didn't do anything to set up the bikes properly, not even doing him the favor of selling him decent clipless pedals for his sons.
I admired the kids' desire to learn to ride - they both hoped to ride fast, which is great. I just hope they take me up on my offer to come into my shop for a free fitting and riding lesson (and, of course, to buy pedals and shoes). Maybe there's hope yet for the pair of teenage boys who both want to be the next Lance Armstrong.
Bottom line - technology helps, but don't forget the cyclist inside of you who needs to be set free to tear up the roads. Only armed with the right technique and skill will the technological revolution in cycling be of any use to you.
part of the satisfaction is that that I too am an inner tech weenie. I used to lust after the gizmos. But slowly I stripped them off my bike. few really help you. and you spend more time worrying about your bike and tweaking it than riding it.
The other thing is that I found that light-weight does not mean its better. I break light weight gear. heavy may be better if its solid and reliable. Front shock ride less precicely over a rock garden. Back shocks give you less control too.
I've busted handlebars and could easily have gotten impaled on the fragments. Thus no more trick handle bar alloys for me, please--give me something that known not to metal fatigue or fail catastrophically before it bends.
I've broken al lsorts of parts in all sorts of places I did not want to have to walk out of. thus repairable stuff is good too. I carry lots of tools and people laugh at how heavy my bike is--but somehow I end up using them all and not just on my bike.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
This is a very big consideration -- I've primarily ridden 3 road bikes -- my dad's old steel frame, a newer, stiffer alchemy (heavier aluminuim frame), and now a spanking new Giant TCR2 (alloy frame w/ carbon forks and seatpost). The difference between all three bikes is astounding -- It is true that the steel frame was a very comfortable ride, but it was absolutely hellish on hills because of the geometry and the power that the frame absorbed. My new bike combines the best of both worlds IMHO -- the carbon is in the forks and seatpost -- i.e. making the ride significantly smoother, yet the alloy frame is lighter and stonger than the aluminium, meaning more energy reaches the road.
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.
From what I understand, aluminium is also more suceptible to cracks etc, since it tends to just snap rather than bending like steel.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Ah... the true sport for masochists everywhere! Definitely the progress of electronic ball-hoppers are one of the main advances I've seen as of late... The Halo e-hopper for one, and the Tippman A-5's cyclone feeder. ;)
w00f.
Formula 1 is almost certainly a candidate for most technology dependent. In a sport where the best teams spend more than 5x the worst, results (championship points) can be correlated almost linearly with dollars spent. Testing, wind tunnel time, and engine control hardware and software all cost money. Not to mention the fact that if you can afford to throw away an engine at the end of a race rather than the end of a season, you can manufacture it closer to its theoretical limits and build in less of a safety margin. Ferrari, for instance, has Shell analyze its motor oil after every race. Depending on what type, size, and concentration of metal particles are found, different components are inspected or replaced.
FIA, taking a page from NASCAR's playbook, is considering making drastic alterations to the rules of F1 to make the races more "viewer friendly" than recent seasons. Some of the things under consideration:
-Increasing the number of races an engine must survive
-Forcing all teams to use identical wings, brakes, or transmissons
-Banning driver aides such as torque control or semi-auto shifting
While I can see FIA's reasoning for considering these changes, I hope they do not go through. Even if all cars were identical, the wealthiest teams could still afford the best drivers and would therefore tend to finish better. Limiting budgets could be an option, allowing teams to invest in technologies they felt offered the most return on investment. My guess is that this is not under consideration because it would be too easy for teams to sneak in extra dollars in the form of corporate R&D or deals with suppliers.
Have you seen my stapler?
It's the lobby of Framebuilders that prevented bikes built like this one or this one from being permitted to the Tour de France and other major events. Actually they lobbied to change the rules to prohibit these modern bicycles which literaly kick the living crap out of the old 'hunchback' designs.
...causes me serious problems taking *any* hunchback riding those ancient-style, so-called 'racingbikes' serious and for granted. No matter how flashy they look in their silly candycolored trunks. On the contrary.
Talking about innovation and using all kinds of supermodern material may sound oh so cool and hip. But after more than 10 years after the first professional Windcheetahs still...
1.) riding in a postion that's not only seriously unhealthy,...
2.) grossly inefective in bringing your legpower to the street and into your movement,...
3.) gives you the aerodynamics of a frigerator box,...
4.) is near to unbearably uncomfortable...
5.) and looks somewhat silly...
The promoters and sponsors of the Tour de France and other races ought to be boykotted completely for their outright childish kiddiecrap traditionalisim.
Sports technology? My ass. If you want innovation, go check the newest sneakers, but don't ask bike-racers.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
because, in the end, steel is real. I can get a bike similarly equipped to my aluminum one, at a similar weight (steel's got some great new alloys), with the feel and responsiveness I've always loved...
Right on. Advances in frame technology/materials hasn't been nearly enough to shift me away from steel, though I admit I don't race often, I prefer a classic bike, and use nothing but Brooks leather saddles, Campy components, and wool clothing(hate nylon/lycra look and feel) which might give me greater bias. Almost every new frame I see is just too ugly with oversized tubing, radical geometries and flashy paint jobs. My bike built around a Cinelli Supercorsa turns heads every time I ride(I know it isn't me) and while it isn't the lightest thing around the quality of its ride it is by far better than any anything else I've tried(titanium, carbon fiber, aluminum) save a few better steel frames I've tried. Also steel is the only material that you can currently use with the lugs, and why any one would not want lugs has always been a mystery to me.
Cycling has a very rich history much of it based in the merge of man and machine. The style and elegance of bicycles seems to have taken a hit since the 90s.
The UCI also regulates total road bike weight to something like 16 pounds or greater, a mark that has been surpassed, so hopefully now more focus will be put into the quality of ride rather then weight=speed.
As a sports fan, the greatest advancement in technology has to be TiVo. I'd say my viewing and appreciation of sports has increased at least by a factor of 3 with the convenience of "automatic" time shifting and TiVo's powerful review abilities.
I now understand what "delayed offsides" is in hockey, "tail braking" is in motorcycling, and why the move from filament to LED starting bulbs on drag racing tracks is throwing the scoring system into chaos.
The biggest change to the game occurred in the mid-1970's with the introduction of astroturf hockey fields instead of grass fields. These became common in club-level hockey by about 1985. The introduction of a predictable surface made possible a lot of things that were impossible to do reliably before - stretching the stick out horizontally, on both the "forestick" (right) and "backstick" (left) sides, to trap the ball, evading players by dragging the ball from left to right, faster passing as players needed much less time to control the ball before laying off the pass, and far greater accuracy in passing and hitting.
Just about every other piece of hockey equipment has changed in response. The balls changed from leather to plastic, and dimples were added. Goalkeeping gear was completely revolutionised, with cricket-style pads replaced with huge foam numbers which are great on synthetic fields but would not survive long on muddy grass. However, the greatest changes occurred in stick design.
On grass fields, sticks were designed to have a fairly wide, flat head. This was great for controlling the ball on a bumpy grass field, but was totally unsuitable for swivelling the stick around to drag the ball from left to right - not to mention horizontal-stick trappings (with the old style sticks the ball would often sail straight under the gap formed by the head of the stick on the ground when this was attempted). So the long, flat heads were replaced with a short, stubby surface.
Around the same time, somebody figured out that a stiffer stick hit the ball more efficiently than a less stiff model, and the wood sticks were gradually reinforced with a succession of materials, starting with fibreglass, then proceeding through various fibreglass/kevlar/carbon fibre composites, and so on. Soon, the only wood left in these sticks was in the heads, which at the time was required by law. Easton even released an aluminium stick featuring replacable heads, which was banned after a couple of seasons on (exaggerated) safety grounds. A rule change saw the emergence of pure composite sticks, which is what I play with now. Even a mug like me can hit the ball extremely hard with one, and the top international players strike the ball at upwards of 100 mph - and remember, a hockey ball is heavier and harder than a baseball or cricket ball. Despite the faster ball speed, the synthetic surface has meant that the ball is far more trappable now than back in the pre-synthetic days.
Then, there are the subsidiary technologies. Instead of playing in studded football boots, we wear astroturf shoes, which are much more comfortable and provide much better shock absorption. Our shin pads have improved tremendously. Even the clothing is more comfortable than when I began.
There are a couple of downsides to the changes, though. The first is that with the faster ball speed, defending "penalty corners" has become much more dangerous than it used to be (the game is still relatively safe, compared to many other sports). The second is the massive cost of the facilities and gear. A top-of-the-range hockey stick costs 150 USD or so, and lasts about a season. Goalkeeping gear now costs over 1000 USD. A synthetic field, even the cheaper "sand-based synthetic" fields, costs about 300,000 USD to set up initially, and needs to be resurfaced about once a decade at a cost of about half that, if I recall correctly. An international-standard "water-based" field costs about 750,000 USD. Considering that very few players can play professionally, it is one of the most expensive team sports there is.
But would I go back to the old days of grass fields? Once every so often for a hit-and-giggle game, maybe. But full-time? Not on your life.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Yes, mod this up. Stell transmits vibrations differently, but the way the frame is constructed is more a factor in frame flex than material.
:)
The technology is really in how the tubes are made these days. By making the tubes ovalized, bi-ovalized, thinning the wall thickness in the middle of the tube where fewer stresses apply, etc., the weight of bikes has dropped, while making them stronger and stiffer at the same time.
Look at old pictures of the tour. The had to fix their own bikes back then (frames, forks and all), to the extent that one participant was disqualified for having someone work the bellows while he re-forged his fork. I'm happy that technology works even for me as a cyclist.
Boron Carbide (CB4) was a classified defense material for years, probably for radar invisibility or some such. Lots of neat stuff which used to be classified has made it to the consumer market, which has been very good, for the choices it has allowed.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
But it always was high-tech, even from the onset when it was invented in the 1920's by Yves Leprieur (Cousteau merely improved the gear - by re-using a 1865 design spurned by Leprieur).
During the last 20 years, we've seen composite materials enter the scene to make suits, fins, masks and other gadgets, very fancily machined balanced regulators, and, of course, computers.
But SCUBA-diving is also high-tech because it calls for a good knowledge of human physiology to properly understand what pressure does to the human body, in order to avoid serious crippling injury.
But most advances in recent years involve more "software" than "hardware"; that is, new methods that use slightly modified diving gear, such as Nitrox mixes, that is, oxygen-enriched gases that offers all sort of benefits.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, special inert gas mixes for deeper diving, once the province of commercial divers, being used by sport divers.
And the rebirth of old technologies, such as rebreathers (used by combat swimmers during World-War II), but with computers monitoring their function to enable mixing a continuously variable breathing mix optimized for the current depth in order to minimize nitrogen exposure without skirting oxygen toxicity.