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.
Dude, we're computer geeks. The only technological enhancement which has increased our enjoyment of sports is high definition television and surround sound. If you want sports, ESPN is down the hall.
Well, given that I've been racing bicycles for 15 years now, I think that the biggest advances have to be lightweight suspensions and disc brakes on mountain bikes, integrated shift/brake levers on road bikes, and scandium as a frame material.
:-)
Scandium's a pretty new development -- gives you the weight of aluminum with the durability and "liveliness" of steel...
Carbon fiber -- I've never liked, not even Trek's OCLV -- too much of a "dead" feel to the ride...
For my road bike, I too, am on aluminum, but I'm going back to steel this fall -- 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...
I could write forever on this subject, so I'll just shut up now.
blog |
My optical mouse has improved my Counter-Strike scores dramatically. I am feared by all.
*twitch*
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.
...my favourite new tech is 'Turbonium,' like what the New Beetle is made out of. Great stuff.
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'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.
My enjoyment of sports would be nigh impossible without this bad boy.
Parabolic (shaped) skiis are a great example of technology in sports. It's not uber-high-tech, but it's made a world of difference. Ski lengths have plummetted, along with turning radii, and it's far easier for beginners to progress from snowplow to parallel and carved turns.
My other sig is funny!
There are a lot of ethical questions involved here. Improving materials in sports have lead to big improvements in some sports. Take polevaulting. If you plot the polevault world record versus year for the 20th century, you will see significant jumps as the athletes switched from hardwood to bamboo to fiberglass to carbon fiber. Concequently, you can't compare records from different eras.
Golf in another sport where this has become a problem. The advances in golf clubs have made it difficult for the courses to keep up. The USGA has finally had to set limits on the properties of golf clubs for official play because the alternative (making the courses longer) is very difficult and expensive.
College baseball is another one. They have had to slap limits on the properties of aluminum baseball bats because they were starting to affect the game too much. There are now rules governing how much rebound is allowed from a bat. Note that major league baseball doesn't have this problem because they still use wooden bats.
I am a materials scientist, and I'm always amazed how every new material immediately gets made into golf clubs. Titanium, Beryllium-Copper, Cermets, Amorphous metals. Each has been made into golf clubs.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
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
...it no longer fazes me when I see 7' goliaths on the basketball court. I just lace them up, ignite the rocket packs embedded in the soles, and dunk all over my meager competition. From 4'6" to 25' in 2.2 seconds, as the ads say.
And it helps to use the RimPop Magneto Homing Ball, too, because at 60mph it's hard to actually make a clean shot.
Heh. Last time I did anything sporting-like was fighting over the last Athlon XP2000+ at Fry's.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
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
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.
Everyone here seems to be talking about the able bodied sports.
I am involved with prosthetics and orthotics, and technology plays a huge part in the paralympics.
Look at carbon fibre legs. The fastest paralympian is Marlon Shirley who can do the 100m in 11.09 seconds.
But this tech is also used in able bodied athletes. Take for example that carbon fibre plates are used inside runners shoes to act as energy storage devices and allow the runner to be more efficient than his body would be without the shoes.
I'm too young to have seen the development of the most revolutionary advances in climbing: the shoes, ropes, harnesses, belay devices, protection, etc. etc. But I sure do appreciate their benefits -- both in my ability to climb more difficult routes and (more importantly) the safety with which I can climb.
As an example of the benefits of new technology, consider the American climbing ratings system (the Yosemite Decimal System). Originally there were ten difficulty levels, from 5.1 to 5.10, 5.10 being "physically impossible". Today, it goes to 5.15 -- and thanks to the technical advances in gear, an amateur like myself can climb 5.10 or 5.11 (once considered "advanced" climbs).
-Thomas
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.
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!
My wife and I are serious bicyclists. This year, we are attempting longer and harder rides than ever before, with more elevation gain. So we got new bikes.
My wife's bike is built on a frame by Wylder, called the Queen of the Road. Wylder is going out of business; when they were in business, they charged $1800 for that frame, but they are selling the frames they have left for $750. (Their web site says they have 42 cm, 45 cm, 52 cm, and 55 cm frames left. If you know a woman who wants a ti bike and can fit one of those sizes, send her this link!)
My bike -- I'm still amazed, I feel so lucky -- is a Colnago Ovalmaster. It's 6/4 titanium, the extra-stiff kind, and it has oddly shaped tubes; the shaped tubes help make the bike very stiff in the ways I want it to be stiff (when I hammer on the pedals, the frame doesn't flex) but still light and springy when I go over bumps. I love it.
I was able to afford my frame because I got it used on ebay. You can get some great deals on bike stuff on ebay.
Anyway, our new bikes have really helped us improve our speed. I didn't realize how much my wife's old bike was holding her back, until she got the new one. Her old bike is comfortable and stable, but it's six full pounds heavier than her new one, which matters when you are spending many hours climbing tall hills. And a lot of the weight savings is in moving parts: pedals, cranks, wheels. (The rule of thumb is that rotating weight counts double, so you should sooner get a lighter wheel than a lighter saddle.)
For me, the biggest improvement with the new bike is not the climbing, but the descending! My old bike was not stiff enough for me, and I got very nervous going down a steep hill. My new bike feels rock-stable under me when I am descending. I am still not a speed demon on downhills, but I'm a lot happier and a bit faster.
The metric I like to apply to bikes is dollars per mile. We ride enough miles that even just this year, both bikes will drop to well under a dollar per mile. If you only ride 10 miles at a time, don't spend serious money on a bike; get an inexpensive starter bike. (But don't buy a $200 bike from Wal-Mart. If you are considering buying a new bike, please read my thoughts on my personal web page about bikes.)
When you think about it, there is a lot of technology going with us on bike rides. We have heart rate monitors that also record speed, distance, and altitude changes (Polar S720+). We have technical fabric clothing, such as CoolMax jerseys or microfiber polyester rainwear. We have helmets that can save us in a bad accident, yet are light and don't make our heads overheat. We carry cell phones while riding, in case a bike totally breaks down and we need a taxi, or in case someone needs medical help.
No matter how much technology I buy, the pro riders could still ride me into the ground on a low-end bike. But our titanium bikes, and our other gear, let us ride up to our ability and have fun doing it.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Yeah. I'm always impressed when I hear about kids in Central America playing baseball naked, barehanded (regulation hard ball) because they can't afford a real glove and only own one change of clothes (if that), and don't want to wreck them.
Lets face it... You are a true gamer if you play at 100% when you're totally naked. (Think sliding without pants on... OUCH! That's dedication...) This is probably off-topic, but this type of dedication you don't see in most professionals who have every technical, financial, and medical advantage (not to mention clothes to protect their bodies when sliding.)
Technology is great, but you have to remember why you play the game (or run the race, or whatever) otherwise it is all pointless. Look how spoiled, whiny, and decadent most pro ballers are these days... Think any of them really remember what its all about?
Who did what now?
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
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?)