Old road bike vs New road bike (cheapest, gears, decent)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More gears theoretically allows you to maintain the same cadence/heart rate regardless of changes in terrain.
Back in the ancient times Shimano tried to take that step further with biopace cranks. The crank gears were ovaled and slightly offset on the down stroke. I'm assuming they don't make them anymore, I know they died out pretty quick when they first came on the market.
BioPace chainrings are interesting to use. I had a bike with Shimano BioPace rings and for a while I didn't even notice the effect. Very subtle and the positioning of the oval must have been perfectly placed. But later I had another bike that used some other brand oval chainrings, unmarked, and for the longest time I kept thinking the bottom bracket was loose. That's exactly what it felt like, but then I'd check the bottom bracket and it was perfectly fine. Then one day I was standing some distance away from the bike and I realized the chainrings were oval. I don't know what brand they were (though the cranks were Sugino, so I'm assuming the rings were too), but they were annoying compared to the Shimano version.
Edit: And before anyone asks, yes, the chainrings were attached correctly to the cranks. They had one of those pins that prevents the chain from diving down between the crank and the chainrings, and it was where it should be.
BioPace chainrings are interesting to use. I had a bike with Shimano BioPace rings and for a while I didn't even notice the effect. Very subtle and the positioning of the oval must have been perfectly placed. But later I had another bike that used some other brand oval chainrings, unmarked, and for the longest time I kept thinking the bottom bracket was loose. That's exactly what it felt like, but then I'd check the bottom bracket and it was perfectly fine. Then one day I was standing some distance away from the bike and I realized the chainrings were oval. I don't know what brand they were (though the cranks were Sugino, so I'm assuming the rings were too), but they were annoying compared to the Shimano version.
Edit: And before anyone asks, yes, the chainrings were attached correctly to the cranks. They had one of those pins that prevents the chain from diving down between the crank and the chainrings, and it was where it should be.
I had Biopace chainrings on a Peugeot Sante'. Remember that Shimano gruppo? That was their dressy group. In theory the ovalizing was an attempt to remove that dead part of the stroke. However, they fell out of favor when the higher cadence spinning became more widespread. The oval at 90+ cadence became a little awkward feeling, and not smooth. I've seen new rings, such as these being developed trying to improve on the round rings.
Frame obviously plays a factor but for the average person just look at the components. That
Centurion has alloy; rims, brakes, derailleurs, crank, hubs etc... If I were to guess that was probably a very expensive bike when it was new. That other bike has all steel components and that's dead giveaway for cheap bike on older models.
If I recall Bridgestone made a Ironman in the late 80's that was in the $1K range and if it's the same rider endorsing both bikes....
You may be thinking of Diamondback. I remember Diamondback having to stop using the Centurion name for their road bike brand because of some copyright infringement issue and switched to using Diamondback on all their bikes, mtb and road. Here is an interesting write up on Centurion history. I love reading these articles.
It wouldn't have been a Diamondback, my one friend raced competitively and he exclusively rode Bridgestones. I can swear the bike was named Ironman but this is going back to the late 80's so it's entirely possible I'm wrong.
BioPace chainrings are interesting to use. I had a bike with Shimano BioPace rings and for a while I didn't even notice the effect. Very subtle and the positioning of the oval must have been perfectly placed.
I'm pretty sure it's not a true oval, I would assume Shimano probably patented the geometry.
I'm pretty sure it's not a true oval, I would assume Shimano probably patented the geometry.
Yeah it doesn't look exactly like a true ellipse, more like a really rounded off, subtle rhombus. I know oval chainrings have been attempted several times for decades before Shimano, but I think Shimano was probably the most successful at it. Actually Shimano may have been the ones who first made chainrings that weren't true ovals. And though I can't say for certain, maybe that other brand I had was so terrible because it was a true oval.
It wouldn't have been a Diamondback, my one friend raced competitively and he exclusively rode Bridgestones. I can swear the bike was named Ironman but this is going back to the late 80's so it's entirely possible I'm wrong.
Bridgestone may very well have had Triathlon model. Peugeot had one as well. I was referring to the Centurion brand name. Their triathlons had the Dave Scott moniker. That's the Centurion that changed to Diamond.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
