Phill P said:
Is Mario still riding 1" forks? No he has upgraded, bet he wouldn't go back.
Guys I'm not saying they are required, just they are better, not hugely better, just better. For me they feel better. I got a new bike that has has these designs and I'm happy, not any noticably faster i'm sure, just happy. I didn't not get a new bike in order to get the new designs, but was happy I could get them when I wanted a new bike.
I still get my arss kicked on the hills. It comes down to the motor not the size of your steerer tube.
Well, actually, they aren't better. They're different, but different isn't necessarily better. In this case, better is only a function of personal preference. Stiffer bottom brackets are like stiffer frames and laterally stiffer wheels: there is zero quantifiable evidence they provide any performance benefit, and in these cases, feeling that they're better doesn't mean anything in the general case. Feeling better is only meaningful in the specific case, i.e. for a given individual.
The mind is a powerful thing. I've mentioned this story before, but it's worth mentioning again: Scott Russell, ex-superbike star, US, and World champion was at Daytona for the Daytona 200. He didn't like how his bike was handling. He noticed how riders on other bikes with a specific color spring on the rear shock (let's say it was yellow. I can't remember what color it was.) seemed to be going faster than him. He pitted and told Rob Muzzy, his crew chief, that he wanted a yellow spring on his shock. So Rob did what any smart crew chief would do, he took Russell's rear shock spring, spray painted it yellow, and reinstalled it. Apparently that transformed Scott's bike, because he went to the top of the timing charts. The mind and belief are powerful things.
Science is objective. Science, so far, has yet to say that there is any performance advantage to increased frame, wheel, and/or BB axle stiffness. It's not like the performance advantage would be hiding, and it's not like there aren't instruments that would indicate such a performance advantage.
The "noise" level in a bicycle is more than significant: between frame flex, frame torsion, steerer flex, fork leg flex, fork leg torsion, crank flex, BB flex, wheel flex, wheel windup, tire flex, tire hysteresis, seat post flex, seat movement, stem flex, stem torsion, handlebar flex, handlebar torsion, road surface quality...........you see where I'm going? That's a lot of stuff that'll create measurement noise--uncertainty is the better term--and there's a lot more that I didn't mention. Oh, we can't forget that the bike is hinged at the front. The human body is definitely not a precise or accurate sensor, and it only gets worse when personal bias is coupled to the "measurement."
For new things to be accepted as "better," proof has to be provided of how they are better in the general case.