For the latest Bicycle Quarterly, we did some testing of rough road energy losses, and included a RockShox Ruby fork - the slightly less sophisticated version for the mass market after the Paris-Roubaix had been moderately successful despite its high cost.
The fork worked well on the bumps, albeit not much better than the fork of my Alex Singer with Reynolds 531 "Super Resilient" blades. It did bounce through its entire spring travel of 30 mm when I stood on the pedals to accelerate, though. As long as I sat in the saddle, it was remarkably pleasant to ride.
As I wrote in BQ, I believe that Mapei compensated for the lack of suspension forks by running low pressures in their relatively wide tubulars. According to our testing, that provides better speed and comfort than a separate suspension system. This seems to be borne out by the 1996 result, when three Mapei riders broke away together from a helpless field that included many strong racers. It appears that Mapei's bikes were more efficient on the cobbles. (Their doping also may have been better, but I don't think the other teams were running clean, either.)
Of course, as you say, all the other racers copied them, but the low pressure part of the equation was lost somewhere in the process. Today, some racers run 24 mm tires at 105 psi in Paris-Roubaix. Not only is it uncomfortable and risks equipment failures, but it also is slower!
I am pretty sure that suspension is not UCI legal in road races these days, so using shocks is a moot point. And if the racers use our research to improve their bikes with wider tires, run at lower pressures, I am sure the UCI will introduce a maximum tire size for road races, like they have in cyclocross... Even so, it appears that the current equipment has a lot of room for improvement.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com
>I was thinking about the shock forks.
>I also remember the guys saying that they didn't work real well, too
>awkward to adjust, and too much power loss on hills and when out of
>seat.
>I also remember them being blocked out and not used.
>All of you should remember that bike riders are lemmings, and the
>pros the worst. Like a heard of buffalo the indians drove over the
>cliff.
>The "peloton" thinking D-L/S had this secret weapon and therefore
>won, had to have it.
>It seemed to die a natural death after that.
>Remember also we're talking a long time ago and the equipment was
>nowhere near today's technology.
>Keep in mind also that if weight offsets results the guys would be
>using it exclusively today.
>It obviously doesn't meet muster and is not part of today's equipment
>package for those guys
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Marie Autrey" <ridingrabbit@earthlink.net>
>To: "classicrendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 2:31 AM
>Subject: [CR] duclos-lasalle and RockShox
>
>>I'm far away from my magazine archive, so somebody else will have
>>to verify (or disprove) this.
>>
>>I recall an interview with Duclos-LaSalle in Winning shortly after
>>his second P-R win, in which he said that riding the sprung forks
>>was a nod to one of LeMond's many sponsors, and that he rode with
>>the 'boing' locked out.
>>
>>That might explain why they disappeared after two years.
>>Legislation may have had nothing to do with it
>>
>>Marie Autrey
>>Water Island, US VIrgin Islands, where only an optimist goes in
>>hurricane season