If your are professional/semi pro cyclists

Brian B

If your are professional/semi pro cyclists what difference does the bike really do?

I ask this question a Nicole Cooke and co are riding Boardman bikes whch are not even full carbon and noticed at the tour of the reservoir premier calender race that some were on Pinnarelo Princes and some riders are on halfords Boardman bikes.

At this level of racing will the people on the Boardman bikes suffer or lose a little zip than say people on a high end carbon and what difference will this mean on a 1 day and a stage race. I know that they might not have the the same set up in regards to wheels and cranks but I am just a sportive rider and I have full dura-ace high end carbon bike and I feel the difference on this compared to my other bikes.

LangerDan

I'm not (nor ever was) anywhere near that level but I've had friends and former clubmates racing at up to ProContinental level. I don't think there is any hard and fast answer to this. In the past few years, several of the ProContinental teams that turn up at some of the early Spring semi classics have been on quite low-grade (relative to the "proper" pros) equipment - UIltegra&Chorus components, 7000-series alloy frames with carbon forks etc. Do they notice the difference? - its hard to tell.
A former clubmate was a top level international (Ras stage winner etc) yet you could give him a butchers bike to ride and he'd be happy. His own race bike was usually alloy (Scandium) with carbon forks - he could afford much better but couldn't be bothered. What was worse was that he was devoid of mechanical nous and it was common to find his BB lubricated with a mixture of rainwater and mud, yet it didn't impair his ability to win races.
I think the difference is more in the head of the rider than the bike under him, leaving aside issues of custom geometry which may have a far more significant impact.

Having said all that, its nice to have nice stuff!

forearms Van Petegem

the main difference could be in a TT, or solo breakaway.

Having an aero bike in the tt, potentially deep dish wheels in a breakaway on your own.

Ullrich rode a Pegarotti in 96 win. Custom steel. I say custom geometry would be preferrred, as long as close to 100% power transfer. As long as you can get the bike to close to 7.5 kgs, you are flying... unless you are a 50kg climber or Rass, then you need something on the UCI limit.

forearms Van Petegem

I also saw results from a test which said the Chorus and Ultegra cranks were stronger than the top of line components.

Probably because they dont have the weight hollowed out.

So it is arguable the sprinters should be used Chorus/Ultegra cranksets.

Kléber

Chorus and Record cranks are identical, the only difference is that one pair say Record on them and during the manufacturing process, Campagnolo leave the air bladder used for moulding inside the Chorus version, meaning the plastic bag adds to the weight.

A pro won't lose a race because of their bike. They just need it to work efficiently and the effective difference in friction, efficiency and aerodynamics of one road bike to another can be small. But at the end of a 250km race, it can come down to the photo finish and I'd take the Pinarello any time over the Halfords. Plus I don't have to ride in the vile black and orange kit...

Monty Dog

Races aren't won by the bike but due to preparation (including mechanically), training and psychology - any perceptible differences between bikes - bar incorrect geometry or set-up would be barely imperceptible. Sadly, most 3rd and 4th cats see it the other way around.

LangerDan

Why "sadly"? - if it wasn't for 3rd and 4th cats and not to mention sportive riders, - i.e. top-end equipment was sold only to those who merited it - most of the prestige manufacturers would be trading out of lock-ups under railway arches and "cheap" carbon frames would be £2000 a pop. Ernesto Colnago probably says a little prayer every night for those whose wallets greatly exceed their potential.

Tom Butcher

Monty Dog wrote:

Races aren't won by the bike but due to preparation (including mechanically), training and psychology - any perceptible differences between bikes - bar incorrect geometry or set-up would be barely imperceptible. Sadly, most 3rd and 4th cats see it the other way around.

What a strange thing to say - from those I know some of those who spend the most on kit either are or have been class riders and semi pro - I think most people like to have nice kit - in the scheme of things it's not that expensive and it's not something unique to 3/4s.

celbianchi

i think Monty dog is suggesting that the grass roots level of racing (of which i am a participant) think that a nice bike will see great race results. I think we all know that suitable training etc are also required.

However, as i do also have two very top end bikes, I am fully aware that there are people out there who seem to think that 2/3/4 races should not be the home of a £4k bike. Why they think like this i don't know. If you can afford to spend £4k on a bike, why not?
I think people who look down there noses on 2/3/4 racers having decent kit are a bit sad to be honest. I would estimate that 75% of 2/3/4 racers have very nice expensive race kit.
And as mentioned earlier if people at the volume end of the market did not buy it then manufacturers would not produce it. Simple really.

redddraggon

celbianchi wrote:

However, as i do also have two very top end bikes, I am fully aware that there are people out there who seem to think that 2/3/4 races should not be the home of a £4k bike.

I don't see any problem with owning £4k bikes, even if you are rubbish, but I wouldn't necessarily see it as a good idea to ride an expensive bike in a lower category race (where the risk of crash damage is higher?)

flattythehurdler

Kléber wrote:

Chorus and Record cranks are identical, the only difference is that one pair say Record on them and during the manufacturing process, Campagnolo leave the air bladder used for moulding inside the Chorus version, meaning the plastic bag adds to the weight.

A pro won't lose a race because of their bike. They just need it to work efficiently and the effective difference in friction, efficiency and aerodynamics of one road bike to another can be small. But at the end of a 250km race, it can come down to the photo finish and I'd take the Pinarello any time over the Halfords. Plus I don't have to ride in the vile black and orange kit...

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Is this really true?

celbianchi

redddraggon wrote:

celbianchi wrote:

However, as i do also have two very top end bikes, I am fully aware that there are people out there who seem to think that 2/3/4 races should not be the home of a £4k bike.

I don't see any problem with owning £4k bikes, even if you are rubbish, but I wouldn't necessarily see it as a good idea to ride an expensive bike in a lower category race (where the risk of crash damage is higher?)

I see what your saying, but fact is that most racing boys have expensive machines. I just don't like the way that some people seem to think that unless your riding a UCI registered race then you don't have the right to use the best equipment you can afford.

Kléber

flattythehurdler wrote:

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Is this really true?

What the cranks or the fact that the Halfords kit is nasty?

andy_wrx

Kléber wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Is this really true?

What the cranks or the fact that the Halfords kit is nasty?

Surely one is so self-evidently true as to be an established fact ?

oldwelshman

The difference in the bikes make little difference.
Look at race av speeds and compare to 25 years ago, they are the same.
As some one mentioned for a TT there may be small differences but a lot of that is to do with aero position on bike.
The wheels have the biggest impact not the groupsets, they have little impact but rolling resistance makes some difference.
In a road race it can be more difficult to notice differences anyway due to drafting.
If you get a natural sprinter on a £300 bike in a crit he could probably sit in to the finish and still win the race due to sprint ability.
It would not be the same on a hilly race though !!
There are some races I would definately not consider racing my top bike in due to risks and nature of course, but would ride it on any sportive though
IMO there is no such thing as an enrty level racing bike, thats another marketing term.
My best ever result (ok 23 years ago) was in an elite race (5 valleys RR) and I came second riding a 26lb viscount bike!! (edited for correct weight )
Everyone on the start line laughed when I turned up taking off my old ever ready lights because the day before I snapped the frame on my Raleigh road ace 531 frame.
I managed to haul my ass and heavy bike over the bwlch and rhigos to get the 2nd just behind a pro
Couldn't do it now tho

redddraggon

oldwelshman wrote:

My best ever result (ok 23 years ago) was in an elite race (5 valleys RR) and I came second riding a 16lb viscount bike!!

16lb is light though isn't it?

oldwelshman

redddraggon wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

My best ever result (ok 23 years ago) was in an elite race (5 valleys RR) and I came second riding a 16lb viscount bike!!

16lb is light though isn't it?

Yes correcxt, well spotted it was 26 lb !!!! Typo. Would have been nice to have a 16lb bike back then

SteveR_100Milers

oldwelshman wrote:

The difference in the bikes make little difference.
Look at race av speeds and compare to 25 years ago, they are the same.
As some one mentioned for a TT there may be small differences but a lot of that is to do with aero position on bike.
The wheels have the biggest impact not the groupsets, they have little impact but rolling resistance makes some difference.
In a road race it can be more difficult to notice differences anyway due to drafting.
If you get a natural sprinter on a £300 bike in a crit he could probably sit in to the finish and still win the race due to sprint ability.
It would not be the same on a hilly race though !!
There are some races I would definately not consider racing my top bike in due to risks and nature of course, but would ride it on any sportive though
IMO there is no such thing as an enrty level racing bike, thats another marketing term.
My best ever result (ok 23 years ago) was in an elite race (5 valleys RR) and I came second riding a 26lb viscount bike!! (edited for correct weight )
Everyone on the start line laughed when I turned up taking off my old ever ready lights because the day before I snapped the frame on my Raleigh road ace 531 frame.
I managed to haul my ass and heavy bike over the bwlch and rhigos to get the 2nd just behind a pro
Couldn't do it now tho

Would this be the same one that blew you off on the bwlch??

redddraggon

Just ridden my "Winter bike" for the first time. The actual difference between that and my best bike isn't too great, and I'd race on it. I'd rather knacker a £140 frame than a £500 frame anyday.

acorn_user

Viscount? I hope you weren't riding with the aluminium death fork!
My current race bike weighs 22lbs all up. That's probably a bit heavier than most bikes from the early 90's. My best result so far was at a hill climb..

The big teams obviously get the top frame from the sponsor. Those are typically carbon fibre these days. But a lot of teams do just fine with aluminium/carbon bikes. One of the local teams is sponsored by Alan and has aluminium frames with a carbon tail. They even run some 105 parts.
http://www.gamjams.net/2008/04/gamjams-tech-ri.html
Of course, Cipo was riding a full alloy frame at California.

celbianchi

redddraggon wrote:

Just ridden my "Winter bike" for the first time. The actual difference between that and my best bike isn't too great, and I'd race on it. I'd rather knacker a £140 frame than a £500 frame anyday.

I know just what you mean, but if you go for a night out do you wear old scruffy clothes just in case someone spills a pint on your best shirt?

redddraggon

celbianchi wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Just ridden my "Winter bike" for the first time. The actual difference between that and my best bike isn't too great, and I'd race on it. I'd rather knacker a £140 frame than a £500 frame anyday.

I know just what you mean, but if you go for a night out do you wear old scruffy clothes just in case someone spills a pint on your best shirt?

That's not an entirely appropriate analogy - in a race surely it's the performance of the bikes rather than their appearance?

I thinking more of "I've got two bikes, one costing 3 times more than the other but they actually perform very similarly but one looks nicer, which you rather risk to race damage?"

Euro answer - The bike which you look best on coming over the line

or

Common sense answer - The bike I can afford to fix/replace because of crash damage

??

celbianchi

Redddragon,
I agree with you. Don't race on something that one can't afford to replace.
However, if one can then there should not be others sneering at a 2/3/4 race having some bling on the line.

Bikes are for riding, not buying and keeping locked away and only using when there is zero risk of anything happening to it.

disney

I would suggest that this article is a good answer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

it would appear that there is a difference based upon rider weights in acceleration and climbing that in a lengthy race could give a person an advantage. You can do the math.

Tom Butcher

I swear I was a carbon seatpost and a pair of 50mm rims away from a podium finish at Viccy Park Crits earlier this year.

andrewgturnbull

celbianchi wrote:

Redddragon,
I agree with you. Don't race on something that one can't afford to replace.
However, if one can then there should not be others sneering at a 2/3/4 race having some bling on the line.

Bikes are for riding, not buying and keeping locked away and only using when there is zero risk of anything happening to it.

Hi there.

celbianchi - you've lost the race before you've even started!

I'd always turn up on my best bike - I don't want to have any room for excuses after I'd finished. Turn up to the start line fully trained and fully prepared.

Also on the crashing thing... If you worry about it it's more likely to happen!

Cheers, Andy

donrhummy

Monty Dog wrote:

Races aren't won by the bike but due to preparation (including mechanically), training and psychology - any perceptible differences between bikes - bar incorrect geometry or set-up would be barely imperceptible. Sadly, most 3rd and 4th cats see it the other way around.

I think if you're talking about high-end bike vs. high-end bike, then yes, there's very little difference (although I might add that 1/4 of a second less per mile would mean you'd save 9 minutes in the TDF, which is the diff. between 1st and third, fourth or worse). However, if you took a high-end bike like a Cervelo and put it against your basic aluminum bike, the number of watts you'd lose from bike BB flex, loss in aero-dynamics (both in frame and wheels) and gain in weight would be significant over a grand tour's 2100+ miles.

celbianchi

andrewgturnbull wrote:

celbianchi wrote:

Redddragon,
I agree with you. Don't race on something that one can't afford to replace.
However, if one can then there should not be others sneering at a 2/3/4 race having some bling on the line.

Bikes are for riding, not buying and keeping locked away and only using when there is zero risk of anything happening to it.

Hi there.

celbianchi - you've lost the race before you've even started!

I'd always turn up on my best bike - I don't want to have any room for excuses after I'd finished. Turn up to the start line fully trained and fully prepared.

Also on the crashing thing... If you worry about it it's more likely to happen!


Cheers, Andy

Andrew, not sure you have read my posts on this subject. i have said throughout to always ride on your best bike. i do and don't worry about crashing on it. I was merely saying I could understand Reddragons point of view.

andrewgturnbull

Sorry celbianchi - I was just responding to the last post... Hadn't read much further back.

guv001

All the bother about owning an expensive bike but only being a 2/3/4 cat really winds me up. No one gets bothered by people owning expensive cars when they are only average drivers. If you can afford a nice bike I think you owe it to yourself to buy one..

celbianchi

guv001 wrote:

All the bother about owning an expensive bike but only being a 2/3/4 cat really winds me up. No one gets bothered by people owning expensive cars when they are only average drivers. If you can afford a nice bike I think you owe it to yourself to buy one..

Hear Hear. My sentiments exactly. And I often use the same car analogy myself