Cav's Bike Heavy?
Comments
-
Another thing....
If you believed everything the manufacturers said about aero bikes, the pro's would be better off riding aero frames even if they're 200-300g heavier in mountain stages because the 'watt savings' on the flat parts would outweigh (excuse the pun) the benefits of a lighter bike.
Swings and roundabouts.
As it goes I have a piece of Pinarello advertising material right in front of me. As well as a 30g weight saving for the Dogma 2 compared to standard Dogma, they claim 6% aero improvement. Well if that's true, and Dogma 2 is an aero bike then what makes an aero bike? It's utter rubbish. It might be proven in a lab test but in the real world it doesn't matter.
If you want to be aero get some aero bars and a skinsuit and the lowest possible position you can comfortably ride.
If you want to go faster uphill, lose a few kg's in body weight and get some light wheels.
This marginal gains stuff is most effective in athlete preparation NOT equipment selection. Good equipment selection helps but when all your competitors have good equipment selection (which they do at the professional level) then it doesn't matter.0 -
ozzzyosborn206 wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:Pross wrote:Won't the bike need to be at its lightest legal weight in its smallest frame size though and although Cav isn't the tallest he isn't the shortest either. OK you could go lighter and add ballast to the smallest frames but that seems a bit pointless and it is probably better to have a bit more carbon to give additional stiffness where it is required.
It is the individual bikes that are weighed, not just one particular model / size.
exactly, he is saying that for a tall riders bike say a 56/58 to be on the limit, and small riders bike say 52/54 would be under it, therefore they could add stiffness on the chain stays or add weights to help it reach the limit.
Thanks - at least someone read what I wrote
0 -
They ought to have a minimum bike and rider combo, it would make racing more exciting 0
-
For Cav I'd guess it's all about aerodynamics and stiffness rather than weight. Look at his helmet covering and skinsuit with 3/4 sleeves he wore to win the Worlds. That's a 160mile+ road race which came down to him being as "slippy" as possible in those all important final 500m or so.
His strength is being the fastest over the final 200 or 300m in a 200km RR on a flat or slightly uphill finish. At a finishing speed in excess of 40mph then cutting through the air as smoothly as possible and not losing any watts through excessive flex in his components are his two main priorities. 500g (+/-) on his bike is not going make as much difference as his position on his bike imo.0 -
Thanks for the replies and especially those that added some interesting facts. From them and thinking some more I shall outline where I am now coming from.
The biggest problem with aero bikes is to maintain stiffness, when sprinting there are lots of sideways forces, these are normally resisted best by increasing the moment of inertia (side width increase). Scott foil claims this by only increasing the weight by only 40g from the Addict bringing it up to 880g for frame (Pinarello 1370g).
It was said that it was all about stiffness for a sprinter and weight very little, well yes if your Sir Chris Hoy doing a 1min kilo but even then you have got to get 'out' of the blocks (acceleration) and more mass inhibits this.
Cav may spend 5 to 6hrs on mountain stages just trying to get inside the time limit and in the 2011 TDF he failed and lost points.
The Cannondale and Addict frames have a reputation for light/stiff frames.
I used to race sailing dinghies at a high level and weight has a high impact on you’re psychology if the boat and/or crew weight is over a certain amount it (Does your head in).
By the way 6.818kg isn't an obsession its 15lb divided by 2.2 as weighed in at the shop when I bought the bike.
Cav's Lightweights were just that, maybe SKY might supply him some?
Adding 2No 500mm biddons adds approx 1kg to bike weight, having a bike that weighs an extra 1kg is the equivalent to adding another 2 biddons giving an extra 2kg overall more than 2No 2lb bags of sugar. Ever seen riders throwing there remaining biddons away shortly before they sprint for the line because they want every bit of help they can get I would assume. :roll:
Claimed Watt savings on "aero bikes", if true would only be of significance at higher speeds, on the front or on your own and not climbing proper. Also BC have done extensive tests on aero helmets and have found that the long pointed style are only any good on block head winds hence the rounded-off style Wiggins uses. Translate this to frame profiles and the aero shapes are only an advantage in the same conditions and are a disadvantage in cross winds. There has been a development in yachts whereby they have the elongated mast shape but it swings so the correct profile is always at the apparent wind angle. Aero road bikes is more to do with getting us guys to change our bikes for the ‘latest’.
By the way races in the late fifties in and around the mountains inland from Cann (France) were won with average speeds ranging between 23 and 25mph, not that different to today. :!:
Lastly don't tell Boardman that 'Marginal Gains' are NOT effective in equipment selection, please
:shock:0 -
Cav may only be going flat out into the wind for the last 200m but every time he climbed that little drag at the worlds or even just sitting in the bunch if he could save a couple of watts I guess he'd be just that little bit fresher at the end. So I'm sure it's worth saving a bit throughout the race due to aero/weight etc.0
-
@Ron Struart, i'm glad you share my scepticism about aero bike frames.
However i really think you've misread my thoughts on 'marginal gains'. I used the word 'most' in terms of their effectiveness re: Athlete or Equipment. i.e. 'marginal gains are MOST effective when applied to the athlete as opposed to the equipment selection.
You used the word 'not' in terms of their effectiveness (full stop). Thank you for kindly making it Bold and Capitalised so that everyone can see your wrongful interpretation.
As it goes i would quite happily argue that 'marginal gains' are more effective when applied to the athlete as opposed to the equipment selection with Chris Boardman. He might agree with me. Why do you assume he wouldn't? Strange. You make alot of assumptions.
Just because someone has numbers from a lab test, doesn't mean those numbers will translate into the real world. Don't believe the hype. Stiffness to weight is a bit of a red herring if you're comparing two high end frames. Just because one has a higher lab test score doesn't mean it will perform better in the real world. In the real world the rider might not even be able to test it's limits. An analogy may be, if i try to sell you a bike with a 75 tooth chainring and an 11 tooth sprocket and say 'buy this bike, the large gear means you have a HUGE top speed' then it's quite clearly flawed. There are obvious limits to riding a 75/11 combo.
The difference is between what is 'possible' and what is 'necessary'. 6.8KG isn't 'necessary' to win a bike race. A decent athlete on a decent bike is what is necessary0 -
EKIMIKE I shall deal with your reply.
1). This is what you said previously: This marginal gains stuff is most effective in athlete preparation NOT equipment selection. My bold your capitalisation and your full stop.
Mike the post is about bikes!
2). Boardman may agree with you about athlete preparation but Mike the post I made is about bikes!
3). Mike, did you read over your last paragraph and sentence? Only it doesn’t relate to the subject at all well. You have obviously got a bee in the bonnet about something but you have gone off on somewhat of a tangent here me thinks mate.
Me...... wrongful....Jesus :roll:0 -
There's something quite amusing seeing a bunch of amateurs arguing on an internet forum about a subject that's clearly much better understood by the pros and the teams because they're doing what they do and WINNING.
In summary, if he wanted it lighter he could have it lighter but it may not work as well and he clearly wouldn't have the confidence in it. With a striper jumper, a green jumper and a few other trophies this year I think I'll go with his judgement.Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
lostboysaint wrote:There's something quite amusing seeing a bunch of amateurs arguing on an internet forum about a subject that's clearly much better understood by the pros and the teams because they're doing what they do and WINNING.
In summary, if he wanted it lighter he could have it lighter but it may not work as well and he clearly wouldn't have the confidence in it. With a striper jumper, a green jumper and a few other trophies this year I think I'll go with his judgement.
Do us a favor and do go.......... with his judgement.
"Bunch of amateurs"......... well me old Albert Einstein guess what this forum is 99% about?..... yes even you might be able to guess; it's about amateurs discussing various topics many of which relate to what the professionals are doing.
Oh! and Cav gets the bike he is given along with groupset and to some extent wheels, he has a say in certain other bits and bobs but that doesn't leave a great deal for him make a judgement about now does it.0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:Oh! and Cav gets the bike he is given along with groupset and to some extent wheels, he has a say in certain other bits and bobs but that doesn't leave a great deal for him make a judgement about now does it.
And part of my point is this. So why are you "surprised that a team that bases a lot of it’s strategy on “Marginal Gains” uses bikes that have a mass that is over the minimum UCI limit by over 13%. "(your OP)????
I don't have a bee in my bonnet (i don't see where you've got this idea?). I'm merely pointing out that alot of this stuff doesn't really matter. If they were riding 10.8KG bikes up-hill then yes it clearly would as 4kg is a substantial difference. We're talking under 1KG here, and even then it we have no way to substantiate what is included in that weight. Bottles? Power Meter? Computer? Sensors? Deep wheels? Shallow Wheels?
So in short, i don't understand why you're surprised considering these guys have to ride what they're given (as a matter of legal contract). More-over all teams are riding top line kit.
If one teams equipment was so much better than any of the others then why isn't there a stand-out team? All the 'aero' this, 'super light-weight' that 'ultra stiff' this, it's all academic when in the real world they're all riding top end kit.
My guess is that you're 'surprised' about their 'heavy' bikes because you've succumbed to the marketing frenzy about light-weight components.
(and ps you definitely did take my comment out of context. 'Most' was clearly the operative word with 'NOT' being used comparatively.0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:EKIMIKE I shall deal with your reply.
1). This is what you said previously: This marginal gains stuff is most effective in athlete preparation NOT equipment selection. My bold your capitalisation and your full stop.
Mike the post is about bikes!
2). Boardman may agree with you about athlete preparation but Mike the post I made is about bikes!
3). Mike, did you read over your last paragraph and sentence? Only it doesn’t relate to the subject at all well. You have obviously got a bee in the bonnet about something but you have gone off on somewhat of a tangent here me thinks mate.
Me...... wrongful....Jesus :roll:
By the way there's no reason to be so monumentally condescending. You misinterpreted my words. I have every right to correct you, they are my words.
This is a trivial discussion about the weight of some bikes. Don't take it so personally. I'm not trying to 'defeat' you. I just have an opinion.0 -
Enough Mike! ..........me brain hurts :shock:0
-
I've worked on many pro riders bikes and they are much of a muchness. Special ceramic bearings and light bits added for special races, bog-standard for the rest. KISS0
-
Ron Stuart wrote:Enough Mike! ..........me brain hurts :shock:
Ignorant people shouldn't think too much
Yet another opinion. Don't take it personally
0 -
They looked at his venge on BR this year and noted that it was significantly over the weight limit because Cav had personally asked to have heavier/stiffer kit on it - also he had pretty much every Di2 shifter option on there....
Cav is well known for being very particular with his bike set up. If it works for him (and it clearly does!) then maybe it's possible that he knows what he's doing....
No one seems to have considered that he might change it for alpine stages....400g - that's a different stem/bar combo - sorted!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:They looked at his venge on BR this year and noted that it was significantly over the weight limit because Cav had personally asked to have heavier/stiffer kit on it - also he had pretty much every Di2 shifter option on there....
Cav is well known for being very particular with his bike set up. If it works for him (and it clearly does!) then maybe it's possible that he knows what he's doing....
No one seems to have considered that he might change it for alpine stages....400g - that's a different stem/bar combo - sorted!
ddraver..... Thanks mate for bringing the subject back into the land of the sane again with a few good pointers.
Hopefully I will meet up with Sean Yates again at the Tour of the Algarve next February and I shall ask him about this weight/stiffness/aero gumph from the Pros perspective, get the inside story as it were.0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:Hopefully I will meet up with Sean Yates again at the Tour of the Algarve next February and I shall ask him about this weight/stiffness/aero gumph from the Pros perspective, get the inside story as it were.
Haha, that reminded me of this "I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal... People know me..."
But seriously, if you do have a chat with Seam Yates, please do share. It's an interesting subject.0 -
If you get to chat to Sean then don't bore him talking about component choices, I'm sure you can find something more interesting to chat about!0
-
When I bought my current bike back in 2010 BMC had a choice of bikes for the team (as they still do) the 'Team machine SLR01' and the 'Racemaster SLX01'. The SLX01 is considerably heavier than the full carbon SLR01 yet several of the team including Hincapie rode the SLX01 due to its stiffer frame. If weight was such an issue the whole team would have been on SLR01 bikes, I'm sure they wouldn't give the guy a couple of million $ a year to ride and then give him a shite bike as a marketing ploy.0
-
Oh! look I 'seam' to be chatting to Sean Yates and I also 'seam' to have met Boy Van Poppel who's Great Uncle a we know very well from the Belvedere bike hotel in Italy....... :roll: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 523&type=30
-
Ron Stuart wrote:ddraver wrote:They looked at his venge on BR this year and noted that it was significantly over the weight limit because Cav had personally asked to have heavier/stiffer kit on it - also he had pretty much every Di2 shifter option on there....
Cav is well known for being very particular with his bike set up. If it works for him (and it clearly does!) then maybe it's possible that he knows what he's doing....
No one seems to have considered that he might change it for alpine stages....400g - that's a different stem/bar combo - sorted!
ddraver..... Thanks mate for bringing the subject back into the land of the sane again with a few good pointers.
Hopefully I will meet up with Sean Yates again at the Tour of the Algarve next February and I shall ask him about this weight/stiffness/aero gumph from the Pros perspective, get the inside story as it were.
I was chatting to Eddy Merckx about the same thing when Bernard Hinault interrupted, he said that these days the pros are too spoiled when Phillipe Gilbert piped up and said that each generation is different. Greg Lemond then said that it wasn't so different in his day. They were all in agreement that if in the olden days they had such knowledge available as is here in the Bike Radar forum they would each have won many more races and cycling would be a far more simple sport. :roll:0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:Oh! look I 'seam' to be chatting to Sean Yates and I also 'seam' to have met Boy Van Poppel who's Great Uncle a we know very well from the Belvedere bike hotel in Italy....... :roll: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 523&type=3 And???? I'm sure Sean Yates and Boy Van Poppel have met plenty of people in their lives, as well as you.
Seriously, if you're so well connected then why not ring one of these fella's up and ask them yourself (please share obviously!). Instead you asked a question then told everyone who had an opinion that they're wrong because you used to sail boats (or is it because you know Sean Yates?). Bit strange really.
Anyone would've thought this was an elaborate plan to tell everyone who you know?
If you come up with a compelling reason why the weight of a bike is so fundamentally important then please post it here. I'm genuinely interested to learn things (i'm not being sarcastic).
And this is a 'seam', which i'm pretty sure is not what you had in mind...
0 -
Won't a heavier bike go downhill faster than a light bike?
and IIRC road races do do down as well as up!0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Won't a heavier bike go downhill faster than a light bike?
and IIRC road races do do down as well as up!
Nope. Total weight and aero count for more than weight.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Won't a heavier bike go downhill faster than a light bike?
and IIRC road races do do down as well as up!
F = ma, remember Gallileo, the Tower of Pisa, the heavy ball and the light ball?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0
