How much slower will pros be on entry bikes?

nolight

I have always wondered how much the bike contributes to how fast pros can go, compared to their training and ability.

If a pro averages 40km/h in Tour De France on his Madone 6 or 7 series, how fast will he be on a Trek 1.1? Will he be much slower or just 1 or 2km/h (which is enough to prevent him from winning) because he is just a strong athlete?

Joeblack

Depends on if he upped the doping or not ;-)

(Someone was going to after you used a trek reference)

Wily-Quixote

Interesting question, check out the speeds in the late 80s/ earl 90s. These were on steel bikes I guess a couple of kg heavier, although admittedly the drivetrain would still be superb. My conclusion, the watts produced by a pro cyclist would be the biggest factor, I can't imagine the marginal drag produced by inferior components would make much of a difference, only the weigh of the entry bike on mountain stages.

oldwelshman

Not much if any

AchillesLeftKnee

Not even going to touch stuff like aero, frame stiffness, comfort after most of the day on the thing, really slick shifting under power, etc.

But, in terms of power to weight*...

A 60kg rider doing 15mph up a 10% gradient on a 7kg bike will need to put out 520 watts.

The same rider on my BMC Streetracer (9kg) will need to put out 533 watts to maintain 15mph.

Bung him on a 12kg Halfords cheapie and it's 554 watts.

On his 15kg cheap MTB it's more like 575 watts.

In other words, it's 2.5% easier to whizz up that hill on a pro race bike (and that's ignoring his better wheels, frame, etc) than it is on my road bike.

* Calculations pinched off Wikipedia, but could have been pinched elsewhere

(Edited to add.... yes, I know 15mph is silly for a long climb of that steepness, but it's a nice round number and I'm somewhat drunk so can't be bothered to do a "had Pantani ridden my bike up l'Alp etc." calc)

Frank the tank

Read the book "Dancing uphill" it's a biography about Charles Holland the first Brit to ride the tour de France in1937.

He used to clock times that would make most on here weep riding a bike worse than the local paper lad/butchers boy would ride these days.

nolight

Wily-Quixote wrote:

Interesting question, check out the speeds in the late 80s/ earl 90s. These were on steel bikes I guess a couple of kg heavier, although admittedly the drivetrain would still be superb. My conclusion, the watts produced by a pro cyclist would be the biggest factor, I can't imagine the marginal drag produced by inferior components would make much of a difference, only the weigh of the entry bike on mountain stages.

You got a point. Based on Tour De France stats,

Average speeds for 80s has been consistently between 35km/h and 39km/h.
Average speeds for 90s consistently between 39km/h and 40km/h.
Average speeds for 2000s onwards generally between 39km/h and 41km/h.

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

So assuming Trek 1.1 is roughly early 90s or even 80s technology, Lance Armstrong (ok you got me it is him) should still be able to do 37km/h easily on Trek 1.1.

Therefore people should stop blaming their bikes and work on rule #5!
http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/#5

neeb

Basically, it would make hardly any difference at all if you are just comparing average speeds. That's not to say that a high-end bike doesn't offer significant advantages over a £500 10kg one, just that it wouldn't be expressed in overall speed. There are certain situations in pro races where it wouldn't make the slightest difference and others where it would, e.g. for a long breakaway on flattish roads where your speed is more or less constant the halfords bike would be fine (provided it didn't fall apart), but for an uphill finish with lots of quick accelerations and jockeying for position a la Gilbert / Rodriguez I think you would be at a significant disadvantage, especially if you were a lighter rider. Of course that's just if you are comparing two pros who are very closely matched to begin with, obviously any of them could beat lesser mortals even on a raleigh chopper with flat tyres.

I actually think it would be quite interesting to see how well a modern pro could compete if he had to use a 30 year old steel bike or a current Halfords £500 alu one. It's all very well to say that they managed fine in the past and had similar average speeds, but they were competing against others who were all on the same equipment. I think it could be different if you had to use a much heavier, less stiff bike in a modern race even if the speeds of the races haven't changed much.

declan1

They would be slower, obviously, but not much. It would, however, be enough to stop them winning a stage. They all need to use the best equipment to get the best results possible.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Surely it's the engine that matters?

declan1

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Surely it's the engine that matters?

It does, yes, but the bike makes a difference as well.

If you put, for example, a V12 into a Ferrari, it'll go much faster than a Ford Transit would with the same engine.

[Deleted User]

Not that much. A few years back the fastest guy in our club turned up to our hilly 10 TT on a ladies shopper he picked out of a skip. 14 inch wheels, 3 speed Sturmey Archer gears, rack and minimal aerodynamics. He was less than 2 minutes slower than normal and still beat most of the rest of us. That made me realise it's more about the legs than the kit. That is why my bike is an old steel framed thing. Better to keep trying to lose weight from my gut than obsess about grams on a groupset.

The difference between road bikes will be quite small, but with races won and lost by fractions of a second, it all helps if you're at the level where it makes a difference.

Monty Dog

Guys used to ride sub-20 minute 10 mile TTs on steel frames, non-aero bars and regular wheels - half the stuff talked about aerodynamics etc is marketing bull purely 'created' to make people think they need a new bike.

ugo.santalucia

The fastest ever Milan Sanremo was ridden on steel bikes in the early 1990s and if you look at the average speed across the same race over the past 30 years it has barely changed at all. I am choosing this race as it's a fast one (27-30 mph average), where aerodynamics should matter.

I think an alloy frame with Tiagra groupset worth 800 pounds, fitted with a decent set of tubular wheels and tyres would be competitive with the best on any terrain.

pilot_pete

fitted with a decent set of tubular wheels and tyres would be competitive with the best

ahh, but that's the point isn't it? I too reckon you would need to change he wheels and tyres because the wheels on a £500 bike are usually absolute crap. They flex all over the place and aren't that strong. You might get them through a one day race, but with a pro giving it the beans I reckon their limits may be exceeded! Having said that, I suppose you could have a support car with dozens of them on the roof!

PP

neeb

I think the biggest (only real?) advantage of high-end modern bikes is better acceleration from low speeds and on gradients, where the stiffness/weight ratio really does make a noticeably difference. That won't significantly alter average speeds, but that doesn't mean there is no advantage.

ugo.santalucia

Pilot Pete wrote:

fitted with a decent set of tubular wheels and tyres would be competitive with the best

ahh, but that's the point isn't it? I too reckon you would need to change he wheels and tyres because the wheels on a £500 bike are usually absolute crap. They flex all over the place and aren't that strong. You might get them through a one day race, but with a pro giving it the beans I reckon their limits may be exceeded! Having said that, I suppose you could have a support car with dozens of them on the roof!

PP

Yes, low end Shimano components are good enough, but low end wheels are mostly agricultural... besides, to ride at PRO level you need tubulars and I am not aware of cheap tubular wheel sets

hipshot

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I think an alloy frame with Tiagra groupset worth 800 pounds, fitted with a decent set of tubular wheels and tyres would be competitive with the best on any terrain.

I think this is fundamentally true. Amazing if you think about it, considering the colossal industry dependent on us thinking otherwise.

GGBiker

The differences quoted here of approx 4km/hr is very significant, the difference between getting dropped from a club ride and going home depressed or keeping up and having a good run. The difference between being a casual rider at 16-17mph in a group and 19mph and taking out a racing licence. Over a 200km stage race lasting 5 hours, you would finish 20km behind the peloton, all else being equal.

I rode a 2mile hill on a 10kg bike, took 10mins 15 sec. Rode it again on a 8kg bike, took 9.36
Rode it again after getting a new 1500g wheel set, took 9.01
Went back to the 10kg bike, took over 10mins.

Twice I have taken my heavy bike out on fast club runs, I really struggled to keep up especially on hills, the week before I was second up a steep climb.

Personally I think it is significant, some of the effect is psychological but most is the bike IMO.

ugo.santalucia

GGBiker wrote:

The differences quoted here of approx 4km/hr is very significant, the difference between getting dropped from a club ride and going home depressed or keeping up and having a good run. The difference between being a casual rider at 16-17mph in a group and 19mph and taking out a racing licence. Over a 200km stage race lasting 5 hours, you would finish 20km behind the peloton, all else being equal.

I rode a 2mile hill on a 10kg bike, took 10mins 15 sec. Rode it again on a 8kg bike, took 9.36
Rode it again after getting a new 1500g wheel set, took 9.01
Went back to the 10kg bike, took over 10mins.

Twice I have taken my heavy bike out on fast club runs, I really struggled to keep up especially on hills, the week before I was second up a steep climb.

Personally I think it is significant, some of the effect is psychological but most is the bike IMO.

Wile I recognise that most people associate racing with a time trial up the Alpe d'Huez at the Tour de France, most races have insignificant hills, or hills which do not make the difference. If you want to win the Flèche Vallone a light bike might help up the Huy Muur, but if you want to win Milan Sanremo or Paris Roubaix, it doesn't really matter much whether your bike is 7 Kg or 9

charlie_potatoes

GGBiker wrote:

The differences quoted here of approx 4km/hr is very significant, the difference between getting dropped from a club ride and going home depressed or keeping up and having a good run. The difference between being a casual rider at 16-17mph in a group and 19mph and taking out a racing licence. Over a 200km stage race lasting 5 hours, you would finish 20km behind the peloton, all else being equal.

I rode a 2mile hill on a 10kg bike, took 10mins 15 sec. Rode it again on a 8kg bike, took 9.36
Rode it again after getting a new 1500g wheel set, took 9.01
Went back to the 10kg bike, took over 10mins.

Twice I have taken my heavy bike out on fast club runs, I really struggled to keep up especially on hills, the week before I was second up a steep climb.

Personally I think it is significant, some of the effect is psychological but most is the bike IMO.

Thanks GGBiker,
That's the sort of information that I need to feed my brain to justify my big spend this winter

hipshot

GGBiker wrote:

The differences quoted here of approx 4km/hr is very significant, the difference between getting dropped from a club ride and going home depressed or keeping up and having a good run. The difference between being a casual rider at 16-17mph in a group and 19mph and taking out a racing licence. Over a 200km stage race lasting 5 hours, you would finish 20km behind the peloton, all else being equal.

I rode a 2mile hill on a 10kg bike, took 10mins 15 sec. Rode it again on a 8kg bike, took 9.36
Rode it again after getting a new 1500g wheel set, took 9.01
Went back to the 10kg bike, took over 10mins.

Twice I have taken my heavy bike out on fast club runs, I really struggled to keep up especially on hills, the week before I was second up a steep climb.

Personally I think it is significant, some of the effect is psychological but most is the bike IMO.

That is a significant difference.

Did you measure any of the other variables

I really wish a manufacturer would put a pro on one of their entry level bikes, just once. It would be great from a marketing point of view.

On second thoughts, it might bring the whole house of cards down.

nolight

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I think an alloy frame with Tiagra groupset worth 800 pounds, fitted with a decent set of tubular wheels and tyres would be competitive with the best on any terrain.

But then it wouldn't be an entry level bike since the wheels may be worth more than the bike itself.

nolight

hipshot wrote:

I really wish a manufacturer would put a pro on one of their entry level bikes, just once. It would be great from a marketing point of view.

If they do that, they will need to pay the pro to ride 50% slower.

ugo.santalucia

nolight wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I think an alloy frame with Tiagra groupset worth 800 pounds, fitted with a decent set of tubular wheels and tyres would be competitive with the best on any terrain.

But then it wouldn't be an entry level bike since the wheels may be worth more than the bike itself.

Yes, wheels are the Achilles heel of cheap bikes, once you sort those out, Tiagra or Dura Ace makes little difference... even for the weight weenies, what's the weight difference between the two group sets? I suspect it's a pound

simon_masterson

Not very much. At pro level (at which performances are actually consistent enough that losing two minutes actually matters) marginal gains obviously matter because if you lose the race by 0.1 of a second you have still lost. It obviously matters that whichever marginal gain will reduce output by so many watts, but that does presuppose that the rider is working at peak effort and couldn't go any harder if they tried. Put Wiggins/Contador/etc on a 531 bike and they will still climb the hill in a very credible time. They will just have to work harder.

But to amateurs it is moreorless irrelevant, and it matters because it is a common trap. You might think that losing 2 kilos from your bike is what made the difference, but there is probably some other variable (eg. aerodynamics, psychology), and even then, any gain that small is unimportant unless you can do the same course five times on five separate days and achieve a consistent result. What's the point in gaining 2 if you're still struggling with 5-10, and what's the point if you have a spare tyre of the other sort?

Being able to tell the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed is an important step in a cyclist's development, and being able to tell yourself that it isn't the bike's fault will do you good. It certainly did me.

Anyway, if young Bahamontes/Merckx/Anquetil/Hinault/Fignon/Delgado/Roche races you up a hill on their respective old "heavy" steel bike, who wins?

ugo.santalucia

Simon Masterson wrote:

Not very much. At pro level (at which performances are actually consistent enough that losing two minutes actually matters) marginal gains obviously matter because if you lose the race by 0.1 of a second you have still lost.

But to amateurs it is moreorless irrelevant, and it matters because it is a common trap. You might think that losing 2 kilos from your bike is what made the difference, but there is probably some other variable (eg. aerodynamics, psychology), and even then, any gain that small is unimportant unless you can do the same course five times on five separate days and achieve a consistent result. What's the point in gaining 2 if you're still struggling with 5-10?

Being able to tell the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed is an important step in a cyclist's development, and being able to tell yourself that it isn't the bike's fault will do you good. It certainly did me.

Anyway, if young Bahamontes/Merckx/Anquetil/Hinault/Fignon/Delgado/Roche races you up a hill on their respective old "heavy" steel bike, who wins?

HInault was riding an early carbon Look at about 7.5 Kg... and top of the range steel bikes in the 1980s were well under 9 Kg... :shock:

simon_masterson

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Not very much. At pro level (at which performances are actually consistent enough that losing two minutes actually matters) marginal gains obviously matter because if you lose the race by 0.1 of a second you have still lost.

But to amateurs it is moreorless irrelevant, and it matters because it is a common trap. You might think that losing 2 kilos from your bike is what made the difference, but there is probably some other variable (eg. aerodynamics, psychology), and even then, any gain that small is unimportant unless you can do the same course five times on five separate days and achieve a consistent result. What's the point in gaining 2 if you're still struggling with 5-10?

Being able to tell the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed is an important step in a cyclist's development, and being able to tell yourself that it isn't the bike's fault will do you good. It certainly did me.

Anyway, if young Bahamontes/Merckx/Anquetil/Hinault/Fignon/Delgado/Roche races you up a hill on their respective old "heavy" steel bike, who wins?

HInault was riding an early carbon Look at about 7.5 Kg... and top of the range steel bikes in the 1980s were well under 9 Kg... :shock:

Correct, but 1-2kg is considered to be a very large increment of weight by the weight police! I highly doubt that Bahamontes' bike was that light, though.

ugo.santalucia

Simon Masterson wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Not very much. At pro level (at which performances are actually consistent enough that losing two minutes actually matters) marginal gains obviously matter because if you lose the race by 0.1 of a second you have still lost.

But to amateurs it is moreorless irrelevant, and it matters because it is a common trap. You might think that losing 2 kilos from your bike is what made the difference, but there is probably some other variable (eg. aerodynamics, psychology), and even then, any gain that small is unimportant unless you can do the same course five times on five separate days and achieve a consistent result. What's the point in gaining 2 if you're still struggling with 5-10?

Being able to tell the difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' speed is an important step in a cyclist's development, and being able to tell yourself that it isn't the bike's fault will do you good. It certainly did me.

Anyway, if young Bahamontes/Merckx/Anquetil/Hinault/Fignon/Delgado/Roche races you up a hill on their respective old "heavy" steel bike, who wins?

HInault was riding an early carbon Look at about 7.5 Kg... and top of the range steel bikes in the 1980s were well under 9 Kg... :shock:

Correct, but 1-2kg is considered to be a very large increment of weight by the weight police! I highly doubt that Bahamontes' bike was that light, though.

1960-70s bikes were heavier... around 10 Kg... still lighter than most bikes at Halfords today...

simon_masterson

But not a stock Allez Elite (so says Google), which I will use as a typical bike owned by a user of this forum.

markos1963

What I don't understand is, if bikes have got lighter and more aero over the years where has the improvement in speed come from? I thought changes to training and diet where the area that had changed the most over the years. Something has got to give, the manufacturers claim x amount in improvements and the coach's claim y amount in improvement, add them together and the current crop of pro's should be doing about 10kmh faster than the previous generations of racers.