How much slower will pros be on entry bikes?
Comments
-
markos1963 wrote: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.
Don't forget at the speeds their doing, it is really difficult to go just a little bit faster due to higher drag, friction etc.
Road - Dolan Preffisio
MTB - On-One Inbred
I have no idea what's going on here.0 -
markos1963 wrote: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.
Partly this?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-189217840 -
markos1963 wrote: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.
The only thing that has improved is marketing. Marketing that makes us believe making a 8kg bike 1kg lighter is more important than making our own 80kg body 10kg lighter. Marketing that makes us believe that aerodynamic frame design that pushes 1 less square inch of air at high speed is more significant than cyclists' body position which probably has not changed in 30 years.0 -
markos1963 wrote: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.
The only thing that has improved is marketing. Marketing that makes us believe making a 8kg bike 1kg lighter is more important than making our own 80kg body 10kg lighter. Marketing that makes us believe that aerodynamic frame design that pushes 1 less square inch of air at high speed is more significant than cyclists' body position which probably has not changed in 30 years.
Marketing is required to sell bikes.0 -
nolight wrote:markos1963 wrote: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.
The only thing that has improved is marketing. Marketing that makes us believe making a 8kg bike 1kg lighter is more important than making our own 80kg body 10kg lighter. Marketing that makes us believe that aerodynamic frame design that pushes 1 less square inch of air at high speed is more significant than cyclists' body position which probably has not changed in 30 years.
Bingo!0 -
The amount of skeptical Ludditism about this issue is almost as bad as the amount of marketing B.S. from the manufacturers... A nice modern bike isn't going to compensate for any physical deficiencies, but a 6.8kg bike with a properly stiff frame and nice wheels is going to be massively more responsive and nicer to ride than a 10kg flexy one, especially if you don't have 10kg of body weight to lose...0
-
Precisely. The whole weight thing is just really boring physics. All things other things being equal, lighter goes up quicker for a given level of power input, every time, and should anyone prove otherwise then they're pretty much a shoe-in for a Nobel Prize.neeb wrote:The amount of skeptical Ludditism about this issue is almost as bad as the amount of marketing B.S. from the manufacturers... A nice modern bike isn't going to compensate for any physical deficiencies, but a 6.8kg bike with a properly stiff frame and nice wheels is going to be massively more responsive and nicer to ride than a 10kg flexy one, especially if you don't have 10kg of body weight to lose...Mangeur0 -
Also I suspect that the extra power required, while perhaps not making a big difference for say one stage, may well over the period of a tour result in the rider being more fatigued and less well able to respond to say a fast move. May also make them more likely to have an accident, or pick up a bug or whatever.0
-
neeb wrote:The amount of skeptical Ludditism about this issue is almost as bad as the amount of marketing B.S. from the manufacturers... A nice modern bike isn't going to compensate for any physical deficiencies, but a 6.8kg bike with a properly stiff frame and nice wheels is going to be massively more responsive and nicer to ride than a 10kg flexy one, especially if you don't have 10kg of body weight to lose...
Correct, but that's obvious. Enough people seem to think that expensive carbon fibre bike parts are a worthy training substitute that this is a debate well worth having!0 -
Tony Martin won the World TT on clinchers0
-
markos1963 wrote: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.
Absolutely I 100% agree0 -
Marketing also makes people buy a Ferrari with a top speed of 200mph when the national speed limit here is 70. It's not all about performance, there is something to how it feels and makes you feel. Life being too short and all that. Although there is defaintely a sweet spot in all these things - a knee in the curve when spending significant extra money on shaving some grams off your frame only helps your ego and not your performance.0
-
My 2p's worth - on TV this year, in an item about the Sky racing team the interviewer asked how Sky were so good. The response was that the bikes contibuted to a 1% increase in performance, diet contributed to a 1% increase, training (money spent on) contributed to a 1% increase etc etc ... and, i think, the total was 10%. It appears that all these seemingly small bits combined made the difference. The rider is at a 10% advantage by being in that team without taking their fitness/ability into consideration.
But if the bike makes 1% difference between pro-teams, it may be 5% or more over an entry bike but then what percentage is a pro-cyclist over a normal cyclist?
It would be interesting to test a pro cyclist on the same course, in the same conditions on two different bikes for a comparison. My opinion is that they would out-perform any amateur cyclist by quite a long way.
An analogy - some time ago i watched go-kart racing with Formula 1 drivers competing. The karts were all the same and were issued to each driver randomly. If memory serves me right, Michael Schumacher won by a huge distance - and he was the World Champion at the time. His outright ability and natural talent was incredible to see.0 -
I doubt that the Pinarellos Sky use are any better than most of the other pro team bikes, I'm not convinced that they would constitute one of the "marginal gains"... (a couple of other big teams also use them anyway). The track bikes that Team GB use might be a different matter...TGR wrote:
But if the bike makes 1% difference between pro-teams, it may be 5% or more over an entry bike but then what percentage is a pro-cyclist over a normal cyclist?0 -
I cannot recall a single road race where the equipment made the difference between the first on the podium and the others (time trials are not road races).
On the other hand, I recall many races where the lack of reliability of the equipment has made that difference...
Since the use of carbon wheels has become mainstream, falls have become a lot more common... even on a wet day, a PRO has enough bike handling skills to come down a mountain at speed, but with carbon wheels you see lots of them going down
Rodriguez has won the Tour of Lombardy as his opponents went down on the descent... including Nibali, who is possibly the best descender in the peloton.
I bet if they were in charge of deciding on the equipment to use and not the sponsors, you would see only the sprinters on carbon wheels...left the forum March 20230 -
There is an argument to say if you go out and buy a good quality bike lets say £2.5k - £3.5k then you can put the issue of equipment to the back of your mind and concentrate on the engine, safe in the knowledge that the bike isn't the thing slowing you down (if that makes sense)
But I agree with the above statement that not everyone buys good quality items because of the improvements they offer sometimes its just down to a feeling or an aesthetic pleasure it brings < this argument will make sense to some but not to others as not everyone feels the same about material objects.One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
Thanks for this thread. I have the ultimate entry level bike: A B'Twin Sport 1. Cost £115 five or six years ago. Steel frame, shifters on the downtube.
This thread has made me content with my machine and inspired me to get out on it and work hard rather than imagining that a new bike will see magic results.Laisse passer!0 -
Joeblack wrote:There is an argument to say if you go out and buy a good quality bike lets say £2.5k - £3.5k then you can put the issue of equipment to the back of your mind and concentrate on the engine, safe in the knowledge that the bike isn't the thing slowing you down (if that makes sense)
But I agree with the above statement that not everyone buys good quality items because of the improvements they offer sometimes its just down to a feeling or an aesthetic pleasure it brings < this argument will make sense to some but not to others as not everyone feels the same about material objects.
It doesn't work... after a couple of months you'll want a new stem...
left the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Joeblack wrote:There is an argument to say if you go out and buy a good quality bike lets say £2.5k - £3.5k then you can put the issue of equipment to the back of your mind and concentrate on the engine, safe in the knowledge that the bike isn't the thing slowing you down (if that makes sense)
But I agree with the above statement that not everyone buys good quality items because of the improvements they offer sometimes its just down to a feeling or an aesthetic pleasure it brings < this argument will make sense to some but not to others as not everyone feels the same about material objects.
It doesn't work... after a couple of months you'll want a new stem...
Haha only someone shallow and superficial would do that!! 8)One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
I was wondering about this too.
Also does the make of bike really make a difference e.g spesh roubaix v trek domane etc?0 -
Joeblack wrote:There is an argument to say if you go out and buy a good quality bike lets say £2.5k - £3.5k then you can put the issue of equipment to the back of your mind and concentrate on the engine, safe in the knowledge that the bike isn't the thing slowing you down (if that makes sense)
But I agree with the above statement that not everyone buys good quality items because of the improvements they offer sometimes its just down to a feeling or an aesthetic pleasure it brings < this argument will make sense to some but not to others as not everyone feels the same about material objects.
As I said before, that's an unhealthy attitude, and anyone that 'needs' a flashy bike to perform well is weak. To recapitulate, if you can blame it on the bike, you probably won't have much trouble blaming it on the person that gave you a hard time on the phone at work, or the argument you had with the wife because you didn't tell her that the loo roll had run out, or the fact that you'd rather be at the pub with a pint and a burger than subjecting yourself to intense pain and eating a boring diet.0 -
Literally, anyone? :shock:Simon Masterson wrote:As I said before, that's an unhealthy attitude, and anyone that 'needs' a flashy bike to perform well is weak.Mangeur0 -
AchillesLeftKnee wrote:
Literally, anyone? :shock:Simon Masterson wrote:As I said before, that's an unhealthy attitude, and anyone that 'needs' a flashy bike to perform well is weak.
Absolutely, at the Thermopylae the Spartans were on rusty steel bikes, whilst the Persian lots were on light carbon ones... everybody knows that!left the forum March 20230 -
Simon Masterson wrote:Joeblack wrote:There is an argument to say if you go out and buy a good quality bike lets say £2.5k - £3.5k then you can put the issue of equipment to the back of your mind and concentrate on the engine, safe in the knowledge that the bike isn't the thing slowing you down (if that makes sense)
But I agree with the above statement that not everyone buys good quality items because of the improvements they offer sometimes its just down to a feeling or an aesthetic pleasure it brings < this argument will make sense to some but not to others as not everyone feels the same about material objects.
As I said before, that's an unhealthy attitude, and anyone that 'needs' a flashy bike to perform well is weak. To recapitulate, if you can blame it on the bike, you probably won't have much trouble blaming it on the person that gave you a hard time on the phone at work, or the argument you had with the wife because you didn't tell her that the loo roll had run out, or the fact that you'd rather be at the pub with a pint and a burger than subjecting yourself to intense pain and eating a boring diet.
I hope this isn't aimed at me??!!
I am certainly not weak I have been known to put out over 180watts of power!!!!! So there :shock:
Tbh though I agree as someone who has played professional golf for the past 10 years I have seen how people can buy into the latest gear year on year and then blame it when things go wrong.
I was simply pointing out that cannot be used as a excuse if you have a decent bike!!
Keep up my good man One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
To be fair, Thermopylae was fought just after a feed station, so the Persians had 1,500g of water on, plus an indecent number of fig rolls in their jerseys.ugo.santalucia wrote:
Absolutely, at the Thermopylae the Spartans were on rusty steel bikes, whilst the Persian lots were on light carbon ones... everybody knows that!AchillesLeftKnee wrote:
Literally, anyone? :shock:Simon Masterson wrote:As I said before, that's an unhealthy attitude, and anyone that 'needs' a flashy bike to perform well is weak.Mangeur0 -
Joeblack wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:Joeblack wrote:There is an argument to say if you go out and buy a good quality bike lets say £2.5k - £3.5k then you can put the issue of equipment to the back of your mind and concentrate on the engine, safe in the knowledge that the bike isn't the thing slowing you down (if that makes sense)
But I agree with the above statement that not everyone buys good quality items because of the improvements they offer sometimes its just down to a feeling or an aesthetic pleasure it brings < this argument will make sense to some but not to others as not everyone feels the same about material objects.
As I said before, that's an unhealthy attitude, and anyone that 'needs' a flashy bike to perform well is weak. To recapitulate, if you can blame it on the bike, you probably won't have much trouble blaming it on the person that gave you a hard time on the phone at work, or the argument you had with the wife because you didn't tell her that the loo roll had run out, or the fact that you'd rather be at the pub with a pint and a burger than subjecting yourself to intense pain and eating a boring diet.
I hope this isn't aimed at me??!!
I am certainly not weak I have been known to put out over 180watts of power!!!!! So there :shock:
Tbh though I agree as someone who has played professional golf for the past 10 years I have seen how people can buy into the latest gear year on year and then blame it when things go wrong.
I was simply pointing out that cannot be used as a excuse if you have a decent bike!!
Keep up my good man
I don't mean to be disparaging; it's just that after I did 18 miles in 43 minutes on a clapped out old Raleigh leisure bike I had a little revelation. 0 -
Simon Masterson wrote:Joeblack wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:Joeblack wrote:There is an argument to say if you go out and buy a good quality bike lets say £2.5k - £3.5k then you can put the issue of equipment to the back of your mind and concentrate on the engine, safe in the knowledge that the bike isn't the thing slowing you down (if that makes sense)
But I agree with the above statement that not everyone buys good quality items because of the improvements they offer sometimes its just down to a feeling or an aesthetic pleasure it brings < this argument will make sense to some but not to others as not everyone feels the same about material objects.
As I said before, that's an unhealthy attitude, and anyone that 'needs' a flashy bike to perform well is weak. To recapitulate, if you can blame it on the bike, you probably won't have much trouble blaming it on the person that gave you a hard time on the phone at work, or the argument you had with the wife because you didn't tell her that the loo roll had run out, or the fact that you'd rather be at the pub with a pint and a burger than subjecting yourself to intense pain and eating a boring diet.
I hope this isn't aimed at me??!!
I am certainly not weak I have been known to put out over 180watts of power!!!!! So there :shock:
Tbh though I agree as someone who has played professional golf for the past 10 years I have seen how people can buy into the latest gear year on year and then blame it when things go wrong.
I was simply pointing out that cannot be used as a excuse if you have a decent bike!!
Keep up my good man
I don't mean to be disparaging; it's just that after I did 18 miles in 43 minutes on a clapped out old Raleigh leisure bike I had a little revelation.
Was it between your legs?One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
It didn't stay little for very long; steel rims really do it for me.0
-
samsbike wrote:I was wondering about this too.
Also does the make of bike really make a difference e.g spesh roubaix v trek domane etc?
If entry bike makes little diff, I am sure any variation of road bike makes little diff.
Entry bike = recreational. Bottom of road bikes.
What that means is give any pro a Trek 1.1 and I get to ride a Madone 7 series and they are still gonna beat me hands down. :oops: .0
