How much slower will pros be on entry bikes?

neeb

nolight wrote:

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: .

That goes without saying - what would be interesting however would be how bad a bike you would need to give to a pro before he would be at risk of losing in competition against your average competent amateur cyclist. A kid's trike would certainly do it, but how about a 20kg shopping bike? A Raleigh chopper? An antique but high quality and well maintained 1920s road bike?

I reckon Peter Sagan could easily manage on the chopper..

Joeblack

I think the question should be, if you took two pros and gave one a entry level Trek and one a top of the range Trek what difference would that make

ugo.santalucia

I think this topic is getting tired and all I read is nonsense.
Firstly an old bike is not a slow bike as we did have light and fast equipment back in the 1980s... race wheels of 1.5 Kg were routine and full bikes of 8.5 Kg were routine too... towards the end of the decade the introduction of carbon frames (Look) brought the weight under 8 Kg. Period silk tubulars were lighter than modern ones (200 grams were routine), although they did puncture a lot more.

Here we are talking modern entry level bikes... the 6-800 pounds jobs... My feeling is that by simply upgrading the wheels to a light set of tubulars they can be competitive just as they are. The difference in frame performance across the range does not make the difference between winning and losing and the same can be said about the groupsets... other bits (Bars, stems, seatposts and the lot) are merely decorations
Tyres are important and so are a set of wheels that are reasonably light and spin well and that's all there is to it.
Of course a Sora groupset might start a tour de france but it might not finish it, but that's another matter and even top end components occasionally fail

nolight

But like I said we are talking about entry bike vs pro bike, not entry bike with pro wheels that is not entry bike anymore.

And I am saying even on entry bike with normal wheels the pros will still be pretty fast.

DavidJB

I really don't get this kind of question? Who cares...are you trying to find out what difference a bike will make to you?

It goes like this

First a foremost is the engine, that's the most important part. If you can't push out more than 200 watts no bike is going to help you.

Bike handling is also important, if you can't go round a corner without wobbling around like a jelly a good bike isn't going to help you.

Third is your weight, that's right lay off those whoppers you fad sod...The cheapest way to get lbs off your whole package is putting down the cake and eating a salad...but we all love cake...

Then when you finally have a good engine, good bike handling and you're not the pilsbury dough boy (and that doesn't mean stick thin) and you are competitive where .5 seconds makes the difference between first place and losing the bike makes a difference.

1. Lighter bikes mean you put in less watts going up hills, in a race you want to expend as little energy as possible.
2. Stiffer bikes mean more of that power is going into the road.
3. Better bikes mean you can corner and handle your bike with more confidence.

Your average rider will hit the ceiling with a 2k carbon framed machine...by the time you need a 'top end bike' you should be in a position to know what you actually want from that bike in terms of attributes because you've been riding so much you're in tune with your needs as a cyclist.

But that being said, if you've got the money why not? It will make you feel good but it won't ever turn you into wiggo...

markos1963

DavidJB wrote:

I really don't get this kind of question? Who cares...are you trying to find out what difference a bike will make to you?

It goes like this

First a foremost is the engine, that's the most important part. If you can't push out more than 200 watts no bike is going to help you.

Bike handling is also important, if you can't go round a corner without wobbling around like a jelly a good bike isn't going to help you.

Third is your weight, that's right lay off those whoppers you fad sod...The cheapest way to get lbs off your whole package is putting down the cake and eating a salad...but we all love cake...

Then when you finally have a good engine, good bike handling and you're not the pilsbury dough boy (and that doesn't mean stick thin) and you are competitive where .5 seconds makes the difference between first place and losing the bike makes a difference.

1. Lighter bikes mean you put in less watts going up hills, in a race you want to expend as little energy as possible.
2. Stiffer bikes mean more of that power is going into the road.
3. Better bikes mean you can corner and handle your bike with more confidence.

Your average rider will hit the ceiling with a 2k carbon framed machine...by the time you need a 'top end bike' you should be in a position to know what you actually want from that bike in terms of attributes because you've been riding so much you're in tune with your needs as a cyclist.

But that being said, if you've got the money why not? It will make you feel good but it won't ever turn you into wiggo...

What he said

Having seen a club mate win his first race( a tight circuit race) on a Speciallized Allez, riding in top gear as his cable snapped on the start line and then less than two years later progressing to 2nd Cat you can then understand the statement 'It's not about the bike'

davidof

Having recently crashed my carbon road bike and having got my old 1980s road bike out of the shed I was able to make a direct comparison. 1980s road bike weighs just over 10kg and my carbon bike weighs 7.8kg. I rode up my usual training hill, about 1000m of vertical with grades:

http://www.climbbybike.com/profile/Col_ ... rofile.gif

I did a PB to the turn at 940 meters, it is a bit steeper on average but only when it got into the 9-10% gradient range was I going slower on the old bike. I think components from 105 > are pretty acceptable. Tiagra and Sora you might get some rough changes under pressure. Frame flex may be an issue. Even some cheap wheels are not that bad.

simon_masterson

DavidJB wrote:

I really don't get this kind of question? Who cares...are you trying to find out what difference a bike will make to you?

It goes like this

First a foremost is the engine, that's the most important part. If you can't push out more than 200 watts no bike is going to help you.

Bike handling is also important, if you can't go round a corner without wobbling around like a jelly a good bike isn't going to help you.

Third is your weight, that's right lay off those whoppers you fad sod...The cheapest way to get lbs off your whole package is putting down the cake and eating a salad...but we all love cake...

Then when you finally have a good engine, good bike handling and you're not the pilsbury dough boy (and that doesn't mean stick thin) and you are competitive where .5 seconds makes the difference between first place and losing the bike makes a difference.

1. Lighter bikes mean you put in less watts going up hills, in a race you want to expend as little energy as possible.
2. Stiffer bikes mean more of that power is going into the road.
3. Better bikes mean you can corner and handle your bike with more confidence.

Your average rider will hit the ceiling with a 2k carbon framed machine...by the time you need a 'top end bike' you should be in a position to know what you actually want from that bike in terms of attributes because you've been riding so much you're in tune with your needs as a cyclist.

But that being said, if you've got the money why not? It will make you feel good but it won't ever turn you into wiggo...

My sentiments exactly!

But the stiffness factor is one that I think is underinvestigated. It obviously increases sharpness of handling, but the bike is after all effectively a spring, so just how much energy is actually lost to flex?

oldwelshman

ugo.santalucia wrote:

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

Why do you need tubulars to ride pro level?