Does any Pro team have an advantage because they have a better bike?
So.
I'm watching F1 and it's clear that Mclaren have made some gains, so now they can win races. Over the years some great drivers have won championships with very average drivers coming second over 20 races because they were driving the same car.
So, I wondered, does the bike make much difference. Were Sky dominant because the Pinnarello was superior?
I tend to think that with motor racing it's 80% car and 20% driver. Is it 80% rider and 20% bike in cycling?
I've heard of a very small number of riders moan about their equipment but it's rare. I've never heard of a rider changing teams to ride a better bike....
Comments
-
There have been a lot of GCN videos about this so I'm going to summarise their arguments here...
There are two main ways you can get a measurable performance advantage from one bike to another; 1. by being lighter and 2. by being more aerodynamic. Being lighter only matters when you're going uphill, and the differences between bikes are a very small % of the system weight (a few hundred grams vs a 60-90kg bike + rider weight). Being more aerodynamic doesn't make a big difference unless you're riding into the wind, which you are not doing most of the time. So throughout most of the race, there isn't much advantage to be had between one bike and another. However... bike races are one by seconds largely created by gaps on climbs and when one rider has separated from the group and where the aero difference matters, or sprints by centimeters etc. The conclusion was that in bunch racing equipment does matter, but not all the time, and the differences are quite small (as evidenced by Pogacar winning lots of races on Colnagos that were neither very aero nor light, although the V4RS has addressed that).
However, in time trialling without the drafting element the aerodynamic differences can be huge and teams that can optimise the set up get a big advantage (noting that bike is only part of the equation - there are skinsuits, helmets, position, making sure it all works together etc). And time trials also have a major impact on GC.
I think I agree with all of that in a pro context, but I'd say when changing teams, a rider would be looking at other elements of the set up far more like what their plans for the rider are, who the team mates are, what they do in terms of training and rider development, and lets face it salary/length of contract. Riders very rarely moan about equipment because suppliers of that equipment make a significant financial contribution to the teams that pay their salary, and they know what side their bread is buttered on.
1 -
One of the French riders was complaining on Twitter that his Tour bike was much heavier than those on other teams. Sounded like some sort of political protest rather than an objective comment, as providing a bike to the UCI weight limit is not exactly hard.
In general, the old saying "The best bike I've ever ridden is the one I'm currently paid to ride" covers most situations I think!
0 -
I would agree with @super_davo that it is only really TTs where the bike will make a difference, but even then position and other factors will probably have just as much, if not more influence than the actual bike. Bikes at the top end are so similar these days that the likelihood of a performance benefit, even marginal, is unlikely and if it is there it would likely not be a large enough gain to actually effect the outcome of a bike race.
There are certainly bike riders that have a preference for particular brands, Cavendish always gravitated towards Specialized, so much so that I believe they even covered part of his contract costs at Quickstep. Van Der Poel obviously also has his long term contract with Canyon.
0 -
Somebody had to.
0 -
It's about the drugs.
Somebody had to. 😉
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I watched Stage 6 of la vuelta, and will paraphrase, but I believe McEwen stated that more than one member of the AG2R team had said they felt they now had a sizable lift in performance due to their new bike supplier, and were able to compete with other teams on a level footing
Decathlon is the backer I believe, so Van Rysel bikes.
Maybe not just the bike, but the groupset/power meter offerings as well, although presumably they are all top drawer whether they are Shimano, SRAM or Campagnolo.
How true/accurate those impressions are, or whether the manufacturer might drop some hints to them it would be useful to put out on social media I do not know.
Didn't dangerous driver Rohan Dennis quit a GT due to that very complaint or am I mis-remembering?
For him it would perhaps have been about the TT rig offered, so a bit more specialist admittedly, due to the specific discipline he then excelled in.
Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
Scott CR1 SL 12
Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
Scott Foil 180 -
Bit of shade to BMC there. But they do seem to be winning now.
0 -
Think it's important to seperate out a team's ability to fulfil a rider's exacting (or otherwise) demands on a bike and whether the kit is just faster than a rival's.
There have been instances where riders have waxed lyrical about their kit totally unprompted with no additional incentive - Terpstra literally made a specialised S sign when he won Dwars Door Vlaanderen because he was genuinely so enamoured with the bikes they were given.
There is a story about pre-visma Belkin being given brand new bikes untested ahead of the Tour and that led to Mollema cramping up in the TT because the geometary wasn't exactly the same, but again, that's more administration than it is outright speed of the kit.
0 -
Ben O'Connor said exactly that after his breakaway win.
I don't put much stock in a rider bigging up their sponsors though.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
In spite of my personal opinion that it makes little difference, I remembered an interesting secret pro article from a while back. If you scroll down 2/3 of the way there are a few paragraphs on bikes and equipment and which is well received in the peleton (or not).
0 -
Why doesn't a team use recumbents on flat stages and normal road bikes when it gets hilly?
0 -
-
Oh, cheers.
0 -
100% and I think the whole thing around the Van Rysels were that the riders were bracing themselves for a crappy prototype this year when in actual fact they got a race ready piece of kit which exceeded expectations.
0 -
Biggest kit effect I remember was Aqua Blue a few years back, whose sponsor had them riding 1x 11speed for the whole season. Riders did go public with their opinions on that one.
1
