# Is it really 95% the Rider and 5% the Bike...



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Interesting proof.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03...ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=radio_and_music


----------



## jonny jeez (5 Sep 2015)

Good video.


----------



## the snail (5 Sep 2015)

If he'd had a better gearing on the Hirondelle, or they weren't racing up a hill, the pro would have beat the carbon guy I reckon.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Good video.


I thought so too. Just shows the difference between bikes very well. Yes, they chose extremely different bikes, but also extremely different riders. A good fair example.

See regular posts saying a better bike won't make any difference, but this certainly suggests otherwise.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

A better bike does make a difference, but often that difference is minimal compared to what could be achieved by training or losing weight.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

Yes, the comparison supports the idea that your 2011 alu has to be replaced by 2016 carbon and that more training wouldn't improve you as much.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Sep 2015)

+1 to hill wimp thoughts. A better bike (even by 100 odd years) won't turn a club rider into Mark Cavendish but can make them a bit better club rider.

All the carbon in the world though won't make a bike lighter than diet & training and dragging a stone less untoned bodyweight up a hill.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

It's cracks me up, yet again, that upgrading your bike and training harder are deemed mutually exclusive.

You can do both mind.


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Sep 2015)

Or you can just be a crap rider who likes and can afford the nice things in life.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

There is that too @Andrew_P. there's no rules against that either.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> It's cracks me up, yet again, that upgrading your bike and training harder are deemed mutually exclusive.
> 
> You can do both mind.



Of course they aren't mutually exclusive. To be competitive you need both, to an extent. But some people do the former without bothering with the latter. It's their money of course, but it's just an observation. I'd hate for people with low disposable income to be put off competing in time trials and road races because they can't afford £8k bikes.


----------



## gavroche (5 Sep 2015)

This is ridiculous, it would be like asking a F1 driver to drive a 1915 racing car against an amateur racing driver driving a modern F1 car. There is no contest. When bikes are concerned, legs are what matters and that is all. Take two riders with the same bikes and the one with the best legs will always win, full stop.


----------



## moo (5 Sep 2015)

The Catford hill climb record was set in 1983 and despite "huge advances" in cycling technology has yet to be beaten.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Or you can just be a crap rider who likes and can afford the nice things in life.


Or you can be a better rider without spending money.

But then the economy would collapse and marketing execs would need real jobs - forget I suggested it.


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Or you can be a better rider without spending money.
> 
> But then the economy would collapse and marketing execs would need real jobs - forget I suggested it.


Why the assumption that everyone wants to be a better rider? Out of interest what bike do you ride? I see from your avatar you seem rather partial l to a Porsche where as Ford Ka would be far more efficient in getting from A to B in terms of costs so what's the point in a Porsche?


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

gavroche said:


> Take two riders with the same bikes and the one with the best legs will always win, full stop.



That is surely so obvious as to go without saying.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> See regular posts saying a better bike won't make any difference, but this certainly suggests otherwise.



As someone else pointed out, being better than a 100 year-old, over-geared, over-weight single speed isn't really proof of anything. GCN did a similar video which made a lot more sense...


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> I see from your avatar you seem rather partial l to a Porsche where as Ford Ka would be far more efficient in getting from A to B in terms of costs so what's the point in a Porsche?



Depends on your definition of efficiency. If speed is a critical consideration, then the Porsche would undoubtedly be more efficient than the Ka. Unless you meant to say 'cheaper'...


----------



## Lonestar (5 Sep 2015)

That's not quite true though with all those "jokers" who want to race me on boris bikes against my fixie.Push to the front at the lights and get nowhere.Not meant in a bad way but it's happened so many times.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

gavroche said:


> Take two riders with the same bikes and the one with the best legs will always win, full stop.


There's no question about that. No argument at all, and I have always said the same.

My point is that with the same legs, you Can go faster on a better bike. That's always argued against when people ask on here and it's factually incorrect.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Why the assumption that everyone wants to be a better rider?



Not everyone does. I've got club mates who can afford a nice bike and just want to ride it to the cafe, which is cool. On the other hand, I know people who are overweight and don't train, who fret about their time trial PBs and continue to throw money at the problem to try and improve, when reducing their calorie intake and going on the turbo 2 hours a week would cut massive chunks off their times.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> My point is that with the same legs, you Can go faster on a better bike. That's always argued against when people ask on here and it's factually incorrect.



Yep. Take two evenly matched riders, and the one with the better kit will win. That's why things get pricey at the sharp end!


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> My point is that with the same legs, you Can go faster on a better bike





Hip Priest said:


> ep. Take two evenly matched riders, and the one with the better kit will win



Define 'better'...??? You're laying out a bit of a minefield for yourselves with statements like that..


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Why the assumption that everyone wants to be a better rider? Out of interest what bike do you ride? I see from your avatar you seem rather partial l to a Porsche where as Ford Ka would be far more efficient in getting from A to B in terms of costs so what's the point in a Porsche?


Why the assumption that I want everyone to be better riders?

Why promote uneccesary expenditure?


----------



## Lonestar (5 Sep 2015)

Although what I mean though is if the boris bike riders were riding an identical bike to mine they'd probably mostly beat me.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Define 'better'...??? You're layinig out a bit of a minefield for yourself with statements like that..



Presumably he meant a bike better suited to the task in hand. A Cervelo P5 is better than a £300 MTB, but presumably not on the trails.


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Depends on your definition of efficiency. If speed is a critical consideration, then the Porsche would undoubtedly be more efficient than the Ka. Unless you meant to say 'cheaper'...


Did you not read the post I defined efficient? "_far more efficient in getting from A to B* in terms of costs *so what's the point in a Porsche*?"*_
I was waiting for the speed counter perhaps you would like to tell me with how much quicker a car that has the BHP of a Porsche gets from London to Brighton observing the speed limits and with the limitations of normal traffic conditions. Not a lot is the right answer.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Did you not read the post I defined efficient? "_far more efficient in getting from A to B* in terms of costs *so what's the point in a Porsche*?"*_



That's a measure of cost-effectiveness - not 'efficiency'.



Andrew_P said:


> I was waiting for the speed counter perhaps you would like to tell me with how much quicker a car that has the BHP of a Porsche gets from London to Brighton observing the speed limits and with the limitations of normal traffic conditions. Not a lot is the right answer.



Nice of you to belatedly impose your own parameters on an argument, in order to avoid losing it..


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Presumably he meant a bike better suited to the task in hand. A Cervelo P5 is better than a £300 MTB, but presumably not on the trails.


I would have thought that this was pretty obvious, don't you think. Daft question tbh.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

Given that the whole premise of the thread is about competition, going faster, and the importance of the bicyclie in achieving this aim, I'm not sure how we've spent so much time talking about how some people don't care about going fast. Good for them, but it's hardly relevant.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Why promote uneccesary expenditure?


Unnecessary spending? If someone wants to buy a new bike and has the cash and asks for advice on here, then who are we to decide if it's necessary or not?


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Presumably he meant a bike better suited to the task in hand. A Cervelo P5 is better than a £300 MTB, but presumably not on the trails.



P5 better than £300 MTB in TdF prologue time trial. Hold the front page.....


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Why the assumption that I want everyone to be better riders?
> 
> Why promote uneccesary expenditure?


Because you make the clear assumption that peope buy more expensive bike to make them go faster, or be better in some way.

"Or you can be a better rider without spending money."


----------



## winjim (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> P5 better than £300 MTB in TdF prologue time trial. Hold the front page.....


£300 MTB would probably have been quite handy on the first stage of this year's Vuelta.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Because you make the clear assumption that peope buy more expensive bike to make them go faster, or be better in some way.
> 
> "Or you can be a better rider without spending money."



Again, what relevance does all this have? The thread is about going fast. The two riders could've just bimbled to the cafe otherwise, instead of racing up a hill.


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> That's a measure of cost-effectiveness - not 'efficiency'.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to belatedly impose your own parameters on an argument, in order to avoid losing it..


You really are a loon, a car is deemed to be more fuel efficient if it does 50mpg rather than 20mpg in the real world not the Citrus version.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Again, what relevance does all this have? The thread is about going fast. The two riders could've just bimbled to the cafe otherwise, instead of racing up a hill.



The thread is challenging the common refrain that the vast majority of a riders performance is down to his/her ability and not the bike.

Hence the title.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> You really are a loon, a car is deemed to be more fuel efficient if it does 50mpg rather than 20mpg in the real world not the Citrus version.



Good to see the childish name-calling has started already, and we're only on page three. Keep moving those goal-posts...


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> The thread is challenging the common refrain that the vast majority of a riders performance is down to his/her ability and not the bike.
> 
> Hence the title.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Unnecessary spending? If someone wants to buy a new bike and has the cash and asks for advice on here, then who are we to decide if it's necessary or not?



Yes, who dares to challenge the media advertising complex with simple facts and reality?

<sigh>


----------



## uphillstruggler (5 Sep 2015)

well this slid into a childish argument pretty quickly.

'a fun and friendly online cycling community'


----------



## swansonj (5 Sep 2015)

Anyway, what does that highly edited clip actually demonstrate? Most of the shots seemed to show them cycling close to each other, suggesting some lack of all-out competition. It seemed to me to be too staged to count as evidence of anything much.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

swansonj said:


> Anyway, what does that highly edited clip actually demonstrate? Most of the shots seemed to show them cycling close to each other, suggesting some lack of all-out competition. It seemed to me to be too staged to count as evidence of anything much.



Quite right, it was a bit of fun and IMO entertaining. I liked it.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Quite right, it was a bit of fun and IMO entertaining. I liked it.



Hang on - are we saying it wasn't a controlled experiment conducted in lab conditions? The OP said it was 'proof'....


----------



## Yazzoo (5 Sep 2015)

OMG I'm confused! Just sat and read the whole thread and it seems like everyone agrees but is somehow still having an argument about it?

It looks like everyone agrees there are two ways of improving, either the rider (training/diet etc) or the bike (upgrades/lighter parts etc). This of course doesn't mean you have to choose one, you can change both. If for whatever reason you don't want to/no time/inclination etc to train or calorie count then you may just work on the bike side - a decision which costs you money, but as it is YOUR money it is no one else business to say if you're right or wrong in doing so. Similarly if you are happy where you are and aren't constantly trying to improve/strava etc - there's not many of us on here who are in serious training, I understand we are large hobby/commuter cyclist and whilst it might matter to us there's no real world effect of us being 1mph faster or slower than anyone else. Obviously if you do want to improve and have the time and money to attack the problem from both ends, e.g. improve rider and improve bike then your results will be better than those who do one or none.

Surely it is pretty obvious that if you put the same rider on a heavy unsuitable bike and a light suitable one he would be quicker on the lighter 'better' bike. Similarly if you put an average rider and a pro rider on the same bike the pro would be better. If we take both of these, the winning bike and the winning rider, we get the obvious answer.

I can't believe people are arguing and name calling about this. Have I completely missed the point somewhere?


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

I think the problem started when the OP discovered the video, then made a wild extrapolation, then claimed it as proof that 'better' bikes make you faster..


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

Yazzoo said:


> OMG I'm confused! Just sat and read the whole thread and it seems like everyone agrees but is somehow still having an argument about it?
> 
> It looks like everyone agrees there are two ways of improving, either the rider (training/diet etc) or the bike (upgrades/lighter parts etc). This of course doesn't mean you have to choose one, you can change both. If for whatever reason you don't want to/no time/inclination etc to train or calorie count then you may just work on the bike side - a decision which costs you money, but as it is YOUR money it is no one else business to say if you're right or wrong in doing so. Similarly if you are happy where you are and aren't constantly trying to improve/strava etc - there's not many of us on here who are in serious training, I understand we are large hobby/commuter cyclist and whilst it might matter to us there's no real world effect of us being 1mph faster or slower than anyone else. Obviously if you do want to improve and have the time and money to attack the problem from both ends, e.g. improve rider and improve bike then your results will be better than those who do one or none.
> 
> ...



Yup.

It's a common mental affliction, an inability to conceive multiple viewpoints on a single topic. Binary thinking in its worst form.

I'm adding a section in my forthcoming howto on thinking clearly.


----------



## swansonj (5 Sep 2015)

I think the issue for legitimate debate is how the increment between different bikes compares with the increment between different riders.

I would suggest that when some club cyclist overtakes me on my touring bike, their bike may be only a few tens of percent more efficient, but their power output could be easily two or three times mine. Similarly, between two keenish road cyclists, differences in bike efficiency would, I suspect be measured in percents, but differences in rider fitness in tens of percent.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Sep 2015)

The choice of a century-old Hirondelle seems to have been inspired by Tim Moore's attempt to ride the 1914 Giro on a 1914 state of the art bike - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/acti...e-worlds-toughest-bike-race-100-years-on.html

Not all riding is uphill, of course, (in fact, virtually all my rides end up at the same altitude) and a heavier bike is obviously going to take a lot more effort to get up than a lighter one. Had they raced downhill, however, I wonder what the result might have been. House is a very able crit rider with good handling skills and is pretty powerful. His main handicap downhill, I suspect, would be the brakes.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> The choice of a century-old Hirondelle seems to have been inspired by Tim Moore's attempt to ride the 1914 Giro on a 1914 state of the art bike - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/acti...e-worlds-toughest-bike-race-100-years-on.html
> 
> Not all riding is uphill, of course, (in fact, virtually all my rides end up at the same altitude) and a heavier bike is obviously going to take a lot more effort to get up than a lighter one. Had they raced downhill, however, I wonder what the result might have been. House is a very able crit rider with good handling skills and is pretty powerful. His main handicap downhill, I suspect, would be the brakes.



Great story:
"Carving fresh brakes out of wine corks was always going to be a rum affair"

Brilliant.


----------



## Buck (5 Sep 2015)

It was a good, light-hearted article.

It shows that the bike is a key part of the success and no matter how good the rider, the bike is key.
A good bike combined with an experienced and not too overweight rider will always be a good combo regardless 

For me, I'm betting that I wouldn't have done as well on the new bike as he did on the old one!


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Buck said:


> It shows that the bike is a key part of the success and no matter how good the rider, the bike is key.



It doesn't show anything of the sort. It simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago.


----------



## Buck (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> It doesn't show anything of the sort. It simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago.



Well, you may not think it does but I do.

Unless I'm mistaken there were two bikes involved and had House been riding the carbon bike rather than the Hirondelle he would have been far far in front. Ergo, the bike was a key part of the success.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Buck said:


> Ergo, the bike was a key part of the success.



Which simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago, like I said. Everything on that Hirondelle is steel (except the leather saddle and the rubber tyres). No gears. So tell me what is actually being compared?


----------



## ayceejay (5 Sep 2015)

I watched that Pantani movie again last night (a sad tale indeed) at one point the narrator describes the effects of EPO and what difference it makes to a riders performance. He said that the difference could be as little as 4% which although it doesn't sound like much could be measured in kilometers in an endurance race like the TdF. In a competition you must assume that everyone else is at the same level of fitness as you and so even a 1% advantage that might come from a lighter or in some other way superior bike could be enough to have you win the race.


----------



## Buck (5 Sep 2015)

I don't disagree with your point. Mine is that the progression of materials/technology have clearly made a difference and this has been shown in the clip. 

I also refer to my opening line in my first post


Buck said:


> It was a good, light-hearted article.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Buck said:


> I don't disagree with your point. Mine is that the progression of materials/technology have clearly made a difference and this has been shown in the clip.



Well obviously. And a Eurofighter Typhoon is also a significant progression from a Sopwith Camel - with a similar time gap in between. But a comparison between those two is hardly realistic either.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Hang on - are we saying it wasn't a controlled experiment conducted in lab conditions? The OP said it was 'proof'....


It's as much proof as you and your alter ego provide from the web on most of these topics. Good to see you did t let us down once again.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> I think the problem started when the OP discovered the video, then made a wild extrapolation, then claimed it as proof that 'better' bikes make you faster..


As I said, it's a "fact" found on Google, which is exactly where your "factual" posts derive from. Just more tongue in cheek evidence.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> It doesn't show anything of the sort. It simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago.


The guy is a pro rider vs an amateur. The bike is 100 years older. They both finished almost the same time. Simples.


----------



## Drago (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> It's cracks me up, yet again, that upgrading your bike and training harder are deemed mutually exclusive.
> 
> You can do both mind.



You can indeed, but 2kg off a bike is a thousand pounds more expensive than the same off our waistline. Simple economics gets strangely sidelined when the Gucci catalogue comes out to play.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I watched that Pantani movie again last night (a sad tale indeed) at one point the narrator describes the effects of EPO and what difference it makes to a riders performance. He said that the difference could be as little as 4% which although it doesn't sound like much could be measured in kilometers in an endurance race like the TdF. In a competition you must assume that everyone else is at the same level of fitness as you and so even a 1% advantage that might come from a lighter or in some other way superior bike could be enough to have you win the race.


Agree, on both counts. Not rocket science, despite the usual suspects.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> You can indeed, but 2kg off a bike is a thousand pounds more expensive than the same off our waistline. Simple economics gets strangely sidelined when the Gucci catalogue comes out to play.


Not really. 2kg off some riders is far easier to shift off others. Sometimes people don't have a further 2kg to shift, you seem to miss that fact?

Shifting 2kg off your body weight also gets more expensive the lighter you are.


----------



## ayceejay (5 Sep 2015)

To be clear it is the power-to-weight ratio that makes the difference. If you loose 2kg that you don't have to lose and end up lacking
the power to cash in on the weight loss then you will still end up at the back. When Wiggins lost weight it was under very controlled condition. 
Returning to Pantani it was this ratio that helped him, in the movie he stands nest to Indurain and looks like a midget by comparison
but still beat him up Alpe d'Huez.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

Buck said:


> I
> 
> It shows that the bike is a key part of the success and no matter how good the rider, the bike is key.



Okay, so let's examine the premise that you believe this video proves...

_The bike is a key part of the performance of a cyclist in a bike race._

Is this the same premise, or a counter premise to...

_The rider is 95% and the bike only 5% of the performance of a cyclist in a bike race._

...Which is the thread title, and common refrain?


----------



## winjim (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> It doesn't show anything of the sort. It simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago.


Really? I thought the bikes were very similar. Depends on your point of view I suppose.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> Really? I thought the bikes were very similar. Depends on your point of view I suppose.



They were similar in the sense that they both looked like bicycles, I guess..


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> In a competition you must assume that everyone else is at the same level of fitness as you and so even a 1% advantage that might come from a lighter or in some other way superior bike could be enough to have you win the race.



So Froome's win on stage 17 was purely down to his bike? Wow, I'm off to my local Pinarello store...


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> As I said, it's a "fact" found on Google, which is exactly where your "factual" posts derive from. Just more tongue in cheek evidence.



Once again, you attack what I say, rather than try to counter it. You've got nothing - but I'm not telling you anything new there...


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> So Froome's win on stage 17 was purely down to his bike? Wow, I'm off to my local Pinarello store...


Are you as fit as Chris Froome then? Clearly the post you quoted stated _*the same level of fitness*_. I understood what the poster meant, as I am sure you did but you just like to argue about nothing, endlessly and rather boringly.


----------



## Crandoggler (5 Sep 2015)

Would it not have made more sense to use a from around 1970 and a modern era bike? As one other has said, this is a little beyond even a professional.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Are you as fit as Chris Froome then? Clearly the post you quoted stated _*the same level of fitness*_. I understood what the poster meant, as I am sure you did but you just like to argue about nothing, endlessly and rather boringly.



My fitness has nothing to do with Froome's - not sure how that crept into it. I think it's possible (make that 'highly likely') that you have not fully understood the post, before replying. But keep doing it, because it's rather entertaining.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Would it not have made more sense to use a from around 1970 and a modern era bike? As one other has said, this is a little beyond even a professional.



This is basically what GCN did in one of their videos. Much more relevant.


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> My fitness has nothing to do with Froome's - not sure how that crept into it. I think it's possible (make that 'highly likely') that you have not fully understood the post, before replying. But keep doing it, because it's rather entertaining.


I'll give you that one.


----------



## Crandoggler (5 Sep 2015)

Maybe they should try this with running shoes.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> To be clear it is the power-to-weight ratio that makes the difference. If you loose 2kg that you don't have to lose and end up lacking
> the power to cash in on the weight loss then you will still end up at the back. When Wiggins lost weight it was under very controlled condition.
> Returning to Pantani it was this ratio that helped him, in the movie he stands nest to Indurain and looks like a midget by comparison
> but still beat him up Alpe d'Huez.


Exactly my point!


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> So Froome's win on stage 17 was purely down to his bike? Wow, I'm off to my local Pinarello store...


Put him on a BSO and he still would have won? Is that what you're saying then?


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Put him on a BSO and he still would have won? Is that what you're saying then?



That wasn't actually my point - and it wasn't the point of the post I was quoting, either.

But since you ask, as long he (Froome) could maintain a superior w/kg over his opponents, then I would expect the answer is yes. But you should read the posts again, because you really have missed the point spectacularly there...


----------



## G3CWI (5 Sep 2015)

This thread has cheered me up no end. Last weekend Christian House steamed past me and my mate. I assume he was training for ToB. But I now discover that he rides a better bike than us.

Nice bloke actually - he greeted us as he passed.


----------



## ayceejay (5 Sep 2015)

It is amazing that in spite of the wording
_In a competition you must assume that *everyone else is at the same level of fitness as you* and so even a 1% advantage that *might* come from a lighter or in some other way superior bike *could* be enough to have you win the race. _There is this response
_So Froome's win on stage 17 was* purely* down to his bike?_
Is that what I said? I don't think so.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> It is amazing that in spite of the wording
> _In a competition you must assume that *everyone else is at the same level of fitness as you* and so even a 1% advantage that *might* come from a lighter or in some other way superior bike *could* be enough to have you win the race. _There is this response
> _So Froome's win on stage 17 was* purely* down to his bike?_
> Is that what I said? I don't think so.



If your own quote of your own post is accurate (which it is) - then that is precisely what you said. Congrats - you are now successfully arguing with yourself.. 

The truth of it, quite obviously, is that not everyone (not even at the highest levels of the sport) has the same fitness - which makes any 1% technology advantage rather irrelevant.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> It's cracks me up, yet again, that upgrading your bike and training harder are deemed mutually exclusive.
> 
> You can do both mind.


Where do you see that in the posts above this quoted one?


----------



## ayceejay (5 Sep 2015)

Tell me professor how precise do you find words like assume: might: and could?
As you have no idea how fit anyone else is it is perhaps prudent to assume that they are at least as fit as you
and so any advantage the bike may offer is worth considering surely?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Maybe they should try this with running shoes.



They have. And with golf clubs, and tennis rackets, and so on. The same is true everywhere.

Excepting specific game changing technology events, new kit has precisely half of feck all to do with performance .

Yet, and completely unrelated if course, everyone selling sports kit does inferring a performance increasing basis and some new attribute this year which is a must have.

What a coincidence.


----------



## Crandoggler (5 Sep 2015)

With running shoes? Seriously? I'd imagine that a professional wearing wooden cloggs would be faster than an amateur in 'proper' running shoes.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> Tell me professor how precise do you find words like assume: might: and could?
> As you have no idea how fit anyone else is it is perhaps prudent to assume that they are at least as fit as you
> and so any advantage the bike may offer is worth considering surely?



Yep - next time I enter a race for veteran Hirondelles, I'll definitely make sure I'm on my carbon jobbie....


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Not everyone does. I've got club mates who can afford a nice bike and just want to ride it to the cafe, which is cool. On the other hand, I know people who are overweight and don't train, who fret about their time trial PBs and continue to throw money at the problem to try and improve, when reducing their calorie intake and going on the turbo 2 hours a week would cut massive chunks off their times.


2 hours a week expended to save two minutes on a ten mile TT sounds like a very inefficient use of time


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> 2 hours a week expended to save two minutes on a ten mile TT sounds like a very inefficient use of time



Not if your objective is to save two minutes on a 10.


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Not if your objective is to save two minutes on a 10.


If you've saved two minutes by spending 120 of them, you're actually 118 minutes down on aggregate


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> If you've saved two minutes by spending 120 of them, you're actually 118 minutes down on aggregate



Hmm good point. In which case, Froome and Wiggins must still be several hundred hours down on their TdF wins...


----------



## Cuchilo (5 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> 2 hours a week expended to save two minutes on a ten mile TT sounds like a very inefficient use of time


I just wish it was that easy .


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Hmm good point. In which case, Froome and Wiggins must still be several hundred hours down on their TdF wins...


On the bright side though they probably don't have to pay for their own bikes


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> On the bright side though they probably don't have to pay for their own bikes



Exactly, so let's offset their training time against the money they save by not having to purchase their own kit and come up with a meaningless, random figure.


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Exactly, so let's offset their training time against the money they save by not having to purchase their own kit and come up with a meaningless, random figure.


7


----------



## ayceejay (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Yep - next time I enter a race for veteran Hirondelles, I'll definitely make sure I'm on my carbon jobbie....


If that is what passes as logic in your book no wonder you have a hard time with common sense.
You don't live under a bridge do you?


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> If that is what passes as logic in your book no wonder you have a hard time with common sense.
> You don't live under a bridge do you?



I tend not to take anything you write seriously and so I respond accordingly. That doesn't make me a troll though. No offence like.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)




----------



## ayceejay (5 Sep 2015)

I write:
_Tell me professor how precise do you find words like assume: might: and could?
As you have no idea how fit anyone else is it is perhaps prudent to assume that they are at least as fit as you
and so any advantage the bike may offer is worth considering surely?_
and you reply:
_Yep - next time I enter a race for veteran Hirondelles, I'll definitely make sure I'm on my carbon jobbie...._

and this nonsense is responding accordingly? I think the jobbie part is right though
You need help brother.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> View attachment 102763



You actually spent time making that - you poor fecker.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I write:
> _Tell me professor how precise do you find words like assume: might: and could?
> As you have no idea how fit anyone else is it is perhaps prudent to assume that they are at least as fit as you
> and so any advantage the bike may offer is worth considering surely?_
> ...



Dude (can I call you dude?) - I'm taking the piss out of you. Because you make it so easy.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

So far the thread has gone like this:

Someone posts comparison betweem 100 year old bike and new bike - claims this is evidence that bikes make a difference
Same person gets thoroughly lampooned and destroyed for it.
Other indignant types then join in - and also get destroyed.
Thread then descends further into farce.
Indignant types continue to act in indignant way. 

Massive laughs all round...


----------



## screenman (5 Sep 2015)

This forum is getting so full of personal attacks.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> You actually spent time making that - you poor fecker.


Nope. Wouldn't bother.

I used your friend, Google, and it was so random I had to post.

Earned me a trophy too! What's even more funny is the pun in the trophy name!


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Earned me a trophy too! What's even more funny is the pun in the trophy name!



You must be very proud. I'm welling up....actually I'm not - I'm still laughing.. 

Anyway, I'm off to watch X-Factor now. Apparently, some of them on there are even more deluded than you are...


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Sep 2015)

Jeez. What a thread.

I recommend you all go and watch Hand of God on Amazon Prime instead.

I just finished the series, it's good.


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Jeez. What a thread.
> 
> I recommend you all go and watch Hand of God on Amazon Prime instead.
> 
> I just finished the series, it's good.



I could have told you what happens - Maradona scores and England lose


----------



## bpsmith (5 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> You must be very proud. I'm welling up....actually I'm not - I'm still laughing..
> 
> Anyway, I'm off to watch X-Factor now. Apparently, some of them on there are even more deluded than you are...


You're a strange kid.


----------



## ayceejay (5 Sep 2015)

Classic: arrive at an untenable point in a discussion/argument and claim Dude "I'm taking the piss out of you"
hey Citius I was only joking too, what a laff eh?


----------



## Citius (5 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> Classic: arrive at an untenable point in a discussion/argument and claim Dude "I'm taking the piss out of you"



To be fair, you arrived at that point on page 4, when the rest of us were already halfway through the thread - maybe you need a faster bike... 



ayceejay said:


> hey Citius I was only joking too, what a laff eh?



We both know that's not true. And nobody says 'laff' round here...


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Sep 2015)

Back on topic, Pyms Chair is a local climb I know well and is a total bitch. Huge respect to Kristian House for riding up it on that bike. I can't imagine many people have attempted to ride up it on an ss let alone succeeded.


----------



## Pale Rider (6 Sep 2015)

The 5 Live rider looked quite fit, but I still thought the pro would beat him.

Perhaps the pros are not quite the supermen I thought they were.


----------



## Moderators (6 Sep 2015)

*I do not currently intend to remove any content but will take this opportunity to remind everyone of the rules:*


> *Respectful Conduct* – Respect is the cornerstone of our community. You must respect your fellow members. Please refrain from inflammatory and defamatory comments as well as flaming, taunting, stalking, bullying, trolling and general disrespect. Personal attacks, aggressive messages, and passive-aggressive behaviour are not acceptable. Do not simply put down the opinion or advice given by others. If you don’t agree with it, say why (respectfully), don’t just tell them they are wrong.
> 
> Please do not attempt to moderate our community. Only our staff has the authority and tools to do so. If you feel someone has violated our User Guidelines, please just report it and let our staff deal with it.
> 
> If you have issues with another member that cannot be reconciled, please put them on ignore so you no longer see their content.



https://www.cyclechat.net/help/terms

*Any further comments not complying with forum terms will be moderated as seen fit.*


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Sep 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The 5 Live rider looked quite fit, but I still thought the pro would beat him.
> 
> Perhaps the pros are not quite the supermen I thought they were.


Oh, I don't know. Kristian House has just got himself the KoM jersey in the ToB.


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Oh, I don't know. Kristian House has just got himself the KoM jersey in the ToB.



And he was riding the 100 year-old Hirondelle, apparently....


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> And he was riding the 100 year-old Hirondelle, apparently....


Without stopping while the camera man gets himself up the road to get the next shot!


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Sep 2015)

The 10 mile national TT has been won by a rider on a £1000 bike. 

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...tional-10-mile-time-trial-championship-189583

Not sure if this proves anything but I bet he would not have won it on the Hirondell.


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Not sure if this proves anything but I bet he would not have won it on the Hirondell.



Probably not, but some of the quotes from that article tell us all we need to know...



> “We could have spent more, but didn’t need to. We decided to focus more on his position on the bike, rather than get carried away with spending lots of money on a top end frame,”





> “I have always been a believer that you don’t need to spend thousands of pounds on equipment in order to be competitive,”





> “I have performed well in road races using a second hand Boardman Team Alu frame that I found on eBay for £50.”


----------



## bpsmith (6 Sep 2015)

Fair enough, but he could have been even faster on a better bike too.


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Fair enough, but he could have been even faster on a better bike too.



Not sure if trolling...?

PS - define 'better' ? I did ask you this before....


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (6 Sep 2015)

So what would the difference be on a modern, cheap bike and an expensive, modern bike? Could they compare say a £269 carrera TDF against a top of the range Pinerello? Get the pro to ride them both up a hill or on a circular route that takes in a variety of gradients (up and down) and see how much of a difference the bike does make?


----------



## bpsmith (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Not sure if trolling...?
> 
> PS - define 'better' ? I did ask you this before....


Not at all. This is my honest opinion. Are you being passive aggressive by any chance?

Better is defined differently in different scenarios. In this case, lighter, faster and therefore more efficient would be one definition.


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Are you being passive aggressive by any chance?



I don't even know what that means, sorry.



bpsmith said:


> Better is defined differently in different scenarios. In this case,* lighter, faster* and therefore more efficient would be one definition.



Lighter - it's a TT bike on a flat course. So weight is irrelevant.
Faster - please explain how a 'better' bike would be 'faster'?


----------



## swansonj (6 Sep 2015)

A "better" bike might have a laterally stiffer frame, thus deflecting less energy from the road; a smaller frontal area and, possibly, a lower drag coefficient, meaning less air resistance; and better quality bearings, and, particularly, tyres, meaning less rolling resistance. 

I'm guessing that those factors could make several tens of percent difference between a cheap bike and an expensive bike; but only the odd percent or so extra difference between an expensive bike and a very expensive bike.


----------



## Moderators (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> I don't even know what that means, sorry.


Clearly you did not read post #113. Please read and inwardly digest.

The tone of some of the posts in this thread so far is not what we would hope for and we would ask everyone to be civil.


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

swansonj said:


> A "better" bike might have a laterally stiffer frame, thus deflecting less energy from the road; a smaller frontal area and, possibly, a lower drag coefficient, meaning less air resistance; and better quality bearings, and, particularly, tyres, meaning less rolling resistance.



Do you even know what a 'laterally stiffer' frame is? Or how much less energy this would deflect? Or do you know how much difference 'better bearings' would actually make? No? So if the guy in the CW article had a better bike, maybe he would have won the national TT champs. On hang on, he already did...


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Sep 2015)

Are we all still arguing?

Let me get this right, the basic points are that an old bike with its inherent oldness, is factually older than a new bike that is newer and, therefore a new bike cannot be compared to an old bike because its newness makes it un-old...ergo, to whit, ad nauseam, Cogito Ergo Sum, the old bike is older than the new one.

have I got that right?

so, sorry, what are we arguing about?


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> so, sorry, what are we arguing about?



Apparently, we are arguing about whether a better bike would be faster. Unfortunately, nobody can articulate what a 'better' bike actually is.


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Apparently, we are arguing about whether a better bike would be faster. Unfortunately, nobody can articulate what a 'better' bike actually is.


Prettier!

my new wheels are well pretty.

make fark all difference to my performance but make me glow with self satisfaction when I wear them. Also makes me feel smug when folk think my bike is worth more than bikes 3 times the quality.

WINNING!!


----------



## winjim (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Apparently, we are arguing about whether a better bike would be faster. Unfortunately, nobody can articulate what a 'better' bike actually is.


A £1000 TT championship winning bike would be "better" at giving me a sense of achievement than would a £6000 bike under similar circumstances.


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> A £1000 TT championship winning bike would be "better" at giving me a sense of achievement than would a £6000 bike under similar circumstances.



Me too - but not to others apparently. Presumably, they think that if the bike cost twice as much, he would have gone twice as fast


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> A £1000 TT championship winning bike would be "better" at giving me a sense of achievement than would a £6000 bike under similar circumstances.


Especially if its prettier


----------



## Crandoggler (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Me too - but not to others apparently. Presumably, they think that if the bike cost twice as much, he would have gone twice as fast


Holy shoot. I agree with you.


----------



## swansonj (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Do you even know what a 'laterally stiffer' frame is? Or how much less energy this would deflect? Or do you know how much difference 'better bearings' would actually make? No? So if the guy in the CW article had a better bike, maybe he would have won the national TT champs. On hang on, he already did...


Yes, thanks, I do have a passably good idea of each of those things. 

The point, albeit a rather modest one, where I was trying to offer some slight clarity is that the bike does make a difference even on flat riding where weight is less of an issue, but much more so at the lower end of the price/quality scale. By the time you're into, say, one-grand-plus bikes, spending more money will get you pretty marginal advantages. Worth doing if you're in a competitive setting where marginal advantages matter; worth doing if it makes you happier; but not worth doing if you're looking for big differences.


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

swansonj said:


> Yes, thanks, I do have a passably good idea of each of those things.



Great - if you know the answers to my questions, let's hear them? Your thoughts on 'better bearings' would be particularly welcome...


----------



## Crandoggler (6 Sep 2015)

I can answer that if you like?


----------



## Citius (6 Sep 2015)

Go for it..


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Sep 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Are we all still arguing?
> 
> Let me get this right, the basic points are that an old bike with its inherent oldness, is factually older than a new bike that is newer and, therefore a new bike cannot be compared to an old bike because its newness makes it un-old...ergo, to whit, ad nauseam, Cogito Ergo Sum, the old bike is older than the new one.
> 
> ...


Was it something about carbon bikes coming nowhere in the 1914 Giro d'Italia?


----------



## Pale Rider (6 Sep 2015)

No clipless pedals on the 1914 bike.

That's what made the difference.


----------



## User16625 (6 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Of course they aren't mutually exclusive. To be competitive you need both, to an extent. But some people do the former without bothering with the latter. It's their money of course, but it's just an observation.* I'd hate for people with low disposable income to be put off competing in time trials and road races because they can't afford £8k bikes*.



Id be more worried about my typical riding speed of 20mph on a flat if I was on an 8 grand bike with aero everything. I would look a right tit! A bit like Homer Simpson in a space suit or somethin.


----------



## bpsmith (6 Sep 2015)

If more expensive bikes don't give better results then why are the pro teams all using them. Sounds pretty daft to me tbh.

Team Sky should spend more time on getting the fit of their bikes right than using Dogma's. Hang on, they already do. 

This thread shows, once again, that the same people are entrenched in their opinion and adamant at proving a point.


----------



## Crandoggler (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Go for it..



So, 'better' bearings, in the sense that they roll with less friction. As that's what a bearing is designed to do, along with other roles, like shaft/axle support.

Anyway, bearings of old were produced using steel wire, cold welded to create balls. These then fitted into a race and provided a rolling surface. Simple. Yet, because of manufacturing techniques, these bearings could and would become pitted, would seize and generally be shite. So what did they do? Well, apart from using quality materials, computer aided manufacturing to ensure completeness and roundness, they made the whole thing out of ceramics. This requires little lubrication and offers 1/10th friction of a steel bearing. They also make hybrid bearing, which retain the steel outer and raceway. Are they worth it? For an amateur on a pushbike? No. For gaining that 10% advantage at professional level, where cost is no problem? Yep, why not.


----------



## EltonFrog (6 Sep 2015)

I just thought I'd make a completely pointless comment on a completely pointless thread. There, that was nice.


----------



## swansonj (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Great - if you know the answers to my questions, let's hear them? Your thoughts on 'better bearings' would be particularly welcome...





Crandoggler said:


> So, 'better' bearings, in the sense that they roll with less friction. As that's what a bearing is designed to do, along with other roles, like shaft/axle support.
> 
> Anyway, bearings of old were produced using steel wire, cold welded to create balls. These then fitted into a race and provided a rolling surface. Simple. Yet, because of manufacturing techniques, these bearings could and would become pitted, would seize and generally be shite. So what did they do? Well, apart from using quality materials, computer aided manufacturing to ensure completeness and roundness, they made the whole thing out of ceramics. This requires little lubrication and offers 1/10th friction of a steel bearing. They also make hybrid bearing, which retain the steel outer and raceway. Are they worth it? For an amateur on a pushbike? No. For gaining that 10% advantage at professional level, where cost is no problem? Yep, why not.


Yup. Citius, if your problem with my previous post was that you don't think bearing friction losses amount to very much, I'd agree, friction losses overall in the transmission are fairly small, and the difference between different bikes therefore even smaller. But there still is a difference. 

I recall reading that Sky removed the seals from the hub bearings of Wiggin's time trial machine, on the basis that for that distance you don't care how much water gets in, but you want to remove every possible source of friction, even a bit of rubber sliding on metal at small radius. No doubt a very marginal advantage, but an advantage nonetheless.


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Apparently, we are arguing about whether a better bike would be faster.


Perhaps we could turn the question on its head, and ask whether a faster bike would be better.


----------



## Justinslow (7 Sep 2015)

Having just participated in my first club TT season on my "Argos" Ventura I can say the bike is important but not everything. I've had a third and several fifth's beating several full on TT bikes with disc wheels and all the kit costing many thousands of pounds.
The equipment is important, but you have to have the ability to make use of it. 
Maybe in the future if I get myself a TT bike I might achieve some higher placings?


----------



## tyred (7 Sep 2015)

Hardly a fair comparison though. The 1914 bike has more relaxed angles and would be built from heavy gauge tubing. It's more like a touring bike or sports roadster for the simple reason that roads were not tarred then and it needed to built like that to cope with poor road surfaces. It's far removed from a modern race bike and I'm sure the modern race bike wouldn't cope very well on a gravel path.


----------



## TheJDog (7 Sep 2015)

In Tony Hewson's book (In Search of Stardom) which I am just reading they do a stage of some race or other 230km or so, with a mountain in the middle, at an average speed of 38km/h. In 1958 or 1959, I think. Modern TDF stages are apparently expected to be around 36km/h average on a mountain stage. OK, so the stage he's talking about probably isn't as hard as the usual TDF mountain stage now, but it's longer. The bikes have improved a lot less than you imagine since the 50s. I wonder if you'd notice the difference at all between a bike 10 years old and a new bike if they were both setup the same with similar ish gearing..


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Sep 2015)

CarlP said:


> I just thought I'd make a completely pointless comment on a completely pointless thread. There, that was nice.


Do you have any proof to back up your claim of pointlessness, I have a friend who once knew a girl that babysat for a mates hairdresser who said that your comment was 100% proof that you had a point.


----------



## Hacienda71 (7 Sep 2015)

I reckon my 1980 Carlton Super Course is not much slower than my 2015 carbon aero bike with deep section carbon wheels. The downsides to the old bike are 42:18 lowest gear and down tube shifters, I know real men reach between their legs and all that, but in reality it is easier to change gear without taking your hands of the bars. The ride on the old bike feels quite different, the bars are narrower and I ride quite narrow bars on the modern bike, the geometry of the frame is different with a high top tube and not much seat post showing, the ride is much more compliant the 531 tubing is more springy than the fairly rigid aero frame of the new bike. I am sure there are much stiffer steel frames out there, as there are less stiff carbon ones. The old bike weighs 3 kilos more than the new bike. Does any of this make a massive difference to my speed? not a lot. I suspect you might lose few seconds up a hill a mile or so long and a second or two over a flat mile, but I could quite easily imagine this is down to weight and the slightly more aero position you can adopt on the new bike.
The BBC test was a bit of fun but really told you nothing other than trying to ride up a barsteward hill on a 100 year old ss was not going to be pretty. Put Mr House versus Mr Borg on a sensible head to head and I know where I would put my money.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Sep 2015)

swansonj said:


> I recall reading that Sky removed the seals from the hub bearings of Wiggin's time trial machine, on the basis that for that distance you don't care how much water gets in, but you want to remove every possible source of friction, even a bit of rubber sliding on metal at small radius. No doubt a very marginal advantage, but an advantage nonetheless.



Not just Sky.

Quite a few cross country racers remove the seals to reduce friction, and replace the grease with light oil for the same reason.

'Marginal gains,' as Brailsford is fond of saying.


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

tyred said:


> Hardly a fair comparison though. The 1914 bike has more relaxed angles and would be built from heavy gauge tubing. It's more like a touring bike or sports roadster for the simple reason that roads were not tarred then and it needed to built like that to cope with poor road surfaces. It's far removed from a modern race bike and I'm sure the modern race bike wouldn't cope very well on a gravel path.


Totally agree, but wouldn't you say the riders are far removed from each other also? That was the point of it, to iterate what a difference the bike choice makes, albeit an extreme example.


----------



## cyberknight (7 Sep 2015)

http://felixwong.com/2010/11/tour-de-france-bicycles-historical-bike-weights/


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> So, 'better' bearings,
> ... gaining that 10% advantage at professional level, where cost is no problem? Yep, why not.



Wait, are you suggesting that better bearings resulted in a 10% performance increase?


----------



## Crandoggler (7 Sep 2015)

I'm not suggesting. There is *up to* 10% less friction using fully ceramic bearings over their steel counterparts.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

Wouldn't it be great if bikes were advertised with an objective measure of mechanical efficiency, and aero dynamism?



Crandoggler said:


> I'm not suggesting. There is *up to* 10% less friction using fully ceramic bearings over their steel counterparts.



Cool.


----------



## Crandoggler (7 Sep 2015)

To be honest, I think the margins are so slim, that if any measurable difference was displayed, it would adversely affect the disproportionate price of 'high end' bikes versus their cheaper counterparts. There's a reason they only say 'lighter, faster, stronger', and I'm sure it's due to the margins being extremely minimal.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> To be honest, I think the margins are so slim, that if any measurable difference was displayed, it would adversely affect the disproportionate price of 'high end' bikes versus their cheaper counterparts. There's a reason they only say 'lighter, faster, stronger', and I'm sure it's due to the margins being extremely minimal.



I agree but there are some vehement voices on this thread that think otherwise.

I'd see it as a government regulation, like the nutrition info on food wrappers.

Won't happen though because it will negatively effect sales


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> I agree but there are some vehement voices on this thread that think otherwise.
> 
> I'd see it as a government regulation, like the nutrition info on food wrappers.
> 
> Won't happen though because it will negatively effect sales


Do you also think that riders should be judged in the same manner? Only after putting in a certain level of training are they then allowed access to higher level bikes?

There are some vehement voices in this thread that think people on more expensive bikes don't put the same effort in.


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

cyberknight said:


> http://felixwong.com/2010/11/tour-de-france-bicycles-historical-bike-weights/


Interesting and informative link. It seems that you have to ride a UCI minimum weight steed to win the TdF over the past 10 years. Longer than that of you count that guy who cheated.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Do you also think that riders should be judged in the same manner?



No.


----------



## winjim (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Interesting and informative link. It seems that you have to ride a UCI minimum weight steed to win the TdF over the past 10 years. Longer than that of you count that guy who cheated.


Or, it tells you that only minimum weight bikes are even entered into the TdF these days. Which is a different thing.


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> Or, it tells you that only minimum weight bikes are even entered into the TdF these days. Which is a different thing.


Exactly!

If there are no gains from this, then why aren't there any weighing more entered? Especially since teams are finding it tougher with less cash available these days?


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2015)

Lots of pro level bikes are less than the UCI weight, so the riders have weights fitted to keep them at the minimum.

It's still the rider that matters.


----------



## winjim (7 Sep 2015)

fossyant said:


> Lots of pro level bikes are less than the UCI weight, so the riders have weights fitted to keep them at the minimum.
> 
> It's still the rider that matters.


This is why I'm wondering why Bianchi are crowing about their new sub 800g climbers frame*, because they're going to need to ballast it anyway.


*I was going to write _climbing_ frame, but that's a different thing.


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> This is why I'm wondering why Bianchi are crowing about their new sub 800g climbers frame*, because they're going to need to ballast it anyway.
> 
> 
> *I was going to write _climbing_ frame, but that's a different thing.



Well you could have a lighter bike than the pros. 

Some folk think it's 95% bike and 5% legs.

Clean bikes are the fastest by 1000% don't you know.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> This is why I'm wondering why Bianchi are crowing about their new sub 800g climbers frame*, because they're going to need to ballast it anyway.
> 
> 
> *I was going to write _climbing_ frame, but that's a different thing.



But the weight minimum was to prevent frames getting lighter and dangerously weak - if ballast is used then it's a bit of a joke. Isn't it?


----------



## winjim (7 Sep 2015)

fossyant said:


> Well you could have a lighter bike than the pros.
> 
> Some folk think it's 95% bike and 5% legs.
> 
> Clean bikes are the fastest by 1000% don't you know.


Well yes, at three and a half grand for the frameset I'm sure it'll be an earner for them. I notice their quoted weight of 780g for the frame is for the matt black version, since the celeste paint job is measurably heavier


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> But the weight minimum was to prevent frames getting lighter and dangerously weak - if ballast is used then it's a bit of a joke. Isn't it?



It is a bit of a joke, but I think that's why Mr Cookson is open to reviewing the UCI limit again soon, mainly because materials are now at the point where perceived frame weakness is less of an issue. Outside of the world tour, bikes keep getting lighter simply because manufacturers see a market for lighter bikes. Mainly because - to the uneducated - lighter must mean faster.


----------



## Crandoggler (7 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> It is a bit of a joke, but I think that's why Mr Cookson is open to reviewing the UCI limit again soon. Outside of the world tour, bikes keep getting lighter simply because manufacturers see a market for lighter bikes. Mainly because - to the uneducated - lighter must mean faster.


That's true though isn't it?


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> That's true though isn't it?



Sorry, what is?


----------



## Crandoggler (7 Sep 2015)

Light = fast?


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> It is a bit of a joke, but I think that's why Mr Cookson is open to reviewing the UCI limit again soon, mainly because materials are now at the point where perceived frame weakness is less of an issue. Outside of the world tour, bikes keep getting lighter simply because manufacturers see a market for lighter bikes. Mainly because - to the uneducated - lighter must mean faster.



I've dropped 4kg body weight since August 1st, and yet hills are still really tough. Outrageous.

It's a rip off - I want my 4kg back (in lost wine and cheese evenings).


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Light = fast?



Only to people who don't take the time or trouble to fully understand the issue.


----------



## Crandoggler (7 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> I've dropped 4kg body weight since August 1st, and yet hills are still really tough. Outrageous.
> 
> It's a rip off - I want my 4kg back (in lost wine and cheese evenings).


If it makes you feel better, I managed to gain 8lb since I started cycling. I'm no racing snake either! Weight should come off, not on. 

- Citius, I was winding you up mate.


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> Well yes, at three and a half grand for the frameset I'm sure it'll be an earner for them. I notice their quoted weight of 780g for the frame is for the matt black version, since the celeste paint job is measurably heavier



Paint adds 300g or more.

When I specced chromed rear triangle and forks on my best bike many years ago, the frame builder said it was heavier than paint.... 

I had just specced the Columbus SLX tubing that was 25g heavier than SL due to the rifling within the tubes to increase strength (like Pinarello do now with plastic - not new tech).


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Citius, I was winding you up mate.



Sorry - remind me to add a laughing smiley next time.. 

On the 'light = fast' point though - it's fair to say there is a massive amount more to it than just that simple equation.

This is well worth a read if you have the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2015)

I lost 6kg recently. 10 days off the bike and its re-appeared. WTF....


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

fossyant said:


> Lots of pro level bikes are less than the UCI weight, so the riders have weights fitted to keep them at the minimum.
> 
> It's still the rider that matters.


Of course it's mainly the rider, when the bikes are levelled in such a manner.

If bikes don't make any difference though, then why not pick something heavier?


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> If bikes don't make any difference though, then why not pick something heavier?



Who, on this thread, do you think is arguing that bikes don't make *any* difference to cyclist performance?


----------



## swansonj (7 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Who, on this thread, do you think is arguing that bikes don't make *any* difference to cyclist performance?


Yeah, but if everyone is agreed that bikes do make a difference, why are we on the twelth page of bad tempered argument?


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Who, on this thread, do you think is arguing that bikes don't make *any* difference to cyclist performance?


The usual suspects, who always state for its 95% the rider. Surely it's clear from above?

Personally, I think it's definitely more than 5% down to the bike. That's my point.


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

swansonj said:


> Yeah, but if everyone is agreed that bikes do make a difference, why are we on the twelth page of bad tempered argument?


Thank you.


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Of course it's mainly the rider, when the bikes are levelled in such a manner.
> 
> If bikes don't make any difference though, then why not pick something heavier?



Pro riders just ride what they are given now. Once upon a time, pro riders used to ride a particular frame repainted in team colours because they liked the frame. It's all marketing.

This year's 10 mile TT was won by a chap on a £1,000 bike....


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> If bikes don't make any difference though, then why not pick something heavier?



Not sure if you fully grasp the concept of 'sponsorship'. Let's take the Cannondale team as an example - do you think Cannondale's commercial interests and public image are best served by putting the team on Claris-equipped CAAD8s, or DA-equipped Supersix Evos?

Or alternatively, Lewis Hamilton. Does Mercedes give him an A-class to drive on the road?


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

fossyant said:


> This year's 10 mile TT was won by a chap on a £1,000 bike....



This came up earlier - but was quickly dismissed by those who didn't want to hear it


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> The usual suspects, who always state for its 95% the rider. Surely it's clear from above?
> 
> Personally, I think it's definitely more than 5% down to the bike. That's my point.



Your thread title - you're arguing against the common refrain that people think the bike is only 5%.

5% is clearly more than no difference at all.

So, in fact you're arguing with yourself.

95%/5% is just a phrase, it's not a mathematically, scientifically derived ratio. It is to illustrate that the riders performance far out weighs the bikes characteristic in the grand scheme of things.

If you agree, but think it's 90/10, then you're not of an opposing opinion at all - just as many have posted here already.

Can we move on now?


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Personally, I think it's definitely more than 5% down to the bike. That's my point.



If you think that, then its down to you to explain why you think that, and how you have arrived at whatever percentage you think it actually is. Good luck.


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Not sure if you fully grasp the concept of 'sponsorship'. Let's take the Cannondale team as an example - do you think Cannondale's commercial interests and public image are best served by putting the team on Claris-equipped CAAD8s, or DA-equipped Supersix Evos?
> 
> Or alternatively, Lewis Hamilton. Does Mercedes give him an A-class to drive on the road?


You honestly think that the only reason that they ride DA SuperSix Evo's over Claris CAAD8's is SOLELY down to marketing and nothing to do with any performance difference. You crack me up.


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> You honestly think that the only reason that they ride DA SuperSix Evo's over Claris CAAD8's is SOLELY down to marketing and nothing to do with any performance difference. You crack me up.



I'm sure the bikes are lighter, undoubtedly. Take a look at the Wiki page I posted earlier - that will give you a rough idea of the performance differences that might be on offer. Be prepared to have your delusions shattered though...


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Your thread title - you're arguing against the common refrain that people think the bike is only 5%.
> 
> 5% is clearly more than no difference at all.
> 
> ...


I agree that it's rider over bike, but not at a 19 to 1 ratio.

The vid posted was tongue in cheek at debating this.

The usual suspects, arguing this thread as expected, keep telling people not to bother upgrading Any parts as there will be no gain aside from looks and I find that annoying. Ironically, I bet they're not riding BSO's themselves?


----------



## Citius (7 Sep 2015)

Stop speculating, put the strawman away and just go and read the wiki page. Enlighten yourself.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (7 Sep 2015)

I've done the calculations and there's no way the combination of bike and rider ever gets anywhere near 100% for me.


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2015)

Actually it's less than 5%. A base level Triban 5 or 3 with decent tyres is good enough. It will keep up with a guy on a £10k bike if the same fitness. 

I can climb a particular segment on Strava in the same time wether I use any of three bikes more or less. One has Dura Ace, one has Ultegra and one is a fixie with Panniers... 

It's all marketing bollox as to speed. The better stuff does last longer thoughts its sealed better.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> The usual suspects, arguing this thread as expected, keep telling people *not to bother upgrading Any parts* as there will be no gain aside from looks and I find that annoying. Ironically, I bet they're not riding BSO's themselves?



Honestly, what you think is being posted and what is posted isn't the same.

There is an entire industry built on the premise that they can make people buy stuff they don't need by making them want it. And they make a shoot load of money.

"We" are arguing against that mindset, against the mindset that it is *worth* spending hundreds or thousands of pounds for unmeasurable, inferred performance gains, when the vast majority of performance is undeniably down to the rider.

Spend your money how you like, but for chrissakes don't believe the spin!

Personally I recommend spare cash go on hookers and coke. I see no reason to deviate from that world renowned default.


----------



## bpsmith (7 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Honestly, what you think is being posted and what is posted isn't the same.
> 
> There is an entire industry built on the premise that they can make people buy stuff they don't need by making them want it. And they make a shoot load of money.
> 
> ...


It's what has been posted previously in lots of threads.

Anyway, I agree that there is an element of spin and marketing. This can be said for any industry.

I also believe that the solution is not to "go and lose body weight instead", like some always suggest.

Anyway, let's agree on the hookers and coke and move on.


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2015)

Upgrading is always worth doing.. always. You won't go faster, but it's nice.... Those Ritchey Comp bars that got bent in a crash needed some Ritchey WCS bars as replacement. They are the same.......

Cost 3x more and are 100g lighter. Needed. Don't tell the wife.


----------



## Seryth (7 Sep 2015)

Well I've been looking at some options for a new bike to upgrade from my Reynolds 531 tubed trusty steed, and now I just feel like it'd be a waste of money. Thanks a lot guys!


----------



## jowwy (8 Sep 2015)

Seryth said:


> Well I've been looking at some options for a new bike to upgrade from my Reynolds 531 tubed trusty steed, and now I just feel like it'd be a waste of money. Thanks a lot guys!


Its never waste of money if might makes you happy and fuzzy inside seryth.......just ignore the idiotic ravings of some and make your own decisions on your wants, needs and desires

The rest is just forum clap trap


----------



## Citius (8 Sep 2015)

Seryth said:


> Well I've been looking at some options for a new bike to upgrade from my Reynolds 531 tubed trusty steed, and now I just feel like it'd be a waste of money. Thanks a lot guys!



To be fair, if you think that, then you haven't really understood what the thread has been about...


----------



## Big Dave laaa (8 Sep 2015)

Rule #4 it is 100% about the bike  this may or may not be accurate


----------



## Justinslow (8 Sep 2015)

I did a practice team TT the other night over 21.7 miles with 3 other riders, chain gang style. A mix of bikes from full on TT carbon wheels etc etc to my ventura (sorry to keep harping on about it). We are all fairly similar riders based on our 10TT times irrespective of our bikes, and guess what we all rode fairly similar and completed the ride at the same time in 53.37 @24.3mph.
We are all amateurs obviously, and we worked as a team slowing where necessary to bring the group back together, mainly after the hills. But at no point did anyone on a cheaper less specced bike get dropped, least of all me!
I think at an amateur level the kit makes less of a difference, for gawds sake I even use £25-30 Rexton shoes, doesn't make me slower than someone wearing £200 shoes. However at a pro level I think you have to be on top level kit to compete with other top level athletes.
Everything I've just written is pretty obvious isn't it?


----------



## Citius (8 Sep 2015)

Justinslow said:


> However at a pro level I think you have to be on top level kit to compete with other top level athletes.



Still not sure I agree with that, although I do agree with everything else you said. There's been plenty of pro teams over the years who have specced Ultegra rather than DA, or Record rather than Super Record, Force rather than Red, etc, etc. Pro team kit has much more to do with sponsorship than it does with any competitive advantage. If you're on Ultegra and you lose a race to someone on DA kit, then it's likely you would still have lost the race if you'd both been on DA.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Still not sure I agree with that, although I do agree with everything else you said. There's been plenty of pro teams over the years who have specced Ultegra rather than DA, or Record rather than Super Record, Force rather than Red, etc, etc. Pro team kit has much more to do with sponsorship than it does with any competitive advantage. If you're on Ultegra and you lose a race to someone on DA kit, then it's likely you would still have lost the race if you'd both been on DA.


Yeah agree, and why someone on a good £1000 TT bike can win a national race.
Having just bought one of the popular magazines for a group TT test I was dismayed to see they only compared uber expensive models, something which I will never buy. Similar with shoes, well everything really.


----------



## Hacienda71 (8 Sep 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yeah agree, and why someone on a good £1000 TT bike can win a national race.
> Having just bought one of the popular magazines for a group TT test I was dismayed to see they only compared uber expensive models, something which I will never buy. Similar with shoes, well everything really.


That is going to be because that is what the manufacturers send them to test foc. I wonder why?


----------



## tyred (8 Sep 2015)

Bollox to all this.

Just get on your bike(whatever it may be) and enjoy the ride


----------



## Justinslow (8 Sep 2015)

Hacienda71 said:


> That is going to be because that is what the manufacturers send them to test foc. I wonder why?


Yeah I get that, but it's not helpful to me!


----------



## Seryth (8 Sep 2015)

jowwy said:


> Its never waste of money if might makes you happy and fuzzy inside seryth.......just ignore the idiotic ravings of some and make your own decisions on your wants, needs and desires
> 
> The rest is just forum clap trap


It makes me feel happy and fuzzy just thinking about it, so I'm sure it'll be a heightened effect after I've bought it! (Until I look at my bank balance, of course )



Citius said:


> To be fair, if you think that, then you haven't really understood what the thread has been about...


I was joking, Citius.


----------



## Citius (8 Sep 2015)

Seryth said:


> I was joking, Citius.



Well, I didn't get it


----------



## Hacienda71 (8 Sep 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yeah I get that, but it's not helpful to me!


If you look at how the guy built his bike to win that TT he relied upon second hand and generic parts rather than shelling out for a high end bike. You might be better looking at reviews from a couple of years ago. A guy I know came second in the BBAR a couple of years ago on a generic Chinese TT frame. He came lower down the next year when his sponsor supplied him with a high end bike. It wasn't down to the bikes it was down to him on the day, the difference in the bikes was minimal. If I was in the market for a fast TT bike I would go down the s/h and generic copies route for the kit and spend some of the money I saved getting a really good fitting done. Most of the testers will tell you position is more important in percentage terms than the bike. You ride the bike too upright and too open chested and you have a big wind brake on. Even the type of way you hold your head will have a bearing on what type of aero helmet works for you. If you ride with your head down a lot then a pointy one may not be the answer. Anyway I am sure you know this already.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Sep 2015)

Hacienda71 said:


> If you look at how the guy built his bike to win that TT he relied upon second hand and generic parts rather than shelling out for a high end bike. You might be better looking at reviews from a couple of years ago. A guy I know came second in the BBAR a couple of years ago on a generic Chinese TT frame. He came lower down the next year when his sponsor supplied him with a high end bike. It wasn't down to the bikes it was down to him on the day, the difference in the bikes was minimal. If I was in the market for a fast TT bike I would go down the s/h and generic copies route for the kit and spend some of the money I saved getting a really good fitting done. Most of the testers will tell you position is more important in percentage terms than the bike. You ride the bike too upright and too open chested and you have a big wind brake on. Even the type of way you hold your head will have a bearing on what type of aero helmet works for you. If you ride with your head down a lot then a pointy one may not be the answer. Anyway I am sure you know this already.


Thanks, yeah I've heard most of that before, but all good stuff never the less, cheers.
Most of the club TT riders have cobbled together stuff from ebay or the time trial forum, hardly any bought new stuff, maybe a couple of Planet X Exocet's. Probably our quickest guy uses a secondhand Argon 18 -the basic spec one (with upgrades) but he has a coach and trains on the turbo nearly every day


----------



## ayceejay (8 Sep 2015)

Since we are now talking about TTing and not road racing or casual cycling and since we are in agreement that aerodynamics plays a part in attaining speed and that a riders position plays a large part in that would it be safe to say that it is 95% te rider and 5% the bike?


----------



## Justinslow (8 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> Since we are now talking about TTing and not road racing or casual cycling and since we are in agreement that aerodynamics plays a part in attaining speed and that a riders position plays a large part in that would it be safe to say that it is 95% te rider and 5% the bike?


Ummm no, because you need a specific type of bike to put you in an aero position. 
I can get semi aero on my ventura, but how much faster would I be with a full on TT bike and full aero position with a bit of practice?


----------



## Justinslow (8 Sep 2015)

Here's a pic of me on the ventura, clearly I could go a lot lower at the front, but my geometry doesn't allow that.


----------



## Tin Pot (8 Sep 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Ummm no, because you need a specific type of bike to put you in an aero position.
> I can get semi aero on my ventura, but how much faster would I be with a full on TT bike and full aero position with a bit of practice?



You need the rider to hold the position for the vast majority of the time of the distance - you can't buy it, you need to train for it.

Lots of triathletes buy TT bikes and ride the hoods...I may do the same!


----------



## andyamonty (14 Sep 2015)

Lots of focus on previous pages around people basically asking if a better bike will make them quicker than someone else. Thats a ridiculous way to look at this. As Citius says, if you lose to someone on DA whilst using Ultegra, you probably would have lost to them on DA. The only measurement is against yourself. I have swapped in recent times from an aluminium framed bike to a much more aggressive carbon framed bike. It has made me quicker, particularly up hills and on the flat, but thats the measurement - against me.

Lets face it, most of us claim that its the equipment as we're just trying to justify to our wives how these awesome Carbon rims will make us faster and we'll back back quicker to mow the lawn on a weekend.


----------



## winjim (14 Sep 2015)

andyamonty said:


> Lots of focus on previous pages around people basically asking if a better bike will make them quicker than someone else. Thats a ridiculous way to look at this. As Citius says, if you lose to someone on DA whilst using Ultegra, you probably would have lost to them on DA. The only measurement is against yourself. I have swapped in recent times from an aluminium framed bike to a much more aggressive carbon framed bike. It has made me quicker, particularly up hills and on the flat, but thats the measurement - against me.
> 
> Lets face it, most of us claim that its the equipment as we're just trying to justify to our wives how these awesome Carbon rims will make us faster and we'll back back quicker to mow the lawn on a weekend.


But if someone else was quicker than you, and you're now quicker than yourself, might you not also now be quicker than someone else?


----------



## Tin Pot (14 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> But if someone else was quicker than you, and you're now quicker than yourself, might you not also now be quicker than someone else?



I sense a paradox looming...

Perhaps if you replace the drive chain with a flux capacitor it will resolve the matter?


----------



## nickyboy (14 Sep 2015)

Sorry I couldn't trawl through all 15 pages so far so apologies if this has been mentioned already.....

The climb they do in the video is called Pym's Chair. It is one of the steepest, most difficult climbs in the Peak District. Maxes out at about 28%. House's bike is single speed I think (I couldn't see in the video but presumably is). The advantage a geared bike gives up a really steep climb like that (with a lot of changes in gradient) is huge. It's like the story of early TdF riders on single-speed being slower up climbs than amateurs on geared bikes (the race organisers prohibited geared bikes)

Seems to be a waste of time trying to extrapolate anything from such an extreme example of bike riding


----------



## Cuchilo (14 Sep 2015)

I'm faster on my heavier , cheaper , Alu TT bike than i am on my carbon road bike that cost a few k and ive spent more on .


----------



## winjim (14 Sep 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> I sense a paradox looming...
> 
> Perhaps if you replace the drive chain with a flux capacitor it will resolve the matter?


Oh God, you might end up being quicker than your own father and who knows where that would lead?


----------



## bpsmith (14 Sep 2015)

andyamonty said:


> Lots of focus on previous pages around people basically asking if a better bike will make them quicker than someone else. Thats a ridiculous way to look at this. As Citius says, if you lose to someone on DA whilst using Ultegra, you probably would have lost to them on DA. The only measurement is against yourself. I have swapped in recent times from an aluminium framed bike to a much more aggressive carbon framed bike. It has made me quicker, particularly up hills and on the flat, but thats the measurement - against me.
> 
> Lets face it, most of us claim that its the equipment as we're just trying to justify to our wives how these awesome Carbon rims will make us faster and we'll back back quicker to mow the lawn on a weekend.


That's actually been MY point all along!

If anybody reads the entire thread you will find that my viewpoint is that you can actually be faster on a better bike. Doesn't make you faster than a majorly better rider, but can close the gap a little.

Citius' view is that the bike means nothing, it's totally down to the rider.


----------



## Cuchilo (14 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> That's actually been MY point all along!
> 
> If anybody reads the entire thread you will find that my viewpoint is that you can actually be faster on a better bike. Doesn't make you faster than a majorly better rider, but can close the gap a little.
> 
> Citius' view is that the bike means nothing, it's totally down to the rider.


Well i have to say that Citius seems to be right if my situation is anything to go by .


----------



## Milkfloat (14 Sep 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I'm faster on my heavier , cheaper , Alu TT bike than i am on my carbon road bike that cost a few k and ive spent more on .



Yeah, but you only ride down hills.


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Train to knock off the minutes. Spend to knock off the seconds. Looking forward to seeing how 'bp' misinterprets that one....


----------



## Justinslow (14 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again. Train to knock off the minutes. Spend to knock off the seconds. Looking forward to seeing how 'bp' misinterprets that one....


Do both and go big or go home (as Guy Martin would say)


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Do both and go big or go home (as Guy Martin would say)



Yes, but all that happens if you do both at the same time is people saying they "bought a carbon bike and went 3mph faster"...


----------



## Justinslow (14 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Yes, but all that happens if you do both at the same time is people saying they "bought a carbon bike and went 3mph faster"...


Bit like me and my wheels!


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

For me it's about the bike. And the great thing about my bike is that it weighs more than most other bikes but is far far quicker. You want to go fast? Reduce your drag coefficient.


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

And those that do want to harp on about weight.....the HPV hour record set in a sled which weighed 46lbs?

56.89.....miles, over 90k. 

Face it the majority of cyclists are sheep baaing to the tune of the UCI and marketing departments of bike companies offering the latest and greatest in carbon technology, yet it makes fark all difference to your bike. 

If you want to do yourself a favour, sell the bike, buy a recumbent and enjoy cycling as it was before the UCI and the oligopoly of bike companies got their filthy stinking claws in the bike industry and made it what it is today.


----------



## Cuchilo (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> For me it's about the bike. And the great thing about my bike is that it weighs more than most other bikes but is far far quicker. You want to go fast? Reduce your drag coefficient.


And the main thing that causes drag ?


----------



## ayceejay (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> For me it's about the bike. And the great thing about my bike is that it weighs more than most other bikes but is far far quicker. You want to go fast? Reduce your drag coefficient.


I set off my drag co whatsit by matching colours and shoes, trust me big man I always get results.


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I set off my drag co whatsit by matching colours and shoes, trust me big man I always get results.



You'd be a rapidly dissappearing speck in my mirrors.


----------



## bpsmith (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> You'd be a rapidly dissappearing speck in my mirrors.


Mirrors aren't very aerodynamic?


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> And the main thing that causes drag ?



Poor bike design, you could not design a more inefficient bike in terms of efficiency in relation to human input, not to mention poor human kinetics and ergonomics if you tried. Thank the UCI for making the mug that you and everyone else that rides a diamond frame bike. No offence imtended but you get my point.


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Mirrors aren't very aerodynamic?



They are on my bike. They also give it the 'look'.


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> And those that do want to harp on about weight.....the HPV hour record set in a sled which weighed 46lbs?



Horses for courses, old chap. Try getting that 46lb faired recumbent up the Tourmalet in a decent time.


----------



## Cuchilo (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> Poor bike design, you could not design a more inefficient bike in terms of efficiency in relation to human input, not to mention poor human kinetics and ergonomics if you tried. Thank the UCI for making the mug that you and everyone else that rides a diamond frame bike. No offence imtended but you get my point.


Sorry , i ask that question before you exposed yourself as a nutter .


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> If you want to do yourself a favour, sell the bike, buy a recumbent and enjoy cycling as it was before the UCI and the oligopoly of bike companies got their filthy stinking claws in the bike industry and made it what it is today.



So everyone was on bents until the UCI came along and invented the diamond frame? What have you been smoking?


----------



## Hacienda71 (14 Sep 2015)

I'm off to get a penny farthing.


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> So everyone was on bents until the UCI came along and invented the diamond frame? What have you been smoking?



I'm talking about the limitations of bike design that the UCI imposed as discussed in this thread. This came of course after Faure set a record that was not bested until Moser with EPO swimming through his veins beat it more than 50 years later. LOL the people who ride df bikes, if only they knew the history of how the modern df bike came about.


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Horses for courses, old chap. Try getting that 46lb faired recumbent up the Tourmalet in a decent time.



Easy, that's what electric motors are for.


----------



## ayceejay (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> You'd be a rapidly dissappearing speck in my mirrors.


Ooh hark at you with all your mirrors


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Sorry , i ask that question before you exposed yourself as a nutter .



I see bikes for 5-6k down my local bike shop and the people that buy them, the same kind of people running a pace line down my local circuit. Who I overtake expending up to 60% less effort then them. Who's the nutter? Give me your best time for a 10 and I'll take it apart. I'll even do the ride in casual gear for the fun of it.


----------



## Cuchilo (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> I see bikes for 5-6k down my local bike shop and the people that buy them, the same kind of people running a pace line down my local circuit. Who I overtake expending up to 60% less effort then them. Who's the nutter? Give me your best time for a 10 and I'll take it apart. I'll even do the ride in casual gear for the fun of it.


Lets go one better and have a proper race


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> I'm talking about the limitations of bike design that the UCI imposed as discussed in this thread. This came of course after Faure set a record that was not bested until Moser with EPO swimming through his veins beat it more than 50 years later. LOL the people who ride df bikes, if only they knew the history of how the modern df bike came about.



Sorry, I'm struggling to find a 'yawning' smiley. I don't think there is one. Instead, just let me say BOOORRIIIIIIINNNGGGGG!!!!!


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Lets go one better and have a proper race



I don't wish to race mano a mano on the queens roads. That's illegal. Give a tt route that you've done and your best time. I'll do a similar route regarding elevation and do a time. Prepare to lose on your bike whose design has not changed largely in 90 years. My bike has set numerous endurance and speed records because its built around me taking into account the best use of a cardio vascular system not to mention utilising the more powerful leg muscles - unlike a df bike.


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Sorry, I'm struggling to find a 'yawning' smiley. I don't think there is one. Instead, just let me say BOOORRIIIIIIINNNGGGGG!!!!!



I know you are.


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> My bike has set numerous endurance and speed records because its built around me taking into account the best use of a cardio vascular system not to mention utilising the more powerful leg muscles - unlike a df bike.



If your bike takes into account the best use of a CV system, then you should be ok for a race up the Tourmalet? Me on my 'df' bike and you on your Sinclair C5


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> If your bike takes into account the best use of a CV system, then you should be ok for a race up the Tourmalet? Me on my 'df' bike and you on your Sinclair C5



As you've already attested to - you're boring and have nothing to add.


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> As you've already attested to - you're boring and have nothing to add.



Seriously though - race up the Tourmalet? I reckon you'd walk it. Well, you'd have to - cos you certainly couldn't pedal it 

Bents going up hill are a bit like Daleks going up stairs. Just not meant to happen.


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Seriously though - race up the Tourmalet? I reckon you'd walk it. Well, you'd have to - cos you certainly couldn't pedal it



You starting to embarrass yourself. You seriously want me to go to France to prove a point. And you think I've been smoking? Now sush, let the adults talk eh?


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> You seriously want me to go to France to prove a point



There's plenty of decent climbs in the UK where any recumbent would fail in an equally epic manner. But you already know that, which is why you're avoiding the question.


----------



## Citius (14 Sep 2015)

I'd just like to thank @bpsmith for starting this thread. It took a while to warm up, but I think we can agree it's all been worthwhile now...


----------



## Simpleton (14 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> There's plenty of decent climbs in the UK where any recumbent would fail in an equally epic manner. But you already know that, which is why you're avoiding the question.



'Any recumbent' you're showing your ignorance. What knowledge and experience do you have of recumbents to come to this conclusion? Something concrete please, not
Anecdotal from another df rider who got scalped.


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> 'Any recumbent' you're showing your ignorance. What knowledge and experience do you have of recumbents to come to this conclusion? Something concrete please, not Anecdotal from another df rider who got scalped.



I know they can't climb as well as a 'df' bike - and so do you. The onus is on you to prove otherwise, seeing as you're the one giving it large.

Black Mountain, Carmarthenshire. Course record is something like 12:21. Would love to see a recumbent get to the top without pushing - let alone in a half-decent time.


----------



## Simpleton (15 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> I know they can't climb as well as a 'df' bike - and so do you. The onus is on you to prove otherwise, seeing as you're the one giving it large.
> 
> Black Mountain, Carmarthenshire. Course record is something like 12:21. Would love to see a recumbent get to the top without pushing - let alone in a half-decent time.



So that would be none, thank you for that.

As for giving it 'large' as you eloquently put it yes I have regarding design and overall speed, comfort, feel, human kinetics, ergonomics, an inspiration and a joy to ride. You bought in hill climbing, I can tell you now that you are wrong. But I won't go into reasons why as I have neither the time or inclination to explain myself to you. Welcome to the ignore list.


Mod Edited


----------



## Justinslow (15 Sep 2015)

I wish I hadn't mentioned Guy Martin now..........
Here's a pic of Guy on his "tandem"


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> I can tell you now that you are wrong. But I won't go into reasons why



That's fine - I'll just take your word for it then...


----------



## Cuchilo (15 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> I don't wish to race mano a mano on the queens roads. That's illegal. Give a tt route that you've done and your best time. I'll do a similar route regarding elevation and do a time. Prepare to lose on your bike whose design has not changed largely in 90 years. My bike has set numerous endurance and speed records because its built around me taking into account the best use of a cardio vascular system not to mention utilising the more powerful leg muscles - unlike a df bike.


Well if you're scared to race against someone then that's fine . You will however need to prove your time if you want to do it in a TT and also prove your bike is compliant with CTT rules . Wouldn't want any cheating going on would we .


----------



## Simpleton (15 Sep 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Well if you're scared to race against someone then that's fine . You will however need to prove your time if you want to do it in a TT and also prove your bike is compliant with CTT rules . Wouldn't want any cheating going on would we .



Not scared to race at all, please don't misinterpret what I've never said. The discussion has always been about how recumbents are quicker, I have your time off Strava for the 40k ride that you done a few weeks ago. Sometime over the weekend I'll get the train to Chesham and do the same ride and post my time on here. Weather permitting of course.


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

Why do so many recumbent riders believe they are the victims of some global conspiracy?


----------



## Scoosh (15 Sep 2015)

MOD NOTE:
It's getting personal and going nowhere, so time to Close.


----------

