Can a lackluster season be attributed to the bike???

[stella-azzurra]

A good article here on this very same thing, in terms of a Colnago. Notice how the person talks about how each bike fit him, but the one rode better and worked better.
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml

HUMP

That article has been out several years now. I have a few colnagos in the same sizes he uses: 54, 53, 52 cm. Two are c40's and one is a master. All points of contact are the same on all 3.
They are all traditional geometry.

The only difference to note aside from the size is the weight.
The steel frame is heavier and it feels different in the first few rides.

But after a few rides your body adapts into using the frame and the difference (weight, handling) you felt at the beginning is gone.

That is if everything is fitted correctly.

Here is the crux of the matter:

Michael R. Rabe and Colin McMahon were already in excellent form, but I was not fit. When I arrived I put in a 300 mile week and the effects were telling. I came back thinking the Colnago Dream was a bit too stiff for my liking. The truth was I jumped in too quickly. I didn't have my "seat" and I was doing a huge week on a new bike. Under these circumstances no bike would have felt good.

[KWalker]

Cyclingnews and VeloNews *f##k* up his bike stats and measurements

Canyon, size 56: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/p ... -cf-28966/
15mm of spacers and an 8-10mm headset cap. 120mm stem.
555 stack, 396 reach.

BMC, size 50:
140 stem, slammed
530mm of stack, 376mm reach

This suggests that his bars were about 25mm lower on the BMC and questionably the same reach, probably less. The 3T bars he is on are also deeper.

The BMC is actually A LOT shorter, which is why you saw him change frames mid way through the Tour to a bigger size and 40+mm of spacers underneath the stem vs. slammed on the headtube. At one point his stem was flipped up on his WC bike but they changed it the next day.

If you take that amount of spacers into account and the long stem, he could easily go a full 2 sizes up and run a 120 and still need a few spacers. According to my stack/reach spreadsheet if he had the same seat height and setback his super small BMC actually had 4.5cm more drop.

Fit plays an important role into mechanical efficiency. I've seen it in myself and other riders, but there are some curious cases in the pro-ranks too.

Contador's fit has changed and he looks noticeably worse and performs worse, especially since they switched his Shiv sizing around in TT's. Watching him climb seated is absolutely painful. He slides all over the very nose of the saddle and bucks his hip with every stroke.

Sky bring in fitters at every single camp to asses changes from injuries or weight loss/gain. They seem to always look good/comfortable on the bike and are very efficient.

Boonen stopped having back pain when he changed his fit when Speci came on with OPQS.

Cav is famous for changing his seat and bar position daily depending on feel.

Greipel moved his bars up and out when Lotto went to Ridley. He started winning more sprints and sprinted with a slightly lower position.

There have been a lot of riders with documented position changes over the years that have helped mitigate injuries. Gilbert has never been that flexible or had that straight of a back and most of his bikes actually had quite a bit of stack so its weird that BMC pushed the slammed fit.

[djm]

If the brakes are rubbing and the bearings are full of sand; yes, it can be attributed to the bike. Otherwise? No!

[r_mutt]

If the brakes are rubbing and the bearings are full of sand; yes, it can be attributed to the bike. Otherwise? No!

[53x12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_je ... bow_jersey

[MattSoutherden]

Maybe also the hoops ... he had CCUs for the punchclimbs back in the day ... not floppy Eastons.

Which is why they are on Shimano this year...

And yet still no wins this year.

[HUMP DIESEL]

I have to agree with KWalker, it looks like he went smaller just for the sake of going smaller and all things being considered, he would ride worse on that small of a bike.
I do not agree that the bike means nothing, because just as KWalker described, changes that drastic will have adverse effects on how he produces and sustains power, the sustains part is one I have experience with.

HUMP

[hasbeen]

Seriously? You guys think a pro of any level, with power meters, heart rate monitors, and thousands upon thousands of miles in the legs, is going to change everything for the fun of it? Come on. He did it because it felt better.
His lack of results come down to a lot of circumstances outside of his bike fit!

[HUMP DIESEL]

My initial thought is not about bike fit, it is about bike size, they are two independent things. You can have the same bike fit on three different bike sizes. That being said, each of those bikes can perform differently.

That is what I was trying to ask and convey with the post, not bike fit.

HUMP

[WMW]

Despite standing at 1.83m (6ft) tall, Gilbert rides a rather diminutive 50cm frame with a 535mm effective top tube length – something no fitter in their right mind would do for a typical cyclist of the same height. As usual, though, it's all about head tube length for these guys. In this case, the top of Gilbert's bar sits more than 12cm below the top of his saddle. To get the reach he wants, Gilbert then has to run a 140mm-long stem slammed atop the headset.

Sounds about like me and my bike. I ride a 54cm frame with a slammed 140mm -17 stem to get 14cm of drop. And I'm 53 with an injured back.

Once you learn to relax your lower back, the limiting factor to getting low is interference between your quads and chest at the top of the stroke... and being able to see where you are going. You don't need to be very flexible. In the old days the riders just bent their arms in the drops to achieve this (like below), but I like having more options... hoods+bar tops with bent arms, or drops with arms less bent. Climbing and standing feel fine, so I don't see any reason to raise the bars.

Before I learned to relax my back, I was on 57 and 58s. There is nothing weird about how the small frame handles. A little more weight on the front wheel, but that is a good thing.

[sawyer]

I'm not convinced bike size per - as opposed to contact points - would have a bigger effect than the combined effect of:

- different frame
- different components, especially wheels

Sounds crazy as it's all top-end stuff, but then obviously psychology is crucially important in competition, and trusting and liking the kit you win on, and conversely hating the stuff you get beaten on, is not unknown.

[HUMP DIESEL]

I'm not convinced bike size per - as opposed to contact points - would have a bigger effect than the combined effect of:

- different frame
- different components, especially wheels

Sounds crazy as it's all top-end stuff, but then obviously psychology is crucially important in competition, and trusting and liking the kit you win on, and conversely hating the stuff you get beaten on, is not unknown.

I can second that, been in that situation before, and if you get it in your head that the bike is SH--! then it is, no matter what anyone tells you.

HUMP

[Imaking20]

Personally, I will blame my poor performance on the equipment any time I get a chance

[Rick]

Seriously? You guys think a pro of any level, with power meters, heart rate monitors, and thousands upon thousands of miles in the legs, is going to change everything for the fun of it? Come on. He did it because it felt better.
His lack of results come down to a lot of circumstances outside of his bike fit!

+1

A poor fit could, in theory, significant affect performance.
But within the realm of very experienced professionals, with well-funded teams, mechanics, trainers, power meters, etc, there is no way to blame anything about the bicycle anything short of an actual equipment breakage or malfunction.

[KWalker]

Not true whatsoever. There are lots of instances of bike fits hampering pros in terms of causing injury and reducing power output. A bad fit can result in a significant loss of pedaling efficiency for some people.