Okay that was badly worded so let me try to clarify before it gets blown into the tangential ether. In any given race where a pro has won a place on the podium, is there any chance he could not have had that same position on any other frame that was used in the race from another team.
Groupsets, gearing and finishing kit being equal of course.
At what point could a bike frame's performance actually make a pro lose their place on the podium.
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
-
blatchcorn
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:20 pm
This imo is the worst bike a ride a pro could ride and still podium on a grand tour
Frame: CAAD10
Groupset: Sora
Wheel set: RS81 c24
Assuming this was their only bike, they would need a grand tour with very minimal TT stages.
The difference between pro-level bikes is non-existent.
Frame: CAAD10
Groupset: Sora
Wheel set: RS81 c24
Assuming this was their only bike, they would need a grand tour with very minimal TT stages.
The difference between pro-level bikes is non-existent.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
If the frame's weight is so high that they can't get it down close to 6.8kg then it could have an affect on climbing results. Let's say the frame puts the bike 500 g over the weight limit, so 7.3 kg. And we have a hypothetical rider who weighs 70 kg and does 400 W average over a climb, his w/kg as a total system would be 5.17. Compared to 5.21 w/kg if he had a 6.8 kg bike. A 0.7% difference, which doesn't translate directly to speed (it'd be even less of a difference).
Problem is we don't have enough data and there's too many variables to consider for specific cases.
Problem is we don't have enough data and there's too many variables to consider for specific cases.
bungis wrote:If the frame's weight is so high that they can't get it down close to 6.8kg
There was an episode of the GCN show where they weighed pro bikes - there was only 1 that was close to 6.8, most were well above 7kg...
I think if the fit is good, the bike makes almost no difference, execpt for aero in a TT or breakaway.
velomane wrote:Is it possible for a frame's geometry to affect how much of the cyclist's energy goes into forward motion?
Only if it means that the rider can't get into their best position for power and/or aerodynamics. I.e. if the head tube is too high or the seat tube angle so steep or slack that no post will get the rider into their best position.
Technically if the rider can't get as aero as they desire, they're still getting the same energy into forward motion but they'll be slower due to more aero drag. How much slower depends on how much they're riding in the wind in a particular race.
Lots of people claim that a less stiff bike is slower. But other people point out that the frame is a spring with little loss and flex is returned as power elsewhere in the pedal stroke. So far no one has been able to measure or model power variations due to frame flex. Modeling is particularly difficult because we don't fully understand what all the muscles are doing, and it probably varies between individuals anyhow.
Not geometry, but there are aero differences between frames. The total difference is small compared to differences in postion, but they're real. Saving a few watts for the entire race, more if you're out in the wind, might be the difference between winning and a close second. There are some models that attempt to estimate the anaerobc reserve (AWC or W'). One could construct a simulation using real race data and those models to see if the slight savings in power output made a significant difference in anaerobic capacity for the sprint. Keep in mind that the differences between top pros is not that great- not like in amateur racing. As evidence look at all the week long stage races where the leaders are seperated by only a few seconds. A small difference may be more significant to a top pro than to local amateur racers.
Bike handling can make a difference in descending confidence and thus speed. Sometimes that's a factor in a race.
Sorry that was a long winded way to say "it depends" and "we don't know".
Bikes are just tools to most pros. Few have any real interest in different options or components as they have grown up with having no/ very little say in things.
I guess the answer to the question is geometry as already mentioned but also component failure. Look to the snapped SRAM chains, jammed chains in FSA chainsets, jamming electronic groups, punctures at inopportune times, etc. Not quite what you asked but you can expand these failures to some of the most popular and successful frames such as Contador bumping on the top of his Tarmac TT during a fast descent and snapping the thing in two. Most of the time you won't see these riders on the podium but it is very feasible for a chain to snap at the end of a sprint (eg Cav a couple of times) or a rider to have to chase back on after component failure and waste vital energy which costs places at the end. I realise this isn't quite what you were asking but is probably the biggest factor wrt component options and race placings- to finish first, first you have to finish
I guess the answer to the question is geometry as already mentioned but also component failure. Look to the snapped SRAM chains, jammed chains in FSA chainsets, jamming electronic groups, punctures at inopportune times, etc. Not quite what you asked but you can expand these failures to some of the most popular and successful frames such as Contador bumping on the top of his Tarmac TT during a fast descent and snapping the thing in two. Most of the time you won't see these riders on the podium but it is very feasible for a chain to snap at the end of a sprint (eg Cav a couple of times) or a rider to have to chase back on after component failure and waste vital energy which costs places at the end. I realise this isn't quite what you were asking but is probably the biggest factor wrt component options and race placings- to finish first, first you have to finish
pdlpsher1 wrote:unable to find a good fit
Fit is almost everything.
Aero (on the frame) is almost nothing
blatchcorn wrote:This imo is the worst bike a ride a pro could ride and still podium on a grand tour
Frame: CAAD10
Groupset: Sora
Wheel set: RS81 c24
Assuming this was their only bike, they would need a grand tour with very minimal TT stages.
The difference between pro-level bikes is non-existent.
If there was a TT then they would lose significant time on that bike
The question can only be answered with reference to how close the competition is
We can run the maths, but the fact is that a bike such as the one you've described is going to be near enough 8kg and that is, in a very tight race, going to cost time, and potentially a podium place if it's tight enough.
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!!
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!!
Shrike wrote:In any given race where a pro has won a place on the podium, is there any chance he could not have had that same position on any other frame that was used in the race from another team.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: pro riders perform better on the bikes they feel more comfortable. So i.e. if Contador would be obliged to ride a Shiv instead of his s-works his performance might be compromised. But that has nothing to do with the performance of the bike or the frame itself. Its all in the mind and/or mentality of the rider.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Marin wrote:bungis wrote:If the frame's weight is so high that they can't get it down close to 6.8kg
There was an episode of the GCN show where they weighed pro bikes - there was only 1 that was close to 6.8, most were well above 7kg...
I think if the fit is good, the bike makes almost no difference, execpt for aero in a TT or breakaway.
I was really surprised by that video too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMsgzD-JFQs
