If that book goes to another printing, they can change the bottom line to "Former seven times Tour de France winner".

Some bookshops have already moved it from the biography section to the fiction section.

That percentage seems pretty high. I was imagining most answers in the 1-10% range. A ten percent increase in performance would be rather huge.

To rephrase the question another way: Do people think Contador could win the tour de france on an entry level road bike (i.e. specialized allez shimano sora)?

If he had to ride the Allez in the TT absolutely not.

Wld materially impact him on the climbing stages and without attempting the maths I don't think he's been so dominant that he'd win on an Allez.

It wouldn't just be the weight ... it would be worse than turning up 2.5kg or so overweight because the wheels are less aero, tyres are crappier, brakes are worse and so on. He's an equipment weenie and would miss ceramic bearings ... frankly he'd be absolutely appalled at the Sora equipped Allez so would likely throw the towel in half way round.

The answer is yes as long as the rest of the field have similar level bikes.

When comparing Contador with cat1, local pros, non-elite level riders he could beat them regardless of the bike he has.
He might even beat then using a heavier cyclo-cross bike.

Then in that case it is really not about the bike.

It only comes down to equipment choice when for individuals that are in a similar fitness level.

_________________
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

to add this favlor. am i looking to much into this / maybe not looking too much into this

that carrying weight on your body IS different than carrying weight on bike?

like 2 lbs in stomach vs 2 lbs extra on bike.... same weight needs to go up hills, but if weights is on body maybe your taxing muscles to keep your body up? (if ur are standing or something)

maybe for the top pro cyclists out there it does matter (like physically not psychologically) what equipment they have. i certainly believe it's likely that different (better) set up may add those 1-2% that make the difference between winning and loosing

as for the rest of us, well, a better sleep the night before helps perform better than the bike you ride. apart from saddle and tires (which can be a real pain in the a$$) i say it's not more than 5-10%

If the bike in question has a secret engine inside then it could make a winning a classic a little bit easier . Armstrong was a King dope or not .

I haven't seen alot of talk about stiffness. and a stiffer bike that transfers your juice to the pedals better will mean less energy expended for a given speed.

So my 2005 Allez (started as Sora, upgraded to Ultegra in 2009) that I could make the bottom bracket move 1.5-2 inches each pedal stroke would bleed alot more of my energy than my 2011 R5 (Rotor Crank/ Super Record) which I can barely get to move at all. that might not matter much on a 20 mile group ride, but on a 100+ mile Race that will add up to alot!

1.5 inches...wut?

I think stiffness is a red herring. All marketing. There has never been any evidence produced that slightly less stiff frames/components result in increased dissipation (loss) of energy. If your bike was literally made of overcooked spaghetti then it might be a problem, but a few (fractions of) percent stiffness difference - no effect. Many cyclists do prefer the feel of stiffer equipment - there's nothing wrong with that if you understand it doesn't make a wattage difference. Cyclist of all levels are starting to run tyres at lower pressures for similar reasons: stiffer isn't necessarily better- a little flex might save you energy from all those bumps in the road.

On a similar topic I find tighter shoes make you feel more powerful when that's not necessarily the case. When I switched to a looser fitting (and technically inferior) shoe I felt less locked to the pedals and less like my power was going straight into the bike - however my performance actually increased since I was able to relax more and be more comfortable.

[quote="AllAboutTheEngine"]
That percentage seems pretty high. I was imagining most answers in the 1-10% range. A ten percent increase in performance would be rather huge.
That you gone and focused on the most outlandish "yes" answer so far has me thinking you're just looking for a little reassurance that it's ok for you to splash some decent coin on an expensive bike, rather than look at the cheaper option.

Do it, nice bikes are nice.


btw, can we please leave Lance out of this.


And "1.5-2 inches"

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis

You don't need to quote the post above!

Opposite. Looking for reassurance to save my money and spend wisely! (And also I'm genuinely interested in what ppl will say)!

I find the industry hype an interesting topic.

Then have a look at what the majority are saying.

The law of 'diminishing returns' applies to bikes as much as anything else in life. Start off with the best fitting frame you can afford, the rest can be gradually upgraded over time.

I raced A grade on Tiagra. Believe me, it wasn't the groupset's fault when I would get dropped. In fact, it never missed a beat.

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis

By the way, even though we say something is XX%, it's quite abstract and all depends on what your starting point is. Also how do you convert $2000 of bike into extra VO2 max? Also does 100% refer to the enjoyment, or sheer speed? I know someone who collects dozens of TDF level bikes but rides 20 miles a week at 15mph. To him, the bike is probably 95%. So no need to get too hung up on the % number.

I went to a local race recently where part of the race was on cheap bikes with a large bag of rice (this is a fun portion of the race where people with $300 helmets are riding $150 bikes). Literally pedals and cranks were getting loose left and right and even falling off in some instances after a 2 mile lap. Pretty funny though.

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
twitter: Falco_bike
Facebook: falco.bike

In stage races and grand tours, the marginal gain achieved by having top tier equipments would add up pretty quickly so I think it matters for long races. Better wheels and smoother tires mean more watts saved,however insignificant that is, thus less fatigue and fresher legs. In the ProTour races, where they win by split-seconds every little advantages probably add up. For lower level races I would say not many people have exhausted their fitness capability to the point where equipments begin to be a deciding factor. A strong racer with RS80 wheels will be far ahead of any poorly trained riders with expensive Zipps and Lightweights in a 150km races anyway.

At lower level races, fitness, training, tactic, strategy should be where money and brain are focused on. Though like everybody else, it feels good to have a nice bike.

At top tier pro peloton with similar fitness and riders ability, equipment would amount to say 5-10% perhaps (if by equipments we also include proper fitting and maintenance etc. you wouldnt want a worn tyre on the peak of Alps du Huez). It's hard to speculate how much it matters for Pro because all of them use top tier parts.

At local race it would be less than 5% or zero providing you arent racing on a lose bike. I believe Sagan beat everyone in local race with his sister's bike when he was a kid.