I love arguing about things like these where science, beliefs, traditions and vanity collide!
FlatlandClimber wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:41 am
Just because they won doesn't mean they made the perfect choice.
There is no perfect choice. But they arguably made the best choice. Everything equipment related is a compromise (for me, the greatest compromise is cost...) and they obviously opt for something that is optimised for other things than you and I seem to choose. I've heard it a lot from the guys and gals responsible for tech and equipment in the pro ranks; for contenders, one could easily justify in the large perspective severely suboptimal choices in order to gain even small advantages in the situations where te race is decided. Sometimes, it is a measurable advantage. Sometimes it is only sensation. If it makes the spaceship go faster, that is what it will be.
Secondly, most of the other riders were on shallow wheels, too. So that theoretical advantage evaporates right there.
No, it just indicates a level playing field. In this case, another choice would potentially propose a (theoretical or practical) disadvantage instead. It's in the "If everyone's on X, no one is on X" theme (now it's aero bikes, twentyfive years ago it was...something else).
Thirdly, creating a gap early on is actually not that difficult, when you have their power numbers. It's more of a tactical question of "when". Just watch the UAE Tour, where most of the breakaways are started on the flat, and most of them are reeled in again. Not because of wheel choice, but because maintaining a gap is much more difficult than creating a gap.
Stage racing and broadcasted breakaways is a different animal, not always relevant from a sporting perspective. In general, the break happens because it is allowed to and caught because it is decided.
No! Their choice wasn't the fastest for the course. WTH.
But I have yet to see a convincing argument on how a 200g saving would be a greater advantage over this course, than a 60mm wheel is over a 30 or 40mm wheel.
Oh, it's right there for you - at the top of the podium! I'm teasing a bit, but the shallow wheels spent the least time on the course, had the highest average speed and finished first. What can be faster than that?
To underpin my point, the Teams know that Aero matters a lot on that course. Both WVA and MVDP were on their team's respective aero frame, not the lighter climbing frame.
Wheel choice is usually up to the rider and most of them opt for shallow... many of the Jumbo guys even ride the flat stages of tour of UAE on shallow wheels also, probably they know something all the other teams do wrong...
Perhaps the bumblebees haven't heard that rotational weight does not fly anymore?
Lastly, while humility is always a good thing, I feel like you are suggesting that they know something that my limited mind just can't comprehend.
Nopes, I'm just saying that when someone who brings even more skill, experience and knowledge than ourselves (and I guess you are just as involved, interested, educated and enthusiastic as I am) proposes a view or practice that contadicts your beliefs, one should not opt for a "why-not-like-me" but a "why-do-like-they" approach. I do, just as you, follow the findings of testing and science and for the type of riding that you and I do a "fast" setup is, well, faster (and looks better). But I'm not racing with a hundred others in a situation where my cycling performance is influencing my livelihood (then I'd be even poorer than today...) and I'm often more concerned with appearance than performance (Campag! Painted bikes! Shiny stuff!) and would therefore be caught with an aero bike and shallow wheels.