How much does the bike matter?

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

Geoff
Posts: 5163
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:25 am
Location: Canada

by Geoff

On this Board? About 98%

by Weenie


User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

I'm more concerned about the direct correlation between sock height and power output. Not to mention matching saddles and bar tape. Wasting watts if you don't.
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

indigo
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by indigo

Yeh TP gave you the answer on the first page. If you're looking to drop some cash on something bike related, consider a PM if you don't have one, a computrainer, a coach ..

Since training does matter.

aerozy
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Mountains, Portugal

by aerozy

^ Going back to the "less maintenaince" aspect I was refering to. Your telling me a DA mechanical group will shift pretty much the same as a tiagra in the long run? Thats not my experience. Lower groups are much more finicky and get out of tune more easily. They dont handle environmental issues as rain and dirt as well either. Well thats unless you maintain your bike every day. PS: I dont have a personal mechanic when I get home from a race.

And lets not go into Di2 electronic shifting. With that all you need to worry about is chain wear over time.

Im not saying that it will make you faster but the less time you worry about mechanical issues the better, no? We all know how annoying it can be in a race to have the shifting go all over the place

Edit: I guess my point is only valid for an amateur racer. A pro has a team backing them up. If a bike aint performing you swap the bike... end of story
Sunny cycling holidays in Portugal @ Cherry Cottage Vintage B&B

boughtwithblood
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:59 pm

by boughtwithblood

Considering how fast Coppi went up L'Alpe on the boat anchor he was riding, I'm guessing far far less than the marketing hype of bike manufacturers would have us believe.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7927
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Latest Bicycle Quarterly they couldn't observe a speed difference on a 3-minute climb between a Lynsky Ti with Ui2 and a steel randonneuring bike with fenders, a front rack & bag, and a generator hub, and weighed 3 kg more.

But then they spend all their time riding randonneuring bikes.

Message is there's no easy answer. But 5% sounds good upper bound for fitting bikes.

User avatar
AGW
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

by AGW

I'll let you know in a few months. I've been riding a tricked out mountain bike all over the roads here. I've got 1.25" Conti slicks on it, locked out front suspension, and a drop bar-ends. It's apples to oranges compared to a proper race bike, but I've about pushed it to its limits and drop strong riders frequently. I also get dropped by plenty of Freds on certain terrain.

With a CAAD10 between my legs soon, my Strava data will be interesting to look at.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

Stiffness:
A few old pros have mentioned that one of their favorite frames was the Vitus Aluminum, which was notoriously UNstiff...a complete noodle.
They claimed it was more comfortable so that they felt fresher when the final sprint finally came around. I think stiffness is a minor issue. Even when a frame flexes the enrgy is not "lost" because the frame springs back, "returning" the energy of the flex.

KWalker
Posts: 5892
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

Neither the idea that its all natural talent or all training are true.

To be at the elite level you need some basal measure of talent. I've talked extensively with some coaches and physio gurus in the area that have ran tests on a lot of riders that are now at the World Tour level, have won big races, or at the very least are on the elite domestic level. Not a single one has ever had a vo2 max of less than 78 ml/kg/min. Of the local elites, they've never seen anyone below 72. There is a required generic starting point that creates your trajectory over the long-term.

Getting away from that though its really easy to squander potential. I've seen it best described as a linear graph (by Coyle et. al who estimate this based on untrained estimated vo2 max, among other things. I can't post the information here as it is internal material for probably the biggest coaching service in the business and a big part of their methodology for training elite/pro riders):

y intercept is your basal vo2 max, y axis measures vo2 max or some measure of aerobic economy
x intercept is years
The point of y at x=10 is the max a person can possibly achieve. What they actually do can be pictured if you were to lay their PMC over that line with the PMC line becoming asymptotal over time because its extremely rare that a person ever reaches 100% given that we live a thing called life.

The waves and troughs over time represent increases in fitness, fatigue, load, and all markers thereof. Its been widely discussed that Janez Brakovich has an extremely high vo2 max and one of the highest potentials of any rider on the market right now, however, he has pissed many a DS and coach because he would sneak in extra training rides, diet too much, and was consistently off form/sick/overtrained when it mattered. He has the potential, but his troughs are too big and he will likely never hit it.

Then you have someone like Wiggins. Its taken him a long time to get where he's at and he's refined everything he does as a rider to get closer and closer to that potential.

Extrapolating this to the amateur everyone knows "that guy" that overtrains, works a stressful job, or races like a complete dipshit. His troughs come from detrimental personal choices.

Everyone also knows that random guy that doesn't really know what he's doing with his training, but he can go out and race into shape and absolutely kill it. He will never see his full potential because he will fail to realize how to have greater peaks and bring that line closer to its asymptote faster. I think that this is now why you see so many absurdly fast masters racers that made huge leaps after 20 years of riding by finally actually training in some kind of methodical manner.

Lastly there is the guy that has the low vo2 max or FTP or whatever, but still wins well because he's a tactical genius or lives in an area where all races play to his strengths. His y intercept is lower and his maximal y value is lower, but he's super close to it because he's correctly identified and raced his strengths time and time again and can get results. Pull him out of his comfort zone and he's dropped or not very successful. A local elite racer/former football player comes to mind- absurd sprint, but if the road goes up longer than 2 minutes he's shat out the back. No surprise that he is great at crits and that's about it.

The bike only matters if it contributes to these troughs somehow. If you're a cat 2 trying to get your 1 and suck at stage races then TT'ing with clip ons in an ill fit position on your road bike with shallow wheels will produce a trough when your competition has at the very least efficient fits that they can produce power and speed on. Most people will never be in this situation and when they lack poor inward control they look outward. This is again why you see more cat 4's and masters racers on really awesome equipment- they simply haven't figured out what they need to change to produce peaks and assume its something outward.

Things also take time as well, you can't rush progression or perfection.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5438
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

KWalker wrote:I think that this is now why you see so many absurdly fast masters racers that made huge leaps after 20 years of riding by finally actually training in some kind of methodical manner.
Yeah, that and PEDs.

User avatar
shoopdawoop
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:37 am

by shoopdawoop

@KWalker- the Vo2Max numbers that you are talking about is that trained or untrained?

kulivontot
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm

by kulivontot

If you suck at riding bikes now, you'll suck at riding $10,000 bikes too. If you consistently beat your buddies most of the time, you'll notice the few that you are beaten by better equipment. But given that you're asking the question, I don't think pro equipment will help you.

KWalker
Posts: 5892
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

shoopdawoop wrote:@KWalker- the Vo2Max numbers that you are talking about is that trained or untrained?

Trained in all the cases I know of. Sample size isn't huge 2-3 World Tour riders, a bunch of domestic pros, quite a few pro triathletes, and a lot of cat 1 or 2 cyclists with a lot of wins under their belt.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

OJ
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:25 pm
Location: Winterpeg

by OJ

I would hope that the ml's are for a trained rider. Otherwise I suck even more.

But as for a bike. Performance difference between a $1500 and $10000 bike is 5% or less, uphill or downhill. Well as long as we are talking about similar type bikes.
http://demarere.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

by Weenie


User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8473
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Geelong
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

My Vo2 is 58 at last measure.

I'll be opening a vein or two tonight. Might as well end it all now.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post