Professional Cycling - Bikes of the Tour de France

Hey guys I am wondering if anyone knows if or where you can find information on the bikes the pro's in the Tour ride.

I am most interested in the frames they use. It seems like people always say that "race" bikes are not good for long distances. They are to stiff in whatever direction and uncomfortable for long distances. The thing is in the tour they ride like 80 miles a day. Is this because the pro's just deal with any pain because they are in it for the win? They do ride for like 3 weeks straight so is it wrong to assume they need to be comfortable?

Also I am interested if you can find out what saddles they (or a majority) of them use. Same reason. There saddles are all the lightest weight minimalist ones out there yet they ride so much.

I am just a little confused with the comfort vs. performance thing when these guys ride way more then anyone on these forums. They should be the ones needing all the comfort they can get yet they seem to have all the most uncomfortable products out there.

Thanks

They're usually riding a lot more than 80 miles a day and they get paid to win, not be comfortable.
Suffering is a BIG part of racing.

Boonen's Tarmac:



There's lotsa good info in the "Tech" section of cyclingnews (http://www.cyclingnews.com/).

They're not necessarily comfortable, they're built for efficiency. And their bodies are tuned, as best as they can be, for riding 130-160+ miles per day for days on end. Their frames are stiff, especially in the bottom bracket area, but, as a nice accident of technology, the carbon fiber material they use, by and large, is a pretty comfortable material.

Still, there's only so much comfort to be found on the Tour. Notice the drop-out rate of the world's best riders. While it's impossible for us, it's nearly so for them too.

You can get those same frames, by the way. Depending on the manufacturer, and the year, you can purchase the same exact bike, set up pretty close as the pro bikes. You've got to do a bit of reasearch, though.

The Orbea Orca of Euskaltel Euskadie

Leipheimer's Madone

David Millar's TT bike

Leipheimer's Madone



Maybe it's the seatmast effect, but it looks like there's a lot less seatpost showing on this bike than I'm used to seeing on pro's bikes recently. I'm guessing he's REAAAALLY stretched out with less drop than many?

Maybe it's the seatmast effect, but it looks like there's a lot less seatpost showing on this bike than I'm used to seeing on pro's bikes recently. I'm guessing he's REAAAALLY stretched out with less drop than many?

short rider = less post showing


BTW, what's the "seatmast effect"? I've been folliowing pro cycling for 20 years but that's a new one.

short rider = less post showing


BTW, what's the "seatmast effect"? I've been folliowing pro cycling for 20 years but that's a new one.

See how the bike *almost* has an integrated seatpost, but it's got a stubby post sticking up from the collar? The integrated bit is the seatmast.

How much of a trouble is it for a rider from one team, using one brand of bikes for the entire team, and then switching to another team that uses a different bike? Is it a big deal, is there a noticable change in their ride efficiency?

See how the bike *almost* has an integrated seatpost, but it's got a stubby post sticking up from the collar? The integrated bit is the seatmast.


Meh....Colnago was making those for Urs Freuler and Edwig Van Hooydonck in the '80s.

The Orbea Orca of Euskaltel Euskadie




Not all of the team is using the Orca.....I am not sure why either...last year they rode the Opal...this year I have seen a new Orca though...still not sure why all the different models...

I think Specialized built a custom frame for Tom Boonen for the Tour. Also, the riders are usually riding in a tight pack with all the drafting/aero benefits that entails (not that it makes the rides easy or anything).

http://www.cyclingnews.com/ always has articles on the bikes of the tour.

How about this....

AG2R Prevoyance- b'Twin Racing (FC700 Pro)
Agritubel- MBK (RD1200)
Astana- BMC (pro machine)
Barloworld- Cannondale (System Six)
Bouygues Telecom- Time (VXR Proteam)
Caisse D' Epargne- Pinarello (dogma)
Cofidis- Time (VXR Proteam)
Credit Agricole- Look (535)
CSC- Cervelo (Soloist)
Discovery Channel- Trek (Madone)
Euskatel/Euskadi- Orbea (Opal)
Francaise Des Jeux- Lapierre (X-Lite 500)
Gerolsteiner- Specialized (Tarmac)
Lampre/Fondital- Wilier (Cento)
Liquigas- Cannondale (system six)
Milram- Colnago (Extreme Power)
Predictor/Lotto- Ridley (Noah)
Quickstep/Innergetic- Specialized (Tarmac)
Rabobank- Colnago (Extreme Power)
Saunier Duval/Prodir- Scott (Addict)
T-Mobile- Giant (TCR advanced team)

Saddles are mostly Flite's or something close, a lot of Arione's, with a smattering of SLR's in there.

As road frames go, some are pretty nice rides, the Look, Time, and Trek products being comfortable for long distances, as was the older Orca, and the Lapierre. The new Scott Addict also tested very plush bike for long rides, the old Scott CR-1 was pretty harsh, the BMC is noted as being a hard riding bike also.

Tarmac, Giant, and Soloist are in the middle.

^^^The Pin's are a combo platter of Dogma's and Paris depending on the rider.

I've ridden a fair amount on a number of the frames above and have friends who are owners of several more. I'm currently on a Time and it's an easy bike to get on for 4-6 hours.

Leipheimer's Madone


Um, a bit off topic, but what's supporting the bike in that photo? :o

How'd they do that?

They just roll it out there, then snap a quick photo before the bike falls down...

... actually, there's a well-placed stick (http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/probikes/index.php?id=/photos/2007/tech/probikes/levi_leipheimer_discovery_madone/Levi_Leipheimers_Discovery_Channel_Trek_Madone_cockpit) on the non-driveside pedal

Saddles are mostly Flite's or something close, a lot of Arione's, with a smattering of SLR's in there. .


team sponsorship restricts saddle choice for most of the bunch

Meh....Colnago was making those for Urs Freuler and Edwig Van Hooydonck in the '80s.

When you look at team bikes just remember, most guys will adjust their own seat when they go pick up their bike. A handful of pictures on cyclingnews this year of people doing it (I know I saw one of levi doing it).

Read the article about boonens bike on cycling news. I'm too lazy to link it, but it's on the top left of the page.

Velonews' TDF Guide has a team by team guide with the bikes they ride.

This is the frame T Mobile rides, although the color scheme is reversed.

the boss of the bosberg :eek: !

ed rader

How much of a trouble is it for a rider from one team, using one brand of bikes for the entire team, and then switching to another team that uses a different bike? Is it a big deal, is there a noticable change in their ride efficiency?
I've read that some riders use their preferred brand of bikes, then have them re-badged with decals from their own team's sponsor's logos.

Also, to answer the OP's question about the tiny saddles, the riders use those because there's less surface area for their legs to rub against and chafe. The reason for using hard saddles sounds counter-intuitive, too, but with a squishy saddle, your rump will sink into it and experience more overall pressure. The harder saddle keeps the pressure limited to your sit bones.

I've read that some riders use their preferred brand of bikes, then have them re-badged with decals from their own team's sponsor's logos.

I think you have to have a lot of clout to do that; but it is in a few pro's contracts that they can select their own equipment in some instances. Armstrong's 1999 TT bike was a Lightspeed Blade Armstrong paid for himself and had it repainted with Trek logos. And Ullrich's 2004 TT bike was made by Andy Wasler. Wasler has also made bikes for Rebellin and Bradley McGee, which were repainted to look as they were made by their respective sponsors.

in the days of lugged frames and no www that was easy. these days it's nigh impossible.


100% correct.

I think you have to have a lot of clout to do that; but it is in a few pro's contracts that they can select their own equipment in some instances. Armstrong's 1999 TT bike was a Lightspeed Blade Armstrong paid for himself and had it repainted with Trek logos. And Ullrich's 2004 TT bike was made by Andy Wasler. Wasler has also made bikes for Rebellin and Bradley McGee, which were repainted to look as they were made by their respective sponsors.


Last year Axel Merx used his dads bikes, rebadged.

Last year Axel Merx used his dads bikes, rebadged.


Was this a serious comment?

and does anybody have a picture of Jan's 04 TT bike?

Was this a serious comment?

and does anybody have a picture of Jan's 04 TT bike?

no

and

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour04.php?id=photos/2004/tour04/stage19/S-ULLRICHCRONO-5173

OOPS - Walser, not Wasler.

Also, it looks like he used the Walser in 2003 for the Tours of Germany and France. So I could be wrong about 2004 also.

Hi... anybody agree with in that the 6k+ trek bike sold in stores as replica of armstrong's bike is not the real deal? I mean... i dont denied the bike looks neat but the angles look like coming from a 1950's bike, the ride must be soft and must turn quite slow... just the opposite than lance for sure might like. I remember the guy from the store telling me "yes is the real deal, just like the one he used, do you have 6 grands??"

I really doubt an old fat fart with 6 grands in the pocket might be able to ride the real deal, especially down hill... well i havent seen al old fat fart going downhill at 100 + kms/h anyways. Im quite sure lance's bikes were fast but not comfortables at all, after all his bikes were designed to ride fast not to be comfortable.

thanks...

Hey guys I am wondering if anyone knows if or where you can find information on the bikes the pro's in the Tour ride.

I am most interested in the frames they use. It seems like people always say that "race" bikes are not good for long distances. They are to stiff in whatever direction and uncomfortable for long distances. The thing is in the tour they ride like 80 miles a day. Is this because the pro's just deal with any pain because they are in it for the win? They do ride for like 3 weeks straight so is it wrong to assume they need to be comfortable?

Also I am interested if you can find out what saddles they (or a majority) of them use. Same reason. There saddles are all the lightest weight minimalist ones out there yet they ride so much.

I am just a little confused with the comfort vs. performance thing when these guys ride way more then anyone on these forums. They should be the ones needing all the comfort they can get yet they seem to have all the most uncomfortable products out there.

Thanks


Except for time trials the races are usually 100-140 miles in length. However at the speeds these guys are racing they are only in the saddle for about four to six hours. ALso, the lighter you weigh and the stronger you pedal the less weight you put on the saddle and on your butt.

LOVE IT!!!! When bike racers were men and pharmacists were afraid....

However at the speeds these guys are racing they are only in the saddle for about four to six hours. .


"Only..."


lol.

Hi... anybody agree with in that the 6k+ trek bike sold in stores as replica of armstrong's bike is not the real deal? I mean... i dont denied the bike looks neat but the angles look like coming from a 1950's bike, the ride must be soft and must turn quite slow... just the opposite than lance for sure might like. I remember the guy from the store telling me "yes is the real deal, just like the one he used, do you have 6 grands??"

I really doubt an old fat fart with 6 grands in the pocket might be able to ride the real deal, especially down hill... well i havent seen al old fat fart going downhill at 100 + kms/h anyways. Im quite sure lance's bikes were fast but not comfortables at all, after all his bikes were designed to ride fast not to be comfortable.

thanks...

Trek has always gone through great lengths to remind people that the bike Armstrong rode is the same one off the shelf that anyone can buy. There's nothing custom about it except for the way it's set up; but nothing any rider could not do.

Lance's bikes were not fast; Lance was fast. Or slow, or smart, or reserved; whatever was called for at the time.

I'm tired and sore after one hour in a car but not after 5 hours on a bike. Cars are lot worse than bikes.

I really dig the MBK. That team has been in the breakaway about every stage. The back of the bike is sort of odd.

me likes!!!! :p

http://www.mbk-cycles.com/

Trek has always gone through great lengths to remind people that the bike Armstrong rode is the same one off the shelf that anyone can buy.

You have it the wrong way... They built him the prototype bikes THEN they would put 'em on the racks. Big difference... Lance didn't get his bikes from Performance. :D

You have it the wrong way... They built him the prototype bikes THEN they would put 'em on the racks. Big difference... Lance didn't get his bikes from Performance. :D


LOL thats for sure!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

You have it the wrong way... They built him the prototype bikes THEN they would put 'em on the racks. Big difference... Lance didn't get his bikes from Performance. :D

Actually, no I don't "have it the wrong way." I said nothing about Armstrong's assistance if the development of any of their frames. All I said was that it's the same frame and bike that anyone can buy; regardless of how it got on the shelf. Besides, Armstrong's first Tour bike was a 5200 which was an off-the-shelf model. The 5200 was being sold in 1998; before Armstrong had proven himself as a future Grand Tour winner.

And I have a photo of Armstrong wearing a jersey from Performance; is that close enough? :)

If you pick up the current issue of some of the major cycling magazines, you should be able to find information about the team bikes.

However, the "official" team bike is not the only bike the top riders use. The major contenders often have three bikes: their everyday bike, a mountain stage bike, and a time trial bike. If a top rider does not like the (saddle, pedals, tires,) provided by their "official" sponsor, they will use the equipment they prefer, and then try to hide the brand or put a "fake" label on it.

In some cases, top contenders who are sponsored by "Brand T", will ride a bike built by "Brand L", and just have it repainted with "Brand T" colors.

And, it is routine to replace the wheels of the "official" bike with wheels best suited to the needs of an individual stage, even if the wheels are not those provided by the sponsor.

Although "top" riders get some control over what they ride, the average rider does not. They ride what the sponsor gives them. At least two or three teams in last years Tour had bikes that were not really of the same quality as say, a Trek Madone. But, you gotta ride what your sponsor tells you to ride.

Sadly, bikes don't make the rider. About 1997, I bought a Trek with the OCLV carbon frame. A couple years later, I saw Lance Armstrong win the Tour de France riding on a bike with an identical frame and fork. For some reason, that bike was going about twice as fast when Lance was riding it.

How about this....

Mavic Neutral Support - Cannondale (CAAD 9)

TCS

All I said was that it's the same frame and bike that anyone can buy;
Exactly, which is how all the manufacturers operate.

It seemed like you were singling out Trek as a manufacturer that didn't provided a custom bike for Armstrong... Which was weird b/c I remember Lance being super picky about his bikes and was very much a part of the design and prototype process.

Ok, back on topic. Bikes of the Tour...

It seems like people always say that "race" bikes are not good for long distances.

For some of us, if we were planning to ride 100 miles/160 km, it would be a one-time charitable event, or a tour with luggage, and we would want a more comfortable bike, a bit more upright, and perhaps designed to handle well when loaded. So for us, a racing bike is not good "for long distances". However if you're a professional cyclist racing that 160 km, you want a bike designed for that kind of racing.

Cancellara's Cervelo

Boonen's Tarmac:



There's lotsa good info in the "Tech" section of cyclingnews (http://www.cyclingnews.com/).

such a bad ass bike. it almost looks muscular, like an old triumph motorcycle, the black color.. i want to ride this thing, just to see what its like.

For some of us, if we were planning to ride 100 miles/160 km, it would be a one-time charitable event, or a tour with luggage, and we would want a more comfortable bike, a bit more upright, and perhaps designed to handle well when loaded. So for us, a racing bike is not good "for long distances". However if you're a professional cyclist racing that 160 km, you want a bike designed for that kind of racing.

160km? that's an easy day, these guys are riding up to 240km/day. "Comfort" bikes are for people who won't get into shape, and like to blame the bike for discomfort.

If want a comprehensive, open-minded thread about TDF bikes, look here:

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32329&sid=4caa7c37fbdc7f36eedbcb3901db7a68

160km? that's an easy day, these guys are riding up to 240km/day. "Comfort" bikes are for people who won't get into shape, and like to blame the bike for discomfort.

People can get in shape on any bike they want to, but most fitness riders will prefer something more lively than a beach cruiser, yet not as aggressive as a racer. Bikes like the Trek Pilot (http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/subcategory.php?c=1&s=2)are supposedly more comfortable than a hard core racing bike but still suitable for fast recreational riding.