Professional Cycling For the Fans - Olympic bikes

It never occurred to me to look while the mens' road race was on, but what bikes were they riding? Did Wiggins and Froome ride their Sky Pinarellos and David Miller his Garmin Cervello, for example?

Apparently not http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/07/27/britains-mysterious-olympic-bikes/

Apparently not http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/07/27/britains-mysterious-olympic-bikes/

Dead link.

Millar was on a Cervelo

Wiggo and Cav were riding bikes that didn't seem to have any brand marked on them.

http://bit.ly/OigQ9a

Hopefully this works; I stopped using firefox 'cause of how it truncates links.

Here's another description:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/534102/bradley-wiggins-uksi-olympic-bike.html

And that stem may be aero, but man is it fugly.

Millar was definitely riding a Cervelo

264388

Why doesn't the bike seem to matter in cycling?


I mean, in most forms of auto and motorcycle racing, like F1 and Moto GP, the cars and bikes play a huge role in how well a driver can do and thus the car or bike itself has a starring role and is talked about alot during the race. Not so in cycling it seems. You rarely, if ever, hear the commentators mention the bike a rider rides, or the components or the tires. I think that cycling coverage is missing out on what could be a big part of the interest by ignoring the bikes themselves. Techies and mechanical nerds would love to hear and talk about the machines themselves and fans of specific brands such as Colnago would like to root for their machines and Look, Bianche and Trek fans theirs. But without any coverage, that interest is lost...

Why doesn't the bike seem to matter in cycling?


I mean, in most forms of auto and motorcycle racing, like F1 and Moto GP, the cars and bikes play a huge role in how well a driver can do and thus the car or bike itself has a starring role and is talked about alot during the race. Not so in cycling it seems. You rarely, if ever, hear the commentators mention the bike a rider rides, or the components or the tires. I think that cycling coverage is missing out on what could be a big part of the interest by ignoring the bikes themselves. Techies and mechanical nerds would love to hear and talk about the machines themselves and fans of specific brands such as Colnago would like to root for their machines and Look, Bianche and Trek fans theirs. But without any coverage, that interest is lost...

Uh, it's pretty easy to figure out why the cars/bikes in F1 and Motogp are a big deal. Because they hold the engine. Each manufacturer is going to be a bit different. Also, handling/suspension plays a role because they are going so fast. Engine in cycling is the person. The bike is so light in cycling, almost all are nimble enough to swing around the corners when needed. The only time the bike really is paid attention to is for races like Paris Roubaix, where the stiffer, yet more compliant they are, will make a difference.

Uh, it's pretty easy to figure out why the cars/bikes in F1 and Motogp are a big deal. Because they hold the engine. Each manufacturer is going to be a bit different. Also, handling/suspension plays a role because they are going so fast. Engine in cycling is the person. The bike is so light in cycling, almost all are nimble enough to swing around the corners when needed. The only time the bike really is paid attention to is for races like Paris Roubaix, where the stiffer, yet more compliant they are, will make a difference.

True enough.

But I have to believe that the manufacturers of TDF quality bikes have differences between them. There must be different frame geometry, tube shapes, tires and drivetrain components on each bike that make some difference's in how a bike handles, or climbs, goes downhill and sprints.

And the manufacturers themselves would really benefit from some airtime too...

And that stem may be aero, but man is it fugly.

I'm surprised that stem is UCI legal.

Why doesn't the bike seem to matter in cycling?


I mean, in most forms of auto and motorcycle racing, like F1 and Moto GP, the cars and bikes play a huge role in how well a driver can do and thus the car or bike itself has a starring role and is talked about alot during the race. Not so in cycling it seems. You rarely, if ever, hear the commentators mention the bike a rider rides, or the components or the tires. I think that cycling coverage is missing out on what could be a big part of the interest by ignoring the bikes themselves. Techies and mechanical nerds would love to hear and talk about the machines themselves and fans of specific brands such as Colnago would like to root for their machines and Look, Bianche and Trek fans theirs. But without any coverage, that interest is lost...

Maybe because many of them are built in China or Taiwan in the same plants that build frames for multiple "manufacturers".

Millar was definitely riding a Cervelo



Good sleuthing. I have found another photo with Miller on Cervello while his teammates are on the black bikes.

264446

Vino won the GOLD on a most awesome and beautiful red Specialized...Tarmac? Allez?

Hard to tell...

I mean, in most forms of auto and motorcycle racing, like F1 and Moto GP, the cars and bikes play a huge role in how well a driver can do and thus the car or bike itself has a starring role and is talked about alot during the race.F1: 80% car 20% driver
MotoGP: 80% Rider 20% bike

Actually a bike can play a huge difference. But those situations are where the basic philosophy for the race comes into play. For example a full disk rear wheel is optimal for a TT, at least in calm air. Gusty cross winds and it can mean you go down and even if you do not you may lose more than you gain becaseu of close calls ot jsut effort to adjust to the buffeting.

Or even a TT on a technical course, TT bike or normal racing bike or somewhere inbetween.

It seems to me that in these situations the bike and the decisions made and why is usually discussed quite a bit.

I thought most pro riders in the Olympics were riding their trade team equipment and in many cases their helmets.

F1 cars are constructor team prototypes and until this year it was the same for MotoGP premier class bikes. Some are factory backed teams but the cars/motos are still one-offs whereas in cycling they use gear most people can get. And the difference between top tier bicycles is not enough to win or lose a race when you exclude mechanical failures.

F1 cars are constructor team prototypes and until this year it was the same for MotoGP premier class bikes. Some are factory backed teams but the cars/motos are still one-offs whereas in cycling they use gear most people can get.
Yup
But then there's SuperBike

F1: 60% car 20% driver 10% sponsorship money

FTFY

Also, while I'd like to cheer for "certain" brands it gets kinda weird as the riders I like don't ride the bikes I like and, like (not American) football, my loyalty is with the individual, not the team. Still, is it really necessary? You can usually read the downtube as they ride past. The brands also promote themselves: every cycling website has a pro rider in a victory celebration plastered on their home page.

As for brands/riders I noticed Cancellara was riding a Swiss-liveried Trek and Vinokourov was riding a red Specialized, confirming the whole "ride what what they usually ride" theory. I'm not surprised Vinokourov won; people who ride red Specialized bikes know what's up. Rockhopper, Tarmac - what's the difference :D

I would think that a bike in cycling vs a car in auto racing differ in that the base efficiency of a bike and car are different. I know bikes can be 95% effcient, cars I doubt are anywhere near that stock. So, I think with cars there's more room to make gains. Also, cycling obviously is more dependant on human endurance limits than auto racing. All of the top manufacurers make bikes of similar designs, weights and quality. There may be a small difference in performance of the bikes but all the top riders have access to all the same components or very similar ones.

Stock cars are regulated into essentially uniform performance. I don't know F1-is it a technological free market? I think bikes are also essentially regulated into uniform performance. A .01% efficiency gain that produces measurable differences in outcome at hundreds of mph isn't going to do much on a mtn top finish.

Is it true shimano uses footage Andy Schleck's mis-shift to sell their DI shifting?

I have to believe that the manufacturers of TDF quality bikes have differences between them.
No, you don't. Because there is almost no real difference.

Components, geometry, tires, wheels, they're all nearly identical. Or at least close enough that it doesn't make a difference in terms of performance.

I mean, really, Sky is using Pinarello Dogma 2's. Who would look at those frames and say they're more aerodynamic than a Cervelo S5? And yet, Cav still crushed the competition (when he had some leadout), Wiggo crushed it on the TT's, and the team nailed 1 and 2 on the podium.

It's not the bike. It's the riders, their abilities, their handling skills, their tactics and teamwork.