Tiglath

Froome just won his third Tour and nowhere is a mention of his Pinarello.

Whereas in car racing the car Marque is up there with the winners name or sometimes even above.

"Lotus won the GP"

"Ferrari does it again!"

Not because I have an F8, which is an amazing bike (unfortunately, when I am on it no one thinks
'Tour de France,' but 'French fries' rather) but that is besides the point.

Maelochs

When I race bikes, I usually lose. When I race cars, I usually lose worse.

gregf83 

It's not about the bike...

mcours2006

Well, like they say, it's all about the engine. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year, well at least over at Ferrari, on R&D. The driver just has to stay in relatively good shape and keep his weight down. It's no wonder much emphasis is placed on the equipment.

Would Froome have won if he were riding a Trek? Probably. Would Lewis Hamilton have won the driver championship last year if he drove for Red Bull instead of Mercedes? No way.

And they don't always say the manufacturer. The driver still does come first.

Maelochs

I think also ... the bikes are basically carbon copies ... (rimshot.) None of the bikes have any characteristics which set them apart from one another, and only an expert can even tell them apart.

laf

Would Froome have won if he were riding a Specialized Tarmac ?
Yes

Would Froome have won if he were riding a Cervelo S5?
Yes

Would Froome have won if he were riding a Supersix Evo?
Yes

There is about no difference in the bikes.

mpath

But probably only for Team Sky.

Beerope

Why dont i see Aleoca bikes being winning, ever.

seau grateau

Bikes are better than cars.

K.Katso

Because you are talking about factory teams with your example. The factory effectively owns the team and promotes itself. Pinarello is just a bike sponsor, but they are not the team owner/operator and not even the title sponsor. Sky is the title sponsor. If you want to see an example of what you just described, see the teams Trek-Segafredo, Cannondale-Drapac, or Bora-Argon18.

Maelochs

Not so sure about that. Plenty of non-factory teams---by far the largest margin--and at least in sports car racing, the make and model of the car is more important than the driver, and the sponsor is an afterthought. Extreme Speed Motorsports runs a Ligier, and is sponsored by tequila Patron ... and never would one say, "Did you see that patron car?!" it would be, "Wow, that ESM Ligier was quick today."

NASCAR, however ... people know that Chevy and Ford and Toyota are mostly just decal differences, so the focus is on the driver. F1 is about 50-50 because each team builds its own car. Indycar is described by team and driver---the sponsors switch a lot all the chassis are identical, and there are only two different engines. but in all auto racing, the car makes Huge difference. if the car isn't set up right, the best driver in the world can't win in it. bike racing, so long as the fit was right, all the riders could select bikes randomly and do exactly the same ride ... well, Chris Froome has his ovalized chain rings, but otherwise ...

TrojanHorse

Well, at least we're not posting spoilers in the 41... thanks, *******.

Bike Gremlin

I can't agree with you. For car racing, fitness is important. Also skill and strong mind. That's what makes the difference. Car does play a role, a significant one, but top drivers all have similar cars, and what makes the difference is the driver as much as the car.

colombo357

So many reasons. In addition to what others have said (and reiterating some):

1. The bike companies aren't putting in the $$$. In cycling, the gear manufacturers are rarely the title sponsors. They don't have the money.

2. Not all auto racing fits your description. American NASCAR and Indy car comes to mind and is more similar to cycling than European auto racing.

3. Anyone who really cares about the make of the frame will pay attention. Most will not.

4. Components and wheels account for more than 1/2 the value of the bike. Remember Argos-Shimano?

According to Lance (take with several grains/blocks of salt), Trek grew 10X in size during his 7-win TDF streak, and they haven't been a title sponsor until recently. Even just a few years ago, their team as a development squad eclipsed by Radioshack.

redfooj

lets not conflate sponsorship and commercial aspects of equipment vs performance aspect of equipment.

some have already alluded, the car is monumental in series that allow for more differentiation (e.g. f1 over nascar). its not to do that a make like "ferrari" or "mercedes" is a title sponsor, but the actual end product of chassis, engine, tuning.

a haas or manor or sauber car will finish on the bottom half of the race. the results of a team pair - barring incidents - are tightly clustered. and despite being driven by ex champs jenson button and fernando alonso (still widely considered top driving talent), they basically wont place ahead of the PAIR of merc/red bull/ferrari this year.

auto is man + machine.

bike racing is purely man. when sagan wins a sprint by less than a meter, its not because his integrated stem and its 3w savings contributed to that gap over a 200km distance, and bora and bh and merida riders arent losing mountain stages because their less-prominent bikes arent as responsive to microacceleration put in during mountain stages.... no matter what Joe Fred may think

mcours2006

Then we'll agree to disagree.

You can say with confidence that Hamilton (currently #1 in F1 standing) has a better car than Sainz (#10), but you can't ever say that winner of the TDF has a better bike than the guy who finished 10th.

As someone has already stated, in NASCAR is the series where the driver skill plays a much bigger role as all the cars are supposed to be stock.

F1 is on the other end of that spectrum. The annual budget of Ferrari/Mercedes and some of the less well to-do teams are hundreds of millions of dollars. This is why they are always at the top of the standings, regardless of driver.

Stadjer

It's not regardless of driver and the money spent doesn't guarantee the top of the standings either. But the car is about 99% of the lap time, top drivers are paid 30 millon a year, because that 1% makes the difference between winning and losing between comparable cars. And the driver can also help to develop the car and make it faster.

It's just that in F1 the engineers are competitors too. If you compare it to cycling you shouldn't compare the car to the bike, you should compare the car to the team of cyclists that supports Froome for example.

StanSeven

I agree with everything you said except NASCAR cars are stock. The only thing stock about those cars is the logo on the manufacturer sticker.

TimothyH

@Slaninar is 100% correct.

Anyone who says that the driver makes little or no difference simply doesn't know what they are talking about.


-Tim-

mpath

"Back in the day", a professional driver could be drinking, partying, and womanizing the night before a race (and drivers could be fat). Nowadays, you can't. Fitness is key, simple as that.

Bike Gremlin

The more a sport requires skill and strong mentality for good results, the more chance people who drink/smoke/overweight have of being good at it despite their "vices". They become a smaller penalty, but if they are that good, it doesn't make a difference.

Football: Paul Gascoigne - one of the best ever, always drunk, always overweight
Basketball: Muggsy Bogues - as short as it gets, yet one of the best ever

etc...

Car racing is serious, hard sport, don't underestimate those drivers - they are serious sportsmen, only different from runners and cyclists. And, like you said, nowadays, it takes really good fitness as well - competition is very hard, many good drivers who are also light and fit.

Not underestimating cyclists as well, just saying that it's not all about the car. Just like in cycling it's not all about the team, training conditions etc - it takes a champion to be a champion.

redfooj

You mean the fact that last season Mercedes finished 1-2, Ferrari 3-4, Williams 5-6, Redbull 7-8, Force India 9-10 (in finals standing and almost every race) is purely coincidental?

or by intergalactical level of genius by team managers to pair virtually identically skilled drivers together?

PepeM

We really need to stretch the definition of 'one of the best ever' for it to include any of those two. You could at least have chosen Maradona.

mcours2006

Not to nitpick, but Muggsy Bogues one of the best ever? Really? Not Chamberlain, O'Neal, Jordan, Bryant, James...?

The shortest ever, perhaps...not even close to one of the best ever.

redfooj

Muggsy Bogues is the greatest <1.65m Charlotte Hornet ever