Well, at least with friction bar ends, you know they're probably paying attention to what their doing.

I don't know about other places, but around here,
it seems like the rider's brain often shuts down on the aero bars.

They seem oblivious to the road, other bikes, cars, you name it.
They wreck spectacularly, and fairly often.
I know it must hurt, but it's kind of funny, too.
We call it "racing to the scene of your next wipeout."

An earlier poster kind of beat me to it, but it's worth pointing out that in the 80s, the TdF winners averaged 23.1 MPH, while in the 2000s, they averaged 25 MPH. Even ignoring better roads, shorter stages, and EPO, the bike just isn't worth 5 MPH.

So the OP either got fitter, has a better position on the new bike, or never figured out how to operate the old bike correctly.

:lol:

I got a clarification on that friction shifting thing: They have the shifter for their front derailleurs set up as friction shifting. The shifter for the rear derailleur is indexed. That makes a lot more sense.

Of course, in pro-racing, various performance enhancing substances may have had something to do with the increase.

I agree. Their "programs" now encompass everything from aero to diet to sleep to tactics, all fed into computers and optimum decisions made. These guys know the watts it takes to pee. They get together in the off-season camps to develop strategies on riding, terrain, tactics, along with conditioning, bike setups, diet, body-mass indexes, recovery strategies, coordination of support and equipment, even just getting to and from the venues. The contending pro cyclists, these days, are managed machines, and often what separates them is their suffering psyche, and how their genetics react to their training regimen.

All other noise aside, riders like Armstrong and the top of the pack were competitive, driven beasts long before we knew who they were. They simply had the egines. Very early testing identified Contador's engine. Armstrong was killng 'em in 5K's and 10K's as a teenager. These engines were simply plugged into systems, and set upon bikes. The bike was the platform that displayed their considerable abilities to suffer, push themselves, and tactically dominate others on pretty much similar platforms.

What the guys in the 80's did, and into the 90's, was generate information that is now being used to make the entire peloton just under 8% faster. The bike is not the major factor in that 8%. Most team managers just don't want the bike to be the factor in not winning. Amateur cyclists tend to amplify that anxiety and make it bigger than it is.

I know where the blame for my lack of success in the TdF lies. It's definitely not my bike.

Also worth noting that the increase in pro racing speed has been fairly linear since the 1920s. Even during times when bicycle technology has gone essentially unchanged, speeds still increased at about the same rate. Of course, the nature of wind resistance tells us that the 0.7 MPH increase from the 90s to the 2000s was a lot more significant than the 1.1 MPH increase from the 50s to the 60s, so I don't believe that bicycle technology has had no impact whatsoever. It's just that that impact is nowhere near what some people seem to think.

Robbie & Six, very interesting & plausible comments. Thanks for posting!

I don't race, and don't know anything about modern bikes (rode a century on a 1954 one yesterday) but I do know it's a good idea to do what my boss tells me to do, buy what he tells me to buy, and so on.

And I submit receipts for it all.

So I'd say, if the boss is buying, then yes, you need a new bike. Otherwise, not so much.

I put on my road bike bianchi strada lx wheels fulcrum racing 7 with 9 speeds cassete. And crank 53-39. That bike is weight around 27 pounds with two bottle water. My bike is can compete with new carbon fiber bikes if have the same setup?

Sure.

Better training techniques and drugs have also helped.

So does anyone know if this "bobby1966" character is for real or just somebody's idea of fun?

I ride with a PowerTap on a regular basis.

At equal power, My P2C gets me about 2 - 2.5 mph faster over my road bike riding in the drops. That's with spoked wheels on both bikes. If I put on the Crosswinds, I can get a 3mph difference. Both are well fit and good quality wheels, hubs, etc... I would attribute 90% of that increased speed to the my more aero position on the Cervelo. You will not get this low and aero by slapping some aero bars on a road bike.

But, if you're going to get a TT bike to go faster, you have to be committed to staying aero the whole ride and it is not fun or comfortable.

I'm pretty average, but my best 40K was 56:56 and I got 3rd in my age group a few years back with 58:31. Both were on the P2C. My best time on a road bike was around 1:05 but I was much younger then too.

I am interesting in road steel bikes. I not know the weight of the frame. But i take the wheels out. I pickup from the floor and stay feel so heavy. Is worth i try make that bike lighter. Or i waste my time to try because the frame is too heavy. How much is can cost one vintage real racing bike. Or better one newer racing bike.

More than likely better roads. Roads haven't been paved forever. Wheel exchanges with team cars after flats hasn't happen forever. The further back in time, the longer the race, the slower the average.

I don't think bike "technology" has done squat.

I say "elevate from the norm". Did a half ironman on this old soldier this summer. If I was 25 years younger and had a chance at competing I might go for something more modern....nah, I don't think so!

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3898/...547baa75_z.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5557/...197d01a5_z.jpg

Pretty objective points. I like that.
Good figures, and nice point about aero. Above 18-19mph, it's a lot about aero when going all out.
You are the first person I ever met who was faster on Nimble Crosswinds.
I didn't think I was, and the whoop/whoop drove me nuts. It wasn't a long trip, but still, annoying.

This is the best post that has ever appeared on BF.