|
Originally Posted by robnol
(Post 20800127)
who does the race across America...gotta be more prize money to be had doing other bike races
But, back to my point; a recumbent ridden by any pro, current or past, would be spanked by just about any run of the mill Cat I or II rider up Alpe d'Huez. So, aerodynamics aren't everything all the time. |
Originally Posted by robnol
(Post 20799802)
im not of the sheep mentality if I see bs I call it out....don't really care what others think about it...although we do live in the snowflake world
See, now this is a post that makes absolutely no sense. If you don't care what others think, why are you posting? What exactly are you saying should happen? A standard issue bicycle and kit for everyone? My guess is that the large majority of people paying the big bucks for bikes and kit probably get very minimal speed gains if any, but like the feel of wearing and riding stuff that makes the look like pros. The speed advantages of most of this stuff are oversold by marketers, this is not news. If you're a frustrated racer, concentrate on riding the stuff you can afford as fast as possible. There will always be someone faster than you who are willing/able to spend more. The playing field isn't going to get leveled no matter what "BS" you call. BTW, no one ever accused sheep of being aero-equipment obsessed. |
Speaking in generalities, it is usually the person who invests large amounts of money in a sport who will also invests large amounts of time. The combination makes for success. However, we all know exceptions.
|
Originally Posted by robnol
(Post 20799979)
I see some of the new colnago bikes are over 10,000
I see some of the colnagos go for over 11,000 dollars ….where would u be without that god awful expensive advantage....im guessing at the back of the pack Like I wrote, I am old, short and overweight, but I go in style. :thumb: |
Originally Posted by ljsense
(Post 20800259)
I like one of the opening lines of "The Rider" which went something like: You can tell the fast racers just by their faces, but only if you already know them.
|
Originally Posted by ljsense
(Post 20800259)
I like one of the opening lines of "The Rider" which went something like: You can tell the fast racers just by their faces, but only if you already know them.
"When I go out with someone for the first time I immediately glance at his legs to know how fast we're going to go and with what sauce I am to be eaten." - Paul Fournell, Need for the Bike. |
Originally Posted by Doge
(Post 20799839)
Money is a sign of ability.
|
Originally Posted by Doge
(Post 20799839)
Money is a sign of ability.
|
If all variables were equalized, everyone would tie for first every time.
Just to state the obvious. |
I think the OP just discovered "life isn't fair".
|
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 20800316)
Except when it's not.
|
Originally Posted by General Geoff
(Post 20798431)
The actual speed difference between a $600 bike and a $6000 bike isn't that vast. The cyclist is still vastly more important. Only between athletes with extremely well-matched ability will the equipment be a deciding factor.
Not exactly scientific, but interesting. For the record, I'm guess most of us are racing for glory ... there's not a lot of prizes for winning the races I go to. Best swag is typically raffled off. |
My kid had great stuff. Electronic shifting at age 11, several pro bikes. It was a huge advantage over other kids at that 8-12. It also gave him confidence and made him work harder. As he rose in levels and had to travel, the other kids at the upper level all had similar profiles. They all had active parents (dads) pro bikes etc. But, for juniors (not so much for older riders) our team was looking for talent. There were many giving adults, coach being a huge one, who were looking to help the under privileged. There were bikes and trips and great stuff available to any kid that really had talent and work ethic. I found the same in Europe junior teams. Lots of people were giving lots of stuff. In the end, it still was the hard working kids that were nurtured by parents that were mostly the ones dominating. Some parents were wealthier, some not so much, but I didn't find that money made so much of a difference in opportunity.
I don't think economics (school work, yes) keeps these kids from competing at the highest level. LUX Cycling | U19 Development Team If you are getting into it after 20 and not already some elite athlete, it is all about fun. Part of that fun is making excuses why someone else beat you. Why ruin that with money? |
Originally Posted by Doge
(Post 20800457)
It certainly isn't conclusive, but I have noticed the elite tend to rise to the top - money or not. It was not money that got Lance where he was.
I don't doubt that elite racers get the best equipment. I don't race, but I certainly see people in expensive gear riding super-duper bikes, and struggling to maintain a pretty slow pace. If someone's top speed is in the teens, going aero really isn't going to help them much, but if putting on the outfit inspires them to ride more, it's all good. |
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 20800487)
I don't doubt that elite racers get the best equipment. I don't race, but I certainly see people in expensive gear riding super-duper bikes, and struggling to maintain a pretty slow pace.
If someone's top speed is in the teens, going aero really isn't going to help them much, but if putting on the outfit inspires them to ride more, it's all good. But I feel the difference in tires, tubes, components. Does that mean 17.5mph vs 18mph? Yesterday we had a big headwind in SoCal. I was in my best race tuck. It was good for an easy mph. If I had borrow a kid's bike maybe 2. I often see this is much like the cars folks buy, the wine they drink and the audio systems they listen too. There is a difference at some level. Can you tell - that depends. FWIW I ride a 2002 Cannondate Six-13. My fav bike was my 1979 pro Raleigh 753, the Six-13 is stiffer and I'm big. In the stable, mostly from my kid's racing I have no end of good stuff. Venge, Tarmax, MASI, FELT... 30 or so carbon wheels, cx bikes, MTB, DuraAce Di2 <26lb tandem with tubulars, When I'm riding, I don't care that my bike is a bit slower. But it is a bit slower. I just like it. |
Originally Posted by Hypno Toad
(Post 20800463)
As somebody that doesn't have a bike that cost over $1,500, I found this interesting stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXflmGqJakA Not exactly scientific, but interesting. For the record, I'm guess most of us are racing for glory ... there's not a lot of prizes for winning the races I go to. Best swag is typically raffled off. |
Originally Posted by nomadmax
(Post 20800275)
But, back to my point; a recumbent ridden by any pro, current or past, would be spanked by just about any run of the mill Cat I or II rider up Alpe d'Huez.
Weight penalty for a high-performance recumbent is fairly small, and pedaling them isn't functionally much different from pedaling a road bike in the saddle. A couple of the guys I ride road with own Bacchetta CA2 high-racers in addition to their road fleets. They don't produce quite as much power in an all-out sprint on their 'bents as on their road bikes, but for sustained watts they're about the same. On a lot of the climbs in the area, they actually average faster on the recumbents; on shallow climbs the aero advantage of the 'bent still makes up for the weight penalty, and any flats or dips during a climb pile up time advantage for the recumbent very quickly. One of these guys actually holds a number of local climb KOMs on his recumbent, and these are hills that he's also attacked on road bikes. The reason that people think that 'bents climb poorly is because most recumbent riders underestimate how big their aerodynamic advantage is on the flats. If you're riding with a group of roadies and don't realize that they're doing 50% more power than you are, you'll likely accuse the bike of climbing poorly when you explode off the back on a hill.
Originally Posted by nomadmax
(Post 20800114)
There's three days difference between the fastest upright road bike and the fastest recumbent (which is slower by three days) in the Race Across AMerica (RAAM).
https://www.raceacrossamerica.org/records---awards.html And if you look across results pages rather than absolute all-time records, RAAM doesn't make a strong case for recumbents being at a disadvantage: the number of category wins that have been made on 'bents over the years is actually surprisingly high for how few entries there are. |
Originally Posted by HTupolev
(Post 20800796)
I strongly doubt that.
Weight penalty for a high-performance recumbent is fairly small, and pedaling them isn't functionally much different from pedaling a road bike in the saddle. A couple of the guys I ride road with own Bacchetta CA2 high-racers in addition to their road fleets. They don't produce quite as much power in an all-out sprint on their 'bents as on their road bikes, but for sustained watts they're about the same. On a lot of the climbs in the area, they actually average faster on the recumbents; on shallow climbs the aero advantage of the 'bent still makes up for the weight penalty, and any flats or dips during a climb pile up time advantage for the recumbent very quickly. One of these guys actually holds a number of local climb KOMs on his recumbent, and these are hills that he's also attacked on road bikes. The reason that people think that 'bents climb poorly is because most recumbent riders underestimate how big their aerodynamic advantage is on the flats. If you're riding with a group of roadies and don't realize that they're doing 50% more power than you are, you'll likely accuse the bike of climbing poorly when you explode off the back on a hill. There's a huge sampling issue with going off of RAAM records, namely that almost nobody does it on recumbents. Never mind that all prestigious or lucrative avenues for high-performance cycling are diamond-frame, so top cyclists generally aren't on recumbents. And if you look across results pages rather than absolute all-time records, RAAM doesn't make a strong case for recumbents being at a disadvantage: the number of category wins that have been made on 'bents over the years is actually surprisingly high for how few entries there are. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...fb968b6d7c.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9abd98a44e.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ead92e6529.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e99188bc25.jpg I'm not a saddle sore on a bike racer's bum anymore and I can break an hour from that sign to the top on a road bike. I'd like to see anyone on a recumbent do that. As far as RAAM goes, no solo recumbent rider has ever come close to the solo overall record or the winning time for that particular year, ever. I'm not here to try and convince you that water is wet, but if you walk into the ocean you're gonna get wet whether you believe it or not. |
Originally Posted by Hypno Toad
(Post 20800463)
As somebody that doesn't have a bike that cost over $1,500, I found this interesting stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXflmGqJakA Not exactly scientific, but interesting. For the record, I'm guess most of us are racing for glory ... there's not a lot of prizes for winning the races I go to. Best swag is typically raffled off. Biggest takeaways, to me, were that the gains from the Canyon (apart from a more aero position) seemed to be most influenced by the tires and, secondly, the wheels. So, if you have about a $1,000 bike, the best place to put your money is the tires, which is pretty cheap, followed by aero wheels, which is not. Also, having an aerodynamic position as a rider, regardless of the bike, will really help. The 105 bike was set up with a very relaxed upright posture and hard, narrow, crappy tires. |
So is this local race where some cyclist show up very tech heavy and others don't, exclusively an all out serious amateur competition, or is it just a bike event where some come to race and others come to socialize?
Just curious on my part as for some of the events near me, some come to try and get a fast time, not necessarily a race time, and others come with speakers to play tunes socialize at a slow pace and spend time at every rest stop on the way. So if it's not an out and out race only, I'm not sure how to determine what tech heavy might be. |
Originally Posted by ljsense
(Post 20800855)
Thanks for that video -- I thought that was worth watching, but for anyone who just wants the summary, the guy did an 18-ish mile loop with some segments -- uphills, a descent, a sprint, etc -- on a $130 35lb Walmart bike with stem shifters, a $1,300 19lb 105 carbon bike and a $7,000 14lb Canyon with pretty deep tubeless carbon rims. Averaged about 235 watts on each. Loop took 1 hour 11 minutes on Walmart, 1:04 on 105 carbon, 58 minutes on Canyon. On the individual segments, they fared roughly the same as the overall -- but sprinting and climbing suffered more on the Walmart (couldn't shift well on the climb, feared it would fall apart above 700 watts in the sprint).
Biggest takeaways, to me, were that the gains from the Canyon (apart from a more aero position) seemed to be most influenced by the tires and, secondly, the wheels. So, if you have about a $1,000 bike, the best place to put your money is the tires, which is pretty cheap, followed by aero wheels, which is not. Also, having an aerodynamic position as a rider, regardless of the bike, will really help. The 105 bike was set up with a very relaxed upright posture and hard, narrow, crappy tires. FWIW, I have no problems keeping up on fast group rides on my $1300 carbon bike with alloy wheels (although they are lighter than stock and have better tires), and there are plenty of $5k+ bikes with deep wheels in the group. I'm getting ready to put deep(ish) wheels on tho, watch out! :lol: |
Originally Posted by ljsense
(Post 20800855)
Thanks for that video -- I thought that was worth watching, but for anyone who just wants the summary, the guy did an 18-ish mile loop with some segments -- uphills, a descent, a sprint, etc -- on a $130 35lb Walmart bike with stem shifters, a $1,300 19lb 105 carbon bike and a $7,000 14lb Canyon with pretty deep tubeless carbon rims. Averaged about 235 watts on each. Loop took 1 hour 11 minutes on Walmart, 1:04 on 105 carbon, 58 minutes on Canyon. On the individual segments, they fared roughly the same as the overall -- but sprinting and climbing suffered more on the Walmart (couldn't shift well on the climb, feared it would fall apart above 700 watts in the sprint).
Biggest takeaways, to me, were that the gains from the Canyon (apart from a more aero position) seemed to be most influenced by the tires and, secondly, the wheels. So, if you have about a $1,000 bike, the best place to put your money is the tires, which is pretty cheap, followed by aero wheels, which is not. Also, having an aerodynamic position as a rider, regardless of the bike, will really help. The 105 bike was set up with a very relaxed upright posture and hard, narrow, crappy tires. |
Originally Posted by Rides4Beer
(Post 20800993)
That was my takeaway. I'd like to see him do the test again, but with the deep wheels on the $1300 bike, and a more aero position, I bet the gap would be much closer.
FWIW, I have no problems keeping up on fast group rides on my $1300 carbon bike with alloy wheels (although they are lighter than stock and have better tires), and there are plenty of $5k+ bikes with deep wheels in the group. I'm getting ready to put deep(ish) wheels on tho, watch out! :lol: I always get a giggle on the A group rides listening the braking of a bunch of bikes with CF rims ... and there's me on the AL bike with AL rims. |
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 20801054)
The tires/wheels on the Wally bike were pretty horrific.. just changing the tires on that bike could probably have made it equal in time to the 105 bike.
The Walmart also weighed 35 pounds, which even non-weight weenies should question. But I bet decent set of $100 used wheels and some $60 tires would lop off more than 5 pounds while making the ride entirely different. Someone should do (or find and post) a zero to hero bike video -- take a bad $100 bike and show the cheapest improvements to gain speed. Seems like in most cases the starting point would be tires, then wheels. |
Originally Posted by Doge
(Post 20800457)
It certainly isn't conclusive, but I have noticed the elite tend to rise to the top - money or not. It was not money that got Lance where he was.
|
[QUOTE=nomadmax;20800838]We both believe what we believe; however, I've ridden and raced recumbents, road bikes and climbed Alpe d'Huez. That doesn't make me right but it certainly gives me a basis for my opinion.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...fb968b6d7c.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9abd98a44e.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ead92e6529.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e99188bc25.jpg I'm not a saddle sore on a bike racer's bum anymore and I can break an hour from that sign to the top on a road bike. I'd like to see anyone on a recumbent do that. As far as RAAM goes, no solo recumbent rider has ever come close to the solo overall record or the winning time for that particular year, ever. I'm not here to try and convince you that water is wet, but if you walk into the ocean you're gonna get wet whether you believe it or not.[/QUOT there are 3 road types bikes deal with hill,flats, and down hill recumbents are super fast on the flats ,down hillis they are even faster,hills is where the df riders catch up …..low racer recumbents are the kings of aero |
The Internet is the best place in the world for someone who has no personal experience with a topic to meet someone who does ;)
That's better than Match dot Com :roflmao2: |
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 20800487)
I don't doubt that elite racers get the best equipment. I don't race, but I certainly see people in expensive gear riding super-duper bikes, and struggling to maintain a pretty slow pace.
If someone's top speed is in the teens, going aero really isn't going to help them much, but if putting on the outfit inspires them to ride more, it's all good. |
Originally Posted by nomadmax
(Post 20801204)
The Internet is the best place in the world for someone who has no personal experience with a topic to meet someone who does ;)
That's better than Match dot Com :roflmao2: |
[QUOTE=robnol;20801156]
Originally Posted by nomadmax
(Post 20800838)
We both believe what we believe; however, I've ridden and raced recumbents, road bikes and climbed Alpe d'Huez. That doesn't make me right but it certainly gives me a basis for my opinion.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...fb968b6d7c.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9abd98a44e.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ead92e6529.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e99188bc25.jpg I'm not a saddle sore on a bike racer's bum anymore and I can break an hour from that sign to the top on a road bike. I'd like to see anyone on a recumbent do that. As far as RAAM goes, no solo recumbent rider has ever come close to the solo overall record or the winning time for that particular year, ever. I'm not here to try and convince you that water is wet, but if you walk into the ocean you're gonna get wet whether you believe it or not.[/QUOT there are 3 road types bikes deal with hill,flats, and down hill recumbents are super fast on the flats ,down hillis they are even faster,hills is where the df riders catch up …..low racer recumbents are the kings of aero |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:53 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.