[QUOTE=robnol;20801239]A Volae made by Waterford Precision Cycles.

I believe what I've seen. When I see multiple riders clocking about the same sustained climbing power between their road bikes and their recumbents, and I see their recumbents have very similar VAM-versus-power as their road bikes, I find it hard to believe that recumbents climb all that badly. Nor have I seen any particular reasoning as to why they theoretically should have serious climbing issues.

It's never been completed on a recumbent solo by a rider at comparable level to the top finishers, though. If fact, according to RAAM's results history, the number of entries in the male under-50 category that have ever been attempted is two.

Branching out to all age and sex categories, that number grows to 9. Of those 9 entries, five won their respective categories, which relative to total entry counts is quite a lot better than would be expected from random chance.

Talent

I swear, if this is going to turn into another thread of lame Lance Armstrong excuses, I'm going postal team.

Sorry. I got me threads confused. This is the one I behave and act adult like.

[QUOTE=nomadmax;20801252]where is ur helmet in these pics...safety first lol

I'm dating a former MTB and road racer I met on Match. She's cool.

[QUOTE=robnol;20801832]It's invisible, silly. :bday:

The coolest recumbent by far is the Daedalus 88 -- I'd love to ride that.

It's not what's between your legs that's important, it's what's in your legs, and your lungs. Unless you're a pornstar.

I have no idea what the point of this thread is.

Nearly every race I've ever been in has been decided because someone made (or missed) the winning move or the winner was so much stronger than everyone else that he just rode everyone off his wheel. (In that case, the rider was moving right through the category anyway). I've never lost a race because the winner had a nicer bike than I do. I've certainly never won a race because I had a nicer bike than everyone else.

If you're curious, come out to your friendly neighborhood industrial park crit. Compare the bikes of the M35+ 4/5 field against the P12 field.

The solution to the "arms race" problem is "one-design" classes, with arbitrary rules, mandatory inspections, weigh-ins, and rampant cheating, or handicapping schemes with all of the above plus huge impacts on strategy and tactics, and spawning strange, unsafe, rule-beating designs. Take it from an old yacht racer: HTFU, you don't want either one.

Personally, if I were still racing, I'd be more worried about all those Cat IVs on PEDs.

While true, do you think those with very sub standard bikes just didn't show up?

There was a kids age ~15 or so that came out to race San Dimas on an old 80 vintage Peugeot with down tube snifters. The fast guys gave him a bunch of attention. Making it seem like he was the fastest guy there - except for that bike. A few wanted to see how it shifted. It was like showing up in a classic car to some sports car event. It made me pretty happy. But, the kid got dropped like a rock.

[QUOTE=nomadmax;20801252]volae is a nice bike I have two high racers a azub max and a rans force 5 I use for my daily trainer....azub is by far my favorite recumbent

+1

[QUOTE=robnol;20806760]:thumb:

if the guy on the allez had an s works he would have dropped them all,,,,money buys speed

Let's assume a crit. And let's assume similar bike handling skills and power profiles for Mr. Allez and Mr. S-Works. So equally matched riders, the only difference is the bike. Your contention is that Mr. S-Works solos off the front because he has a superior bike? Is that what you're saying?

if u have two athletes equally matched physically the guy with the money to buy advantages,,,, equiptment will win

So? Assuming that is true, why is that a problem?
What is your solution?

This is a really half-baked thread. You've had no point to make.

Not just wins, but "drops them all," that is, solo breakaway. Clean wheels, time to zip up the jersey, and throw the hands in the air, right?

In a time-trial situation where two riders would have otherwise performed identically, sure.

Mass-start races are more complicated. They're strategic and tactical and chaotic. Having a better bike improves your odds, but weaker riders on lower-end bikes beat stronger riders on better bikes all the time.
Within reason, having a better bike is definitely not the difference between being pack fodder and whimsically riding the peloton off your wheel.

Thank you. You are much kinder than I.

I won a race last season where I was neither the strongest rider nor did I have the nicest bike. But I was in the right place at the right time going into the final corner, two other teams were paying attention to each other and left the door open, I had a teammate who made a spectacular move to get to the inside of the corner first, and I was able to hold a loooooonnnngggg sprint. Had the race been 5 m longer, I would have been pipped.

A lot of this is the placebo effect. People expect to go faster, so they do. They also have to go faster to justify the expense. The year Campy came out with a hi-lo flange rear hub, a lot of riders were so spooked they didn't expect to win until they could get one.
Fortunately, one can also cultivate an "underdog" mentality, and re-allocate a few hours from paying for stuff to training, with good odds of more real improvement. It can cost an absurd amount to take weight off a bike compared to saving money to lighten a belly far more. A successful record is a great antidote to tech worship

When I started as a Cat 5, there were always a few guys on very expensive bikes - and they never won. I think they spent too much time working (to earn the money) and too little time riding.

So true.

In a crit, handling skills, positioning, and a well-timed strong sprint win races.

In a TT money can buy speed, but only if the conditions are just right for it. A tiny rider on an ultralight bike with a full disc isn't going to win under very windy conditions on a flat course, even if that bike cost tens of thousands of dollars. Having the resources to choose the right equipment for each race is the true luxury.

So, in conclusion, if all other things are equal (like that ever happens), having a better bike is better than having a worser bike, and that's not good.

This is some Nobel Prize kind of stuff here.