at bike races I notice some riders are sooo tech heavy they have every bell and whistle available to a rider and other riders are minimalists or they don't have the money to spend on tech...it seems either races are determined by who can afford the most advantages or who actually is the better racer....talking about the local races that is

Hi tech rider or better rider wins. So what's your point ?

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.

its not just the bike its the helmets the shoes the body suit the aero water bottle the special aero handle bats the list goes on and on....ive seen people with none of these advantages dominate those that do have them

talent and ability should be why someone wins and athletic event ….not the amount of money they have to spend making their mediocrity less prominent

The human body simply isn't that aerodynamic. If you're wearing lycra at all, you're already about 90% as aero as you can get, without using fairings or a recumbent.

If one is beaten by a water bottle, they should give up racing.

I agree robnol. But your statement didn't say the win would go to the one with the tech advantage, it was ambiguous. Your statement was: "EITHER races are determined by who can afford the most advantages or who actually is the better racer." So following your statement either one can win not just the one with more advantages. That is what prompted my question of what was your point. It didn't make sense. I know what you were trying to say though and I agree.

This thread brings up some interesting questions. Should professional bike races have limits on how aerodynamic the bike frames can be so as not give an advantage over other bike frames. Where should they draw the line ? They already try to control and minimize the advantage from drug use.

Are you implying that they don't have regulations regarding bicycle aerodynamics? Because they do, and very strict ones. That takes the form of both limiting the use of fairings (and limiting the extent to which components can be designed as fairings), and very very very strict rules about posture on the bicycle.

Without those rules, nearly all road and track and triathlon competition would be done on recumbents.

I guess I am pretty naive about bike racing regulations. I didn't realize they had strict rues about aerodynamics. Thanks for educating me !

If somebody in expensive kit wins, it doesn't logically follow that they won because of the kit.

I've seen plenty of riders on expensive bikes in super-aero kit who can't ride for beans, and they don't get fast.

Since the OP is talking about local races, those are mostly crits. Assume comparable conditioning, those are usually won by tactics and the best sprinters. You don't need the most aero bike and kit if you're mostly drafting, especially a teammate, friend or cooperative competitor exchanging favors. You mostly need to be in good shape, recover quickly from burning matches and a turbo charged blast furnace in the lungs and legs for the final sprint. Most of the better racers could do that on a good bike from any era.

But if you're talking local time trials, sure, aero gear matters more, unless it's the niche category for retro riders.

If there is something to win, folks will spend money trying to do it. Some other folks will also cheat any way they can.

I thought crits were like in the Little500 from Breaking Away... ie. Everybody is on a supplied stock bike?

I guess ur one of the guys that is all tech up to aid u with ur lack of ability

companies are always trying to sell products to the masses that will reduce weight more aero give u the edge ….if they are not lying them then the rider with every bell and whistle would seem to have an advantage over the low budget racer...would they not...or are companies preying on the gullable and the stupid promising things that aren't true

Subscribed.

Getting lighter and more aero will make you faster. Nobody is saying it will guarantee wins.

And at that point the difference is within fractions of a second. But that's only when your main concern is winning. Otherwise, your body doesn't know the difference.

it definitely gives u the edge over the guy without the money to spend on all the advantages

Lance Armstrong took advantage of a weight edge over the other riders in the tours. He did so well because he only had one testicle.

I've got a modern carbon aero bike with Di2, disc brakes, 17 lbs, all the bells and whistles. I also have a 1964 Legnano, old school Campy, 12 speed friction shifters, 26 lbs. Guess which bike has my personal best avg. on my Malibu run on PCH? The Legnano. Surprised me too. I love tech, and I love old steel, but it's not all about the bike. Ride what you love, love what you ride. 😃