Modern Bicycle Performance
 

This video discusses why modern professional cycling, specifically the Paris-Roubaix race, has become significantly faster due to technological advancements and increased energy transfer. The primary premises offered include:

• Increased Racing Speeds: The speaker notes that the average speed of Paris-Roubaix has increased from approximately 40 kph in 2000 to nearly 49 kph in recent years, with speeds in the famous Arenberg Forest sector increasing to the point where riders hit cobbles with 83% more kinetic energy than in the past (0:39-2:58).

• Technological System Gains: Modern equipment—including advancements in tire technology particularly moving away from tubulars, aerodynamic frames, and drivetrain efficiency—contributes to a cumulative speed advantage of 80–90 watts compared to bikes used 25 years ago (2:59-8:14).

• The 'Energy Problem' vs. Equipment Problem: The speaker argues that the mechanical challenges faced by riders today, such as equipment failure or difficulty managing tire pressure, are a result of this massive increase in kinetic energy rather than a flaw in the equipment itself (8:14-9:18).

• The Icarus Problem: There is a tradeoff between tire pressure and rim safety; riders often cannot optimize tire pressures for the roughest cobbled sections because they are limited by current tire size constraints (typically 36-38mm), forcing a compromise between speed and durability (9:18-10:11).

• Strategy Shift: These technical gains have fundamentally changed race strategy, allowing riders to accelerate and maintain higher speeds on the cobbles rather than just surviving the sections (12:13-12:35).

Contrary to the often quoted belief that modern bikes are not significantly quicker than bikes of the past this video offers a compelling argument. This does not even take into account the increased comfort and reliability modern bicycles offer.

This sounds like a ploy by big disc brake.

Just an advertisement. Paris-Roubaix is flat as a pancake, so discs are an aero and weight handicap. Plus they cause more braking pileups due to panic braking.

If the racers had their choice they'd all be on tubulars 100%. The trivial rolling resistance difference between tires are a distant third-order concern relative to the safety and flat-resistance benefits of tubulars. Main benefit: you can ride long distances on a flat tubular until a replacement arrives, in contrast to the panic stop that a flat clincher requires. A flat clincher exposes the rim, making it impossible to corner. Or worse, the tires squirms off of the rim, gets caught up in the fork or frame resulting in an instant header.

Why was the race so fast? The rare clash of 3 generational talents: Pog, Wout Van Aerts, and Van der Poel, and the teams that were assembled behind them.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8f285e923.jpeg
Please help me understand.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...80f4a1f96.jpeg

The Tour is much more problematic as the course varies substantially. Interesting the average speeds increased substantially once we went with Disc brakes and tubeless tires!

I don't know the specifics of the TdF, whether it has LONG descents with frequent switchbacks; If so, I could see that with rim brakes, they might have been a bit cautious to not overheat aluminum or carbon rims, lest they fail structurally; With discs, you could charge toward the turns and brake at the limit of tire adhesion, frequently, and not overheat the rims. The discs might warp a little and need replacing at the end of each day, but for a race team, that's an expendable.

I also don't know the flatness of Roubaix vs TdF, a flatter course with fewer climbs will be faster, provided the roughness can be tolerated. If the bike holds up, and if legal, I would imagine the added mass of a suspension stem and suspension seatpost, might be worth it to increase speed on a rough course when seated. But, without data, I'm thinking the newer road frames have the needed torsional stiffness, but with more longitudinal bending compliance, than in yesteryears.

Regarding clincher tires, in road cars, racer, and military use, there are numerous solutions to keeping an uninflated tire on the rim and being able to continue, and with sensors to alert the driver that a tire is flat, for slower braking and cornering; You'd just need to enforce among all riders so no one would be disadvantaged by any weight penalty.

I'm not very metric but it sounds like we are talking about a roughly 5mph increase in average speed over a five year period of time. Awed by a 5mph increase in average speed. Maybe (like Heavyweight Boxing, NFL Football, MMA) we are approaching the limits of human ability to ride bicycles at speed. Maybe we should be thinking about banning the racing of bicycles as sport.

Bicycling is not intended to be hazardous, and there can be steps to mitgate the hazards.

Tremendous improvements have been made in auto racing, where it was improved greatly through safety hardnesses and good roll cages, thought relatively safe, then someone dies from a mild side hit because it broke their neck, then they introduced the HANS device to solve that. Someone gets killed from an outside object in open-cockpit racing, and they introduce the halo to solve that, I witnessed a race where that saved a life.

NFL football, they are trying to mitgate the hazards, mostly by concussion protocols, but I'm not buying it, there are still gruesome injuries, I stopped watching years ago. There are alternatives, some colleges play tag football now, no huge lineman on either side.

Hockey has been made safer, mostly by strict refereeing.

Boxing is iffy, because there are incentives for knockouts.

MMA is a hair above bare-knuckle brawls. Some can't turn it off and pummel people outside the ring/cage.

So bicycling... it can be made safer. It's the pileups that do the most harm. But making everything time-trials removes the excitement of direct competition, though snow skiing is mostly against the clock. Short-track speed skating, the interaction is very much part of the sport, low injuries, but often knocked out of play because of someone else going wide.

For biking, AI-controlled full-shoulder-and-torso airbags. You heard it here first.

If you look at the real data from Paris Roubaix…

Pre 2019
40-43 KPH winning speeds.

Covid break…

Post 2021
47-49 KPH winning speeds.

Bikes did not change that much over those two years. Bikes did not all of the sudden cause a 15-20% gain in performance.

And it’s not just PR - every record on just about every course, hill, mountain… not just beaten - the records are smashed.

The bikes help some, but they do not account for the gains in performance we are watching.

^^ to add to my point above.

Bikes do not account for W/kg. We are seeing power to weight ratios once considered beyond what humans are capable of. Beyond that of the most doped riders in history.

And the riders hold these W/kg numbers from March thru October.

Why? Who knows. But it’s the riders, not really the bikes.

Perhaps. The only thing I know about Paris-Roubaix is that it's a rough surface, setts or belgian blocks (not cobblestones as the wiki article says, those are naturally rounded stones, not quarried recto-cubes). That large of a performance increase, on smooth road, I'd buy that it's not just the bike. But if the bikes improve the smoothness of the ride, enough, I could easily see that accounting for significant speed increases; that has happened in off-road vehicle racing, where huge wheel-travel, significantly increased driver comfort, and the vehicle not bouncing dangerously on the edge of control, and that allowed faster travel. Are the newest road bike frames and/or tires, that much more vertically compliant, versus before the pandemic?

I would say no, the bikes/frames are not that much more vertically complaint. They used to ride different concoctions, even suspension, at PR - now they are typically riding their full on aero race bikes.

George Hincapie, who rode PR 17 times, claims to be the first rider to use deep section CF wheels and 28mm tires. The slight improvements in frame and wheel design since then, the jump to the typical 32mm tire gives some speed and performance. But not a 15-20% jump seemingly overnight.

Pre covid/post covid break - the riders changed. Racing changed. W/kg changed. And not just one or two riders - all of them. The gaps between the riders have remained the same +/-. While Jonas and Pogi are smashing up the mountains at a blistering pace, shattering every record set - and every recorded W/kg record set - the riders behind are not that far off the pace.

Something changed, aside from the bikes.

Thanks. (bold above) With *everyone* getting faster and not just a few, one would think the secret would leak out, whether PED, or better training, better nutrition... something.

Something... who knows.

For anyone that is wondering (or ready to argue, this is general!!) - I'm not saying that newer bikes are not faster. I'm just pointing out the very recent speed gains - and bikes didn't change that much in that time period.

I still listen to podcasts from he who shall not be mentioned (initials of LA!!), and he breaks down the performance gains of the riders. The now vs then of it all.
Then:
Riders would come into the season at 5-5.5wkg, after a winter of training, then build to a peak of hopefully 6-6.5+/-. Hold that form for one or two major races, like the TDF and the tune up races beforehand... then fade off.

Many of these guys, the bigger fellers like MVDP/Wout start the season at 6-6.5 and keep it for months on end. The GC guys come out in late winter/ early spring at over 6.5 or even 7.0++ and hold it thru late October.

Pogi came off 2024 - winning spring classics and monuments, Giro, Tour, World champs, fall monuments and one day races - was back on his bike racing in February 2025 winning the UAE tour.

To quote LA "different octane". Octane is what he calls the juice.

I think it's...

Could be doughnuts!!

If there is any question to be questioned - its how does a 19 year old not only win a spring classic, but set the 3rd fastest time in history up the final climb? At grades of 15-20% - it's not really about modern bikes, tires, aero - its about pure power.

19 and coming close to or beating times set by world champions, TDF winners, winningest riders of all time...

They are modifying these kids genetics. We can talk tire pressures all day, or waxed chains... something is different with the riders.

Your correct about power however modern equipment gives the riders a 80-90 watts advantage at race speed that doesn’t include shoes, clothing and helmets. The ability of these new bikes to extract the most performance from the rider is definitely noticeable. This same effect translates to regular riders as well. In addition increased specialization of bicycle gear makes the impact for recreational riders even more dramatic. Endurance bikes are orders of magnitude more enjoyable to ride than there older equivalents increasing performance and comfort. Same can be said for Gravel, adventure or race bikes.

Compare a modern adventure bike and equipment to a traditional touring setup, FKT are being established on virtually all long distance routes. Longer distances in more comfort with less effort are real benefits.

That bolded part doesn't really have anything to do with touring and I'm confused why you included it... FTK:s are race efforts and have as much in common with vacationing (touring) as the TdF has with a road bike pub crawl.

Also, what are adventure bikes and equipment in comparison to traditional touring setup?

You should follow track & field. The number of high schoolers in the USA that are breaking the 4-minute-mile barrier has skyrocketed in the last decade from less than a handful before that. Go worldwide and you'll find plenty of 'under-20' (a worldwide classification) runners going even lower in 1-mile/ 1500m races, like below 3:50 for the 1-mile and 3:30 for the 1500m. There's even been a 19 y.o. Kenyan who won the Olympic 1500m race in 2008. Even with pretty strict PED testing regimes its getting crazy out there in the competitive sports world.

I think tires changed. First of all there was the widespred adoption of tubeless tires, and wider wheels and wider tires, and lower pressures allowed by those changes.

I would agree with much of what you say. BUT Paris-Roubaix is far from without riding and tech problems to solve. Yes, it is 'flat', but the great variance in surface is as problematic in, many ways, as a mountainous route/race.
It is, and always has been, a problem of power production over a long race, especially one as difficult in the 'handling at speed' that Paris-Roubaix is.
The others which always excites me these days is Strada Bianci... and of course The 'Ronde' (steep, wet Belgian Block, ugh...).
The Speed...
I think Tech has some small effect, but really the BIG difference are the Riders - Overall !
The increase in Rider performance over all the 6 decades I've been involved and aware is astonishing !!!
The Modern Riders - at All Levels - are such higher performance than prior generation. The Teams, training, team methods and tactics, are far beyond anything in prior years.
On a tech side, the biggest thing, in my mind, has been the availability of drivetrain versaility - gearing from the very lowest to very highest available at a small flick of a finger...
Aero wheels, A very nice and wonderful thing.
In all, aside from the Aero improvements, modern gear has made it easier to focus on riding and less on considerations of equipment.
I'm very happy That 'Equipment' hasn't solved the issue of 'problems' such as flats, drivetrian issues running over very limit access courses, like Paris-Roubaix, Strada B & the Ronde.
Watching MVDP in the last 60km of Paris-ROubaix this year, was way more engrossing than watching Pog (exccept for the final km when Pog and Van Aert were off on their own)...
You really get see the stuff Bike Racers are made of !!!

Ride On
Yuri - yes, it's a competition against others, but it's maybe a bit more a Test of one's self...

the main part of my point -

did those bikes give 15-20% more performance just over the covid break? No... they didn't. very little changed in that time frame bike wise. That is where the big jump in speed at PR occurred.

I mentioned this as a point of reference. Touring in the traditional sense of huge panniers and duffle bags strapped to your bike is mostly dying off replaced with lighter and more streamlined setups. My touring rigs are either a carbon gravel bike for rides 2 weeks or less and a steel adventure bike for 2+ weeks. Both bikes are 2x11 wide ratio gearing, disc brakes, tubeless and carbon wheels. These bikes are quick, good performing either loaded or not. The rack system is either my Tailfin or Tubus, 12L panniers, 6L handlebar bag and optional 4L fork packs, 10L cargo bag.

All of this gear is lightweight, fairly streamlined and low profile which makes the riding experience much easier and more enjoyable. Most importantly much faster allowing to ride at ones preferred pace longer and more comfortably. Modern gear such as clothing, sleep systems etc. are better and incredibly lightweight. Although slow to change even the touring world is benefiting from the innovations modern technology brings, unfortunately it does come at a cost, this stuff has a tendency to be expensive. Just adding up my onboard electronics, phone, radar taillight, gps watch and bike computer is a crazy number.

To jump from 42kph to 48kph takes about 125-140w more power. 15%-20% more speed = 35%-45% more power. Tires = 5-10w at best. When going from top race tires to slightly wider tires - some improvement, yes... but nowhere near the amount of added power required to attain those speeds.

They are saying a modern bike is good for a 60-80 watts plus the other marginal gains and better fitness of the riders align well with your numbers. It’s fairly clear this modern tech allows the rider to perform at a much higher level.

Take your tire number for example the numbers are 14 watts per tire over the tubulars used in the past.

I go back to my personal experience with my modern touring setup and the performance and comfort differences are huge. Can’t quantify it in watts but at least 30% more efficient.

Peter Post, 1964 Paris-Roubaix winner, 45.2kph. He did it in cold rain. He did it while the coal mines were still active and the cobbles were under a layer of coal dust that turned to grease when wet.

No aero nothing in 1964.

Paris-Roubaix very frequently has tailwinds. The tailwind races always faster. It's a point to point race and it happens. Biggest difference in modern P-R is warm and sunny, which used to be very rare. Also the racing rules now limit pros to 85 race days a year. In past that was up to the rider. Few did less than 150 days and many raced over 200 days. They were basically tired all the time.