Walter

There's no way to direcctly compare but if we look at climbing stage times from the 1980s I'm not sure there's such a yawning gap as some of you all would suggest.

A 1980s top racing bike set up for a climb would be right around 19-20# with wheels that are probably as light as many racing wheelsets are today. (The thing about modern wheels is that they can be built really light and still be durable under normal sized people).

That bike is lighter than the ones proposed by the OP but still a good bit heavier than the ones LA used. The rider makes the bike, not the other way around.

Murrays

That's pretty much what a buddy of mine said, climbing times haven't dropped as much as some here think they have as the bike weights dropped.

-murray

Hezz

Unfortunately you don't have any backing evidence that I can see except your buddies opinion. I have a suggestion. Go do a long steep ride that is very challenging for you on a 15 pound bike and time yourself. By challenging I mean one that you can barely do and finish at high intensity. It needs to be long and hard enough so that recovery time is an issue. At least 4-6 hours with lots of heavy climbing at 99% your maximum effort that you can maintain for that rides conditions. Do it a few days in a row on the light bike. Then go do it the next day on a 23 pound road bike and time yourself and note your subjective feelings of effort.

If you don't have access to a 15 pound road bike use your own bike as the light bike and get an old 30 pound ten speed and compare it to the difference of your bikes weight to evaluate the difference.

I think after that you may change your mind a little. Even if you are able to come close to your first rides time you will find that you feel far more tired. If the difference was as little as you suggest I don't think there would be so much money spent on lighter technology. Also, if you look at the old TDF photos it looks to me like the guys were suffering more on the climbs. Just a subjective observation, but I think they were because of the heavier bikes. Even if it was only 4 pounds that is something when you are working at very near maximum capacity.

We may not know Lance's actual maximum ability in all conditions. But if what you are saying is true it would suggest that Lance was loafing a little bit unless someone really challenged him in most races. I don't think so as Lance was one of the heavier climbers at around 160 pounds when at his lightest. Maybe not in 99 where he looks anorexic. You would think that the bigger guys who weight more would also be more strong which would compensate for the extra weight but it doesn't. They also often have longer limbs which gives them a lever disadvantage. We also know that larger bodies are less efficient at long endurance races.

Murrays

I haven't weighed a $600 bike recently, do they really weigh 30 lbs?

Oh, I know Lance was "loafing" a bit for the vast majority of the race, hence the team around him. He only went all out for a significant time a couple times during the race.

Honestly, I don't know the answer either, I'm just trying to interject some physics into the discussion by utilizing analyticcycling.com.

FWIW, I ride one of the heaviest bikes among my racing buddies at over 20 lbs and I'm the lightest rider at 130 lbs. If an extra 5 lbs made that much difference, I shouldn't be anywhere near them on the climbs.

-murray

Walter

OK, a small infusion of facts that still won't give us a clear answer but are fun....

Charly Gaul was the first to win oon the Ventoux (climbing the East side) in 1958 with a time of 1h 2' 9". The record for that climb was set in 2004 by Iban Mayo and it is 55' 51". (info taken from Wikipedia, I didn't look to see where the Wiki author got it from initially)

The gap is less than 7 minutes which of course is huge. In fact it would take a GC contender right off the podium and send him into the middle of the pack. But, the starting date is 1958 and Gaul, an all-time rider, is only 7 minutes back on roads, btw, nowhere near the quality that today's racers get to ride on. Mayo beat alot of people by more than 7 minutes in 2004. I don't think anyone would contend that a bike from 1958 would be competitive today but underneath a great rider even that bike finishes faster than some modern bikes ridden by pros.

To the OP's question; I think the answer is no. That bike, even with team mechanics, doesn't hold up to 2000+ kilometers of top level consecutive day racing. However, if LA was on Merckx's bike from the 70s, LeMond's bike from the 80s or Indurain's bike from the 90s (a steel framed Pinarello most stages) I think LA is still more than competitive. It is the rider not the bike.

This is not retro-grouching. I'm not anti-new technology. I ride Ergo drivetrains and Ksyrium wheelsets but I do firmly believe that a faster rider is a faster rider on most any, within reason, bike.

Murrays

Well put Walter. It would be interesting to know the various bike weights through history.

Another fact that occurred to me today, my original road bike was a Cannondale T700 from '89. I upgraded to an Ultegra double chainring and lighter wheels, but still rode with a rear rack on the bike.

In '94, I bought a Trek 2300 (carbon tubes, aluminum lugs). I NEVER road that bike as fast over the same roads as I did the Cannondale despite the Trek being significantly lighter. Of course, there are other factors at play (frame stiffness being my main theory), but the fact remains that I was able to ride a heavier bike faster than a lighter one.

I believe weight isn't as important as it feels; reduce the weight, especially on the wheels, and it will feel much faster, yet on a relatively flat course, 5 pounds likely will have little to no effect.

-murray

Walter

I got into this in the middle 1970s when I was (just barely) a teenager. The "gold standard" for a racer was 21-22#. Set up for a race with team support that bike would be a pound or maybe two lighter; mostly b/c it'd be sitting on some crazy light tubular wheels with silk sew-ups. You couldn't (reliably) use those wheels on the road but they gave a beautiful ride. I'm pretty sure that was the standard several decades earlier as well. Most frames were made from Reynolds 531 or a similar Columbus steel and the Reynolds had been around since the 1930s.

The 80s saw the large scale advent of aluminum and CF but most of those bikes weren't much lighter. I put together an early C'dale SR800 in '86 and it weighed about 22#. What was cool about it was that I could get to that weight with a ~250$ frameset and about $500 total as opposed to the ~1000$ that light European made racers usually went for. BTW, like you I was faster on that C'dale than I am on any of my more modern bikes but I'm pretty sure that is b/c of the rider.

I guess weights really started dropping in the later 80s and 90s but I was not riding alot and paying very little attention to trends during that period. My C'dale was still down tubed friction shifted. In fact it still is but I don't ride it that much anymore.

maddog17

it's similar to what golfers say (and i'm one of them)... could Tiger Woods win with the clubs i'm using? or i'd like to see Tiger play as well and make those great shots on some of the courses i play on.

Hezz

No, more likely around 23-24 pounds.

Hezz

Actually, if you look at the best cyclist's who are good at climbing they are mostly in the 140 - 155 weight category. This size of body seems to offer the best strength to weight ratio for long endurance climbs. Of course there are exceptions. For a really strong rider who is also really light. As in your weight category an extra 5 pounds might possibly have some what less of an effect. But for a rider who is not as strong it could be even worse since the bike weight is a larger percentage of thier own body weight. I think for Armstrong who was actually heavy for a climber it would have a larger impact also because he was on that outer upper edge of that range. One of the reasons he always made sure he was at his lowest weight around the big climbs.

Hey, maybe one day we will get lucky and Lance will tell us what he thinks. Most likely not though. He probably doesn't even ever read these forums.

Hezz

Ya, on the flats I'm sure you are right because he was trying to save energy and stay uninjured with the peleton. However, to win the tour he had to control the mountains and TT. He could not have been loafing during those races unless there was no one around even close to challenge him. This is one of the reasons I like the new ASO no radio rule. It leaves the riders with less accurate information and will promote less loafing. If the rider in yellow doesn't know exactly how much of a lead his closest competitors are. He is going to have too err on the side of caution by seeking to increase his lead even further instead of padding things down a bit to conserve energy.

Murrays

I'm not sure I understand, I always thought dropping weight for a lighter bike/rider would have more effect since it's a larger portion of the total (dropping 3% of the total weight should have more effect than dropping 2%).

Regardless, I believe I have the highest bike/rider weight ratio of anyone I ride with...at least for another 24 hours

-murray

Murrays

"Loafing" probably isn't a good term. Lance won his tours by picking a couple stages to really drop the hammer and go all out. He had the ability to crank out more power (at least for his weight) than the competition so he would use it to get the needed time gaps in those couple preselected stages.

Generally he would let his teammates do the damage or control the race the rest of the time. Even when a contender went away from the pack, Lance would "mark" him and was most likely riding below his peak (how much below is speculation on our part).

Another way to look at it, you only have so many matches in your book, use them wisely.

-murray

800over

1kg = 1% in climb time.....so 2-3 kg can mean quite a difference in time. As for the initial post....no Lance would not have won the tour with a cheap machine. The weight disadvantage would have an effect but I would be much more concerned with the reliability of the frame and components not to mention I'm sure the frame is not as aero. Some of the posts have mentioned that Lance would overcome this with his ability on the hills......but the weight is much more of a disadvantage on the climbs...he has no opportunity to make up ground elsewhere. He was also pulled for parts of many of his climbs by other great climbers....if he had worked harder initially to keep up with them he wouldn't have the extra burst. Oh and before anyone asks, the 1kg to 1% climb time is what Lance based his training on. It's in the book Lance's War which is quite the read. Besides Lance never would have ridden anything that didn't meet his STWKT standard.

Murrays

FWIW, Lance gained 2 minutes (ok, 1:59) on L'alp duez in '01 over about 38 minutes of climbing. That represents about a 5% advantage over 2nd place.

Just sayin'...

As for reliability, as I said earlier in the thread, a 250lb guy standing on the pedals at 50 rpms would stress the bike a lot more than Lance would IMHO.

-murray

Keith99

I like the only so many matches point. I think that is where an inferior bike catches up with a rider. Though perhaps it is only so many books of matches. A few 3 Kgs means more effort on those 'easy' climbs. Sort of having to burn a couple of matches, where the rest of the contenders burn nothing. By the end it adds up and sooner or later you have nothing left, while others have a half book left.

Lance was a master at that. Sometimes having only one match left, but if everyone else has none it can be big time.

Comparing times between eras can be chancy. Someone compared times to Charly Gaul. The problem is back then often the pace between climbs was often pretty slow, meaning fresh riders at the bottom. These days some team is often pushing the pace. Of course the top riders are sheltered, but still working harder than back then. But when the pace was fast between climbs it was more apt to include work by the top riders.

Keith99

On this I agree. The cheap bikes are still reliable as far as breakdown goes. But I wonder about shifting, NOT that they will fail, but that they will not be as crisp and clean. That it will take a small fraction of a second longer to shift. Nothing huge, but that could translate to half a bike length when an attack happens. Meaning half a bike length more work chasing someone down. Some days that will not matter, other days it might lead to eventually being off the back of the select group near the end. It might not even lead to that much time, well under a minute at the end. But dropping 30 seconds while working at the limit vrs. losing nothing and pretty much sitting in until the last mile could be huge the next day.

Hezz

I think with this we have the final answer to the original thread post. We are forced to believe that even Lance didn't think that he could win the TDF unless everything in his control was optimized. Will we ever have a better opinion than Lance's own.

Murrays

OTOH, the rider that goes into the race so confident in his abilities that he doesn't take care of the details often will lose.

Another way to look at it, you can't control the race, the other riders or many random things, but you can control your preparation, your equipment choices, etc. so make the most of those things in your control and you will be more able to deal with the things out of your control.

-murray

Walter

True but then Gaul, and riders of the next decade or more made their climb on dirt roads.

(Yes, comparing decades is "chancy" but there's not much more to go on. Another comparison would be that as good as he was LA never TT'ed as fast as Indurain and how much money did Trek spend making TT bikes for USPS/Discovery?)

I agree that LA isn't competitive on a sporting goods store bike but on a top line racer from a previous decade that is 1.5kg or even 2kg heavier? I think he'd be alright.

(Though I agree he'd refuse to ride that bike and, obviously, Trek wouldn't be very happy either.)

Hezz

Perhaps a better question to ask is wither or not Lance would have won the TDF if he had raced agains't Eddy Merckx who would have attacked him ruthlessly in every race. He would have never been allowed to hold back then.

Booger1

Do you think Lance would of won ANYTHING if he wasn't doing dope?

marin1

More importantly can one mans love for another man be so great that it disorts his ability to think clearly?

Keith99

Well the short answer is no for 2 reasons. First Lance pre-cancer wasn't that good a Tour rider and of course if he were in the 60s and 70s there would not have been a post-cancer Lance. The other is from his win of the Giro in 68 until his last win in the TDF no other rider beat Eddy in a major Tour.

But if there was somehow a post-cancer Lance back in Eddy's day I'd say he would have had an excellent chance in 71, esp. since Lance has shown he has pretty good bike handling skills. Perhaps he would have stayed up on that one turn.

Hezz

I believe if Lance and Eddy would have raced in a like manner with the same equipment when both where in thier prime Eddy would have been the victor more often than not. I think if Lance was as good as Eddy he would have won as much or nearly as often. Eddy dominated nearly all kinds of races that he entered. Not so with Lance. I think that Lance is more of an inspiration for overcoming his cancer with his iron will and determination.

In the same token, I think that part of Lances approach of specializing in the TDF was as much to keep his body from being beaten up during the course of the season while overcoming cancer in addition to keeping a low profile to lessen the chance of being tested.

Would Lance have been able to overcome his cancer if he punished himself the way Eddy did in every race? An interesting question.