Considering the top-end road models that the pros race on, are certain brands much better than others?

Pro Dirk De Wolf thinks so. He said:

"If Tadej Pogacar [who rides on Colnago] gets on a bicycle from Jumbo-Visma, Ineos or Soudal-Quick Step tomorrow, the rest will have no chance. On those bikes he will pedal another 2km/h faster...[Colnago] undoubtedly have a good product there, but it is like a Ferrari and a Porsche: there is still a difference between the brands."

Tom Boonen said:

"Colnago did indeed have a dip a while ago. It remains a bit of an old-school bike now and they haven't quite mastered the aero thing yet although they are now catching up."

Ref: Tadej Pogacar would be "another 2km/h faster" on Jumbo-Visma, Ineos or Soudal-Quick Step team bikes, says classics winner

I'm sure that some brands probably have the edge on others. However the difference they make to the pro riders that can do about a 1000 miles a week will be much more than the difference I'll get just doing 100 miles a week, if I even do that.

2 kph?

NFW

If the wheels/tires/geometry are the same, I highly doubt the bike frame makes a big difference. Marginal gains, possibly. 2 KPH? NFW as above.

Only minor exception, possibly, might be a TT bike but for a road bike I stand by above.

I'm not buying it.

2km/h more on another bike? Someone is smoking illegal stuff.

The linked article on road.cc says that the quoted statement attributed to Dirk de Wolf was originally made to a Belgian broadcaster (Dutch, French, German?) and reported on a Dutch blog. So maybe there is one or more translation issues. The statement "he will pedal another 2km/h faster” imples a 2 km/h increase in average velocity. Like others said above, no way. But maybe with a more aero bike Pogacar can hit a terminal velocity that is 2 km/h higher toward the end of a long descent?

Maybe 0.2 KPH?? And even that is dubious.

And Mario Cippolini declared an aluminum Canondale to be the best bike in the world. These guys are paid in part to promote the sponsors product.

I don't know why so much is focused on what I took as just an exaggeration. I always expect such comments to have more fisherman tale to them than facts.

The question of whether some brands are better, whether it be in build quality or better aerodynamics or just better selection of components would be more interesting to hear opinions about.

And one of the last person’s opinion I would trust would be a current pro cyclist paid to use the product.

He probably did believe it was the best bike in the world, not realizing that his impression was skewed by the fact that it was (undoubtedly) stiffer in a sprint than the big steel bikes he was used to. My guess is that, when Miguel Indurain abruptly retired and Pinarello ungraciously took their bikes back from him, Cipollini, being similarly unusually tall and strong for a bike racer, was the one who advised him to buy a Cannondale.

Cipollini, an Italian guy with an eye to fashion, would never say that without extrinsic motivation, and a great sense of irony.

when he said it his tongue was so far in his cheek, he was fighting back his own laughter.

Looked sincere to me. And he won lots of races on his Cannondale, so he couldn't have been too displeased with it. And, of course, aluminum bikes had mostly supplanted the steel ones in the peloton before carbon took over.

And Indurain did buy a Cannondale after he retired.

That quote needs context, especially what year it was stated. There could have been some truth in it at the time. Cippolini now has his name on carbon frame sets.

Perhaps this is incorrect but my perception of Colnago is that it's an old school brand that almost has a bespoke reputation. Sure they have a racing pedigree but I guess I see the brand as more classic and not really innovative in the modern era (I think of Bianchi the same way). Compare that to the likes of Specialized, Cannondale, Cervelo, BMC, etc, that I perceive to be more modern and racing centric, and thus more inclined to push the limits of modern technology and R&D.

It could equally imply 2 kph faster top speed. I mean it's completely ambiguous as a statement. Sounds like a made-up off-the-cuff number to me, just to emphasise that he would probably be quicker on a more aero focused bike. Probably true, but we all know it isn't going to increase his average overall speed by 2 kph, except maybe on his TT bike if it is actually garbage.

It's likely that both merlinextralight and I were talking about the clip below, from the 1997 Tour de France.

So basically in a past era when aluminium frames were actually relevant in the pro peloton.

Well now you've gone and done it. Got tired of debating the old vs new so it's new vs new. This should get interesting. It's certainly a possibility. If so, the governing bodies better call NASCAR. Maybe it's time for a homlogated race bike at the highest levels, or not. You know what they say. If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying.

Only the old ever debate old vs new. Debating new vs new is at least more relevant for anyone who cares about riding fast

Exactly.

You've probably observed the antipathy toward aluminum frames exhibited by many who post on BikeForums, especially among the (U.S.-based) fans of classic and vintage bikes. I started riding (and racing) decent racing bikes in 1964, with a French Reynolds 531 track bike, so I have a longer history with pro-level steel bikes than almost anyone else here. Yet I liked my first aluminum-frame bike so much, I soon retired all my steel road and track bikes and bought aluminum replacements.

I specified U.S.-based fans above because the antipathy seems far more widespread here than in Europe, which is why I took Mario C. at his word when he praised his Cannondale. (Don't know how many people remember this, but, before Cannondale had established a distribution network in Europe, there was a time window during which some people who had toured Europe with their Cannondales were advising others to buy a Cannondale and bring it overseas for the tour, since they'd be able to sell the bikes afterward for enough money to pay for the trip.)

The ones that invest a lot in R&D with wind tunnels, aerodynamics, etc., yes.

I upgraded my USCF license on a Cannonwhale in 1983 IIRC transforming me from a ****** Cta 4 to a miserable cat 3. The bike was stolen in Germany after doing a Crit there while on business in about 1986. Replaced it with a Vitus Carbonne 9 with C Record. I did notice a speed difference going from the Vitus to the Kestel in 1992 ish but 2 kpm? Maybe 0.5 kph.

A Colnago is not slower by 2 KPH at any riding speed. Down a steep hill? Maybe

Tour Magazin tests bikes at 45 kph. IIRC, the fastest to slowest bike (old Emonda) was 0.022 m^2 or around 27 watts. Off top of my head, 45 kph takes about 400 watts for an average pro on a road bike (non-TT). A 7% increase would yield around 2% increase in speed or around 1 kph. On a full tuck downhill, 0.022 improvement could certainly get a rider 2 kph if that is what was being talked about. For the rest of us plodding along at 30 kpm, a pipedream. I have no aero data on the Colnago, but it can't be worse than the old Emonda.

Not when it comes to an actual athletic competition heavily involving equipment. It's all about making sure each competitor is on an level/even playing field and has the same chance of winning/losing. How fast/slow/strong/long/short/high, etc. is only relevant in determining the winner of that particular competition. In the case of a record for said competition, it means absolutely nothing unless there is a set of uniform standards for said competition.