I realize I'm a newbie at the sport and my age (65), weight (200) and my department store Schwinn is not the formula for winning the Tour, I do ride as fast as my legs will take me because I've always been competitive. But today I became depressed by being passed by a helmutless local (I work in Puerto Rico) on a mountainbike while on my daily ten mile ride. I've come to realize that trying to compete with those who have used bicycles as their primary means of transportation for all their lives is fruitless.
It seems to me that competitive bicycling is a sport of those with means and through the proper training one can achieve great heights. But i wonder about the abilities of those who have been riding bikes all their lives and can't scrape enough monies to compete in the sport.
Marathons have been won by athletes from Africa who literally don't have a pot to pee in. If given the proper equipment how would these locals fare in competition? I bet that there are thousands of Lance Armstrongs among the multitudes.

There is natural talent, which can come from genetics or environmental conditions (like riding bikes to and from work most of the year etc). There is working at improving that talent (training). You can't have one without the other. And given a choice between the two, I am inclined to think most coaches would opt for the latter.

Those people you mentioned in Africa, for the most part, have the "body" i'e. lightness of bones, tall and rangy, or small and compact etc, you get my drift.

I once read a quote along the lines of "Talent alone won't do it b/cos the world is full of derelicts with talent, and that perseverance and hardwork is the ticket".

I once found myself talking to a successful Olympics athlete and coach (he had won a gold medal and coached another successful gold medalist) about the most important characteristic of a champion. He listed about three other qualities b/4 he mentioned talent. The very first quality he mentioned was courage, which he interpreted to mean "the capacity to go way beyond your comfort zone in training, and then adding a little extra in competition.

Just my two cents.

You are speaking the the 'Car-Free by circumstance' crowd. Or, impoverished cyclists. Making a blanket statement about this population is difficult, but I don't think the situation is as grave as you think.

A lot of the running talent from the Third World comes from the fact that running fast and far is often a necessity in these people's cultures. For hunting, primarily. For instance, I met an African guy who joined the Army to gain citizenship. He has literally killed lions with spears, and he has the fastest 2 mile run time I've heard of.

To ride a bicycle as a necessity for travel in one's daily business, I would imagine that speed is not as primary of a concern as it is when hunting large game with spears. So I don't think you're likely to find much world-class-level cycling talent among 'impoverished cyclists'. That said, I would wager that a good number of 'impoverished cyclists' regularly push themselves to go fast for fun, seeing how readily available this opportunity is. Also, they may happen to be in a hurry quite frequently, as is often the case while commuting. No matter what, you can say these people will have a good base to work off of, but I wouldn't go so far as to say thousands of 'Lance Armstrongs' just ready to win big.

Honestly, he was just plain faster than you. Welcome to Cat 6 - this should be a motivational experience. I'm sure you will see a drastic improvement in your performance with more riding.

While that may be true, I would only admit it from the perspective of genetics. Most people will never bench press 450 lbs, run a 4.3 40, beat Viswanathan Anand at chess, or dunk a basketball no matter how much they train/eat, how advanced their equipment is, or how much courage/determination they have. Period. When you look at the elite levels of athletics I am of the opinion that even if it doesn't sound all warm and fuzzy you need to be a realist. Someone like me could have trained from day one, done everything perfectly, without fail, and would still never compete at the elite level of cycling. My heart, lungs, leg muscles, and a host of other things given to me by my parents just don't equal (I am not in anyway implying that if I were built like a pro cyclist that I'd be good at it, BTW). I am 31 years old, and if I decided today I wanted to be an Olympic sprinter I would fail; it's as simple as that. Science has shown us that thinking your ability becomes limitless by never quitting, sweating a lot and, "busting your butt" is bunk.

Just my $.02. First post from a lurker.

I never, ever have been passed by a low-income commuter or just plain vagrant --judging by their disheveld appearance, smell and amount of crap they are lugging. And I see them a few times a week on this one MUP that goes underneath a highway near my house.

I have, however, been on a MUP and someone decided they wanted to race me. It's not the car-free commuters. It's not the homeless. It's never a woman. It's typically not even a young man.

It's a dude in his 30s like me, or older. I just ride my pace and ignore them.

That's nothing. When I was wearing a full on racing still outfit on my $1400 bike with custom wheels and clipless pedals, some day laborer in jeans and a flannel rode past me on his girl's Huffy with the seat too low and one half flat tire. Without labored breath, he asked me how far I was going. I panted that I was 2 miles from home. He had 6 to go. There's a reason I never made it to the Olympics. Such is life.

Technically true. But busting your ass and putting in the effort CAN propel you way beyond the abilities of casual participants in any sport. If you put in the effort and 20+ hours a week, you're simply going to be far better at ANYTHING than 99% of people who put in less than 2 hours a week at the same task.

Genetics becomes a very significant factor when you have a group of people who are all busting their asses. Quality of coaching and training is a huge one as well. And doing anything without a plan, even in single-participant sports, is just not going to cut it compared to those who study and implement sound training and racing strategies.

Also you see people who are awesome at the low levels of the sport but cannot rise higher. One possibility is that they have raw talent but don't put in the time or effort. But there are other answers, too.


tl;dr
I like the topic for a fine Friday afternoon, but I also doubt that the OP was passed by a would-be Lance Armstrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN54oOMVrXQ
'nough said, even the pros have trouble sometimes XD

+1 to this too!

I was riding on the San Gabriel River Trail in SoCal one fine Sunday morning when this attractive girl blew by me on a cheap mountain bike (I was on my light roadbike). Being the idiot, I quickly pedaled up to her and suggested we ride and work together to counter the real heavy wind that was blowing that morning.

Then she expertly severed my head and handed it to me. She just destroyed my self-confidence. And then when I asked how often she rode, she replied about once every month or so when she can find the time.

Brutal? You bet it was!

yeah, genetically, there may be lots of "Lances" out there. That doesnt mean you could through them into a pro cycling tour and they would do well. Unlike running, being good at bike racing involves more than just good genetics. (not that I know anything about being good at racing, lol) It takes lots of disciplined training to reach your potential and racing experience to know how to respond to what other riders are doing in a race and turn that into wins.

The guy that passed you may have been just a guy on a mountain bike, but maybe he rides hard everywhere he goes and has really worked hard to get that speed. If you are new at cycling, you may be surprised to see how much you will improve over 2 years or more.

When the guy on the mountainbike passed me I should have just laughed at myself. As I said I'm new to the world of cycling but have become interested enough to start building a carbon frame. Although I really enjoy riding, building and tinkering maybe where my interest really lies.
When I finish this build and he passes me again, then I'll really be pissed.

While that was certainly amusing, "nuff said" implies that it demonstrates some kind of meaningful comparison. It simply does not.
What it did do was make the mailman feel good and get some good laughs and jeers from the team - but that's it.

IMHO, "an amateur on carbon frame" is kind of an oxymoron. I'd advise against CF and all the fancy stuff. They're for racers. For us amateurs a decent lightweight frame is okay. Both my touring and mountain bikes are Reynolds 531 and it is more than what I need. Let it take 10% more time to arrive there. Put another way, let your records be 10% lesser. So what? If you enjoy it, then 10% (even 25%) is nothing. If you don't, then CF won't buy that anyway. When you start comparing grams and millimeters, the joy will gradually give way to fruitless dry obsession (not to say fetish). There are some people I know who are more delighted gazing and inpecting their bikes than actually riding it.

An amateur either -unsuccessfully- races or -successfully- enjoys it. Only racers seem to both race and enjoy it at the same time - don't know how they do it, though.

(Disclaimer: This is a personal opinion and may not be in accordance with majority.)

Well I don't think that you need to be so utilitarian about your ride. Most Ferrari owners are not race car drivers. I think for someone who derives more pleasure from the build than the ride the latest technology is very appealing. Whether the potential of the bike is ever reached is not important and its attributes can be realized at a lower performance level. In other words it will go slow better than other bikes.