Except that water and muck will then get in and grind away the surfaces, and then.... Either stick with conventional bearings (complete with seals!) or do the job properly. It depends what level you are at, as to whether you see changing as worth it. For the average rider it might be an expensive way to achieve not a lot. For the full effect every bearing needs to be changed. Chainset, wheels, gear mechs, the lot. Not cheap!
Where on earth did you get that figure of 97% from!! It's actually around 40% of power required is to overcome air resistance. It has been shown in proper test conditions that ceramic bearings DO make a realistic difference. The choice that has to be made though, is whether or not you feel that the significantly increased expense is justified by your own specific needs. For example, in this years 10 mile National Time Trial, Matt Bottrill won by 2 seconds from Ryan Mullen. If it were that Bottrill uses Ceramic and Mullen doesn't, then the expense is totally justified. Do you see my point? I accept that this is an extreme example but if it means that a couple of seconds in a '10' can be the difference between winning or losing, beating a PB or maybe getting under the magic 20 min' mark then it's worth it - every time! Simple answer is, if you can afford it then do it.
I thought it was data from Mike Burrows on the recent 'speed' programme. In any case it's a better figure than 40% which is waaay off the mark.
Agreed, but wasn't that exactly what worked for Team GB and Team SKY to very good effect. If you can achieve a number of 'marginal' gains then it ceases to be marginal, which was my point!
Figures and data can be made to mean whatever you need them to and bicycle and component manufacturers will use this to their best advantage. It takes very little effort to make a bike move forwards as air resistance is low but as the speed increases and most importantly when it is above (approximately) 22mph then the effort required increases exponentially until it reaches a point which represents 80-90% of input which is required to maintain that speed. Overall, from standstill upwards the figure of 40% is representative of the average percentage of input which is used to reach and maintain speeds in excess of 22mph. Whatever the 'numbers' are doesn't matter, it still remains that anything which can be introduced in order to reduce resistance no matter where it comes from, has got to be of benefit. It will however, be of significant detriment to your bank balance, but you know what they say "If it has wheels or a skirt, you can't afford it!!"
Of course marginal gains have a value, but there is a big difference between a gain that benefits a professional at the top of their game under the most ideal circumstances and the benefit for the majority of us sub-optimal mortals here.
Wow suddenly the penny has dropped!! that's exactly what I have been saying - you have to weigh up the benefit against cost which for those of us who have to pay for it, is always going to be a contributory factor. It took a while but eventually we got there!!
No need for the sarcasm thanks ....