Is it really 95% the Rider and 5% the Bike...

[bpsmith]

Interesting proof.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03...ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=radio_and_music

 

[jonny jeez]

Good video.

 

[the snail]

If he'd had a better gearing on the Hirondelle, or they weren't racing up a hill, the pro would have beat the carbon guy I reckon.

 

[bpsmith]

Good video.

I thought so too. Just shows the difference between bikes very well. Yes, they chose extremely different bikes, but also extremely different riders. A good fair example.

See regular posts saying a better bike won't make any difference, but this certainly suggests otherwise.

 

[Hip Priest]

A better bike does make a difference, but often that difference is minimal compared to what could be achieved by training or losing weight.

 

[Tin Pot]

Yes, the comparison supports the idea that your 2011 alu has to be replaced by 2016 carbon and that more training wouldn't improve you as much.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

+1 to hill wimp thoughts. A better bike (even by 100 odd years) won't turn a club rider into Mark Cavendish but can make them a bit better club rider.

All the carbon in the world though won't make a bike lighter than diet & training and dragging a stone less untoned bodyweight up a hill.

 

[bpsmith]

It's cracks me up, yet again, that upgrading your bike and training harder are deemed mutually exclusive.

You can do both mind.

 

[Andrew_P]

Or you can just be a crap rider who likes and can afford the nice things in life.

 

[bpsmith]

There is that too @Andrew_P. there's no rules against that either.

 

[Hip Priest]

It's cracks me up, yet again, that upgrading your bike and training harder are deemed mutually exclusive.

You can do both mind.

Of course they aren't mutually exclusive. To be competitive you need both, to an extent. But some people do the former without bothering with the latter. It's their money of course, but it's just an observation. I'd hate for people with low disposable income to be put off competing in time trials and road races because they can't afford £8k bikes.

 

[gavroche]

This is ridiculous, it would be like asking a F1 driver to drive a 1915 racing car against an amateur racing driver driving a modern F1 car. There is no contest. When bikes are concerned, legs are what matters and that is all. Take two riders with the same bikes and the one with the best legs will always win, full stop.

 

[moo]

The Catford hill climb record was set in 1983 and despite "huge advances" in cycling technology has yet to be beaten.

 

[Tin Pot]

Or you can just be a crap rider who likes and can afford the nice things in life.

Or you can be a better rider without spending money.

But then the economy would collapse and marketing execs would need real jobs - forget I suggested it.

 

[Andrew_P]

Or you can be a better rider without spending money.

But then the economy would collapse and marketing execs would need real jobs - forget I suggested it.

Why the assumption that everyone wants to be a better rider? Out of interest what bike do you ride? I see from your avatar you seem rather partial l to a Porsche where as Ford Ka would be far more efficient in getting from A to B in terms of costs so what's the point in a Porsche?