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

[Citius]

I think the problem started when the OP discovered the video, then made a wild extrapolation, then claimed it as proof that 'better' bikes make you faster..

 

[Tin Pot]

OMG I'm confused! Just sat and read the whole thread and it seems like everyone agrees but is somehow still having an argument about it?

It looks like everyone agrees there are two ways of improving, either the rider (training/diet etc) or the bike (upgrades/lighter parts etc). This of course doesn't mean you have to choose one, you can change both. If for whatever reason you don't want to/no time/inclination etc to train or calorie count then you may just work on the bike side - a decision which costs you money, but as it is YOUR money it is no one else business to say if you're right or wrong in doing so. Similarly if you are happy where you are and aren't constantly trying to improve/strava etc - there's not many of us on here who are in serious training, I understand we are large hobby/commuter cyclist and whilst it might matter to us there's no real world effect of us being 1mph faster or slower than anyone else. Obviously if you do want to improve and have the time and money to attack the problem from both ends, e.g. improve rider and improve bike then your results will be better than those who do one or none.

Surely it is pretty obvious that if you put the same rider on a heavy unsuitable bike and a light suitable one he would be quicker on the lighter 'better' bike. Similarly if you put an average rider and a pro rider on the same bike the pro would be better. If we take both of these, the winning bike and the winning rider, we get the obvious answer.

I can't believe people are arguing and name calling about this. Have I completely missed the point somewhere?

Yup.

It's a common mental affliction, an inability to conceive multiple viewpoints on a single topic. Binary thinking in its worst form.

I'm adding a section in my forthcoming howto on thinking clearly.

 

[swansonj]

I think the issue for legitimate debate is how the increment between different bikes compares with the increment between different riders.

I would suggest that when some club cyclist overtakes me on my touring bike, their bike may be only a few tens of percent more efficient, but their power output could be easily two or three times mine. Similarly, between two keenish road cyclists, differences in bike efficiency would, I suspect be measured in percents, but differences in rider fitness in tens of percent.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

The choice of a century-old Hirondelle seems to have been inspired by Tim Moore's attempt to ride the 1914 Giro on a 1914 state of the art bike - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/acti...e-worlds-toughest-bike-race-100-years-on.html

Not all riding is uphill, of course, (in fact, virtually all my rides end up at the same altitude) and a heavier bike is obviously going to take a lot more effort to get up than a lighter one. Had they raced downhill, however, I wonder what the result might have been. House is a very able crit rider with good handling skills and is pretty powerful. His main handicap downhill, I suspect, would be the brakes.

 

[Tin Pot]

The choice of a century-old Hirondelle seems to have been inspired by Tim Moore's attempt to ride the 1914 Giro on a 1914 state of the art bike - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/acti...e-worlds-toughest-bike-race-100-years-on.html

Not all riding is uphill, of course, (in fact, virtually all my rides end up at the same altitude) and a heavier bike is obviously going to take a lot more effort to get up than a lighter one. Had they raced downhill, however, I wonder what the result might have been. House is a very able crit rider with good handling skills and is pretty powerful. His main handicap downhill, I suspect, would be the brakes.

Great story:
"Carving fresh brakes out of wine corks was always going to be a rum affair"

Brilliant.

 

[Buck]

It was a good, light-hearted article.

It shows that the bike is a key part of the success and no matter how good the rider, the bike is key.
A good bike combined with an experienced and not too overweight rider will always be a good combo regardless

For me, I'm betting that I wouldn't have done as well on the new bike as he did on the old one!

 

[Citius]

It shows that the bike is a key part of the success and no matter how good the rider, the bike is key.

It doesn't show anything of the sort. It simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago.

 

[Buck]

It doesn't show anything of the sort. It simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago.

Well, you may not think it does but I do.

Unless I'm mistaken there were two bikes involved and had House been riding the carbon bike rather than the Hirondelle he would have been far far in front. Ergo, the bike was a key part of the success.

 

[Citius]

Ergo, the bike was a key part of the success.

Which simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago, like I said. Everything on that Hirondelle is steel (except the leather saddle and the rubber tyres). No gears. So tell me what is actually being compared?

 

[ayceejay]

I watched that Pantani movie again last night (a sad tale indeed) at one point the narrator describes the effects of EPO and what difference it makes to a riders performance. He said that the difference could be as little as 4% which although it doesn't sound like much could be measured in kilometers in an endurance race like the TdF. In a competition you must assume that everyone else is at the same level of fitness as you and so even a 1% advantage that might come from a lighter or in some other way superior bike could be enough to have you win the race.

 

[Buck]

I don't disagree with your point. Mine is that the progression of materials/technology have clearly made a difference and this has been shown in the clip.

I also refer to my opening line in my first post

It was a good, light-hearted article.

 

[Citius]

I don't disagree with your point. Mine is that the progression of materials/technology have clearly made a difference and this has been shown in the clip.

Well obviously. And a Eurofighter Typhoon is also a significant progression from a Sopwith Camel - with a similar time gap in between. But a comparison between those two is hardly realistic either.

 

[bpsmith]

Hang on - are we saying it wasn't a controlled experiment conducted in lab conditions? The OP said it was 'proof'....

It's as much proof as you and your alter ego provide from the web on most of these topics. Good to see you did t let us down once again.

 

[bpsmith]

I think the problem started when the OP discovered the video, then made a wild extrapolation, then claimed it as proof that 'better' bikes make you faster..

As I said, it's a "fact" found on Google, which is exactly where your "factual" posts derive from. Just more tongue in cheek evidence.

 

[bpsmith]

It doesn't show anything of the sort. It simply shows that bikes were a lot different 100 years ago.

The guy is a pro rider vs an amateur. The bike is 100 years older. They both finished almost the same time. Simples.