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

[Drago]

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

You can do both mind.

You can indeed, but 2kg off a bike is a thousand pounds more expensive than the same off our waistline. Simple economics gets strangely sidelined when the Gucci catalogue comes out to play.

 

[bpsmith]

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.

Agree, on both counts. Not rocket science, despite the usual suspects.

 

[bpsmith]

You can indeed, but 2kg off a bike is a thousand pounds more expensive than the same off our waistline. Simple economics gets strangely sidelined when the Gucci catalogue comes out to play.

Not really. 2kg off some riders is far easier to shift off others. Sometimes people don't have a further 2kg to shift, you seem to miss that fact?

Shifting 2kg off your body weight also gets more expensive the lighter you are.

 

[ayceejay]

To be clear it is the power-to-weight ratio that makes the difference. If you loose 2kg that you don't have to lose and end up lacking
the power to cash in on the weight loss then you will still end up at the back. When Wiggins lost weight it was under very controlled condition.
Returning to Pantani it was this ratio that helped him, in the movie he stands nest to Indurain and looks like a midget by comparison
but still beat him up Alpe d'Huez.

 

[Tin Pot]

I

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

Okay, so let's examine the premise that you believe this video proves...

The bike is a key part of the performance of a cyclist in a bike race.

Is this the same premise, or a counter premise to...

The rider is 95% and the bike only 5% of the performance of a cyclist in a bike race.

...Which is the thread title, and common refrain?

 

[winjim]

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

Really? I thought the bikes were very similar. Depends on your point of view I suppose.

 

[Citius]

Really? I thought the bikes were very similar. Depends on your point of view I suppose.

They were similar in the sense that they both looked like bicycles, I guess..

 

[Citius]

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.

So Froome's win on stage 17 was purely down to his bike? Wow, I'm off to my local Pinarello store...

 

[Citius]

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.

Once again, you attack what I say, rather than try to counter it. You've got nothing - but I'm not telling you anything new there...

 

[Andrew_P]

So Froome's win on stage 17 was purely down to his bike? Wow, I'm off to my local Pinarello store...

Are you as fit as Chris Froome then? Clearly the post you quoted stated the same level of fitness. I understood what the poster meant, as I am sure you did but you just like to argue about nothing, endlessly and rather boringly.

 

[Crandoggler]

Would it not have made more sense to use a from around 1970 and a modern era bike? As one other has said, this is a little beyond even a professional.

 

[Citius]

Are you as fit as Chris Froome then? Clearly the post you quoted stated the same level of fitness. I understood what the poster meant, as I am sure you did but you just like to argue about nothing, endlessly and rather boringly.

My fitness has nothing to do with Froome's - not sure how that crept into it. I think it's possible (make that 'highly likely') that you have not fully understood the post, before replying. But keep doing it, because it's rather entertaining.

 

[Citius]

Would it not have made more sense to use a from around 1970 and a modern era bike? As one other has said, this is a little beyond even a professional.

This is basically what GCN did in one of their videos. Much more relevant.

 

[Andrew_P]

My fitness has nothing to do with Froome's - not sure how that crept into it. I think it's possible (make that 'highly likely') that you have not fully understood the post, before replying. But keep doing it, because it's rather entertaining.

I'll give you that one.

 

[Crandoggler]

Maybe they should try this with running shoes.