Exactly my point!
Is it really 95% the Rider and 5% the Bike...
- Thread starter bpsmith
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Put him on a BSO and he still would have won? Is that what you're saying then?So Froome's win on stage 17 was purely down to his bike? Wow, I'm off to my local Pinarello store...
Citius
Guest
That wasn't actually my point - and it wasn't the point of the post I was quoting, either.
But since you ask, as long he (Froome) could maintain a superior w/kg over his opponents, then I would expect the answer is yes. But you should read the posts again, because you really have missed the point spectacularly there...
G3CWI
Veteran
- Location
- Macclesfield
This thread has cheered me up no end. Last weekend Christian House steamed past me and my mate. I assume he was training for ToB. But I now discover that he rides a better bike than us.
Nice bloke actually - he greeted us as he passed.
Nice bloke actually - he greeted us as he passed.
ayceejay
Guru
- Location
- Rural Quebec
It is amazing that in spite of the wording
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. There is this response
So Froome's win on stage 17 was purely down to his bike?
Is that what I said? I don't think so.
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. There is this response
So Froome's win on stage 17 was purely down to his bike?
Is that what I said? I don't think so.
Citius
Guest
If your own quote of your own post is accurate (which it is) - then that is precisely what you said. Congrats - you are now successfully arguing with yourself..
The truth of it, quite obviously, is that not everyone (not even at the highest levels of the sport) has the same fitness - which makes any 1% technology advantage rather irrelevant.
shouldbeinbed
Rollin' along
- Location
- Manchester way
Where do you see that in the posts above this quoted one?It's cracks me up, yet again, that upgrading your bike and training harder are deemed mutually exclusive.
You can do both mind.
ayceejay
Guru
- Location
- Rural Quebec
Tell me professor how precise do you find words like assume: might: and could?
As you have no idea how fit anyone else is it is perhaps prudent to assume that they are at least as fit as you
and so any advantage the bike may offer is worth considering surely?
As you have no idea how fit anyone else is it is perhaps prudent to assume that they are at least as fit as you
and so any advantage the bike may offer is worth considering surely?
Tin Pot
Guru
They have. And with golf clubs, and tennis rackets, and so on. The same is true everywhere.
Excepting specific game changing technology events, new kit has precisely half of feck all to do with performance .
Yet, and completely unrelated if course, everyone selling sports kit does inferring a performance increasing basis and some new attribute this year which is a must have.
What a coincidence.
Crandoggler
Senior Member
With running shoes? Seriously? I'd imagine that a professional wearing wooden cloggs would be faster than an amateur in 'proper' running shoes.
Citius
Guest
Yep - next time I enter a race for veteran Hirondelles, I'll definitely make sure I'm on my carbon jobbie....
2 hours a week expended to save two minutes on a ten mile TT sounds like a very inefficient use of time
Citius
Guest
Not if your objective is to save two minutes on a 10.
If you've saved two minutes by spending 120 of them, you're actually 118 minutes down on aggregate
Citius
Guest
Hmm good point. In which case, Froome and Wiggins must still be several hundred hours down on their TdF wins...
- Status
