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

[Citius]

Go for it..

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Are we all still arguing?

Let me get this right, the basic points are that an old bike with its inherent oldness, is factually older than a new bike that is newer and, therefore a new bike cannot be compared to an old bike because its newness makes it un-old...ergo, to whit, ad nauseam, Cogito Ergo Sum, the old bike is older than the new one.

have I got that right?

so, sorry, what are we arguing about?

Was it something about carbon bikes coming nowhere in the 1914 Giro d'Italia?

 

[Pale Rider]

No clipless pedals on the 1914 bike.

That's what made the difference.

 

[User16625]

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.

Id be more worried about my typical riding speed of 20mph on a flat if I was on an 8 grand bike with aero everything. I would look a right tit! A bit like Homer Simpson in a space suit or somethin.

 

[bpsmith]

If more expensive bikes don't give better results then why are the pro teams all using them. Sounds pretty daft to me tbh.

Team Sky should spend more time on getting the fit of their bikes right than using Dogma's. Hang on, they already do.

This thread shows, once again, that the same people are entrenched in their opinion and adamant at proving a point.

 

[Crandoggler]

Go for it..

So, 'better' bearings, in the sense that they roll with less friction. As that's what a bearing is designed to do, along with other roles, like shaft/axle support.

Anyway, bearings of old were produced using steel wire, cold welded to create balls. These then fitted into a race and provided a rolling surface. Simple. Yet, because of manufacturing techniques, these bearings could and would become pitted, would seize and generally be shite. So what did they do? Well, apart from using quality materials, computer aided manufacturing to ensure completeness and roundness, they made the whole thing out of ceramics. This requires little lubrication and offers 1/10th friction of a steel bearing. They also make hybrid bearing, which retain the steel outer and raceway. Are they worth it? For an amateur on a pushbike? No. For gaining that 10% advantage at professional level, where cost is no problem? Yep, why not.

 

[EltonFrog]

I just thought I'd make a completely pointless comment on a completely pointless thread. There, that was nice.

 

[swansonj]

Great - if you know the answers to my questions, let's hear them? Your thoughts on 'better bearings' would be particularly welcome...

So, 'better' bearings, in the sense that they roll with less friction. As that's what a bearing is designed to do, along with other roles, like shaft/axle support.

Anyway, bearings of old were produced using steel wire, cold welded to create balls. These then fitted into a race and provided a rolling surface. Simple. Yet, because of manufacturing techniques, these bearings could and would become pitted, would seize and generally be shite. So what did they do? Well, apart from using quality materials, computer aided manufacturing to ensure completeness and roundness, they made the whole thing out of ceramics. This requires little lubrication and offers 1/10th friction of a steel bearing. They also make hybrid bearing, which retain the steel outer and raceway. Are they worth it? For an amateur on a pushbike? No. For gaining that 10% advantage at professional level, where cost is no problem? Yep, why not.

Yup. Citius, if your problem with my previous post was that you don't think bearing friction losses amount to very much, I'd agree, friction losses overall in the transmission are fairly small, and the difference between different bikes therefore even smaller. But there still is a difference.

I recall reading that Sky removed the seals from the hub bearings of Wiggin's time trial machine, on the basis that for that distance you don't care how much water gets in, but you want to remove every possible source of friction, even a bit of rubber sliding on metal at small radius. No doubt a very marginal advantage, but an advantage nonetheless.

 

[Dan B]

Apparently, we are arguing about whether a better bike would be faster.

Perhaps we could turn the question on its head, and ask whether a faster bike would be better.

 

[Justinslow]

Having just participated in my first club TT season on my "Argos" Ventura I can say the bike is important but not everything. I've had a third and several fifth's beating several full on TT bikes with disc wheels and all the kit costing many thousands of pounds.
The equipment is important, but you have to have the ability to make use of it.
Maybe in the future if I get myself a TT bike I might achieve some higher placings?

 

[tyred]

Hardly a fair comparison though. The 1914 bike has more relaxed angles and would be built from heavy gauge tubing. It's more like a touring bike or sports roadster for the simple reason that roads were not tarred then and it needed to built like that to cope with poor road surfaces. It's far removed from a modern race bike and I'm sure the modern race bike wouldn't cope very well on a gravel path.

 

[TheJDog]

In Tony Hewson's book (In Search of Stardom) which I am just reading they do a stage of some race or other 230km or so, with a mountain in the middle, at an average speed of 38km/h. In 1958 or 1959, I think. Modern TDF stages are apparently expected to be around 36km/h average on a mountain stage. OK, so the stage he's talking about probably isn't as hard as the usual TDF mountain stage now, but it's longer. The bikes have improved a lot less than you imagine since the 50s. I wonder if you'd notice the difference at all between a bike 10 years old and a new bike if they were both setup the same with similar ish gearing..

 

[jonny jeez]

I just thought I'd make a completely pointless comment on a completely pointless thread. There, that was nice.

Do you have any proof to back up your claim of pointlessness, I have a friend who once knew a girl that babysat for a mates hairdresser who said that your comment was 100% proof that you had a point.

 

[Hacienda71]

I reckon my 1980 Carlton Super Course is not much slower than my 2015 carbon aero bike with deep section carbon wheels. The downsides to the old bike are 42:18 lowest gear and down tube shifters, I know real men reach between their legs and all that, but in reality it is easier to change gear without taking your hands of the bars. The ride on the old bike feels quite different, the bars are narrower and I ride quite narrow bars on the modern bike, the geometry of the frame is different with a high top tube and not much seat post showing, the ride is much more compliant the 531 tubing is more springy than the fairly rigid aero frame of the new bike. I am sure there are much stiffer steel frames out there, as there are less stiff carbon ones. The old bike weighs 3 kilos more than the new bike. Does any of this make a massive difference to my speed? not a lot. I suspect you might lose few seconds up a hill a mile or so long and a second or two over a flat mile, but I could quite easily imagine this is down to weight and the slightly more aero position you can adopt on the new bike.
The BBC test was a bit of fun but really told you nothing other than trying to ride up a barsteward hill on a 100 year old ss was not going to be pretty. Put Mr House versus Mr Borg on a sensible head to head and I know where I would put my money.

 

[Pale Rider]

I recall reading that Sky removed the seals from the hub bearings of Wiggin's time trial machine, on the basis that for that distance you don't care how much water gets in, but you want to remove every possible source of friction, even a bit of rubber sliding on metal at small radius. No doubt a very marginal advantage, but an advantage nonetheless.

Not just Sky.

Quite a few cross country racers remove the seals to reduce friction, and replace the grease with light oil for the same reason.

'Marginal gains,' as Brailsford is fond of saying.