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

[bpsmith]

Who, on this thread, do you think is arguing that bikes don't make *any* difference to cyclist performance?

The usual suspects, who always state for its 95% the rider. Surely it's clear from above?

Personally, I think it's definitely more than 5% down to the bike. That's my point.

 

[bpsmith]

Yeah, but if everyone is agreed that bikes do make a difference, why are we on the twelth page of bad tempered argument?

Thank you.

 

[fossyant]

Of course it's mainly the rider, when the bikes are levelled in such a manner.

If bikes don't make any difference though, then why not pick something heavier?

Pro riders just ride what they are given now. Once upon a time, pro riders used to ride a particular frame repainted in team colours because they liked the frame. It's all marketing.

This year's 10 mile TT was won by a chap on a £1,000 bike....

 

[Citius]

If bikes don't make any difference though, then why not pick something heavier?

Not sure if you fully grasp the concept of 'sponsorship'. Let's take the Cannondale team as an example - do you think Cannondale's commercial interests and public image are best served by putting the team on Claris-equipped CAAD8s, or DA-equipped Supersix Evos?

Or alternatively, Lewis Hamilton. Does Mercedes give him an A-class to drive on the road?

 

[Citius]

This year's 10 mile TT was won by a chap on a £1,000 bike....

This came up earlier - but was quickly dismissed by those who didn't want to hear it

 

[Tin Pot]

The usual suspects, who always state for its 95% the rider. Surely it's clear from above?

Personally, I think it's definitely more than 5% down to the bike. That's my point.

Your thread title - you're arguing against the common refrain that people think the bike is only 5%.

5% is clearly more than no difference at all.

So, in fact you're arguing with yourself.

95%/5% is just a phrase, it's not a mathematically, scientifically derived ratio. It is to illustrate that the riders performance far out weighs the bikes characteristic in the grand scheme of things.

If you agree, but think it's 90/10, then you're not of an opposing opinion at all - just as many have posted here already.

Can we move on now?

 

[Citius]

Personally, I think it's definitely more than 5% down to the bike. That's my point.

If you think that, then its down to you to explain why you think that, and how you have arrived at whatever percentage you think it actually is. Good luck.

 

[bpsmith]

Not sure if you fully grasp the concept of 'sponsorship'. Let's take the Cannondale team as an example - do you think Cannondale's commercial interests and public image are best served by putting the team on Claris-equipped CAAD8s, or DA-equipped Supersix Evos?

Or alternatively, Lewis Hamilton. Does Mercedes give him an A-class to drive on the road?

You honestly think that the only reason that they ride DA SuperSix Evo's over Claris CAAD8's is SOLELY down to marketing and nothing to do with any performance difference. You crack me up.

 

[Citius]

You honestly think that the only reason that they ride DA SuperSix Evo's over Claris CAAD8's is SOLELY down to marketing and nothing to do with any performance difference. You crack me up.

I'm sure the bikes are lighter, undoubtedly. Take a look at the Wiki page I posted earlier - that will give you a rough idea of the performance differences that might be on offer. Be prepared to have your delusions shattered though...

 

[bpsmith]

Your thread title - you're arguing against the common refrain that people think the bike is only 5%.

5% is clearly more than no difference at all.

So, in fact you're arguing with yourself.

95%/5% is just a phrase, it's not a mathematically, scientifically derived ratio. It is to illustrate that the riders performance far out weighs the bikes characteristic in the grand scheme of things.

If you agree, but think it's 90/10, then you're not of an opposing opinion at all - just as many have posted here already.

Can we move on now?

I agree that it's rider over bike, but not at a 19 to 1 ratio.

The vid posted was tongue in cheek at debating this.

The usual suspects, arguing this thread as expected, keep telling people not to bother upgrading Any parts as there will be no gain aside from looks and I find that annoying. Ironically, I bet they're not riding BSO's themselves?

 

[Citius]

Stop speculating, put the strawman away and just go and read the wiki page. Enlighten yourself.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I've done the calculations and there's no way the combination of bike and rider ever gets anywhere near 100% for me.

 

[fossyant]

Actually it's less than 5%. A base level Triban 5 or 3 with decent tyres is good enough. It will keep up with a guy on a £10k bike if the same fitness.

I can climb a particular segment on Strava in the same time wether I use any of three bikes more or less. One has Dura Ace, one has Ultegra and one is a fixie with Panniers...

It's all marketing bollox as to speed. The better stuff does last longer thoughts its sealed better.

 

[Tin Pot]

The usual suspects, arguing this thread as expected, keep telling people not to bother upgrading Any parts as there will be no gain aside from looks and I find that annoying. Ironically, I bet they're not riding BSO's themselves?

Honestly, what you think is being posted and what is posted isn't the same.

There is an entire industry built on the premise that they can make people buy stuff they don't need by making them want it. And they make a shoot load of money.

"We" are arguing against that mindset, against the mindset that it is *worth* spending hundreds or thousands of pounds for unmeasurable, inferred performance gains, when the vast majority of performance is undeniably down to the rider.

Spend your money how you like, but for chrissakes don't believe the spin!

Personally I recommend spare cash go on hookers and coke. I see no reason to deviate from that world renowned default.

 

[bpsmith]

Honestly, what you think is being posted and what is posted isn't the same.

There is an entire industry built on the premise that they can make people buy stuff they don't need by making them want it. And they make a shoot load of money.

"We" are arguing against that mindset, against the mindset that it is *worth* spending hundreds or thousands of pounds for unmeasurable, inferred performance gains, when the vast majority of performance is undeniably down to the rider.

Spend your money how you like, but for chrissakes don't believe the spin!

Personally I recommend spare cash go on hookers and coke. I see no reason to deviate from that world renowned default.

It's what has been posted previously in lots of threads.

Anyway, I agree that there is an element of spin and marketing. This can be said for any industry.

I also believe that the solution is not to "go and lose body weight instead", like some always suggest.

Anyway, let's agree on the hookers and coke and move on.