Originally Posted by
lhbernhardt
Well, the bikes are all very impressive. I really like looking at fancy cutting edge bikes, imagining how much of an advantage they would confer. But allow me to interject a contrarian view: that too much time spent on a really fast bike actually makes you slower! (You can probably figure out why.)
I would disagree. Speed comes from training and genetics. You can train just as poorly on a Wal Mart bike as a Pinerrello. Or just as well. Where it would matter is if you were spending money on bling vs. coaching or training tools, in which case it's a poor investment. Or waiting for an auction to close on Ebay instead of training.
Originally Posted by
lhbernhardt
I think that if I were a young guy and just starting off in racing, I'd get a decent, not expensive bike to race on, but I would do most of my training on a steel fixed-gear bike.
I think riding a fixed gear or a simulation thereof has it's place and has great value, but there are limiters that might make this a poor choice. If they
could ride a fixed gear I'd put every new racer no matter what their age out on the track for the first two seasons.
The bling vs. Wal Mart issue has been done to death over in the 41. A faster bike is a faster bike. A lighter bike is a lighter bike. Physics doesn't go away in bike racing because we wish it would. And it's not a zero sum game...you can have an expensive bike with all the trimmings and still train and race your ass off. The question is simply an allocation of resources and the amount of improvement you might expect. "Worth" is an entirely subjective measure. Personally I'm a gear head because it engages my intellect and I like creativity.
And I'll ask...when the guy with the Colnago with Di2 and Lightweight wheels leaves you for dust, what's the internal dialogue
