Would you enjoy racing less...
If all of the gear was essentially the same? A lot of the people I ride with LOVE the techy aspect of cycling. Carbon this, aero that. It drives me nuts though. I won't go off on too much of a retrogrouch rant, but basically it seems to me like a silly zero sum game when fancier bike racing kit is introduced. "X" technology is introduced, everyone has to drop another grand or four on the tech, and now everyone has it, except for the poors, but who really cares about poor people so **** em.
Anyways, if there was a rule change to make everyone be basically on the same bike, and you really just had to focus on training and tactics, would it make cycling less fun for you? Lets for a minute forget about nuances related to fit and relative stiffness/weight for different riders. Lets say some genius level organization thought of everything perfectly, and all you had to do was buy your bike when you started racing and maintain it with standard parts. Would you still be racing? |
first question no, second question yes
|
what's the question?
|
OP, look up Japanese Keirin racing.
|
Wouldn't interest me much. I don't have the latest and greatest, guess I'm one of those poor, but I have what I like and buy what I enjoy. In some ways the parts can be faster and in other ways slower but I still want to ride my bike. Could see at the pro level it mattering but even at the semi-pro it probably wouldn't be a big deal.
|
For Mass Start racing it doesn't make a big difference anyways. Fast tires/tubes and a good position on the bike are worth a lot more than the other expensive stuff. Oh, tactics and legs help too.
TT would be an obvious exception but for mass start it's like w/e |
Originally Posted by topflightpro
(Post 21974001)
OP, look up Japanese Keirin racing.
|
Also Merckx category for TT's.
|
rant/ In NJ they do a non aero category. bring what you got. No disks, no aero bars.
I was going to do the eddy at the NYS champiosnhips a couple years back, and I'd have to have bought wheels for it. The idea it to limit impediments, not create more. /end rant |
They had a run whatever you want race at the velodrome here a few years back, I think like a 4K. A friend got second in the fiercely competitive 65-69 age group on his recumbent. His was the only 'bent at the event. He raced track for years when he was younger.
|
Originally Posted by caloso
(Post 21974178)
Also Merckx category for TT's.
As for "open" TT with TT bikes.......I'd move to duathlon instead if they got rid of TT bikes in road bike racing. The engineering, tech, problem solving is most of the fun for me with it. Take that away, it's just bashing on some pedals. Keirin is the best current comparison. The reason for their equity is the sports gambling that it revolves around. You have that kind of money changing hands with betting, folks are going to be demanding some kind of standards to bet on. |
I would still race if there was some definition of a standard bike that I needed to buy, but I wouldn't ever be in favor of it. It would be way more trouble than it is worth. Everyone would need their bike examined every race to be sure it abides by the rules (go ahead Doge - chime in about the immense hardship that is junior gearing). I can imagine driving to a race and being DQ'd for any number of reasons - your rims are too tall, aero bars, is that electronic shifting!, are you trying to race with a seatpost that isn't round! cheater! latex tubes! those save watts and not everyone can afford them!
To gsteinb's point - trying to standardize on a 'merckx bike' that anyone would have meant he would have had to go out and buy wheels with box section rims or something, making it more trouble than it was worth. Also, don't think that this is some new phenomenon and all bikes were equal at some other time in the bike racing. There have always been the innovations of the day that made some bikes faster than others although we didn't have power meters and wind tunnels to measure the savings. |
I would imagine the earliest changes in bikes and tires made the MOST difference. Whereas today, we're on marginal gains.
GCN more than once has done a "budget superbike" for both road and TT to pretty fair success. Even in Nascar with a pile of rules about making different cars "standardized" people over the years have gamed the rule book with ingenuity and cash. I remember stories of super long coiled up fuel lines to hold more fuel and their safety cage filled with BB's that were then released on the back of the track during a caution lap to free up weight. |
I think I know what you're trying to ask. My take - as someone in the industry who has more work to do when people buy new things -
I have mixed and contrary feelings. I don't think gear/advancements makes a lick of difference to 99% of riders. I think almost all "gains" are wishful thinking mostly but can be compiled and stacked together for marginal gains. I think tech makes rides way more "enjoyable". That's the true value in most situations IMHO. I have watched fit racers riding 40 year old tech win way too many times for me to ever believe that tech makes the difference (i'll give you elite TT's or top level crits where we are talking about the racers on the pointy end of the results). Keirins - best night at the track. I think the basic system of the Japanese Keirin schools and racing could be brought to the US and deployed strategically. It would need to incorporate betting and could be the only way we ever get velodromes or tracks out in decent numbers. When you posted it I thought of Little 500. I never raced it but looked into the tech/rules manual back in the early 90's as I went to Purdue but grew up in Bloomington and my childhood friends were locals who were attending IU. They were allowed one non-student on their crew. I was going to be it but they bailed. I then raced the Purdue equivalent of Grand Prix (50 mile go-kart race) that followed the same idea of roughly spec gear. I then got into kart racing. Ended up with a driver who had a ton of success making it on to ESPN when they covered Kart racing out at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. He excelled at the Briggs class that was fairly heavily spec'd. Yes as a pure love of the sport those classes can make for some really good racing where skill and talent shine through....but I also find them boring. The idea of me personally lining up in a category where the gear is spec and all of a sudden it has really become a stripped down fitness test is something that doesn't appeal to me at all. I was always a better mechanic than a racer. If that was my only option of racing I would leave it and that bothers me. So I think tech doesn't make a difference but if it wasn't there and there was simply a stronger focus on physical talent I would leave racing. Weird. "The older I get the fewer are the answers that I know and the more OK I am with that fact" |
Originally Posted by cmh
(Post 21974962)
I would still race if there was some definition of a standard bike that I needed to buy, but I wouldn't ever be in favor of it. It would be way more trouble than it is worth. Everyone would need their bike examined every race to be sure it abides by the rules (go ahead Doge - chime in about the immense hardship that is junior gearing). I can imagine driving to a race and being DQ'd for any number of reasons - your rims are too tall, aero bars, is that electronic shifting!, are you trying to race with a seatpost that isn't round! cheater! latex tubes! those save watts and not everyone can afford them!
To gsteinb's point - trying to standardize on a 'merckx bike' that anyone would have meant he would have had to go out and buy wheels with box section rims or something, making it more trouble than it was worth. Also, don't think that this is some new phenomenon and all bikes were equal at some other time in the bike racing. There have always been the innovations of the day that made some bikes faster than others although we didn't have power meters and wind tunnels to measure the savings. And while I don't think bike advantages are a new thing, I do think that there has been more advancement in speed from equipment in the last decade or two than previously, and I think a lot of that has to do with ballooning bike prices taking them from being "crafted" products to actual engineered products with wind tunnel testing and FEA analysis where intelligent people can actually quantify what matters.
Originally Posted by TMonk
(Post 21974138)
For Mass Start racing it doesn't make a big difference anyways. Fast tires/tubes and a good position on the bike are worth a lot more than the other expensive stuff. Oh, tactics and legs help too.
TT would be an obvious exception but for mass start it's like w/e
Originally Posted by Russ Roth
(Post 21974056)
Wouldn't interest me much. I don't have the latest and greatest, guess I'm one of those poor, but I have what I like and buy what I enjoy. In some ways the parts can be faster and in other ways slower but I still want to ride my bike. Could see at the pro level it mattering but even at the semi-pro it probably wouldn't be a big deal.
|
True, but even still those gains start to drop significantly as the number of riders in said break increases. I prefer all aspects of the breakaway life in my racing and generally play those roles in the SCNCA elite races. Starting, bridging, helping to pull back, and of course helping to drive it if I'm in it. Depending on the caliber of the field in the P/1/2 there might not be a whole lot of that from my behalf, but there is sometimes in less "big ticket" races.
It def. all adds up. I race on a venge with 50 mm carbon clinchers, fast tires w latex, aero bars, evade and speedsuit. Training is a TCR, box rimes, lightweight vented helmet. At the speeds in a P/1/2 my solo moves aren't going to last long so I need to make it count. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't disagree with you :), but the number of riders in a break does play a big part in the consequence of aero gains. |
Originally Posted by TMonk
(Post 21975450)
True, but even still those gains start to drop significantly as the number of riders in said break increases. I prefer all aspects of the breakaway life in my racing and generally play those roles in the SCNCA elite races. Starting, bridging, helping to pull back, and of course helping to drive it if I'm in it. Depending on the caliber of the field in the P/1/2 there might not be a whole lot of that from my behalf, but there is sometimes in less "big ticket" races.
It def. all adds up. I race on a venge with 50 mm carbon clinchers, fast tires w latex, aero bars, evade and speedsuit. Training is a TCR, box rimes, lightweight vented helmet. At the speeds in a P/1/2 my solo moves aren't going to last long so I need to make it count. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't disagree with you :), but the number of riders in a break does play a big part in the consequence of aero gains. |
No and no. I'd like to think the guy that works the hardest wins, but as we know that's not always the case. Most of those guys buying 15 lb bikes refuse to actually train to the point they have single digit bodyfat percentages. They help some, but the results aren't going to drastically change either.
For reference, a few seasons ago I did the math and with a 300 meter run it to the finish an aero setup give you about a half a wheel advantage vs a non aero setup. |
Originally Posted by furiousferret
(Post 21975749)
For reference, a few seasons ago I did the math and with a 300 meter run it to the finish an aero setup give you about a half a wheel advantage vs a non aero setup. |
I'd still race, but I'd be relatively slower.
I find it interesting when people are as strong or stronger than I am yet run garbage tires or gear. Rolling up to a start line and seeing Gatorskins on some guys bike just makes me smile (though this has become rarer and rarer the last 2-3 years). |
Originally Posted by Phatman
(Post 21973962)
I "X" technology is introduced, everyone has to drop another grand or four on the tech, and now everyone has it, except for the poors, but who really cares about poor people so **** em.
|
Originally Posted by Phatman
(Post 21975232)
I think things are currently more equal at the pro level, mostly because cost isn't really a factor. I'd be surprised if every bike in the grand tour peloton weren't all sub 7kg. With that said, since things are most equal at the pro level, maybe that's the place to start. I doubt the pros would care if you added 5 pounds of bike weight and put a max depth/material spec on their rims because they know that everyone would have the same gear just like before.
Absolutely the pros would care if you add 5 lbs to their bike. There's some extreme fanaticism in pro cycling (as to be expected). Equipment and clothing. Quite a few documented cases in the last couple of years of guys riding non-team stuff. Some even quit their teams/don't resign over inferior equipment issues (Rohan Dennis the latest that comes to mind). |
Originally Posted by cmh
(Post 21976623)
If your math is correct, than this means aero has quite a significant advantage. I'm a middling sprinter (ok when I was cat 3, not at the front of real cat 1/2 sprints). Giving it a bit of thought and rough calculation, I'd say 25% of my wins in my cycling life were by less than 1/2 a wheel. I've also missed winning and missed podiums by less than 1/2 wheel margin on several occasions. I'm on an aero frame bike, with 50mm deep clinchers (50mm deep tubies for some of my career), so kind of aero, but not killer aero.
Deep 58mm carbon wheels were the last of my aero upgrades. And I specifically got them because I had a season in which I had 7-8 different races that I missed out on either a podium or a win by half a wheel or less. I started totaling up prize money lost and realized it was significant enough to try and rectify. Plus I had an aero bike and aero handlebars and latex tubes and everything else on shallow aluminum wheels. Looked ugly and not fast (more important?). Next season I only lost one sprint, and funnily enough, it was also by half a wheel. But on that day I had to have a front wheel change mid race so was on my aluminum wheel with a butyl tube... Makes me wonder... Tires and tubes are still most significant for speed, but once you have that, all the aero bits start factoring in as well. |
I think Rubik hits on something we haven't yet discussed - the psychological effect of equipment. I know early in my career, I definitely let it get to me that some guys had better equipment and assumed that it gave them an advantage. And there was a comment from someone in track sprinting years ago that found that Zipp wheels tested faster than Mavic 5-spokes, but everyone wanted the 5-spokes because they felt stiffer and gave riders more confidence. And there was another comment in the story about if a rider loses to a guy on the same wheels, at least they know it wasn't the equipment that caused the loss.
|
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21976645)
I'd still race, but I'd be relatively slower.
Originally Posted by rubiksoval
(Post 21976645)
I find it interesting when people are as strong or stronger than I am yet run garbage tires or gear. Rolling up to a start line and seeing Gatorskins on some guys bike just makes me smile (though this has become rarer and rarer the last 2-3 years).
handling training tars. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:48 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.