Phatman

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?

TMonk

first question no, second question yes

gsteinb

what's the question?

topflightpro

OP, look up Japanese Keirin racing.

Russ Roth

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.

TMonk

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

TMonk

This also came to mind when I red the OP

caloso

Also Merckx category for TT's.

gsteinb

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

big john

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.

burnthesheep

I bet there are still folks doing that with fancy aero wheels, aero road bikes, the newest Spec Evade helmet, and a super nice San Remo suit. In Charlotte though, a guy did the Merckx class on a downtube shifter bike from easily the 1970's or so in classic looking kit. Uhm, dude did it at like 27mph!!!

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.

cmh

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.

burnthesheep

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.

Psimet2001 

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"

Phatman

The practical aspect is definitely a massive impediment to implementation, I'm sure that's why it hasn't been done yet. As far as that particular Merckx TT is concerned though, if that was the standard, there just wouldn't be anything else sold so it wouldn't be an issue. He would've already had the gear.

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.

I think that it makes LESS of a difference with mass start racing, but a breakaway is basically a time trial, so aero matters. I haven't been in a crit in a few years, but when you see that guy with the skinsuit, shoe covers and the 80/90mm Enve's, that miiiighhhtt be a guy to watch if he attacks.

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.

TMonk

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.

Phatman

I tend to agree with the breakaway being THE exciting part of bike racing, both on a personal level (cat 3 scrub 5 years removed, so more like cat 8ish) and in pro races. So do you think that if you didn't a badass aero bike you'd be less likely to attack? That would be a strange unintended consequence of making people ride un-aero bikes.

furiousferret

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.

cmh

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.

rubiksoval

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).

rubiksoval

It's not a poverty thing.

rubiksoval

Nope. Some bikes are well north of 7 kg. To the point that teams spend their own money to ride non-sponsored wheels (Ineos)...

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).

rubiksoval

To toss in my anecdote:

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.

topflightpro

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.

Phatman

Relatively slower, like in comparison to the rest of the pack, because you would have the same gear as everyone else?

I've definitely flatted out of a break before, it was not a good feeling, after that I only used "normal" racing tires, not the superlight/fast rolling ones. Never run Gatorskins in a race, but I have used a Michelin Carbon on a back wheel. Then again, Michelin Carbons were unusually nice
handling training tars.