mustang1

Suppose all these pros in the TdF right now were not riding their ultra high-end bikes, suppose they rode some thing for $3-4000, what would the disadvantage be? What about a 'mere' $2000 bike?

Is it all about the engine, or is it mainly about the engine when you get to a certain level and the bike does in fact make a difference?

DrPete 

When you're trying to squeeze seconds out of a ride at the highest levels of the sport, then yes, equipment matters. The engine (and in the case of a race, the brain attached to said engine) will always be the most important, but good equipment does help. It's just to an extent that most of us mere mortals don't think is worth it for the price you pay.

camhabib

Good equipment doesn't make a person better, it just makes it easier for someone can can properly use it.

botto 

oh. god. why?

notwist

Well if EVERY rider in the TdF stopped using their "high-end bikes", then I imagine nothing would change since all of them switched to "lower-end bikes"

DrPete 

Have you forgotten where you are or something?

mustang1

Just bar-room chat man.

mustang1

botto's forgotten... botto's forgotten

coasting 

they should do a re-run of the TDF with everyone on a huffy.

Wested

^^ Now that's worth a trip to France.

Ai52487963

Yeah I can imagine Astana rolling up on these:

Matt2.8NJ

Whiskey Tango.

coasting 

that's too aero

MONGO!

Wouldn't make any difference.

Velo Vol 

I'm pretty sure the bike is the only thing that separates me from the pros.

guadzilla

Think of it as an opportunity to dispense your own special brand of wisdom.

Tools matter. So does the ability of the user. The better the user, the more likely he is to run against the limits of the equipment. I can probably take better photos with a compact camera than most people can with DSLRs*. Yet, there are a lot of photos where an amateur with megabuck gear would take better photos than I could, if I were using lesser gear.

If the difference is so insignificant, why do all you "it's the engine, not the bike" types ride Cervelos, Colnagos and Pinarellos? Why not a Trek 1.2? Surely not EVERYONE is buying fancy bikes just for pride of ownership.

V

*Now, if only I could say the same about cycling.

bailcash09

Skil-Shimano doesn't ride carbon - I know its probably still high end, but not even all the pros ride super-fancy carbon everything bikes
https://www.bicycling.com/tourdefrance/tourbikes/13.html

Bearonabike

No, not if EVERYONE "fell back" to a good solid mid-range or low-end road bike (excluding Wally-world stuff of course).

I personally would like to see a major race where the equipment was more closely regulated. Pro auto racing already has races where each driver gets the same equipment. It's interesting and different. Even so, I wouldn't want that to be the way of the world, just one or two notable races in a year.

There would be one big difference, the time required to finish a TDF. Consider, the technology in Lance's 2007 Jersey (the weave of the cloth and the way air flowed around his body) was a fraction of a percent improvement. Over the course of the TDF, it was thought that this difference could mean up to 8 whole minutes of elapsed time.

https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/armstrong.html

fordmanvt

If professionals couldn't ride anything but 20-25lb steel bikes then the market for light, aero bikes would be practically nil. Then everyone would still be riding traditional geometery steel bikes with down tube shifters and 5spd cassettes.

The sponsers at the pro level pay for the bikes, and it turn, for the development of new technology. That then trickles down to the consumer market.

DrPete 

I don't know that that's true... The UCI rules don't apply to 99% of the cycling world or the tri world at all, so I don't think the market for the fancy stuff will dry up any time soon. ITU triathlon is an example--no discs, no (full) aerobars--that's just what the "pros" ride--plenty of amateur triathletes still buying disc wheels, aerobars, etc.

Little Darwin

I think the higher end bikes greatest impact on high level stage racers could be to feel better at the end of a long stage, so enabling the sprinting, or facilitate launching up those climbing finishes. They definitely can get up hills faster or easier with every pound lost on the bike too.

It probably also means something minor at the end of a stage race, as the riders are less beat up.

fmw

If you watched X nail the climb into Verbier today dusting off Y, Z and others, you wouldn't need to ask. It is the engine, not the bike. If they rode bikes that were a couple of pounds heavier it might add a second or two to such a climb but maybe not. The bikes the pros ride are all equivalent. If they were equivalent at a lower level, it wouldn't change a thing.

badfishgood

...Foxtrot

fly:yes/land:no

i am glad i already know what happens. you may have just runined a lot of people's day.

Luddite

Yeah, I'm only a lousy cyclist because I don't have a bajillion dollar road bike.