You are approaching it from the wrong perspective.

You want to test a lot of bikes that are not worthy. You're trying to find the fastest bike.

He's going to be finding the fastest bike that is willing to pay the most guaranteed $ and/or the highest bonus potential. He may well trade some time for a large(r) guaranteed base salary or for a smaller salary but huge bonus potential. The question becomes how much time and how do you quantify all the variables, like injury/injuries that go into that decision? Do you risk leaving guaranteed money on the table for a 50% higher bonus potential? Do you take the most guaranteed but maybe the lowest bonus potential? Do you go for the fastest bike for you and hope they can afford you (although that question should be answered before you bother to test it) and if not how much are you potentially giving up in base + bonus vs what you may win?

That took me about 4 minutes to figure out based on my triathlon budget/last few seasons spending/winnings for me. But then I've only won $475 over the last few seasons of triathlon and only have 2 races that I have the potential to get paid on this year's schedule.

Out of your list there are 4 I'd consider testing if I was most focused on the fastest bike for me. For him probably less based on your list & current market conditions.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I didn’t know this hypothetical situation had to include sponsorships. I figured it was to find the fastest gear for a pro, period.

You are privy to more aero information than I am, so I personally wouldn’t rule those bike out until tested or I had more information.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

i'm going to throw a wrinkle into this thought process:

i can think of one a pro (and Brian you can probably figure out who I'm referring to), who I believe has at some point or another, consciously decided, or perhaps calculated, that the value in sponsorship money was greater than the value add of a marginally faster piece of equipment that would yield marginally faster race results/payouts. i see this not only in his/her frame decisions, but also in other sponsorship decisions he/she makes - helmets, wheels, even down to hydration setups.

basically, rather than riding one of the fastest frames, fastest helmets, etc, etc, and maximizing opportunities to win races/earn payouts, i suspect he/she's figured out that it's financially more sensible to earn money through the sponsorship contract. and you know what? there's nothing wrong with that at all! this is a profession for all of these athletes, and sponsorship money, when it's an option, is often way more guaranteed than race payouts.

for instance, would i take a free Rudy Project helmet rather than pay $350 for whatever the newest "best" aero helmet is? Probably not. But if RP gave me the helmet for free and paid me a few hundred bucks - is that worth more than whatever cash payout i might win from winning X race?

we have also experienced showing up to a race ready to go, no second questioning our plan, only to have X, Y, and/or Z happen and totally blow up our results. so even if professionals focused only on optimizing equipment, potentially at the expense of paid sponsorship walking, AND having to pay for equipment out of pocket, seems a bit short sighted. pro's gotta eat.

---

----
@adamwfurlong

I had the motivation and economics wrong in my head. I recently got a little more information about prize money and sponsorship money in Triathlon. Since I have never been a pro I had never really looked at it.

My original hypothesis was "get the fastest equipment and win the race - the prize money for 1st place vs 2nd or 3rd and fame for being the winner would be the motivator" - right? If one bike is $6150.00 and another is $10,000.00 who cares if it means you win a big race and the big purse. 1st place prize money will make up the difference.

In the wind tunnel shootout our bike (Tactical) was third - a watt or two behind the P5X and P5. If you include our optimized chain (stock equipment on our bike and good for 5 watts) - the Tactical may be faster on the road - in a race.

If I were to offer (sponsor) a great athlete a Tactical and the bike is better than their current bike with older base bar, exposed brakes/cables, regular chain and older frame - say conservatively we would be 8-10 watts faster; all in - 3+ minutes in a long course race. Of course we would add our Ceramic BB and Ceramic pulleys and make sure the hydration was perfect. 3+ minutes is the difference in many races so that would seem like something to jump on.

The difference in a P500 Long Course race between 1st and 2nd is about $1,250.00 (this is what messes with the equation).

If a different sponsor with a slower bike will also pay race entry fee, travel costs and bonus money ... that $1,250.00 is not so attractive. It might mean not paying the mortgage. Maybe pros that also have another source of income will weigh things in a different way.

Either way it is an interesting puzzle and pros are making difficult decisions..

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

I didn’t know this hypothetical situation had to include sponsorships. I figured it was to find the fastest gear for a pro, period. //

There is no such thing. You could take 10 different pro men and find optimization on 10 different set ups, and you could also mix and match them for some of the same results. There is and never has been a one size fits all in our sport. You show me the greatest aero frame with a 20mph straight on headwind, and I will show you a piece of shit dog in a 20mph direct sidewind. And this goes on and on. You could throw a towel around all the best bikes right now, no one is losing time because of equipment, and if they are it is not really making a difference in their races. No one can know what is going to happen on race day, so everyone is always making their best guesses, and that goes all the way down the line to what tires they are using.


The only really low hanging fruit that I can see, and has been forever, is how you are set up on your bike to begin with. That is everything once people are all on top of the line gear. The rest is just noise. Of course once you have done everything you can, it is fine to quiet that little noise..(-;

[quote]didn’t know this hypothetical situation had to include sponsorships. I figured it was to find the fastest gear for a pro[/quote]

I'm not sure how you separate the two

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I've never worked with a single pro triathlete who doesn't do this.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Here is the prize money breakdown for all prize purses.

http://www.ironman.com/triathlon/organizations/pro-membership/event-registration.aspx#axzz3F5NFbgfw

If you look at the prize breakdown at say Steelhead 70.3. It's a $50k race, which is $25k each to M & F. 2nd makes half of 1st in this race. $10k vs 5k. But 3rd makes $3250

Since the prize money breakdown across the board is heavily skewed towards the winner, and the odds of winning are slimmer as the prize money goes up, I think it makes guaranteed money & bonus potential more important. There are maybe 5 pro's on the planet that may need to calculate the dollar difference between 1st and 2nd and their guaranteed money and/or bonus potential

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

yeah, that's borderline shocking for anyone who follows triathlon to think that equipment decisions are not (perhaps heavily) influenced by sponsorships. It certainly is in higher-paying sports and those athletes are getting millions of dollars. In fact, I think you could fairly say that I would expect a pro athlete to pick slower equipment if the money is sufficient. That is guaranteed money; prize money--even if it approaches the sponsorship dollars-- is not guaranteed.

People seem to forget that this is their job. They have bills and families to support too. I realize it is individualized analysis, but the goal may be to make as much money as possible as much or more as it is to "win." There are an infinite number of other jobs in this world that people would have no issue accepting more money even if that meant not outperforming the competition. It isn't a perfect analogy as I realize sports is inherently more competitive, but worth some additional thought.

I feel like that thought process is across all sports. Make as much money as you can then see what happens. It just so happens that in triathlon were talking about hundreds or thousands of dollars and not millions like in the NBA/NFL/MLB. We see a lot of vert players in sports take the veteran minimum for a chance to win a championship. I'm sure if there was enough money to be made in triathlon we would end up seeing that at the end of careers or contracts where pros just race what they want to race and not worry about the money. But as the great Wu-Tang Clang said, "Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M., get the money, dolla dolla bill y'all".

---

Twitter - Instagram

It does but I don’t think the differences in equipment make the same difference across all sports.

No that is true. But losing is losing. No body WANTS to lose a race, game, etc., but also no body wants to not have nice things! Obviously it is way different since a 10 day NBA contract is more than most triathletes probably make in their career outside of the top few. But the posters above did get me thinking about why certain people might make certain decisions.

---

Twitter - Instagram

sounds like andy potts, bless his cotton socks!

I wonder how much of this discussion is because Sanders is openly discussing a process other pros do behind closed doors.

For instance, other pros would evaluate their equipment choices and then simply just show up on a small frame and the few equipment changes they've made at their next race and we'd read about them in one of ST's "bike of _____ pro" features buried in a comment on photo 12.

Sanders may just be saying out loud what everyone else does anyway.