While I agree it can seem that equipment gets a disproportionately high emphasis in these fora, I don't think that makes your criticism entirely fair or warranted. Here's why:

1. A discussion forum is the perfect place to discuss where "speed can be bought" since these opportunities for speed gain are typically universal. i.e. The product either is or is not an improvement over the competition. Thus observations are transferable between posters and there's some promise of solid answers. In short, it's less likely for the answer to be "it depends" as compared with anything to do with position.
2. Fit/position is discussed repeatedly on ST. Nevertheless, it's a trickier topic for online discussion. Much harder to quantify and results are invariably unique and largely non-transferable.
3. Training is discussed a bit but the big problem with training is not knowing what to do, it's finding the time and the motivation to do it.

So, regardless of the fact that 2 and 3 generally offer bigger rewards, it's inevitable 1 will get plenty discussion. Why would we assume the volume of discussion reflects the importance we put on each aspect?


Finally, most importantly, and regularly repeated though often ignored by these criticisms: The 3 are not in competition! You can work on all 3 simultaneously. Why would you not?




I rarely talk about my training on ST. I do regularly contribute on threads like this, as you are doing yourself. that doesn't mean I "can't be bothered to feel the pain to improve", and I see no reason to accuse the OP of that either.

Careful with these criticisms, you are suggesting implications that you can't support.

No, not the OP. Of course not. Or not any specific person.

It's always been a cycling (and even automotive racing) thing to have fun with equipment. It's fun to buy shiny things and talk watts, times (or horsepower for cars). I kept putting money in my car back in the day and cranking the boost up, but my driving skills were crap. Didn't matter the car, I probably wasn't going to lay down 10's in a 1/4.

So yes, I do agree with you we can talk about it also. And it fits into the regime.

I'm just becoming one of those guys that's a little more skeptical about the marginal gains for 99% of the public for the newest tech versus something from even the year 2010.

And the topic of "watts or time saved" really hits at what I view as an almost predatory marketing environment in the industry.

It's exactly like aftermarket car parts companies posting "our headers dyno 20whp more than stock!!!". Yeah, on whose car, whose tune, whose dyno measured that, how hot was it that day.

I've been through that whole deal in the car world of marginal gains through fantastical claims from manufacturers.

So, my post about training isn't necessarily meant to be only a slight against "trying harder".........it's a caution that we can't believe everything.

It's not as simple as buying some wheels for 15 watts, TT tires for 10 watts each, and the newest helmet saving 5 more watts, and the shoe covers for 5 watts.

People tend to believe it as gospel, then add up the numbers and say "hey, I should be a whole 2 minutes faster in a 10mi TT with that stuff!!!!" It doesn't really ever work out quite that way.

And a very very very small portion of the cycling public has the means to quantify the gains they purchased.

So far, this topic just broaches the very entry level math of how the theoretical gains work.

I'd rather see it get into what it actually means for an average joe. Knowing how to add up 10, 15, 5, and 2 and equating that to 10 minutes over 8 hours is fine and dandy.

But I think the average joe could stand to also better understand the impact of super marginal differences in equipment at their actual levels of use.

Example of what I'm saying: The data may very well be right that a disc saves a slow rider 10 minutes, but, totally do not buy that a disc from 2018 versus 2008 will save that same person (riding at 20mh) anything more than a handful or less of seconds. Within the noise of the data.

Flo itself lists gains from a freaking Mavic Open Pro against their wheels at 30mph. 30. Yes, Nolan Ryan could throw a baseball faster than a brick. And so could I.

In the Endura video about Graeme Obree, the newest tech all combined together netted 20 watts at 30mph versus his old Superman setup with old helmet and kit. 20 out of 350ish watts. That's what, 25 years ago now? And only 30 watts over the UCI standard at the time.

If that's the case in a pretty extreme transformation, I'm pretty skeptical about these watt and time improvement claims from these groups for folks riding at 20mph.

The change from zero isn't the argument. I concede that going from nothing to something will certainly do something.

I'd almost say you'd have to do it to some average joes like me to convince me. Not pros who can ride 30mph. Shoot, GCN are former pros and their testing is often humorous and inconclusive.

 
1) apparantly, Boardman CdA with Superman position, for IP record an Hour record, was around 0.18 or .0185
So, quite difficult to get better

2) the slower you are, the better the aero gain :
a change from for exemple CdA 0,22 to CdA 0,2 will save less drag grams and watts at 20mph than at 30mph, of course, but will reduce a 180km time more at "20mph CdA 0.22 initial measured power" than at "30mph CdA 0.22 initial measured power" (in minutes, not in %)

3) gains don't simply adds up, because the way you calculate them is non-linear

4) There is a limit to aero and friction gain :
with a zero friction bike, zero friction tyre, and CdA 0.18, 200w power will bring your IM 180km bike segment to 4h3mn, no less
with very optimized friction, wood velodrome rolling quality, CdA 0.18, 200w power will bring your IM 180km bike segment to 4h20mn, no less