Apparently some people are in this sport so they can buy expensive clothes and pretty objects to make them feel better about themselves.

At least when you see someone on a fugly bike, you know they're in it for the love of the sport, not the love of the toys.

This is the sentiment that keeps Guru in business

;-)

Jodi

I just posted something to that effect on the QR thread.

Here's the deal...and feel free to disagree. Amongst the top of the line bikes (Felt DA, P3C, P4, Specialized Transition, QR lucero) the aerodynamic differences are pretty small. A few seconds (ok, maybe a few more) over 40K. So they're all pretty fast.

I'll admit, part of it is vanity...but if I'm going to drop several K on a new bike...I want one that is fast and looks cool. I'm not a pro where a few seconds makes a difference. And if riding a cool-looking rig adds to my enjoyment of the sport, what's wrong with that? Maybe that makes me a poser. But if styling didn't matter at all, every bike would come out in naked carbon or bare alumimum with no graphics.

---

__________________
JP

my twitter feed

I'm with you. Luckily I seem to like the fast ugly bikes.

I'd rather win on an ugly bike, than pose on a pretty one.

---

______________
HEDmafia.com

Shhhhh.

Let the boneheads persist in thinking looks are more important.

---

Bob C.

The "science" on any matter can never be settled until every possible variable is taken into account.

I thought this thread was going to be about the JAP review process. On that subject, of course you belong to the "I don't care how ugly it is, as long as it is fast" side as well.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

What data do you have that 2 of those bikes belong with the other three?

Arguably there are three classes of bike in your statement.

Well, so far 'ugly' (and we all know what we are talking about) did not cut it at the women, men, and U23 World's TT this week, so we better be careful knocking good looking bikes.

Coming from a guy who wears elastic kahki shorts, black socks and Topsiders......this doesn't suprise me.

In all "seriousness" (not that I'm very serious), most people attribute performance to effort, not to technology. If they lose the race, it's about fitness, not the gear. i.e. - you race against the competition, not against your potential.

Cute, but not logical.

*rimshot

---

<If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough>
Get Fitter!
Proud member of the Smartasscrew, MONSTER CLUB
Get your FIX today?

I think the seatstays are ugly -- just how much FA did they drop by tilting 'em fwd a few degrees like that?
The rest I have no problem with ...

It all comes down to the level of proficiency of the racer and where they are looking to place.

If I am fighting for a podium spot, then I would prefer to ride the fastest bike possible, even if it were ugly as sin. If I am middle of the pack then I would rather have a bike that I like the way it looks. At that point there is really no difference if a slight aero advantage brings me from up to 150th place from 160th. At that point, I would rather ride a bike that I like the way it looks.

Just my 2 cents.

I'm with you... I have a P3C and have never thought it was a nice looking bike, but it is fast. And that fact that it is so fast motivates me to want to improve the engine even more. To each his own.

I'm in the same boat as you. But I'm a strange one...my road bike is a piece of crap that weighs a ton - I don't care about image and I like the extra weight. I think of it this way, "I might as well be getting the most out of my training."

---

---

"your horse is too high" - tigerchik

In addition to the fact that many here are not racing for podium, I think attention to details regarding the bike get lost in the noise for triathletes. What is 5 sec per KM when viewed against the seconds lost in a poor swim, or run, or poor transition? What would cure this for a triathlete is to do a 40k TT. After a TT you start wondering about all the little details that might have slowed you down.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

AC,

Beauty is in the eye of the record holder.

---

Dan
***********
póg mo thóin

Again, these so called fast numbers are based on going 30mph, no one runs at 30mph for 112 miles, and I thought I have seen on ST that at 20-22mph the frame does not make the big difference in the speed of the overall package. I am getting so confused by everyone on ST as to what to believe anymore.

If it saves time for the 30 mph rider, it saves more time for the 20 mph rider

In that case, I think a Calfee Dragonfly tandem is beautiful. ;-)

none. I just randomly named the 'flagship' bikes from each of the first few manufacturers that came to mind.

Here's a question for you: Same rider, same course, same effort, same wheelset, same groupset, same rider position (if that's possible given the different geometries)...but different bikes, say a HIM. What is real time difference between the 5 bikes I mentioned? a minute? two minutes? ten minutes??

I venture to say that it's maybe a couple minutes at most.

---

__________________
JP

my twitter feed

Would you mind tiering them for me (and maybe throwing in a few other frames in the lower 2 tiers)? And maybe pointing to the data that shows it? I'm not calling you out - I'm seriously trying to figure this out, since I'm (suddenly) frame shopping.

Not at all, most people will attribute wins to preparation, fitness and personal effort, but losses are always due to a heavy bike that's not aero enough, wrong tires, wrong wheels, etc...

BTW: I think it's ugly too, and I won't be trading my P2C in on one any time soon. And it's too damn expensive for me!