You know, I was reading the thread on the new Madone, and just had to chuckle a little, new technology is fun, and nice to play with, but newer bike technology is not likely to make you very much faster than a 10 or even 20 year old bike…
Lucien Petit-Breton set the UCI hour record with an average of 25.54 miles per hour. He used what was probably a 30 pound steel bike. By the way, it was almost 102 years ago (November 1905) and had wooden rims.
The current record is just 5.34 mph faster, set just last summer. Not a whole hell of a lot of increase in 100 years, and you have to think that the biggest part of that gain was knowledge of actual fitness with HRM, Power Meters, etc.
This always makes me laugh when people start talking about all the “innovation” in cycling, and the importance of all the weight cuts…maybe in the mountains, but not overall.
Hell, Eddy Merckx did it in 1972 at 30.64mph, the current record is 30.88mph set by Ondrej Sosenka in 2005…a 0.24mph increase over 33 years…wow.
I’ll stick with my beautiful steel bikes, hell the Merckx I posted only weighs 19.3 pounds with pedals on.
Hell, Eddy Merckx did it in 1972 at 30.64mph, the current record is 30.88mph set by Ondrej Sosenka in 2005…a 0.24mph increase over 33 years…wow.
You do realize that they did it on virtually the same bike, right? All of the increase from Merckx to Sosenka is attributable to fitness level. To see what the bike tech can do, have a look at Boardman’s Superman hour record and compare that to his Athlete’s Hour record.
Of course they did, you can’t compare TT bikes and road bikes…my point was that looking at traditionally styled road bikes, there has been little increase. You can’t compare TT bikes, because they didn’t have them 100 years ago. My point is that the latest carbon craze, and ultralightweight have little to do with it. Aerodynamics of course do, which is where the design of the TT bike comes into play, but I’ll bet if I look up TT bike records from the mid eighties til now, I would see little overall increases from 20 years ago, even with TT bikes.
Of course they did, you can’t compare TT bikes and road bikes…my point was that looking at traditionally styled road bikes, there has been little increase. You can’t compare TT bikes, because they didn’t have them 100 years ago. My point is that the latest carbon craze, and ultralightweight have little to do with it. Aerodynamics of course do, which is where the design of the TT bike comes into play, but I’ll bet if I look up TT bike records from the mid eighties til now, I would see little overall increases from 20 years ago, even with TT bikes.
If you are trying to prove that in an event with no acceleration and no undulation, weight doesn’t matter, then you just have. But I am not sure if there was anybody who doubted that. That said, nowadays Eddy Merckx rides a carbon bike.
all else equal, 5.34 mph seems like quite a lot in my mind. that’s a 20% increase. and over the course of an ironman, a differnce of about 1 hour 30min, on the bike leg alone. or in other words, that’s an average of almost 9-10min improvement for every 10 years over the last 100 just because of changes in bike technology (over the course of an ironman). definitely noteworthy.
Thats exactly what I was thinking; around 18% is a pretty big improvement. Have other sports (swimming, all track and field, weight lifting, etc) seen that kind of increase?
Your point is very poorly made if you are using the Athlete’s Hour record as your basis for comparison. That particular event mandates the use of 30 year old technology.
To jump on you some more cycling is unusual in that the relationship of speed to ability is not a straight line. The force needed to overcome air resistance goes up at a disproportionate rate to your speed so even a pretty minor increase in speed represents a meaningful increase in power.
Exactly, my point was, that I think increases in training knowledge, using power meters, specific programs, etc, are more likely to be responsible for speed increases than bike technology…
Not at all, you could not possibly compare todays TT bikes to older road bikes, My point is, that design, which does impact time is FAR, FAR, FAR more important than materials or nominal differences in weights.
Interesting - but you also miss another point. When those guys set those records, what was the rest of the field like? If you just compare the “records” then maybe it’s not a big difference (and I think it is, per the 20% poster). But if you compare the top 1000 cyclists’ average times, then I bet you see a HUGE difference that technology has made.
Look at mile times - how would you compare the fastest mile 50 years ago to today’s fastest mile time? What should be looked at is HOW MANY PEOPLE are breaking 4-minute miles now, not the fastest mile. I know the comparison isn’t exactly the same, but the point is. Look at the entire field, not the record breakers.
Possibly, but could it also be that people overall are training better, and understand how to train better. Athletes in every sport are getting bigger stronger and faster than their predecessors…It might also be some prejudice on my part as I HATE carbon bikes with a passion, and would never own one…carbon forks yes…carbon frames nope, so it could just be some prejudice on my part. Dunno, still very very skeptical of any “claimed” superiority in bikes due to technology…YMMV.
If anything, the relatively small increases in the hour record demonstrates that really, not much has changed with respect to training, nutrition, etc over the last 30 years. Once again, Sosenko’s hour record was set on a bike that was virtually identical to Merckx’s bike, and the record is only slightly increased.
**My point is, that design, which does impact time is FAR, FAR, FAR more important than materials or nominal differences in weights. **
I really have no idea where you are going with this one. Of course that is true on a flat, smooth velodrome.
My point was that people praise carbon as though it is some sort of “wonder” material, when it simply another material to make bikes out of. As far as hating it, probably cause it’s truly ugly…again, just my opinion. Every bike I buy, I buy almost exclusively for aesthetic reasons, and carbon is just ugly.
As far as the rest, it’s simply not true, Sosenko used a traditionally DESIGNED road bike, but his was made from custom made by Moser from carbon fiber and was considerably HEAVIER than the one used by Eddy Merckx…which though, steel only weighed 5.5kg…while Sosenko’s weighed 9.8 kg, in large part due to a HEAVY wheel at 3.2kg…So he was on a heavier CF bike, and barely beat Merckx on an older lighter steel bike. So, not really the same bike at all.
Again, increase I think in large part due to a better understanding of the human body, athletes with regimented training programs, and better physical capabilities overall. Again, YMMV.
Again, increase I think in large part due to a better understanding of the human body, athletes with regimented training programs, and better physical capabilities overall. Again, YMMV
So then why did Sosenko barely beat Merckx’s record?? FWIW, I knew nothing about Sosenko’s bike, because the rules were specifically implemented to minimize the impact of 30 years of technological improvements.
I don’t think carbon is a wonder material, but you can do things with it that are impossible with any other material. as far as whether a material is ugly, huh?? It is just a material. Just because designers choose to make it look a certain way is not a reason to disparage it.
At the back end of any curve improvements are incremental, then a paradigm shift plots a new curve and BAM radical improvements. I’m looking out for the BAM.
That just shows you how little has changed. When I look at Greek sculpture from a couple thousand years ago fit people then look like fit people now. I’ve got steel Nishiki from the 80’s that’s just as fast and lot more comfortable than the Cannondale I gave my bro. I think one thing we can all agree on is that bike fit is one of the most important factors of efficient cycling.