Re: [CR]TDF and BIKES

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Avocet)

Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:22:22 -0600
From: "Mitch Harris" <mitch.harris@gmail.com>
To: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]TDF and BIKES
In-Reply-To: <20050725132438.27773.qmail@web81005.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <38644.10.250.10.1.1122295847.squirrel@sq04.pol.net>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Jerry said it right.

Aero wheels and aero body position probably make a difference in the time trials. Put disc/deep section wheels and a properly set-up clip-on tri-bar on that PX-10 and you're back to 1% or less difference.

The other post-'84 bike change that makes a difference in winning or losing may be the ability to shift a cog or two mid-sprint. I understand that with Ergo/STI you can shift say from a 13 to a 12 cog while out of the saddle sprinting full-on. I've tried it when ever I occasionally ride Ergo/STI on others' bikes. It seems to work, but I've not tried it in a mass sprint.

For CR-era bike racing you had to pick a gear and be able to jump with it and then not lose the sprint by spinning out on it. Especially once 13t cogs were around it was easy to lose a sprint by choosing incorrectly between 14t and 13t--never getting on top of the 13t, or spinning out in the 14t. To be able to jump with one gear then shift and spin up with another gear would have changed the sprint completely.

Mitch Harris Little Rock Canyon, Utah

On 7/25/05, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> It's maybe 99% rider and team, 1% bike, and that may be generous to the r ole of the bike. Of course, that assumes we are talking about two bikes us ed by current teams. Maybe if you forced someone to use 1967 PX-10, he mig ht be at a 2% disadvantage, maybe with a Schwinn Varsity or a 1948 Cambio C orsa machine, a 4% disadvantage.
>
> The reason some pros, or at least some directeurs sportifs, obsess over e quipment is that the the % margin between winning and losing is so small. Lance won this year's TdF with a total time of 86:15:02. Increase that tim e 1%, and he would have had a time of 87:06:45. That would have put him in
   27th place, behind Georg Totschnig and just ahead of Mikel Astorloza.
>
> So the bike companies push, and some of the pro teams buy into, the idea that those $5000 machines can at least cut a tenth percent or two from tota l time, which could still be the difference between first and fifth. Is it
   true? Who knows?
>
> However, for tourists and recreational riders, even a 4% loss of efficien cy should be greeted with a reaction of "So what?" One's happiness with th e look and feel of the bike is more important. And even for amateur racers , the difference in rider strength is probably so great that the winner mig ht well still win on that 1967 PX-10.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
>
>
>
>
>
>
> cjscheiner@pol.net wrote:
> I am just a recreational solo rider who enjoys leisurely 20 -40 mile ride s
> in the country on week ends. The whole world of professional racing is
> foreign to me. So here is my question for the group:
>
> What per cent of the success in the Tour De France is attributable to the
> bike that is being ridden, rather than the rider and the team? If the
> number one and two finishers of this years TDF had been riding each other s
> bikes (custom fitted to their anatomy of course) would the results have
> been different? What would happen if modern TDF participants were require d
> to ride only the classic bikes we talk about on this list?
>
> Thank you.
> Cliff
> C.J. Scheiner, Brooklyn, NY