It's not the bike, it's the rider - So?

[andrello]

We've all heard this expression before. The best components do not make you the best rider, but that does not mean that bad equipment does not make you a bad rider. So my question is how much can a cheap bike (bad fit, resistive components, etc..) slow you down/drain your power? Has anybody ever put a bunch of pros on crappy bikes to see how much worse they do?

[lokstah]

We've all heard this expression before. The best components do not make you the best rider, but that does not mean that bad equipment does not make you a bad rider. So my question is how much can a cheap bike (bad fit, resistive components, etc..) slow you down/drain your power? Has anybody ever put a bunch of pros on crappy bikes to see how much worse they do?
This is a dead end question, unfortunately... it's hard enough to quantify "crappiness" without quantifying something equally complex -- performance -- against it. Different riders are likely to be affected by different quality changes in different ways, for instance. A heavy, powerful sprinter might lose a measurable amount of power and stability in a flexy enough bike; a climber might suffer more from a heavier frame or bulkier components. Riding style might play a factor, too. Racers who depend more on quick, precise shifts might rely more on a top-notch shifting system; riders with fatigue or comfort issues over longer distances might rely more on parts with dampening properties.

Some riders, though, could likely pull out the same time on a DeRosa King as they'd get on a Schwinn Supersport. Hell, there's probably a King rider somewhere in the world who'd go faster if he or she just tried out that Supersport. Who knows? The variables are so great, so inconsistent. Companies, shops, and enthusiasts will debate for ages over what makes a part lousy, or good, awful or fantastic.

It's easier just to be philosphical about this. If you're looking to improve your performance, or you simply find bike technology interesting, it's likely you'll want to try out flashier, lighter, sexier parts from time to time. It's human nature. Naturally, the pros do; they're paid to do it, and they're paid to beat each other. They've got little reason not to go all out. Me? I just love my bikes, and I think it's fun as hell to invest in cool stuff from time to time. It makes me feel fast.

:)

[jhuskey]

We've all heard this expression before. The best components do not make you the best rider, but that does not mean that bad equipment does not make you a bad rider. So my question is how much can a cheap bike (bad fit, resistive components, etc..) slow you down/drain your power? Has anybody ever put a bunch of pros on crappy bikes to see how much worse they do?

I can tell you that a bad fit will make you hurt long before you would if you were riding a properly fitted bike and if you cramp up you don't perform as well.
I have also ridden a bike with bad bearing that had been stored for a while.
It was a nightmare at least 3 to 4 miles an hour slower than usual and struggle to get that.
Your mileage and performance amy vary.

[soonerschwinn]

This thread has reminded me of a few century rides I've been in where you'll be riding along in a group going 25+ mph, you're all on decent to really nice bikes. Except for the one guy on a Huffy or something, with a cottered crankset, steel handlebars and cage pedals. You have to wonder what the guy could do on a really good bike.:rolleyes:

SS

[dhk]

We've all heard this expression before. The best components do not make you the best rider, but that does not mean that bad equipment does not make you a bad rider. So my question is how much can a cheap bike (bad fit, resistive components, etc..) slow you down/drain your power? Has anybody ever put a bunch of pros on crappy bikes to see how much worse they do?

Correct fit on a bike doesn't really cost extra. Cheap components aren't really that much more "resistive" either, if you can get them correctly lubed and adjusted before they wear out. Cheap tires may have more rolling resistance, but you can change those easily.

So, weight is the only real performance difference I see. If you're a 190 lb. bike/rider combo now, an extra 10 lbs of bike weight will have you climbing about 5% slower. Say, if you climb a hill at 14 mph now, you'll be down to 13.3 mph. That's a significant difference, but nothing that's going to let me catch Lance or any other pro on the local hill climb.

[skydive69]

This thread has reminded me of a few century rides I've been in where you'll be riding along in a group going 25+ mph, you're all on decent to really nice bikes. Except for the one guy on a Huffy or something, with a cottered crankset, steel handlebars and cage pedals. You have to wonder what the guy could do on a really good bike.:rolleyes:

SSThat, I am afraid, I would have to see to believe. The implication being that the normal pace for the century is 25 mph, and Mr. crap bicycle readily keeps up. It would be a new one to log in my experience book. AAMOF, I would love to be able to pull that one off on my Dura-ace equipped, very light bicycle!

[drewski]

That, I am afraid, I would have to see to believe. The implication being that the normal pace for the century is 25 mph, and Mr. crap bicycle readily keeps up. It would be a new one to log in my experience book. AAMOF, I would love to be able to pull that one off on my Dura-ace equipped, very light bicycle!

Your assumption is that this pace is happening for the entire century, in which case these people should sign some pro contracts!

My assumption when I read his post was that during some nice flat/rolling sections of the century you can get a good pace-line going and keep up that pace for a decent amount of time.

That mirrors my experience (century riding, that is, without spying the cottered cranks), with the average speed of the entire century at a much lower pace.