Development of pro road bikes the last 10 years

[Hunun]

Hi all

I was wondering if anyone could explain to me how much of a development there has been in pro cycling equipment used in top races like the Tour de France during the last 10 years?

How much better in terms of average speed is for example Wiggins standard 2012 tour bike compared to the Trek 5900 Armstrong used in 2000.

My question basically is how much worse of a modern top rider would be if he raced using 10 year old equipment? Any experts on the field?

Thank you very much in advance.

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by Hunun .

Hi all

I was wondering if anyone could explain to me how much of a development there has been in pro cycling equipment used in top races like the Tour de France during the last 10 years?

How much better in terms of average speed is for example Wiggins standard 2012 tour bike compared to the Trek 5900 Armstrong used in 2000.

My question basically is how much worse of a modern top rider would be if he raced using 10 year old equipment? Any experts on the field?

Thank you very much in advance.

There's an old saying, it's not the bike that's important it's the engine on the bike that is important.

I won't pretend to be an expert on the bikes/bike equipment.
There has been plenty of development in terms of the bikes and bike equipment though.

From changes in the material used to build frames (steel to aluminium to magnesium to carbon/titanium frames), to changes in frame design (traditional frame to geometric frame), bikes have become lighter with the passage of time.

I don't know where you'd even begin to measure the comparative average speed between different bikes/bike equipment.

My mate still rides one of Stephen Roche's 1984 Peuguot bikes claiming that it is much better bike than the Pinarello Dogma bike that he owns.
You're talking a 20 year difference in terms of bike frames and equipment.

 

[Dave Pace]

Well it still comes down to the person on the seat as to how good a bicycle really is. But with that being said 10 years ago the bikes did have carbon fiber composite frames, but the frames were heavier then the modren race bikes. I think the 5900 you mentioned was 15 lbs fully decked out I know that there is a S-Works Venge that with all the necessary parts and elements of the bike, including the fork, the seat, the crankset, and the electronic gearshift, and you have the whole thing weighing in at just 2.07 kg, or about 4.5 lbs.

Then you have the matirials that will dampen the shock or road vibration instead of just xfering it to your hands, legs and behind. Unlike the bikes of 10 years ago. Don't get me wrong at that time they were great. But just like anything else they get better with time.

In the end, you may have a little rougher ride, and you may be a little heaver. But really the bike that lance raced 10 years ago would still hold it's own with the right rider on top. Also, remember that while you may have that 10 yo bike. The current 700c wheels and rims, Crank sets ect will fit on it making just as good as a brand new 1 that you would buy for 2k.

 

[jhuskey]

I tend to agree they can make a lighter bike but it's not legal. Stiffer maybe and maybe tires with less rolling resistance. Certainly the science of aerodynamics has advanced but you are talking fractions of in a TT.
As you saw in the last TDF a tack will still puncture a tire and a carbon wheel will fold like a cheap lawn chair if it hits something solid. Some improvements for sure but I would not classify them as advancements. I think refinements would be the best term.

 

[alienator]

Today's pros or yesterdays pros don't have their status, reputations, or winning records because of the bikes they rode. They have their history and palmares because of their legs and determination. Bike technology has got just about nothing to do with it. One thing that has changed over the years is training regimens. Whether that's had an effect or not is difficult to say because an objective analysis can't be done.

 

[oldbobcat]

Let's look at the technical developments over the last ten years: 9- to 10- and 11-speed drivetrains, lighter stiffer carbon frames, more aerodynamic frames and wheels, fatter tires, lighter stiffer shoes, lighter pedals, and improved dope testing (better tests and more consistent application. Grand tour average speeds seem to be up a bit. Bunch sprints seem to be faster. I would credit stiffer frames for the higher speeds except in climbing. Fast, dynamic climbing seems to have peaked out; credit improved doping controls for that.

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by oldbobcat .

Let's look at the technical developments over the last ten years: 9- to 10- and 11-speed drivetrains, lighter stiffer carbon frames, more aerodynamic frames and wheels, fatter tires, lighter stiffer shoes, lighter pedals, and improved dope testing (better tests and more consistent application. Grand tour average speeds seem to be up a bit. Bunch sprints seem to be faster. I would credit stiffer frames for the higher speeds except in climbing. Fast, dynamic climbing seems to have peaked out; credit improved doping controls for that.

Tour De France.
Year Distance Time Average Speed.

[COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2012 3,420kms 87hrs 34mins 39.9kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2011 3.430kms 86hrs 12mins 39.7kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2010 3,642kms 91hrs 58mins 39.6kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2009 3,459kms 85hrs 48min 40.3kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2008 3,559kms 87hrs 52min 40.5kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2007 3,569kms 91hrs 00min 39.2kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2006 3,657kms 89hrs 40min 40.7kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2005 3,592kms 86hrs 15min 41.6kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2004 3,391kms 83hrs 36min 41.0kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2003 3,427kms 83hrs 41min 40.0kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2002 3,227kms 82hrs 05min 39.9kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2001 3,455kms 86hrs 47min 40.0kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2000 3,662kms 92hrs 33min 39.6kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1999 3,690kms 91hrs 32min 40.2kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1997 3,943kms 100hrs 30min 39.1kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1996 3,895kms 95hrs 57min 40.6kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1995 3,547kms 92hrs 44min 39.5kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1994 3,978kms 103hrs 38min 37.8kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1993 3,715kms 95hrs 57min 38.7kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1992 3,975kms 100hrs 49min 39.5kmph[/COLOR]

 

[alienator]

Let's look at the technical developments over the last ten years: 9- to 10- and 11-speed drivetrains, lighter stiffer carbon frames, more aerodynamic frames and wheels, fatter tires, lighter stiffer shoes, lighter pedals, and improved dope testing (better tests and more consistent application. Grand tour average speeds seem to be up a bit. Bunch sprints seem to be faster. I would credit stiffer frames for the higher speeds except in climbing. Fast, dynamic climbing seems to have peaked out; credit improved doping controls for that.  

Unfortunately there's no data that shows stiffer frames yield more speed. I think the high speeds we've seen have largely been the result of better training. New aero components have certainly helped, but it's likely only been a small help on road racing. In TT's, the aero bits are a different story.

 

[oldbobcat]

Originally Posted by alienator .


Unfortunately there's no data that shows stiffer frames yield more speed.

I'm thinking more about control of the bike at higher speeds rather than power transfer to the rear wheel. This happens between the head tube and the bottom bracket and seat clamp, not the rear triangle. Stiffer, more confident handling encourages riders to apply more power.

But I agree, aside from bikes that are total noodles, more stiffness between the bottom bracket and rear axle is not that big a deal.

 

[danfoz]

Originally Posted by limerickman .


Tour De France.
Year Distance Time Average Speed.

2012 3,420kms 87hrs 34mins 39.9kmph 2011 3.430kms 86hrs 12mins 39.7kmph 2010 3,642kms 91hrs 58mins 39.6kmph 2009 3,459kms 85hrs 48min 40.3kmph 2008 3,559kms 87hrs 52min 40.5kmph 2007 3,569kms 91hrs 00min 39.2kmph 2006 3,657kms 89hrs 40min 40.7kmph 2005 3,592kms 86hrs 15min 41.6kmph 2004 3,391kms 83hrs 36min 41.0kmph 2003 3,427kms 83hrs 41min 40.0kmph 2002 3,227kms 82hrs 05min 39.9kmph 2001 3,455kms 86hrs 47min 40.0kmph 2000 3,662kms 92hrs 33min 39.6kmph 1999 3,690kms 91hrs 32min 40.2kmph 1997 3,943kms 100hrs 30min 39.1kmph 1996 3,895kms 95hrs 57min 40.6kmph 1995 3,547kms 92hrs 44min 39.5kmph 1994 3,978kms 103hrs 38min 37.8kmph 1993 3,715kms 95hrs 57min 38.7kmph 1992 3,975kms 100hrs 49min 39.5kmph

Wha..!? You mean those marketing folks were feeding me BS? Of course they were fozzy.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say if this list were extended even further into the past some noticeable dip in avg speed would likely occur just prior to the introduction of structured interval type training (sometime in the 60's, 70's?). Pure speculation of course.

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by danfoz .


Wha..!? You mean those marketing folks were feeding me BS? Of course they were fozzy.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say if this list were extended even further into the past some noticeable dip in avg speed would likely occur just prior to the introduction of structured interval type training (sometime in the 60's, 70's?). Pure speculation of course.

The fact that riders were racing far more throughout the season than contemporary riders would also be a factor.

There are loads of other factors that could explain the lower average speed in other eras (less recovery time, longer stages, less logistical support for riders, more travelling involved for riders, poorer road surfaces).

 

[oldbobcat]

And the performance-enhancing drugs, maybe?

 

[alienator]

And the performance-enhancing drugs, maybe?  

With a cleaner peloton, the times and speeds haven't changed much. I think limerickman hit it on head.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by limerickman .


Tour De France.
Year Distance Time Average Speed.

[COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2012 3,420kms 87hrs 34mins 39.9kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2011 3.430kms 86hrs 12mins 39.7kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2010 3,642kms 91hrs 58mins 39.6kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2009 3,459kms 85hrs 48min 40.3kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2008 3,559kms 87hrs 52min 40.5kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2007 3,569kms 91hrs 00min 39.2kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2006 3,657kms 89hrs 40min 40.7kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2005 3,592kms 86hrs 15min 41.6kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2004 3,391kms 83hrs 36min 41.0kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2003 3,427kms 83hrs 41min 40.0kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2002 3,227kms 82hrs 05min 39.9kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2001 3,455kms 86hrs 47min 40.0kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]2000 3,662kms 92hrs 33min 39.6kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1999 3,690kms 91hrs 32min 40.2kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1997 3,943kms 100hrs 30min 39.1kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1996 3,895kms 95hrs 57min 40.6kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1995 3,547kms 92hrs 44min 39.5kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1994 3,978kms 103hrs 38min 37.8kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1993 3,715kms 95hrs 57min 38.7kmph[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(50, 61, 79)]1992 3,975kms 100hrs 49min 39.5kmph[/COLOR]

That covers most of the EPO and blood doping years...
... got any numbers for pre-83?

 

[swampy1970]

A simple test with a powermeter shows the progress of bikes with regards to aero performance. With the advent of wheels such as the Hed Jet6 and Zipp 808 carbon clincher you can train on wheels that are as aero as pretty much anything outthere and with the exception of the HED 3 (formerly Specialized trispoke) they're on a par with disk wheels limited to time trial use. It would be fair to say that even just the advance in wheels is hard to ignore. If you start looking at some of the aero road bike kit out there - like Zipp Vuka Sprint bars and Cervelo S5 frame, you're approaching TT equipment levels of aero on a road bike.

Zipp made a claim around Paris Roubaix time that they saved Boonen "about 40 watts" by changing equipment and his position slightly and for me this is the biggest development in cycling. That difference is huge. It's not the fact that frames have progressed, it's the fact that we're starting to embrace that we have numbers rather than myth and folklore. We can take data on a per second basis and with a repeatable testing protocol determine whether a change made a difference or not rather than 'thinking' that it did.

From a comfort point of view, I've never ridden anything as comfortable as my Cannondale SuperSix Hi-Mod frame. Even my custom made steel 653 tubed bike seems harsh in comparison when the road surface gets a little rough. From that perspective, I'd say that the bikes tend to ride smoother and the use of wider tires on 23 or 25+mm wide rims also adds to levels of comfort.

I would say, having limited riding time on them, that low weight carbon rims, like the Zipp 202 don't appeal to me and I actually consider them a regression in performance due to inconsistant braking performance but this is a personal thing. If we integrate such rims with a disk brake system then I'd take a second looksie, until then I'm sticking with an aluminium braking surface on my rims.