IMHO most elite track bikes are made to the manufacturer's perceived formula and not the riders needs...eg: look at BT, limited sizes, short wheel base, a little ( but heavy bike) hard for large riders to manage and way too short in the wheelbase for any rider over 5'10" to not hunch severely and stress the back, kneck and knees, all affecting performance in the name of aerodynamics and team politics ( especially for the Australian Team).
again IMHO, the hierachy of priority in Track racing is:
- it is the rider that matters and what the rider is a capable of first and foremost, ( providing the correct gearing is selected for the event and the rider's capability) , importantly,
- then it is the moving parts that create drag (wheels/tires),
- then it is the moving/rotating parts that create friction ( bottom brackets, hubs),
- then it is lateral movement from the flex in the wheel spokes or rims, or lack of flex in the case of discs which can be slippery and skid around on the wrong frame size, and
- finally it is the bike frame design for aerodynamics, weight, flex and strength.
and all this can be tossed out the window by a frame that is too short, that tosses itself sideways losing hundredths with every twitch and slip and slide...
I suggest a correctly fitted bike frame with a proper wheelbase with correct chainstay length, head angle, seatpost height and angle and top tube length, suited to the riders physiology will outperform any short whippy so called "hi-tech" elite offering from the makers of today (are paying big money to teams and coaches to get their product in the public eye...)
riders of those beasts, who have achieved at elite level, do it in spite of the ill fitting bike, not because of it...and would have done it easier, quicker and with less long term ill effects on their bodies if they had a bike that fitted them, rather than one they had to try to adapt to.... that's MHO
I know there are a lot of BT riders out there , having paid their money, thinking that solves all their ills on the track...I guess by now you've found out ... it didnt...., just like carbon bikes for the general populace, they dont help you ride any better, more comfortably or quicker...you achieve a lot more by dropping 10 kilos from the wasteline than 500 grams off a frame, especially when the frame may fail without notice....
Tradition and classic approaches have a large part to play in cycling, today and shouldnt be foregotten for new hi-tech approaches, sure research and development in materials and design is essential, but not necessarily better just because it is new or "different".
Again IMHO, it is the rider's fit that is most important and the bike must be made to translate that physiology and aspiration into a mechanism that harnesses and delivers.
( here endeth my annual rant on fit and mass produced bikes)