Lance's F1 TT bike

[[email protected]]

Remember Lance had a F1 project to come up with the best bike - can't
remember if it was just the TT bike or road bike as well - with Trek,
AMD et al.? It was a big hush-hush until it was later unveiled and the
main modification as I recall was the narrow BB. However, the aero
advantage was offset by loss in pedaling power, and hence Lance did
not use it for competition.

Anyone know if Lance (or anyone else) used the F1 TT bike at all for
competition? Were there any concrete trickle-down benefits or was the
whole thing abandoned, destined for a place in Trek's museam?

Josh

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Remember Lance had a F1 project to come up with the best bike - can't
> remember if it was just the TT bike or road bike as well - with Trek,
> AMD et al.? It was a big hush-hush until it was later unveiled and the
> main modification as I recall was the narrow BB. However, the aero
> advantage was offset by loss in pedaling power, and hence Lance did
> not use it for competition.
>
> Anyone know if Lance (or anyone else) used the F1 TT bike at all for
> competition? Were there any concrete trickle-down benefits or was the
> whole thing abandoned, destined for a place in Trek's museam?
>
> Josh

Eki used it to take the gold medal in the Athens Olympics TT... Oops,
I mean Eki used it to take the silver medal. Eki and Lance are close
enough in saddle height it was a few shims plus or minus between them.

This photo:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/olympics04/index.php?id=men_tt/mDSC_0059eki

....shows the "dent" in the chainstay where the frame gets narrower
towards the BB shell.

I heard the narrower BB saved drag, but Lance didn't want to risk it
since that was right after the hip tendonitis (New Nike shoes? New
Shimano "Lance" pedals? New Dura-Ace 10 speed cranks? New Trek Madone
frame? Maybe it was just "too much" new stuff?)

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Remember Lance had a F1 project to come up with the best bike - can't
> > remember if it was just the TT bike or road bike as well - with Trek,
> > AMD et al.? It was a big hush-hush until it was later unveiled and the
> > main modification as I recall was the narrow BB. However, the aero
> > advantage was offset by loss in pedaling power, and hence Lance did
> > not use it for competition.
>
> > Anyone know if Lance (or anyone else) used the F1 TT bike at all for
> > competition? Were there any concrete trickle-down benefits or was the
> > whole thing abandoned, destined for a place in Trek's museam?
>
> > Josh
>
> Eki used it to take the gold medal in the Athens Olympics TT... Oops,
> I mean Eki used it to take the silver medal. Eki and Lance are close
> enough in saddle height it was a few shims plus or minus between them.
>
> This photo:http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/olympics04/index.php?id=men_tt...
>
> ...shows the "dent" in the chainstay where the frame gets narrower
> towards the BB shell.
>
> I heard the narrower BB saved drag, but Lance didn't want to risk it
> since that was right after the hip tendonitis (New Nike shoes? New
> Shimano "Lance" pedals? New Dura-Ace 10 speed cranks? New Trek Madone
> frame? Maybe it was just "too much" new stuff?)


Great, thanks for the info.

Rather a waste, no? To do all that work and put all that money for a
result that didn't get used for its main purpose. If the result was
that a narrow BB was theoretically more aero, then they should have
asked Graeme Obree, or just read his book. A lot cheaper proposition.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 19 Feb 2007 15:05:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

>> I heard the narrower BB saved drag, but Lance didn't want to risk it
>> since that was right after the hip tendonitis (New Nike shoes? New
>> Shimano "Lance" pedals? New Dura-Ace 10 speed cranks? New Trek Madone
>> frame? Maybe it was just "too much" new stuff?)
>
>
>Great, thanks for the info.
>
>Rather a waste, no?

A waste is to do something for no purpose. Learning and experimenting
use resources and inevitably result in some things not working out.

>To do all that work and put all that money for a
>result that didn't get used for its main purpose. If the result was
>that a narrow BB was theoretically more aero, then they should have
>asked Graeme Obree, or just read his book. A lot cheaper proposition.

It's more complicated than that. According to the Coyle book, they
the question was not just is it more aero. It's is it faster? Not the
same thing. And to find out if it's faster requires testing.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:20:47 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 19 Feb 2007 15:05:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>
>>> I heard the narrower BB saved drag, but Lance didn't want to risk it
>>> since that was right after the hip tendonitis (New Nike shoes? New
>>> Shimano "Lance" pedals? New Dura-Ace 10 speed cranks? New Trek Madone
>>> frame? Maybe it was just "too much" new stuff?)
>>
>>
>>Great, thanks for the info.
>>
>>Rather a waste, no?
>
>A waste is to do something for no purpose. Learning and experimenting
>use resources and inevitably result in some things not working out.
>
>>To do all that work and put all that money for a
>>result that didn't get used for its main purpose. If the result was
>>that a narrow BB was theoretically more aero, then they should have
>>asked Graeme Obree, or just read his book. A lot cheaper proposition.
>
>It's more complicated than that. According to the Coyle book, they
>the question was not just is it more aero. It's is it faster? Not the
>same thing. And to find out if it's faster requires testing.

What I failed to understand was how Q factor was a problem with the
narrow BB. Surely if this was really an "F1" effort, you just build
custom cranks which splay out more from the BB compared with stock
cranks to keep the same Q as normal.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 19, 6:20 pm, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:20:47 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 19 Feb 2007 15:05:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>
> >>> I heard the narrower BB saved drag, but Lance didn't want to risk it
> >>> since that was right after the hip tendonitis (New Nike shoes? New
> >>> Shimano "Lance" pedals? New Dura-Ace 10 speed cranks? New Trek Madone
> >>> frame? Maybe it was just "too much" new stuff?)
>
> >>Great, thanks for the info.
>
> >>Rather a waste, no?
>
> >A waste is to do something for no purpose. Learning and experimenting
> >use resources and inevitably result in some things not working out.
>
> >>To do all that work and put all that money for a
> >>result that didn't get used for its main purpose. If the result was
> >>that a narrow BB was theoretically more aero, then they should have
> >>asked Graeme Obree, or just read his book. A lot cheaper proposition.
>
> >It's more complicated than that. According to the Coyle book, they
> >the question was not just is it more aero. It's is it faster? Not the
> >same thing. And to find out if it's faster requires testing.
>
> What I failed to understand was how Q factor was a problem with the
> narrow BB. Surely if this was really an "F1" effort, you just build
> custom cranks which splay out more from the BB compared with stock
> cranks to keep the same Q as normal.
>
> Kinky Cowboy*
>
> *Batteries not included
> May contain traces of nuts
> Your milage may vary- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Somehow I got the idea (maybe from that video Road to Paris or
something) that the aero benefit came from the narrow Q; but Lance
worried that narrowing Q might irritate his hip.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2007 15:05:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >> I heard the narrower BB saved drag, but Lance didn't want to risk it
> >> since that was right after the hip tendonitis (New Nike shoes? New
> >> Shimano "Lance" pedals? New Dura-Ace 10 speed cranks? New Trek Madone
> >> frame? Maybe it was just "too much" new stuff?)
>
> >Great, thanks for the info.
>
> >Rather a waste, no?
>
> A waste is to do something for no purpose. Learning and experimenting
> use resources and inevitably result in some things not working out.
>
> >To do all that work and put all that money for a
> >result that didn't get used for its main purpose. If the result was
> >that a narrow BB was theoretically more aero, then they should have
> >asked Graeme Obree, or just read his book. A lot cheaper proposition.
>
> It's more complicated than that. According to the Coyle book, they
> the question was not just is it more aero. It's is it faster? Not the
> same thing. And to find out if it's faster requires testing.
>
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

Maybe they did test it? I don't know. I never understood that the
narrow BB *did* affect the hip; just that it was a concern.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:20:35 +0000, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:20:47 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 19 Feb 2007 15:05:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>
>>>> I heard the narrower BB saved drag, but Lance didn't want to risk it
>>>> since that was right after the hip tendonitis (New Nike shoes? New
>>>> Shimano "Lance" pedals? New Dura-Ace 10 speed cranks? New Trek Madone
>>>> frame? Maybe it was just "too much" new stuff?)
>>>
>>>
>>>Great, thanks for the info.
>>>
>>>Rather a waste, no?
>>
>>A waste is to do something for no purpose. Learning and experimenting
>>use resources and inevitably result in some things not working out.
>>
>>>To do all that work and put all that money for a
>>>result that didn't get used for its main purpose. If the result was
>>>that a narrow BB was theoretically more aero, then they should have
>>>asked Graeme Obree, or just read his book. A lot cheaper proposition.
>>
>>It's more complicated than that. According to the Coyle book, they
>>the question was not just is it more aero. It's is it faster? Not the
>>same thing. And to find out if it's faster requires testing.
>
>What I failed to understand was how Q factor was a problem with the
>narrow BB. Surely if this was really an "F1" effort, you just build
>custom cranks which splay out more from the BB compared with stock
>cranks to keep the same Q as normal.

Presumably part of the aero benefit comes from the legs being closer
together -- that is using a narrower Q.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 19 Feb 2007 16:37:44 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On 19 Feb 2007 15:05:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> >> I heard the narrower BB saved drag, but Lance didn't want to risk it
>> >> since that was right after the hip tendonitis (New Nike shoes? New
>> >> Shimano "Lance" pedals? New Dura-Ace 10 speed cranks? New Trek Madone
>> >> frame? Maybe it was just "too much" new stuff?)
>>
>> >Great, thanks for the info.
>>
>> >Rather a waste, no?
>>
>> A waste is to do something for no purpose. Learning and experimenting
>> use resources and inevitably result in some things not working out.
>>
>> >To do all that work and put all that money for a
>> >result that didn't get used for its main purpose. If the result was
>> >that a narrow BB was theoretically more aero, then they should have
>> >asked Graeme Obree, or just read his book. A lot cheaper proposition.
>>
>> It's more complicated than that. According to the Coyle book, they
>> the question was not just is it more aero. It's is it faster? Not the
>> same thing. And to find out if it's faster requires testing.

>Maybe they did test it? I don't know. I never understood that the
>narrow BB *did* affect the hip; just that it was a concern.

The tested it, either in hard training or in a race -- details are in
the Coyle book _Lance Armstrong's War_ but I can't remember the
details. I remember the results were bad and Armstrong didn't want to
try to adapt.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[[email protected]]

> The tested it, either in hard training or in a race -- details are in
> the Coyle book _Lance Armstrong's War_ but I can't remember the
> details. I remember the results were bad and Armstrong didn't want to
> try to adapt.
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

I read Coyle's book (good, not great) and AFAIR it only mentions that
he did not use it for the early-season race (Paris-Nice maybe) and
there was no follow-up on the final results and applications of the
project.