-
Also why is cycling so far behind in some respects?
Le Tour de France was completed at a faster average speed on these bikes. *
The 2003 Trek 5900 was supposedly Armstrong's favorite frame, weighing in at just 980g. Further weight savings were provided by a prototype carbon fiber steerer tube (which never made it into production), then-prototype 10-speed Shimano Dura-Ace group and Bontrager Race XXX Lite wheels. Chris King also began its three-year sponsorship run with its ubiquitious NoThreadSet threadless headset.
In 2003, the UCI hadn't yet established its minimum weight requirement so teams and riders were still free to shave grams to their heart's content; Armstrong's bike was reported to be just 6.6kg (14.5lb).
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/tour-de-france-winning-bikes-34375/
You are reading a single comment by @n/a and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
n/a
edscoble
Also why is cycling so far behind in some respects?
In the 80s in F1 racing they were using turbos, ECUs, super aero body shells and a lot of carbon. Cycling was still using steel and down-tube shifters. The only explanation I can think of is the bike manufacturers wouldn't be able to throw that much money into R&D as a F1 team but surely there's enough money from winning a TDF to make the bikes more aero and lighter even back then. Has the UCI always been a thorn in the side of cycling?
And why are most of the rides in the late 90s/early 00's using alloy seatposts, bottle cages etc when some early 90s mtbs are?
So many questions, so little time....