How much is down to the bike?

FWIW, I owned a Trek many years ago and it was fine. Until it broke. I then bought a Pinarello and it was an eye opening in terms of handling. It was a racing bike, the Trek was a bike, if that makes sense.

say what you want about Trek, you can spend 5 grand one one

Lances bike for the 09 tour :

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/trek/madone-69-pro-sr-2009-road-bike-ec016767?utm_source=froogle&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=froogle

fair enough Andyp, but I think that because Trek are one of those brands that spans the whole breadth of the market it's a bit hard to generalise. Lance seems happy with the amount of R&D Trek puts into his bikes, and he's a perfectionist, so I reckon that's prolly a sign that their high-end stuff is pretty good.

i owned a Giant once, and it was pretty bog-standard, but I wouldn't say no to one of their T-Mobile/Columbia team bikes ;)

well yes, that's madness from the Fidmeister, obviously.

so what's the point here - why DON'T the pros have the best stuff? why on earth not?

You're confusing "best" for "most expensive" the popular belief expensive stuff is better doesn't hold true...especially if you want to say best for purpose...

Teams are made up of stars and domestiques, the domestiques get one bike, the stars many, to have one bike that will last the full three weeks of the tour probably means not using the expensive, ligtweight and delicate stuff...the bikes may not be the most expensive but they are best for purpose.....

Just like to say that my most expensive wheels cost me £740 inc. skewers, wheelbags, assorted stickers, spoke adjustment tools and new Comti Competition tubs. If hippy's frame is £1k how can my wheels be more expensive than his whole bike? Assumptions by others are not based on fact.In my experience these wheels are faster, lighter and better than cheaper ones.

I was only joking fids, using you as an example in kind.
as plenty of blokes do have wheelsets worth more than hippy's bike

One of the reasons pros don't use monocoque stem/handlebars is that they cannot be adjusted for rake and it is presumably easier to change to a longer stem without all the pilaver of handlebars, levers cables, etc.

I was only joking fids, using you as an example in kind.
as plenty of blokes do have wheelsets worth more than hippy's bike

That's the reason I didn't buy Lightweights. At a retail price of £2k plus, and then you find that the spokes are carbon and if you damage one it's back to the factory for probably 2 weeks at a min. charge of £50 plus carriage! Same with Lew. Fine if you can afford to be without them for repair. Actually I also hate their graphics! Too Germanic IMHO.

I used to ride a fairly decent hybrid.

I had spds fitted and my speed increased.

I had the bike adjusted by Cyclefit and my speed increased.

I bought a road bike from Cyclefit and my speed increased more.

Mind you, the biggest increase in speed came on an older crappier hybrid. I lost 4 stone and I found I was going faster. Sadly one of those has crept back on but is going in the new year with one of his mates and I shall be fast enough to see hippy disappear up a hill ahead of me.

You can't really attribute your speed increases to your improvements in equipment though, since another factor is changing besides your equipment, namely improvements in your own physical performance over time.

You can't really attribute your speed increases to your improvements in equipment though, since another factor is changing besides your equipment, namely improvements in your own physical performance over time.

Except that I could see improvements over the same course from one day to the next.

Could also be psychological factors involved? e.g. shiny new bike, puts you in a good mood, you work harder.

Edit: And... if it was the bike that was making you faster as you suggest, you should see a single increase in performance, not a accumulative increase day after day.

Second edit: It'd be interesting to see if you could get a rider to perform them better with a placebo-style effect, like telling them they're bike is more efficient or lighter when it hasn't really changed at all.

Could also be psychological factors involved? e.g. shiny new bike, puts you in a good mood, you work harder.

• 1 My other big passion in life is snowboarding, and every year their is a huge rush to get the newest greatest board, which everyone will swear rides better than the previous years, yet in reality all that has changed are the graphics
  
  

When you fork out a load of dollar for something new and shiny you inevitably find a myriad of reasons why it is better than what you had before, just to justify the purchase

just eat everything in the house.
I think I'll leave the thai curry for tomorrow, and go for sausages and potatoes tonight, have to see if there's any peas.
peas, FTW

There's nothing here.. oh wait.. baked spud w/ chill con carne topping ftw

that's a veritable feast, the chilli con-carne just appeared, did it?

CCC for the win - mines on teh go now

It makes a pretty big difference, lighter wheels, stiffer frames/bits where it needs to be stiff, better brakes so you don't have to start slowing down as early, faster rolling bearings, more aero dynamic wheelsets, faster rolling/ lighter tyres, probably gonna be fairly aerodynamic compared to the shitter bike, and gear shifters that are actually on the hoods, rofl@gripshifts.

Quantify it. Are we talking TT bikes or bikes for a road race.
You can win a road race on a piece of shit whereas you might lose a TT riding a piece of shit.

Both these cases assume the rider has the capacity to win in the first place. If not, the argument is kinda moot innit.

If you are slow then what someone above said is more accurate. Get a reasonably comfortable and proper FITTING bike and it doesn't really matter a toss about saving grams here or frame stiffness there or whatever.

It was a partial joke. They are the Ford of bike names, solid, reliable and do a job. But they aren't bleeding edge nor do they do anything remotely left field.

Giant are the Ford of bike names.

Most other bike companies don't push the envelope. Cervelo perhaps.

It was a partial joke. They are the Ford of bike names, solid, reliable and do a job. But they aren't bleeding edge nor do they do anything remotely left field.

Ha! Timing :)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/tech/2008/news/12-24

Could also be psychological factors involved? e.g. shiny new bike, puts you in a good mood, you work harder.
Edit: And... if it was the bike that was making you faster as you suggest, you should see a single increase in performance, not a accumulative increase day after day.
Second edit: It'd be interesting to see if you could get a rider to perform them better with a placebo-style effect, like telling them they're bike is more efficient or lighter when it hasn't really changed at all.

That kind of thinking is where the mechanic trick of swapping a rider's bar tape to fresh tape came about. Forget the shitty day you just had, this day is gonna be awesome, look, we've given you a shiny new bike to ride..

that's a veritable feast, the chilli con-carne just appeared, did it?

I have tins of it.. it's emergency food for a hungry hippy.

mechanically-recovered meat?

Armstrong won the Tour 7 times on a Trek. A **fucking **Trek. Clearly it's the drugs and not the technology that gave him the edge.
Treks are ALL about technology, i.e. no passion. I used to ride an OCLV hand-me-down from a GB rider and although I didn't want to like it, I couldn't fault it. The rear stay blew out on me going down Kingsway turning into the Strand at 40mph behind a motorbike and I rode it home like a piece of spaghetti.

mechanically-recovered meat?

Hopefully. It's my favourite.

it's probably not a bad idea to have the odd tin in the cupboard, for those after ride hunger pangs when the shops are shut and you have not much in the house..

but I don't know how much nutrition you'll get from chilli con carne, straight from the can

I do...

http://www.staggchili.com/default.asp?req=varieties/variety/311