Unbelievable watt savings

[dddd]

What's old is new again in bike racing.

Old ten-speed bikes typically came with 38-39cm bars in most cases, and my 59cm Gitane Super Corsa from about 1970 came with 34mm-wide Pivo Professional bars which I adapted to.

Those 34mm-width bars likely negated (on less-hilly terrain at least) most of the ostensible speed difference between bikes sold 50+ years apart at equivalent adjusted price points.

I can similarly recall the Sugino "Mighty Tour" predecessors to today's de-rigeur 50/34t, 110mm "compact" cranksets being sold out of the pro shop in Montrose many decades back.

[EB]

For me this raises the perennial topic of UCI regulations and what is and isn't allowed, in their (IMO) quixotic effort to "keep bike racing elegant" or whatever.

There's a spectrum of regulation of sport here. On one end of the spectrum, you've got the everything-goes ethos of triathlon. On the other end, you've got Japanese keirin racing, where everything down to the crank bearings is required to be the same equipment.

The UCI's approach seems haphazard at best, specifying saddle setback rules, allowing aero bikes but not aero bars (except in time trials, but then only with certain geometry and body positions), allowing narrow bars but regulating brake lever positions, penalizing riders for their sock height but allowing a large range of wheel designs, etc. It's hard to know what to call their approach, but I call it "Tri-curious" (thank you. I'll be here all night).

Personally I think it would be cool to see a Keirin-like approach, but the equipment sponsors would absolutely lose their s#$# and never support something like this due to the impact it would have on marketing (which is after all the purpose of the sport).

[deluz]

For most of my 67 years cycling was about speed and measuring myself against others. Of course there was always somebody faster / stronger than me but I was no slouch. That was before the era of aero and speed was mostly a function power to weight ratio and not gains from equipment. While it is nice to save some watts here and there I still think power to weight is what makes a better cyclist in terms of speed. These days I am not very interested in speed as it is futile for me to think of competing against riders 40 or more years younger than me. Now I just enjoy being on a bike and my average speed is 12 mph where aero probably doesn't matter much anyway.

[Wunder]

Originally Posted by dddd

What's old is new again in bike racing.

Old ten-speed bikes typically came with 38-39cm bars in most cases, and my 59cm Gitane Super Corsa from about 1970 came with 34mm-wide Pivo Professional bars which I adapted to.

Those 34mm-width bars likely negated (on less-hilly terrain at least) most of the ostensible speed difference between bikes sold 50+ years apart at equivalent adjusted price points.

I can similarly recall the Sugino "Mighty Tour" predecessors to today's de-rigeur 50/34t, 110mm "compact" cranksets being sold out of the pro shop in Montrose many decades back.

I think there is some truth to this. My 70s ten speed (56cm or so) has bars that measure at most 36cm between the hoods. It also has hookless rims and 32mm tires (27 x 1-1/4" Paselas). On a 75 mile rolling hill solo ride at an endurance intensity it was only 1 MPH slower than a modern 58cm road bike (42cm bars, 32cm deep rims w/ bladed spokes, GP4000 w/ latex tubes).

[spoonrobot]

Triathlon does not have an "everything goes ethos" - there are specific bike regulations designed to ban recumbents, HPV type bicycles, and fixed gears. There is quite a load of regulations as well as a catch all:

(h) Non-traditional or unusual bikes or equipment are illegal unless, prior to the start of the Race, approval has been granted from the Event-specific Head Referee. (DSQ)

PDF Link Page 19

Most regulations are haphazard because success necessarily requires pushing the limits. I expect more handlebar regulations for road racing, possibly driven by the UCI possibly by the riders union.

[November Dave]

We've gotten to the point where the aggregation and integration of all of these gains has made bikes significantly faster than they've ever been. Pro riders comment on this all the time in interviews and podcasts, and not in a "my sponsor's bike is so freaking fast, dude you have to get one!" way. It's expressed in terms like how much harder it is to bring a breakaway back because a fast rider with a very aero setup (helmet, suit, optimized position, equipment) gets so much more speed out of his/her watts. It was very credibly dissected on a recent Escape Collective podcast with the main guy from Swiss Side how Nibali's 2014 Tour-winning setup would be ~45 watts slower than what an equivalent rider would be using today.

The old 38mm bars were round, which negates a large amount of their being narrow. I don't think anyone's pulling out a 40 y/o round tube steel bike with 38mm bars and playing on a level field with today's equipment.

None of this matters AT ALL to people who aren't racing or doing racing-like riding, unless you just have the desire to go farther in less time, or do the same loop faster, with no increase in fitness, skill, or pacing. But if you're showing up on the start line without these gains in your favor, you'll be at a disadvantage.

[dddd]

Originally Posted by November Dave

...The old 38mm bars were round, which negates a large amount of their being narrow. I don't think anyone's pulling out a 40 y/o round tube steel bike with 38mm bars and playing on a level field with today's equipment.

I'm struggling with the highlighted word above in this context.

The shape of the bar profile would seem to be dwarfed by the effect of the rider's arms moving inward or outward(???).

Even the depth of wheel rims is reportedly somewhat dwarfed by the inward/outward positioning of the rider's arms, no?

Modern tires would seem to be a most-significant performance factor in the big scheme of things, not to mention added gears and shifting options at least under certain conditions.

I regularly switch between using modern and very old bikes and can hardly tell any difference, but for climbing weight.

[makoti]

My first "real" bike had 38s for bars. When I stepped up to 42s, I felt free. I don't care how many watts I'm losing. I'm not going back to that cramped feeling

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by charliedid

Not sure my handling skills are up to the task of a 30cm road bar. Sounds terrifying beyond a straight TT.

Most of these super-narrow road bars flare outward at the drops to a more "normal" width. Much riding on the road is perfectly fine with the hands 30mm apart. For example, when on the bar tops on a 42cm bar, the hands might be only 30cm apart. Yet people ride for many miles on the bar tops, only putting their hands on wider parts of the bars when turning or braking. I, for one, often descend with my hands on the tops and against the stem (outside edges of hands only 20cm apart) at speeds up to 50 mph.

[Jeffie]

Running wires now. Need to get it built!

https://photos.app.goo.gl/C9WFuKce1rdMNdfT7

[m_sasso]

Originally Posted by EB

For me this raises the perennial topic of UCI regulations and what is and isn't allowed, in their (IMO) quixotic effort to "keep bike racing elegant" or whatever.

There's a spectrum of regulation of sport here. On one end of the spectrum, you've got the everything-goes ethos of triathlon. On the other end, you've got Japanese keirin racing, where everything down to the crank bearings is required to be the same equipment.

The UCI's approach seems haphazard at best, specifying saddle setback rules, allowing aero bikes but not aero bars (except in time trials, but then only with certain geometry and body positions), allowing narrow bars but regulating brake lever positions, penalizing riders for their sock height but allowing a large range of wheel designs, etc. It's hard to know what to call their approach, but I call it "Tri-curious" (thank you. I'll be here all night).

Personally I think it would be cool to see a Keirin-like approach, but the equipment sponsors would absolutely lose their s#$# and never support something like this due to the impact it would have on marketing (which is after all the purpose of the sport).

In case you didn't hear NASCAR tried that and it is now not so entertaining compare to the Petty, Foyt, Earnhardt ....... etc days

[tootall]

I enjoy technology and I like going faster but I loathe some of the limits it’s being pushed to. When things become unreasonable or make too great a sacrifice in other areas in the name of speed I wish we could all take a step back. Also, with things like narrow bars and aero helmets, if everyone is doing it then it’s all a wash and nobody is getting any advantage; things would end the same if nobody was doing it. I was genuinely disgusted to see the SD Worx team (I think) standing around on their time trial day looking absolutely RIDICULOUS in those Giro AeroHead helmets. Nobody is going to see that and say wow that technology is great.

[tylercheung]

coming off of some home repairs, I thought this thread would be about heat pumps!

[November Dave]

Originally Posted by dddd

I'm struggling with the highlighted word above in this context.

The shape of the bar profile would seem to be dwarfed by the effect of the rider's arms moving inward or outward(???).

Even the depth of wheel rims is reportedly somewhat dwarfed by the inward/outward positioning of the rider's arms, no?

Modern tires would seem to be a most-significant performance factor in the big scheme of things, not to mention added gears and shifting options at least under certain conditions.

I regularly switch between using modern and very old bikes and can hardly tell any difference, but for climbing weight.

Taping the bar tops of an aero bar was quoted as a 1w penalty over leaving them clean. The bars see clean air, and a cylinder is the worst aerodynamic shape. The raw figures for just bar differences are 8-10w. Box section 32 spoke wheels to good 50ish mm deep wheels with bladed spokes are about 13w for comparison, and the difference between Gatorskins and good TT tires is about 35w.

If you rode a current superbike at speeds even approaching what the pros do, you would immediately notice a vast difference to your very old bikes.

Dan Bingham, with power numbers that probably make him a good Cat 1, broke the world hour record with outstanding aerodynamic protocol. He had something like a 50w power deficit to Bradley Wiggins, yet beat his hour effort by a substantial amount. This stuff is all very real.

I'm not personally drawn to pursuing any of this stuff for myself because the very few races I'll do this year are either marathon XC races or enduros and I wear baggies and a loose shirt, but when you watch a World Tour race now, know that the aero technology has significantly changed the dynamic to just a very few years ago.

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by makoti

my first "real" bike had 38s for bars. When i stepped up to 42s, i felt free. I don't care how many watts i'm losing. I'm not going back to that cramped feeling

x 10,000