Faster bikes ?

I am curious about this, really.

Watching Wiggins do the Hour yesterday, on his brand-new Pinarello bike and then going back more than 20 years, watching Tony Rominger's bike, for the same show. I wonder, how could Rominger have been so much faster on that bike, when they look almost identical, almost in terms of position on the bike.

It's only really a question of the rider, it's more a question of how much faster we go on the bikes of today than we did 10, 15 or 20 years ago. I mean, they wen't pretty fast back then too.

Equipment seems to get a lot of traction in terms of improvments in the peloton but I am curious to know how much that really is.

Don't know if the forum is wrong.
 
danielovichdk2 said:
how could Rominger have been so much faster on that bike, when they look almost identical.
Hey! No doping talk on here :D :) :p

Aero equipment hasn't advanced much in the last 20 years, despite what the manufacturers might tell us. In fact, with the rules constantly changing, some might argue that it's regressed

Disc wheels, aero bars, aero-shaped frames and forks, skin suits, aero helmets and shoe covers have all been around for many years, and anything since then has been minor tweaking.

Most changes have involved regular road bikes adopting more specs of track and TT stuff
 
There are some things to consider, besides the rider:

In this particular case, we are talking about track bikes.
There isn't much difference between Wiggin's bike and Rominger's bike: both have full wheels, aerobars and slender tubing.There is no significant difference in bottom brackets, tires, chains, pedals.

Some differences: Rominger had shoe covers. Wiggins had an 'optimised' cockpit compared to Rominger (more aero).

The big difference between Rominger and Wiggins in aero terms is their size: Rominger is a lot smaller. But he has some bigger legs. Wiggins is very thin, but he is tall. He adopted a position halfway between superman and normal aero position. This works for him, obviously. Rominger has a near-perfect traditional bar position, with a curved back (Wiggins has a flat back). So maybe the curved back gives hims some advantage (more droplet-shaped).

The doping is a whole other story, but for sure, Rominger was more used to pushing a bigger gear compared to the high-cadence Wiggins. This because of his bigger legs + more traditional aero position.

Final note: I think the best way to check if it's the riders or the bike, would be to compare track times where they use traditionally-shaped bikes for. The biggest changes on track bikes were more aero wheels. All other aspects of track racing are more or less the same over the last 20 years.
 
May 20, 2014
122
0
0
danielovichdk2 said:
I wonder, how could Rominger have been so much faster on that bike, when they look almost identical, almost in terms of position on the bike.
In cycling, most of the best performances date back to 90s in regards to numbers like climb records, hour records, power numbers etc. Most people seem to think it was because of a powerful drug very common back then that is harder to use as effectively nowadays and that is still superior in regards to performance to anything developed since. Mr Rominger worked very closely with a brilliant physician named Michele Ferrari with his record, and hence his record is more often regarded just as an amazing benchmark for science and human physiology rather than just being a pure athletic achievement.
 
Re:

Volderke said:
There are some things to consider, besides the rider:

In this particular case, we are talking about track bikes.
There isn't much difference between Wiggin's bike and Rominger's bike: both have full wheels, aerobars and slender tubing.There is no significant difference in bottom brackets, tires, chains, pedals.

Some differences: Rominger had shoe covers. Wiggins had an 'optimised' cockpit compared to Rominger (more aero).

The big difference between Rominger and Wiggins in aero terms is their size: Rominger is a lot smaller. But he has some bigger legs. Wiggins is very thin, but he is tall. He adopted a position halfway between superman and normal aero position. This works for him, obviously. Rominger has a near-perfect traditional bar position, with a curved back (Wiggins has a flat back). So maybe the curved back gives hims some advantage (more droplet-shaped).

The doping is a whole other story, but for sure, Rominger was more used to pushing a bigger gear compared to the high-cadence Wiggins. This because of his bigger legs + more traditional aero position.

Final note: I think the best way to check if it's the riders or the bike, would be to compare track times where they use traditionally-shaped bikes for. The biggest changes on track bikes were more aero wheels. All other aspects of track racing are more or less the same over the last 20 years.
I think this is the key. Not just in terms of drag, but also in terms of accelerating through the corners - which comes at a lower power cost for a lighter rider. Ferrari also said that there is an advantage for smaller riders in the blood returning more efficiently to the heart from the legs. These factors are usually outweighed by the fact that larger riders can put out significantly more power, but when you get a smallish guy like Rominger who can put out well over 400 watts, then you get an incredible distance.
 
Re:

jens_attacks said:
same i've read too.
evgeni berzin was perfect for this .too bad he abandoned after 10 km lol

richie porte would be another one
Yep, I was thinking possibly Uran as well if he trained specifically for it for a while. He probably wouldn't come that close to Wiggins at sea level, but because he is so comfortable at high altitude, he could potentially go very far and set a distance hard to beat for those sea-level mortals.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY