Find me 1 example of someone hating on a TT bike here. I think he meant in general.
>>796072 Riding mountains is a greater form of cycling. The road legends have all earned their place in history on the hills. Sure, there are time trials in the TDF, they are important, but they just don't compare. Cycling is about mountains/hills.
Also they're similar to triathlon bikes and so they get associated with those assholes who aren't good enough at cycling, running or swimming to do one.
I'd love to get one I think it's kinda trendy to hate on TT shit but I like the idea of it the more and more I think about it because its not really like other racing and if you're very nerdy and meticulous it can pay off, I'm much more nerdy n shit that way. It's probably why yuppies like dentists and computer programmers are into it...more so the fact that it pays off with structure, focus and hard work rather than some fancy expensive bike
>>796085 >Riding mountains is a greater form of cycling. The road legends have all earned their place in history on the hills. Sure, there are time trials in the TDF, they are important, but they just don't compare. Cycling is about mountains/hills. this is so wrong
literally every 5 time winner of the TdF was an excellent time trialist and either very good or excellent climber. They all did the damage to others in competition through their time trialling abilities and hung on in the mountains. Bike racings foundations were made in time trialling in velodromes starting back in the late 1870's.
theres absolutely no flat road anywhere near me, the flattest section of road I have to do some spinning on is 5 miles long but still gains 400ft over its course, but for the first 1/2 mile its pretty flat and going 30mph on that little section is pretty addictive. I'm sure being on one of those bikes flying by at 30-35 mph for a decent duration trying to balance your fatigue on a knifes edge must be exhilarating
>>796094 >Riding mountains is a greater form of cycling. The road legends have all earned their place in history on the hills. Sure, there are time trials in the TDF, they are important, but they just don't compare. Cycling is about mountains/hills. >Also they're similar to triathlon bikes and so they get associated with those assholes who aren't good enough at cycling, running or swimming to do one. Take a step outside yourself for a minute and read what you wrote from the 3rd-person's perspective, putting aside your own 1st-person perspective, and tell me with a straight face that what you're reading there doesn't reek so much of being biased that the takeaway anyone else would get from that is 'TT is not very important'?
>Reading comprehension dude. I said they're important. There's no JUST in there. Don't patronize me. You're making me regret not being as usually 4chan-harsh as I might have been. >Do you dispute road racing stages are GOAT? You need to acknowledge that these are all different disciplines of road cycling and that they are all EQUALLY important -- and therefore a TT-specific bike is just as valid as a pure road bike. >Huge number of extra factors, tactics, teamwork etc. Much more interesting >MUCH MORE INTERESTING (emphasis mine) See? There you go with the bias again.
A well-rounded cyclist is also a decent time-trialist as well as a road racer. He (or she) can also hold their own in a criterium or a circuit race. That's my whole point here. Therefore a road bike and a TT-specific bike are equally valid.
Note that I'm speaking here to anyone else who might read this thread, not just you.
I assume because most of TT bikes are expensive so they will usually attract freds that want a sleek and fast bike.
Also triathletes get them and I assume there is hate for them because they are not completely in the bike realm, they haven't fully committed to the bike life. So I assume there is hate there from sperglords as well.
Also just general hate because 'stop liking what I don't like' that you encounter everywhere.
>>796217 you said that "literally every 5 time winner of the TdF was an excellent time trialist and either very good or excellent climber. They all did the damage to others in competition through their time trialling abilities and hung on in the mountains."
and I made the entirely valid point that four riders, all of whom had won 5 or more tours, actually attacked in the mountains rather than just "hanging on".
those guys would take a victories in mountain stages when presented with the opportunity but their strategies were almost always to take time out of the other leaders in their superior trialling ability and either minimize the loses in the mountains or take wins when it was relatively risk free to do so.
>>796236 they were either very good (indurain, anquetil, merckx) or exceptional (armstrong, hinault) climbers but there were always others competing against them that were better. These 5 (+1 7) time winners were all much stronger in time trialling than their competition was in their climbing advantages so their method of winning was to play on their time trialing strength while focusing on minimizing the loses to contenders in mountains, sometimes they would get mountain stage wins
No one listen to this anon, pls. He has no idea how the general classification works on multi-stage races. This kind of blind ignorance always astounds me when it's obvious the person is really impassioned about the sport.
Go ahead and tell us all when was the last time the King of the Mountains donned the final maillot jaune in the same Tour de France. Can someone simultaneously hold both after a stage during the tour? Of course (pic related). Do they often hold both at the end of the tour? NO. To find the last time this even came close to happening was before the modern era, all the way back in 1976 when Lucien Van Impe lost by one point to Giancarlo Bellini. That's nearly FOUR DECADES AGO. (And in all likelihood that was only close because of Mercx sitting that tour out due to injury.)
Do you even understand that sports evolve and that specialization within sports increases every year? Iron man football is a thing of the past, same as cycling's Combination Classification. The best climbers (i.e. Richard Virenque/Laurent Jalabert before and during the Lance era) are simply incredible, but that's why they are climbers. Not overall champions.
Most champions win their ITT and then rely on being strong enough to hold it in the mountains. This doesn't mean that they don't attack on the hills, it means that they aren't trying to wear out their bodies for a polka dot jersey. Their eyes are on the yellow. You are stuck in thinking short term glory. Champions are champions because they can properly gauge the long term and don't focus on a single cycling discipline.
Despite all of that, I personally think that the combination jerseys should be held in the highest esteem, but that was in a totally different era and simply is no longer comparable to modern cycling. Just like how you can't compare 1980's basketball stars to today's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEDrjCkXiOM @ around 1:50 to 2:16 describes 90% of tour winners
>>796264 >Riding mountains is a greater form of cycling. The road legends have all earned their place in history on the hills. >Sure, there are time trials in the TDF, they are important, but they just don't compare. Cycling is about mountains/hills.
Um, okay. Let's put it this way, how many people on this board do you think know who Richard Virenque or Laurent Jalabert are? Now how many would you guess know Lance Armstrong? You're entire argument was retarded like the other anon alluded to.
>The road legends have all earned their place in history on the hills No, they earned their place in history over the entire duration of a race.
>>796260 Both in 2014 and 2013 the winner of the GC was also had a very high placement in the KOM classification. The only reason very few people win both at the same time is that the KOM rewards going in breakaways while the GC does not.
In order to win the GC you need to be either top-tier time trialist and an excellent climber (Lance Armstrong), or a top-tier climber and excellent time trialist (Marco Pantani). That's a fact. Saying everything is always won in the mountains is seriously fucking retarded. You could just as easily say everything is won in the time trials, since they are the other half of the race. It still stands that the vast majority of winners are better time trialists (exceptions I'll grant you are only Marco Pantani, Carlos Sastre, and Andy Schleck). Those are outliers and not the norm.
There's a reason the last TT is often the penultimate stage. You said climbing is the purest form of cycling and you were just dead wrong. None of us who are in this thread and disagree with you ever said TT was all that there is. But it is, without a doubt, the more heavily weighted of the two halves (minus stuff like teamwork in the flats/tactics/training/nutrition/roids etc) during this era of cycling. And that other anon was absolutely right mentioning that there is a reason ITTs are called 'the race of truth'.
"ITTs are also referred to as 'the race of truth', as winning depends only on each rider's strength and endurance, and not on help provided by team-mates and others riding ahead and creating a slipstream. Starting later gives the racer the advantage of knowing what time they need to beat (and also makes the event more interesting to spectators). Competitors are not permitted to draft behind each other. Any help between riders is forbidden. The rider with the fastest time is declared the winner."
>>796177 Merckx was a stronger TTer than climber Hinault was pretty good at both but he would never lose significant time in TTs, and would lose time in mountain stages more than TTs Indurain is famous for his TT ability with enormous wattage, he is the poster boy for chugging along in the mountains keeping the climbers just in sight Armstrong is a bit of an outlier because he was exceptional at both, but then again he won 7 times. He was more dominant over his climbing rivals in TTs. He had ridiculous everything (form, fitness, dope, even his weird arched back on his body had a significant aero advantage). Anquetil was nick named Monsieur Chrono because he would slay everyone in TTs.
>>796240 >they were either very good (indurain, anquetil, merckx) or exceptional (armstrong, hinault) climbers but there were always others competing against them that were better.
no. there were no better climbers. The only reason guys like Virenque who were contesting the polkadots ever won anything was because they didn't pose a threat in GC, and so were allowed to go up the road on some stages when the GC riders didn't have anything to go for (such as a stage with mountains early on, then a flatter 2nd half or so), or were easing back etc.
>These 5 (+1 7) time winners were all much stronger in time trialling than their competition was in their climbing advantages so their method of winning was to play on their time trialing strength while focusing on minimizing the loses to contenders in mountains, sometimes they would get mountain stage wins
All these 5+ time tdf winners had one thing in common - they were the best climbers, AND the best time trialists. you don't achieve that insane level of success unless this is the case.
>Go ahead and tell us all when was the last time the King of the Mountains donned the final maillot jaune in the same Tour de France.
Gaining time on mountain stages and gaining points for the kom classification are very different, naturally there will be very little crossover.
>The best climbers (i.e. Richard Virenque/Laurent Jalabert before and during the Lance era) are simply incredible, but that's why they are climbers. Not overall champions.
Lance was a better climber than anyone during his era.
>Most champions win their ITT and then rely on being strong enough to hold it in the mountains.
most champions, yes, but these exceptional 5+ time champions won in both the mountains and the TTs.
>In order to win the GC you need to be either top-tier time trialist and an excellent climber (Lance Armstrong), or a top-tier climber and excellent time trialist (Marco Pantani). That's a fact. Saying everything is always won in the mountains is seriously fucking retarded.
I never said everything is always won in the mountains, I said that you were wrong to suggest that top GC riders were weak climbers, just "hanging on" in the mountains.
I work at a LBS. Allow me to tell you why TT bikes are shit.
Everyone who owns one is a giant ass clown. Seriously. TT bikes are often complicated to work on, and are always tedious. Faggot owners always demand next day satisfaction. Faggot owners are also always disgusting. Not only does it take forever to work on one, but as we're disassembling them, everything is sticky because they don't take care of their bikes. GU, sweat, probably cum, is always caked up in these garbage machines. They also take a two hour fit process to get them to fit right. Also, they're dangerous as shit. TT bars aren't safe because you're no where near the brakes, and some fuccbois will ride these things in group rides and on bike trails.
TL;DR: they're overly complicated, take forever to work on and fit, and owners are cunts
>>796327 have you ever fucked around on one though?
I bet their pretty fun once you get em up to speed
every time you usually hear about some pro dying on a bike its when their training on their TT bike
whats so complicated about them? are they always electronic/internal routing/stupid hidden brakes?
everytime I pass someone on one its usually a 40 year old woman going 16 mph working on 'base' and then they give you a real dirty look when you get by them or they always try to fucking speed up so you can't get past em
>>796322 >Lance was a better climber than anyone during his era.
Is that why he never won KOM? The actual standard to which all other climbers are based? He was never the overall fastest to the peaks in a single Tour. So obviously in each of his TDFs, someone was better than him. Michael Rasmussen, Richard Virenque, Laurent Jalabert, Santiago Botero and dozens of other riders actually. He was a beast in the mountains and I give him major props for his '99 and '04 ascents of Mont Ventoux and being the first man since Gino Bartali in 1948 to win three consecutive mountain stages, but he wasn't the strongest climber during his era. He had to hold back to win the GC or else he may very well have been.
>>796330 I've ridden one that's been sitting in our shop for awhile. They're not as fun as you'd think, unless you're into speed. They're shit in cross winds, they can't turn for shit, and they're heavy, and no where near nimble. If you like going 25+ in a straight line than they're GOAT.
They're complicated because they have hidden parts, with internal cable routing. The cable routing alone can take hours. Also, adjustments often require more than one thing to be messed with.
>>796338 Why is the cable routing hard? I have 2 frames with it (road and cx) and it takes like 5 minutes to thread the cables using a little coat hanger hook or better yet using some really skinny plastic tubing (i think internal routing is complete fucking nonsense though, dirt gets in the frame, cable housing can bind all fucked up around things like the bottom bracket, etc)
>>796338 If you like going 25+ in a straight line than they're GOAT. thats got to be addicting though, i stuck some 36cm bars on my bike on the brief section of flat road and I have enough power now to hold 30mph for a couple minutes now and it was pretty fuckin awesome feeling
Since we are talking about internal cable routing now, I figure I'd mention that Art's Cyclery has a few internal routing vids beginners can check out. When I was starting out these two videos were a godsend for me:
KOM is rewarded by breakaways, GC isn't. Also, Lance was always watching GC contenders in the mountains, not bothering to cover off those who weren't a threat in that classification. When Armstrong and Virenque, Jalabert etc. actually went toe to toe in the mountains, Lance always came out on top
>>796445 He never went toe to toe because they were always beating him to the peak minutes ahead. Like Ventoux on stage 14 in '02 and Alpe d'Huez on stage 8 in '03. Armstrong vs Pantani on stage 12 of 2000 is always lauded as classic Armstrong, but Pantani was in bad form and at the end of his career and just a few short years from suicide. Even that fight gassed Armstrong because he later bonked in the same tour on stage 16, going up *gasp* a mountain.
>>796260 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qgXQ3zPSN4 Case in point
>>796300 >a top-tier climber and excellent time trialist (Marco Pantani) wut https://youtu.be/K6QAzpK8Pxs?t=13m16s >181st of 189
>>796593 Someone who takes their riding too seriously for their level of performance, chiefly manifested in observing the trappings of racing cyclists without putting forth the commensurate degree of physical effort.
>>796300 actually, no. In recent years, cyclists that win the GC, or even make the podium, gain MINUTES over the competition by finishing first in the mountain stages. The TT specialists, meanwhile, only make up mere seconds in their preferred discipline. Froome, Wiggins, Nibali, Quintana, and the list goes on...all gained time in the mountains and made sure not to lose too much in the TTs.
The TT stages are an important part of the race, but there's no denying that being a strong climber and staying with the peloton on flat stages has been a winning formula for years now. In fact, modern cycling has changed so much that nobody is head and shoulders above anyone on flat stages or TTs anymore, and the biggest separation of talent happens on the climbs. Basically, unless the TT is also an uphill stage, you just won't see a significant change in the standings anymore until you get to the mountains.
I don't really miss mine, but I so rarely do flat rides that there isn't a huge difference functionally between the TT and road bike. I do prefer a TT bike for long rides, and they are really fun in the flats. The thing about sweat and gels getting into the internal routing is true and inevitable if you race long distance tris and are putting down a huge amount of calories on the bike in training and racing, I had to replace my cable housings 4 or 5 times in a year and a half.
guys who win multiple grand tours are both excellent time trialists and climbers. They are almost always either a bit stronger in their TT ability than climbing overall or much stronger in their TT ability compared to the other contenders of the grand tours who are usually pure climbers. They use this strength to put time into their rivals and ride in the mountains usually somewhat conservatively for their capabilities. If they can put time into their rivals in mountain stages they will do it but superior TTing is almost always the kicker that separates them.
Kinda faggy looking and blatant scam to get freds to buy more than one bike. Also I get rustled by grand tours having an event with totally different bikes in the middle. I am also rustled that racers are allowed to mix and match bikes in the same stage.
Stinky as fuck. I bet that one didn't get to scrutineering at the end of the statge. You know I'd be all for having a requirement for a rider to complete a stage on the same bike he started with. Sure swap bikes between stages whatever, but a bike should be able to 100% a stage without failing totally.
>>797506 They were struggling to get their bikes to the UCI limit at that time, I highly doubt it was an illegal bike. What's more likely is that it had different wheels, as superlight carbon climbing rims back then had real issues with heat build up and braking on descents.
>You know I'd be all for having a requirement for a rider to complete a stage on the same bike he started with. Sure swap bikes between stages whatever, but a bike should be able to 100% a stage without failing totally.
so if you have a mechanical you have to dnf? right. There's nothing wrong with the rules as they stand. So what if they want to use a different bike in the stage?
>>797506 Bike changes that have different properties like gearing are still performed in things like the TdF, Vuelta. Sometimes riders will have their team car drop off a bike with larger gears at the top of the last climb for descents for example.
Some of those bikes were lighter than what they have now. Armstrong had some treks that weighed under 14 lbs. Some of the carbon wheels they had back then were trick and some like ADAs were WAY better than what they have to use today. the 6.8kg rule was implemented following this tdf
ADA wheelset from 1998 or so 800g for the pair! Company split and other half make ones kinda like this as Lightweights ADA still makes these but I think they're like 10 grand a set and the wait list is years and years
>>797686 Genesis actually had to release a carbon frame because their riders were complaining of the weight and stiffness deficit to carbon bikes. The only reason any riders even use the volare 953 frame is because they're forced to for marketing purposes.
>>796327 >ride these things in group rides and on bike trails
true, I have recently experienced trying to overtake someone who was riding a TT bike on a winding trail in the aero position. This person had to sway from each side of the trail just to make the turns.
However, the bikes themselves are ok in that I respect TT's as an event. They become a mess if your average dickhead gets on one
carbon fork and seat stays, steel everything else. It was easily the nicest riding frame I've ever had, super stiff and fast too. It weighed 16.4 lbs with light wheels. I had another older italian columbus sl frame which is kinda porky for steel and that one weighed 17.8lbs with sram force and dura ace c35s. Steel is really not that heavy.
>>797709 where did you read that they switched because of stiffness and weight concerns?
>>797762 nice steel tubing cost a lot more money than CF and aluminum. More labor intensive to build as well.
>>797797 >carbon fork and seat stays, steel everything else. It was easily the nicest riding frame I've ever had, super stiff and fast too. It weighed 16.4 lbs with light wheels. I had another older italian columbus sl frame which is kinda porky for steel and that one weighed 17.8lbs with sram force and dura ace c35s. Steel is really not that heavy. Steel is that heavy if you have to resort to tacoing carbon wheels are partial carbon frames which risk not only breakage but debonding.
I will ride a carbon frame over carbon cockpit or wheels any day when it comes to reliability.
>>797797 >where did you read that they switched because of stiffness and weight concerns?
That was what they said to pretty much all UK cycling media, who then posted it on their websites and with all the "first look" articles and what habe you. Also talking to one of the team riders.
But seriously, please don't tell me you actually think steel can match carbon for pure performance. There are certainly areas of contention in the steel v carbon debate, but performance has never been one. Carbon bikes are better in every measurable way.
Steel road bikes seem kind of pointless to me unless you're doing 100+ miles every day or touring large distances. Carbon is durable and comfortable enough for the "average" road biker not too mention more efficient due to the stiffness/power transfer. Alloy is semi legit because it's stiff but it rides like shit most of the time and carbon is almost the same price so what's the point?
People here still seem to be stuck in the late 80's when it comes to carbon. I see families with little kids riding mini carbon road bikes ffs.
>>797800 The first generations were too stiff. The fact of the matter is round, or slightly ovalized, stock tubes, can not match the tuning ability of carbon or even hydroformed aluminum in balancing desirable traits. But even if you get steel to have the right ride and stiffness, it's going to be heavier and/or more expensive than carbon, and you're still likely to use carbon elsewhere.
>>797804 Admittedly, my dad managed to ride into a curb twice and fall over on my last ride with him, so I'm not sure carbon is a good match for him, but for most people that aren't physically challenged, and can keep their bikes indoors and ride for recreation, carbon is perfectly fine.
>>797800 nah they're def not up to par with cf or aluminum on paper
theres plenty of guys who are godawful fast on steel
that richard sachs CX team is on steel bikes and has pretty good results
>>797804 its just different if you only have money for one bike and your utmost concern is performance than carbon is great if you can have a couple bikes and appreciate em just for riding pleasure, a nicely made steel bikes can be really fun and really do give a lively feeling...it can be kinda tricky finding a nice riding one though, that serotta i had rode awesome, the ciocc i have is kind of a noodle and feels squirrelly and bad when descending
>>797817 >theres plenty of guys who are godawful fast on steel No one is claiming that fat people will suddenly turn into Lance by riding a garbon bike. People actually interested in going fast will try to get every advantage they can get though.
>that richard sachs CX team is on steel bikes and has pretty good results That's CX.
>if you can have a couple bikes and appreciate em just for riding pleasure No reason you can't own a stable of carbon bikes for this purpose.
Steel is good training. The flex encourages good form. You learn not to throw it around and spin.
It really falls short when you ride above tempo, or stand on hills.
Racing on steel seems crazy to me.
A good steel ride is lively and open. A hell of a lot of fun.
My last carbon bike (a cheapish tommaso) was disappointing. I wasn't that strong when I had it, and it was great for bursts of speed, but putting on long miles it was just punishing and a really boring feel.
I want to get another stiff/light bike to race on and I hope they've improved in the last 5 years.
Training on a slower bike is only going to make you faster when you switch over. I ride long 12%ers every day, doing it on a heavy bike is just better training.
>>797819 >No reason you can't own a stable of carbon bikes for this purpose. nah, because you don't get the diversity carbon is fine, its a little more boring riding though. Even aluminum bikes have more character than 90% of CF frames. >That's CX. yeah, elite cx racing against other dudes on CF frames and they did fine
>Steel is good training. The flex encourages good form. You learn not to throw it around and spin. theres all manners of steel frames, some flexy and fun, some noodly and bad, theres also plenty that are extremely stiff and very light.
>>797847 yeah, whatever difference 3lbs makes...or about 1 water bottle 70% full
This anon is correct. Tinker Juarez has been accused of training with a backpack full of rocks for decades now. When a journalist finally asked him if that's what he actually does he said something to the tune of "Why would I do that? My bike has gears! Sounds very painful."
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.