Everyone on narrower bars. Saddles slammed right up against the 50mm setback limit plus longer stems. Continental GP5K TTs with blacked out hot patches/labels.
Most pros are small and can get away with very narrow bars. I have tried 38 cm bars and they are just too narrow though 40's work well. It is reduction of frontal area and they are pretty much there. Talking about additional aero gains is so slight that even Cat 1 amateurs cannot detect it. Only good pros who ride very fast for very far can notice a vary slight improvement.
I really think that Dan is on the right track with the onboard data aspect of viewing pro cycling -- that's the ticket! -- and if an 8 kg weight limit is the key to opening that box? I'm all for it.
@6:40, odd belief... Trek madone gen 7, cevelo s5, scott foil, colnago just made an aero bike, the sl8 front end is all aero, decathlon made a new aero bike, CD super6 less than 10 watts off the fastest bike, ostro vam, propel too. Aero is alive and well. They just gotten better and making aero happen with less material.
@@neilhyland1163 And how about fully enclosed or bumper-surrounded wheels so touching wheels wouldn’t be such a disaster? It would look goofy but we’d get used to it like those bulbous time trial helmets.
I would argue Chris Froome and Egan Bernal were both superstars that had significant career altering crashes, it just didn't happen in a race. They changed nothing. F1 races on circuits purpose built to be safer. Racing bikes above the speed limit through city streets designed for traffic to not race, is the risk. You would have to stop racing on European roads and town centers and move to circuits for racing.
I am old school when it comes to the width of the handlbars. Shoulder width from bone to bone. The UCI might want to address the sock length abuse before they tackle handlebars. The socks this years were on the verge of taking a pee pee level. I can see a minimum percentage width of handlbars coming to address different body types and so they can say that individual bodies are taken into account, when making the rules. Rules which have been arbitrary since the start of the rules. Watch The Flying Scotsman if you want to see the UCI bending the rules to suit themselves. They claim to make rules to stop crashes yet do nothing still with people who cant hold their lines in sprints. I saw some wild sprints this year. When i hear no action taken i just shake my head.
I’m a TCR guy The emotional “drag” from an exceptionally heavy aero machine… I can’t get past it. I love the feel of a lightweight, responsive, nimble bike.
You know, I had wondered why Dan did his hour on 170 cranks even though I think he access to smaller. I remember Mike Burrows said decades that you woulnt have a real tradeoff until you hit 155mm. Why did nobody listen to him then. Even Boardman rode 170's as did Obree.
There should not be a minimum weight it’s the pinnacle it’s supposed to be the best…just don’t put bollards & islands in the middle of roads stop complicating things 🤦♂️
You open your hip angle because your knee doesn't come as high up as before due to the shorter cranks. That makes it possible to have a more aggressive with the same flexibility, thus making you more aero
You dimension your saddle height to be able to reach the lowest point in the rotation. A shorter crank means you can bring your saddle up a bit as the lowest point is a bit higher as well
Have you adapted your pedaling style to a higher cadence? Check out the cadence that riders like Pogacar now climb with. If one is used to riding climbs at a lower cadence, it will take some work to adapt one's pedaling style to the higher cadence which works best with shorter cranks.
@@barrowsworm1226Ultimately it’s not as simple as upping the cadence and going into a smaller gear ratio. Individually we each have our preferred footspeed and torque. While I am on 160s because I am primarily a breakaway specialist looking for aero gains, I am doing so at the expense of available torque while climbing at lower speeds. I have even tried as low as 140mm cranks just to leave no doubt about sensations felt with 160s and 155s.
There is universal formula that crank length has to be 20% or 20.5% of your inseam length. It’s very bad if you go shorter than that, or longer. And you aren’t going to compensate for too short cranks changing to a lighter slower gear and start pedalling higher cadence:).. no way, unless you are fine just riding slower speeds without ambitions.
Road cyclists notoriously have bad bike handling skills. Narrow bars amplifie that. Even some pros have amazing power but can't corner to save their life. Leave the narrow bars for the elite or time trials.
All this BS. Steel bikes on tubular tires were faster than today’s carbon “aero” bikes. It’s quite easy to notice that in 70’s - 80’s peloton moved faster. In 1980 Moscow Olympics average speed was 51km/h! And actually road racers back then were significantly bigger more athletic looking than today’s cyclists. Steel bike is always faster and more stable on the road than carbon bike with unstable carbon wheels that is physics approved in practice. Today UCI officially announced that their goal is to reduce speed, that’s why they show us fake higher peloton speeds, through influencers promote slower low pressure wider tires, shorter cranks, etc…
@@tongotongo3143 Fake higher peloton speeds. 😆 Cyclists at all levels are getting faster every. single. year. This is easily confirmed by looking at speed progression on flat Strava segments.
No, you can’t control digital algorithms, you can just push buttons ant read numbers like monkeys do in a zoo. If you believe what you read, that’s fine.
@@tongotongo3143 Digital algorithms? If I complete a 160km race in 3.5 hours, that’s 45.7km/h. I can’t pretend it’s 50km/h or 40km/h because the route is mapped/known and the start time / finish time are also known. Take your medication.
What tech changes do you think Dan is cooking up at RedBull - BORA - hansgrohe?
Everyone on narrower bars. Saddles slammed right up against the 50mm setback limit plus longer stems. Continental GP5K TTs with blacked out hot patches/labels.
Most pros are small and can get away with very narrow bars. I have tried 38 cm bars and they are just too narrow though 40's work well. It is reduction of frontal area and they are pretty much there. Talking about additional aero gains is so slight that even Cat 1 amateurs cannot detect it. Only good pros who ride very fast for very far can notice a vary slight improvement.
30 pound sleds with a negative drag-coefficient, so long as you’re on the flat your money …as soon as the peloton goes uphill, Bora is in deep trouble
Joss walking in during the interview with no Fs to give.😆
wow fr
Got to love those unscripted moments 😆
Nice chat, thanks guys.
Thanks for watching! Dan was such a pleasure to have on the podcast
I really think that Dan is on the right track with the onboard data aspect of viewing pro cycling -- that's the ticket! -- and if an 8 kg weight limit is the key to opening that box? I'm all for it.
@6:40, odd belief... Trek madone gen 7, cevelo s5, scott foil, colnago just made an aero bike, the sl8 front end is all aero, decathlon made a new aero bike, CD super6 less than 10 watts off the fastest bike, ostro vam, propel too. Aero is alive and well. They just gotten better and making aero happen with less material.
the old style bottles with push on lids , not screwed on, would lose there lids/ contents when dropped. would that be a safety improvement?
@@neilhyland1163 And how about fully enclosed or bumper-surrounded wheels so touching wheels wouldn’t be such a disaster? It would look goofy but we’d get used to it like those bulbous time trial helmets.
@@Up2L842morothat’s actually a really interesting idea
I would argue Chris Froome and Egan Bernal were both superstars that had significant career altering crashes, it just didn't happen in a race. They changed nothing. F1 races on circuits purpose built to be safer. Racing bikes above the speed limit through city streets designed for traffic to not race, is the risk. You would have to stop racing on European roads and town centers and move to circuits for racing.
I want to see someone to give a go at the Sosenka hour record.
Cycling definitely needs moveable aero to improve corning grip on high-speed descents
If the UCI raised the weight limit, manufacturers would keep the 3d printed parts and hollow ti bolts and just make the frames more aero.
I am old school when it comes to the width of the handlbars. Shoulder width from bone to bone.
The UCI might want to address the sock length abuse before they tackle handlebars. The socks this years were on the verge of taking a pee pee level.
I can see a minimum percentage width of handlbars coming to address different body types and so they can say that individual bodies are taken into account, when making the rules. Rules which have been arbitrary since the start of the rules. Watch The Flying Scotsman if you want to see the UCI bending the rules to suit themselves. They claim to make rules to stop crashes yet do nothing still with people who cant hold their lines in sprints. I saw some wild sprints this year. When i hear no action taken i just shake my head.
Bring in more knowledge
I’m a TCR guy The emotional “drag” from an exceptionally heavy aero machine… I can’t get past it. I love the feel of a lightweight, responsive, nimble bike.
You know, I had wondered why Dan did his hour on 170 cranks even though I think he access to smaller. I remember Mike Burrows said decades that you woulnt have a real tradeoff until you hit 155mm. Why did nobody listen to him then. Even Boardman rode 170's as did Obree.
Saw an interview with Dan Bigham today, where he said he is riding 160 mm cranks now, and would use the 160s if he was going for the hour again.
There should not be a minimum weight it’s the pinnacle it’s supposed to be the best…just don’t put bollards & islands in the middle of roads stop complicating things 🤦♂️
How are shorter cranks more aero when you have to move the saddle up?
Please let me know
Thank you
You open your hip angle because your knee doesn't come as high up as before due to the shorter cranks. That makes it possible to have a more aggressive with the same flexibility, thus making you more aero
Why would you have to move the saddle up? That makes no sense.
You dimension your saddle height to be able to reach the lowest point in the rotation. A shorter crank means you can bring your saddle up a bit as the lowest point is a bit higher as well
@@awzaal That makes a lot of sense actually. I seem to be tired. Mea culpa.
Why are they sitting that way? Are they cold?
We like to sit comfortably. I hope you can find comfort whenever you're sitting down too
Looks bad, fellas
@@roribune8162 Looked fine to me - in what way bad?
@@stevemawer848 it's how women sit.
@@roribune8162 What a weird comment.
I feel every Vaughters reference should start with, "Long time doper Jonathan Vaughters says...."
Bikes aren't one size and bigger things weigh more than small things.
An ingot of gold weighs a lot more than a bike, which is much bigger. And the bike is more fun to ride, too.
2025, bladed aero cranks 😅
Hope your foot doesn’t pop out of the pedal at high RPM
@Up2L842moro What about aero brake levers 😆
I don't think there's anything left to aero to be honest unless they make aero derailleurs.
With WattShop & Aerocoach's track cranks available, I expect you are right and we will see them start to appear on TT rigs at the world tour.
@ Seriously, the bottoms of shoes and cleat interface needs the aero treatment.
I went from 172.5 cranks to 165 and love it for everything but climbs. Do pros use 165 on climbing races too?
Have you adapted your pedaling style to a higher cadence? Check out the cadence that riders like Pogacar now climb with. If one is used to riding climbs at a lower cadence, it will take some work to adapt one's pedaling style to the higher cadence which works best with shorter cranks.
@@barrowsworm1226Ultimately it’s not as simple as upping the cadence and going into a smaller gear ratio. Individually we each have our preferred footspeed and torque. While I am on 160s because I am primarily a breakaway specialist looking for aero gains, I am doing so at the expense of available torque while climbing at lower speeds. I have even tried as low as 140mm cranks just to leave no doubt about sensations felt with 160s and 155s.
There is universal formula that crank length has to be 20% or 20.5% of your inseam length. It’s very bad if you go shorter than that, or longer. And you aren’t going to compensate for too short cranks changing to a lighter slower gear and start pedalling higher cadence:).. no way, unless you are fine just riding slower speeds without ambitions.
@@tongotongo3143 Get out of here with that quackery.
@@kidsafe im also on 160mm cranks. my largest cog is 28t and I could definitely use a 32t; that would makeup for the torque loss.
Road cyclists notoriously have bad bike handling skills. Narrow bars amplifie that. Even some pros have amazing power but can't corner to save their life.
Leave the narrow bars for the elite or time trials.
Safer clothes
All this BS. Steel bikes on tubular tires were faster than today’s carbon “aero” bikes. It’s quite easy to notice that in 70’s - 80’s peloton moved faster. In 1980 Moscow Olympics average speed was 51km/h! And actually road racers back then were significantly bigger more athletic looking than today’s cyclists. Steel bike is always faster and more stable on the road than carbon bike with unstable carbon wheels that is physics approved in practice. Today UCI officially announced that their goal is to reduce speed, that’s why they show us fake higher peloton speeds, through influencers promote slower low pressure wider tires, shorter cranks, etc…
I’m sure you’re the fastest rider in the care home with your steel bike. Move on old man.
Take your meds, now
@@tongotongo3143 Fake higher peloton speeds. 😆 Cyclists at all levels are getting faster every. single. year. This is easily confirmed by looking at speed progression on flat Strava segments.
No, you can’t control digital algorithms, you can just push buttons ant read numbers like monkeys do in a zoo. If you believe what you read, that’s fine.
@@tongotongo3143 Digital algorithms? If I complete a 160km race in 3.5 hours, that’s 45.7km/h. I can’t pretend it’s 50km/h or 40km/h because the route is mapped/known and the start time / finish time are also known. Take your medication.