RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Cyclo-Cross


Archive Home >> Cyclo-Cross(1 2 3 )


I am so sick of some people lamenting/b*tching...(22 posts)

I am so sick of some people lamenting/b*tching...AJS
Oct 22, 2003 10:45 PM
...that they can't win a CX race unless they're decked out with "carbon tubulars" and "all the top-end gear", etc.

Sure, it's always great to have the lightest, best performing rig you can get - and I'll bet I could whup your ass if I ate steak all week and you ate Cheez Whiz.

But has anyone heard of "training", "practice", and something called good old "mileage" on your legs n' lungs???

Case in point: Lance said just last week on The Charlie Rose Show, when asked what was the biggest reason he's done so well in his sport - ie, was it the equipment, the physical part, or the desire to win.

He said, (not exact quotes, but close enough): "Well, it's not the equipment, because most of it's up to par." And, "Sure, the drive to succeed is also very important, but I could want to win more than anything and if I wasn't good enough physically, then it wouldn't matter. It just won't work if you're not physically up to it."

(Hint: Go ride a bike. ANY bike. Ride it more than you want to, in conditions you hate or need practice in, eat right, learn. Then you might start to show in some races.)

:p
Really?Dwayne Barry
Oct 23, 2003 4:39 AM
Don't know who you hang around but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they would have won on better equipment.

If people really want to complain about something limiting their ability to win they should whine about their genetics. Afterall, training is only maximizing your genetic potential and people vary greatly in this regard much more so than in fitness due to their training regimen (assuming everyone is are doing some kind of traing).
Yeah REALLY...AJS
Oct 23, 2003 6:27 AM
...all you have to do is hang around this forum and check some of the threads, like the "Disc brakes banned by UCI" and others. Maybe it wasn't stated specifically, but the impression is that most of us "mere mortals" can't compete with the pros/sponsored riders that have the high-zoot equipment. Like this thread: cxking "disc brakes banned by UCI" 10/22/03 1:22pm.

And this: Jan Gerrit Klok "Disc brakes banned from UCI cyclocross races" 10/18/03 1:23pm.

Hey, I'm not looking to be flame-bait, but this thing about "carbon tubulars" and "Dura-Ace", etc, etc is crap.

Just one cyclists opinion....
Oh, I see...Dwayne Barry
Oct 23, 2003 6:35 AM
I don't take most of those types of threads to be about the equipment making someone faster, but maybe they are? The whole disc brakes thing seems unnessary and overblown. I've never thought I would have finished further up in a cross race if only I would have been able to brake better!

I'd like nothing better than a nice set of light, deep rim carbon tubulars because I know I'd be somewhat faster on them (and hey, I'm an American and most of us like to have the nicest stuff!), but I realize any time gained will be relatively small, and not account for where i finish nearly as much as training/talent.
You missed the point AJScxking
Oct 23, 2003 10:49 AM
The point I was addressing is that one of the reasons behind the UCI low tech stance is to keep the cost of entry into the sport down. I never said I couldn't compete without Dura Ace or carbon tubulars. In fact I do compete quite well without either one. I have never won or lost a race based on the quality of my equipment and no matter what I ride I am not going to beat Gully or Wells etc. What does make it unfair is that I can not use my second bike that has disc brakes. My feeling is that UCI racers should be able to use the very best technology available. Would Formula One have have the same appeal if everyone drove a Camaro?
Formula One...atpjunkie
Oct 23, 2003 8:34 PM
analogy doesn't hold. All forms of auto racing ban certain things to keep it either safe or keep the races more level. Look at Nascar and the use of limiters for certain tracks, they even change the ground effects regs per course for safety. Formula one has injector/turbo limits etc... The UCI feels that having disc rotors at neck or head height (during portage) could be dangerous to other riders, and during mounts and dismounts dangerous to the rider (since rotors go on non-drive, mounting side). So best technology available, may not be safe, and in this litigious age they are erring on the side of safety. I actually agree with their ruling. I raced against a guy last weekend with discs and it didn't seem to help him braking wise and if it did the advantage doesn't outweigh the danger.
Formula One...cxking
Oct 24, 2003 9:52 AM
All of this discussion about the reason for the ban is pure speculation since the UCI has not (to my knowledge)stated any reason or logic for the ban. The safety argument I do not buy. I can not imagine any scenario that would endanger anyone riding with or near someone with disc brakes. With this logic we will soon be pushing our bike around with solid non spoked wheels (razor sharp spokes spinning at head height!)and no chain rings (razor sharp chain teeth cutting whole limbs off!) The horror.
are those ....atpjunkie
Oct 28, 2003 8:15 PM
arguments bearing to Logic? solid spokes and chain rings? unfortunately certain 'lethal' elements of cycling are by necessity and tradition allowed. I'm sure you bear the brunt of a chainring bite or 2, know someone who lost a fingertip adjusting a computer sensor or brake. It would be impossible and not functional for the whole of cycling to go to disc wheels and shaft drive. Disc brakes, in contrast are neither necessarry nor traditional, you can get by without them quite well. So to use non-logical extremes to argue points of logic is...well, not logical.
Furthermore chainrings aren't at the leading and trailing ends of a bike. My UCI interp. was based on a conversation with some race officials. If you are dismounting at a barrier and a rider is just off and to the left of your rear wheel the leading edge of a disc rotor is
in proximity to you it is possible to take the rotor in the back of the leg. I'm not 'buying' the argument either, I'm just speculating on what I've heard and discussed.
I know I picked the wrong parents to be a cyclist! nmMShaw
Oct 24, 2003 9:26 AM
completely agreeJakob
Oct 23, 2003 9:33 AM
I totally agree.

I definitely felt myself getting caught up in this and i had to take a step back because it was burning me out on riding and having fun. coming from a running background, it's very strange to me how cycling can be so much about the gear making you faster. it's much simpler in running. you have shoes, shorts, socks, a tank top, and your fitness. the only thing that really differs from runner to runner is fitness.

that said, i love riding and racing my bikes, it's just not all about the advances in equipment. if i could take a carbon trek back in a time machine to a tour de france in the 20s i would still lose because i don't have the genes.

the thing that kinda sucks is that in 2000 i really liked how 'cross wasn't about having all of the fanciest stuff but now it's slowly but surely getting that way.
I dunno....Farmpunker
Oct 23, 2003 10:56 AM
Are you refering to this board, or people you race with? I've been using this board for over a year now and I've not noticed many posts dedicated to serious gearheads, who equate flash stuff with speed.
Your point is a solid one, in any event. Kind of a shut up and ride reminder that we can all use from time to time. But cyclocross stuff is strange. It seems to me it's all either high end or lower end, custom or basic. Look at brakes and forks and frames.
I've got a nice bike. I saved for it, sacrificed for it, earned it, and now I ride it as much as I can. I'm still just a slow guy with a nice ride. But that doesn't mean I don't appreicate my high end gear.
around here....atpjunkie
Oct 23, 2003 12:18 PM
cx still has a certain low-tech, Frankenbike approach. (at least in the lower divisions) for the A's and B's yes, those guys are on some swank machines but our B champ is riding a used Steelman he bought for under a grand. Yes, there are certain "Fred's" that are entering the sport. Check the thread on the guy in ebay with the $4500 Cannondale. I could build 4 bikes for that amount of $$.
The way to lilmit them is to spank them in a race and when passing comment "nice bike" and then laugh (even if it means nearly puking).So train hard, race hard, have fun and don't worry about the tech weanies that are entering the sport. The more racers we have, the more divisions we'll get, which in turn should make our sport better.
around here....boing
Oct 24, 2003 4:05 AM
I agree with most of what you said apart from the laughing at the guy riding a nice bike, does it mater what your opponents riding as long as your betting them? I see nothing wrong with owning a nice bike. If I ever came into some wealth I would have a rather large collection of expenisve bikes rather than a drive full of sports cars. No it wouldn't make me a better rider, but hay I love bikes almost as much as I love riding them.
around here....atpjunkie
Oct 28, 2003 8:00 PM
no doesn't matter. but you see more tech snobbery in road than cx. I see more lousy cyclists on expensive rigs on the road more than anywhere. I also now see these types creeping into cross. So the only cure for someone looking down their nose at your less than ultra swank rig is a thorough humiliation on the race course. Trust me, we have some fast guys on nice bikes which is far more acceptable than some Fred on a 3000$+ cx rig getting lapped in the C's. I don't mind nice bikes (I have a few) but ceratin forms of road snobbery need to snubbed in our sport. How many times do you see riders on rigs 10x their ability?
maybe...matt friedman
Oct 23, 2003 4:53 PM
maybe the quebec scene is a bit more relaxed. i've never heard anyone blame the quality of their equipment for losing a race... in fact, i've never heard anyone beetch and moan at all...

most folks ride on pretty run of the mill bikes, like konas and fujis and mountain bikes, though you do occasionally see the exotic flanders, empella or commencal...
Yup, here all K2, Kona, under $1200 bikes the norm. nmSpunout
Oct 24, 2003 4:06 AM
Gearhead and I sucksnwbdrhoon
Oct 23, 2003 5:34 PM
Hey.

I'm a gearhead and I suck. If I didn't talk about my equipment, I'd have to blame (shockingly enough) myself. =)

I have negative lung capacity but have a lot of fun riding a really nice bike (of course I don't have said nice bike). If I had a bike that equated to my ability, I'd be riding a huffy or a big wheeler.

Too many finals can make a guy write a bit funny.
And if my rant makes any sense I'd be amazed. 2 four-hour finals can make write a bit funny.

I guess what I'm trying to say is as a gearhead I'm always looking to try the latest suspension on MTB's and check out the lightest, coolest stuff for my 'cross bike. That said, my 'cross bike is may be worth the $700 I paid for it with my upgrades. I'd love carbon wheels too. but I'm in grad school = no $$. And I would't say no if you gave them to me. Many people on this board like to talk gear. Is something wrong with that?

But I still will debate about disc brakes as I feel the UCI shouldn't make such stipulations. Like banning 29ers for MTB's... does it really matter? Gear is evolving and racing should evolve with it. Disc brakes don't really make that much difference in a 'cross race, but why tell the guy who has a disc cross bike that he can't race? That's just sad.

If they were trying to expand it for everyone, they would have C's ride flash bikes while A's and pro's rode single speed Schwinns from 1960. They would still lap my sorry ass.
PSsnwbdrhoon
Oct 23, 2003 5:35 PM
Too many finals can make a guy write a bit loopy. The above probably makes no sense.
Well how about from the 70's?skinl19
Oct 23, 2003 6:15 PM
My son took an old 76 Raleigh Grand Prix and turned it into a SS 'crosser, didn't really change anything but the bar tape, saddle and tires. Running mid "B" on it but he also does the "C" race right before it on a tandem.
Maybe some of you misunderstood my pointAJS
Oct 24, 2003 6:22 AM
I have nothing against owning/riding the high-zoot stuff. In fact, this past January I sold one of the best rigs I ever owned. I had built it from the frame up: Y2K Litespeed Tuscany 56cm./Record 10 w. carbon seatpost, full Ti 12-25 cassette/CK headset/Wound-Up fork/Cane Creek 200SL brakes/Shamal & Nucleon tubulars AND a custom Chorus-Aerohead wheelset/Prima 199 & Newton, etc. I don't race anymore, so that bike was my everyday rider.

As you can see, I am as much of a "gear whore" as anybody else. IMO - there's nothing wrong with having the nice stuff if you can swing it, and I don't believe you have to be an active racer to justify having it.

But my point in this thread was that a few of you sounded like you were saying you needed the very lightweight, expensive gear in order to do well in CX races, and I wanted to disagree with that.
Maybe some of you misunderstood my pointMShaw
Oct 24, 2003 9:38 AM
I agree with your disagreement, but cycling is one of the very few sports that you can BUY speed. Aero wheels, aero bars (in certain racing situations), and etc. can definitely make you a faster rider.

The problem with using them in a cross race is that usually the speeds aren't fast enough to "need" the aero aids.

Cross is about fitness and technique. You don't have the fitness and technique no amount of aero aids/fancy lightweight stuff is going to help you beat someone that's actually been training!

So, while I agree with your disagreement, I think that if the fancy stuff helps you psychologically and gets you out actually doing something vs. sitting on the couch getting fat during the winter, go for it. Just don't expect the fancy stuff to miraculously catapult you into the As...

Mike
re: I am so sick of some people lamenting/b*tching...mackgoo
Oct 30, 2003 7:55 AM
Look in the mirror.