Do the pros ride the same framesets we can buy?

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

Very rarely [if ever] will you see a pro bike just fail without extenuating circumstances, like a crash.

That can be said for most other bikes, too. Most bike failures I see can be attributed to lack of maintenance - but if pro bikes got as little maintenance as the average riders' bikes, they'd be failing a lot more often.

[KJMUNC]

Originally Posted by old fat man

Carbon molds are typically hundreds of thousands of dollars. While they may very slight tweaks in the type of carbon, the frames pros ride are the same as what is shipped to dealers/consumers

Yup....no one is getting a custom mold that can't be sold to the general public. I owned Boonen's old EMX-5 and the story goes that the original version of that frame had a diff geometry (before they sponsored Quick Step)....and then when Boonen came to ride Merckx bikes (from Time), they made a mold based on his geo and that became the new geo for that model. There was a similar issue when he then moved on to Specialized.....and he had back problems trying to ride a stock geo carbon so they welded up an aluminum bike for him until they made a custom carbon frame for him.

[Louis]

Great, so now I need is the same Spanish beef, and I'll be good to go...

[Ewiser]

I friend of mine would worked for a tour team. Remembers a tour of a carbon custom shop in Italy that added carbon to the frames of Pro’s. Making stiffer in areas that each rider wanted.
In the past all pro’s would use custom frame builders and just painted the bikes with the sponsor bike name.

[Baron Blubba]

I have heard that pro bikes often tune their carbon layup different than the retail version of the identical looking bikes.

But on the subject of durability, the idea that carbon has a truncated wear and tear lifecycle compared to other materials is, within any reasonable amount of time for most people, a complete myth. By 'reasonable amount of time for most people,' I mean that the bike will last for as long as most people will care to use it --even if that means 20-30 years.

I am not a pro, but I ride my bikes a lot and I ride them hard, 100 degree temps and in 10 degree temps, in the desert dry and the pouring rain, and sometimes on rather terribly sludgy/salty/dirty/slimy winter roads. The components wear out faster in some of those conditions, but I can't say I've ever noticed *any* indication of frame failure. Granted, I flip bikes more than most people, but I've sold carbon bikes that I've put 30k+ miles on to friends, and those friends are still riding the heck out of those same bikes 5-6 years later. As a store owner, that distresses me greatly. I wish these bikes were as disposable as the myths would have some believe, but alas, unless one were to truly wreck their carbon bike, so badly that it couldn't be repaired by a reputable carbon repair person, they could enjoy that bike for the rest of their life.

Thank goodness Specialized and co. keep coming up with ways to save us 6 watts at 45kph, thus mandating a bike upgrade every 2-4 years, or I'd be out of a job. I mean, never underestimate the value of a bike that's 16% stiffer, 27% more compliant, 12% more aerodynamic, and 84 grams lighter. Please.

[rothwem]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I can't vouch for its veracity, but there's a story that for first generation of Trek's Madone frames, the mold for the 58cm size was designed specifically for Lance Armstrong's preferred geometry, and the molds for other sizes were designed with more generic geometries.

I’ve read that too. The funny add-on that I read was that apparently the geometry was more fitting for a size 56 bike, but Lance thought that sounded too small so he insisted that it be a “58”. Trek’s solution was to measure the size as center to top of the seat-tube instead of to the center of the top tube, so all of their bikes were a size smaller than their competitors.

I wish I could remember where I read that, I wonder if it’s true. I know that Trek’s of the Armstrong Era were measured c-t but the whole Lance tidbit could’ve been made up.

[weiwentg]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

According to UCI rules, all equipment used in competition has to be made available on the general commercial market, meaning that yes, we can buy and use the same equipment that the racers use.

Here's the text of the UCI rule:



Note that the UCI don't state how many units of the equipment must be offered for sale to the public, or what they may cost.

You've probably noticed some very unique bikes and other equipment used in Olympic track cycling. These bikes and equipment are also subject to these rules. Frequently the equipment is kept secret in the lead up to the games, for fear their competitors see what they are up to. But the rules say the equipment must be available for sale within a year of their first use in competition, so you'll see national federations advertising the equipment for sale some months after the Olympics, and often in very small quantities (maybe a dozen of each item), and for very high prices (often in the thousands of tens of thousands of dollars).

https://www.racycles.com/pinarello/p...frameset-26475

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by weiwentg

https://www.racycles.com/pinarello/p...frameset-26475

I'm waiting until it goes on sale!

[benb]

I thought within the last 6 months we had a thread on here about some sort of information that had gotten out about the S-Works frames intended for the Pro teams did indeed get a heavier/stronger layup than the production version, that they wanted a different balance of light versus safe versus reliable for them than what the market demanded.

I am curious if the UCI is OK with slight layup changes if the frame external shape + geometry is the same as the production versions.

Obviously the answer to the original question has changed over time.

[veloduffer]

I wasn’t aware of the UCI rule. In other sports, like tennis, the pros use very different racquets and now can only said to be “endorsed”. The pros use much heavier racquets and in many cases, are older models or from different mfrs with paint jobs of their current sponsor.

[BRad704]

#PostOfTheDay

Originally Posted by Baron Blubba

I have heard that pro bikes often tune their carbon layup different than the retail version of the identical looking bikes.

But on the subject of durability, the idea that carbon has a truncated wear and tear lifecycle compared to other materials is, within any reasonable amount of time for most people, a complete myth. By 'reasonable amount of time for most people,' I mean that the bike will last for as long as most people will care to use it --even if that means 20-30 years.

I am not a pro, but I ride my bikes a lot and I ride them hard, 100 degree temps and in 10 degree temps, in the desert dry and the pouring rain, and sometimes on rather terribly sludgy/salty/dirty/slimy winter roads. The components wear out faster in some of those conditions, but I can't say I've ever noticed *any* indication of frame failure. Granted, I flip bikes more than most people, but I've sold carbon bikes that I've put 30k+ miles on to friends, and those friends are still riding the heck out of those same bikes 5-6 years later. As a store owner, that distresses me greatly. I wish these bikes were as disposable as the myths would have some believe, but alas, unless one were to truly wreck their carbon bike, so badly that it couldn't be repaired by a reputable carbon repair person, they could enjoy that bike for the rest of their life.

Thank goodness Specialized and co. keep coming up with ways to save us 6 watts at 45kph, thus mandating a bike upgrade every 2-4 years, or I'd be out of a job. I mean, never underestimate the value of a bike that's 16% stiffer, 27% more compliant, 12% more aerodynamic, and 84 grams lighter. Please.

[flying]

I just happened to see this yesterday & thought it was quite good.
He speaks about strength questions so may be interesting to you

I Asked a Carbon Expert 12 Direct Questions About Carbon Frames!