Do the pros ride the same framesets we can buy?

[NHAero]

In the olden days, we never knew who actually built frames our heroes raced on, because the builder's name often didn't match the name on the down tube. The recent thread about durability of carbon fiber made me wonder - are the carbon framesets the pros are riding bikes we can buy?

As far as I can tell, the Cannondale-Drapac team in the 2016 TDF rode the newly revised version of the Supersix Evo, the bike I recently picked up. If those were the stock frameset, not special layups for the pros, then it would seem that it would be a good data point in the robustitude of carbon frames and forks. If they stand up to 20 days of a GT, or Paris-Roubaix, that seems like an awful lot of loading compared to what I'd put on a frameset.

True or not?

Not looking for an argument just info.

[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

[AngryScientist]

Unlike Nascar, I believe that the bikes that win on Sunday, sell on Monday.

[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:

§ 3 Commercialisation
(§ introduced on 15.10.18)

1.3.006 Equipment shall be of a type that is sold for use by anyone practicing cycling as a sport.

Any equipment in development phase and not yet available for purchase (prototype) must be subject of an authorisation request to the UCI Equipment Unit before its use. Authorisation will be granted only for equipment which is in the final stage of development and for which commercialisation will take place no later than 12 months after the first use in competition. The manufacturer may request a single prolongation of the prototype status if justified by the relevant reasons.

When assessing a request for use of equipment which is not yet available for sale, the UCI Equipment Unit will pay particular attention to the safety of the equipment which will be submitted to it for authorisation.

Use of equipment under prototype authorisation in track events and/or in the context of a particular performance (best performance, world record, hour record or other) shall not be authorised.

Without prejudice to prototypes (equipment not yet available for purchase), any item of equipment must be commercially available in order to be used in cycling events. The requirement of commercial availability shall be understood as equipment having to be available for purchase through a direct and publicly available order system (whether with manufacturer, distributor or retailer). Upon an order being placed, the order shall be confirmed within 30 days and the relevant equipment shall be made available for delivery within a further 90-day deadline. In addition, the retail price of the equipment shall be publicly advertised, shall not render the equipment de facto unavailable to the general public and shall not unreasonably exceed the market value for equipment of a similar standard.

Any equipment which is neither commercially available, nor under a valid prototype authorisation at the time of the event, may not be used. Any such
unauthorised use of equipment may be sanctioned by disqualification of results obtained when using the equipment and/or a fine ranging from CHF 5’000 to 100’000.

(text modified on 01.11.10; 01.10.11; 01.01.17; 15.10.18; 01.01.23

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).

[fourflys]

from what I've read in the past, some very top level riders (JV, WVA, Pog) can ask for a special size/geo or maybe a special lay-up, but I'm guessing 85-90% of the peloton is on the bike we can buy..

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

Unlike Nascar, I believe that the bikes that win on Sunday, sell on Monday.

The UCI rules allow up to 1 year after first use in competition, so it is sometimes "win on Sunday, sell on a Monday a few months from now."

But I wonder; what if the new prototype bikes are used in competition, but turn out to be a total duds - do these bikes have to go into production anyway (even if the teams are going to stop using them)?

[zmalwo]

Pros sometimes ride frames with geometries that are not available to the public. for example mark cavendish's Roubaix sl4 had "pro" geometry that were not available to the public but it was still classified as roubaix sl4.

[Mark McM]

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

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.

[bigbill]

They may be the same, but that 6-foot-tall pro is probably on a 52 or 54 with a long stem and lots of seatpost.

I have two pro bikes from the 90s; both are fillet-brazed GTs made by Nobilette but look like stock frames. The 59 was Bouchard-Hall's Team Shaklee frame.

[NHAero]

Thanks Mark and all.
Is it a misunderstanding to think that if people like Rigo, Michael Woods, Phil Gaimon (CDale 2016 team) didn’t break those Supersixes that they are robust enough for me, at the same weight roughly and 1/3 the watts?

[Mikej]

I'm guessing the pro frames have a much more detailed qc check than the bikes in the store.

[54ny77]

The public doesn't get the ones with the fancy motors though.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by NHAero

Thanks Mark and all.
Is it a misunderstanding to think that if people like Rigo, Michael Woods, Phil Gaimon (CDale 2016 team) didn’t break those Supersixes that they are robust enough for me, at the same weight roughly and 1/3 the watts?

I think that's more than fair. I imagine a pro bike takes it's fair share of abuse too, imagine how many times they need to be transported, sometimes internationally between races, training camps, etc.

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

[Baron Blubba]

Originally Posted by NHAero

Thanks Mark and all.
Is it a misunderstanding to think that if people like Rigo, Michael Woods, Phil Gaimon (CDale 2016 team) didn’t break those Supersixes that they are robust enough for me, at the same weight roughly and 1/3 the watts?

Of course, one-zillion percent yes. I know lots of 200-250# people who ride carbon bikee, including the 2010’s era Supersix, and do just fine, too!

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by NHAero

Thanks Mark and all.
Is it a misunderstanding to think that if people like Rigo, Michael Woods, Phil Gaimon (CDale 2016 team) didn’t break those Supersixes that they are robust enough for me, at the same weight roughly and 1/3 the watts?

We don't know how many bikes/frames each rider goes through in a year. And even if a bike/frame lasts a full year, it is probably replaced the following year when their sponsors logo changes and they need new paint schemes on their bikes, or at least gets changed each time a new model is introduced (which is often every 3 years or so).

So yes, you are likely to get more life out of a bike/frame than the similar sized pros - but we don't really know how much life a pro gets out of their bikes/frames.

(I think it is ironic when people point to cyclocross racing as proof of equipment robustness. They forget that this is an event that lasts an hour at most, and has multiple opportunities for bike changes within that hour.)