# Standardized bikes in racing?



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

In auto racing, there is the IROC series where racers drive identically prepared cars.

Is there such an event for road racing?


----------



## Spin42 (Sep 8, 2004)

Sure, it's called, "The Little 500"


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

*Not on the road but....*

Keirin racing in Japan is standardized. NJS is the standards, not just a fashion stamp. 

Wiki- Nihon Jitensha Shinkōkai


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Spin42 said:


> Sure, it's called, "The Little 500"


Now that's a race I'd like to watch. 

I've for a long time thought everyone in the race should ride identical cheap heavy steel framed bikes that anyone can afford. I'd prefer to use cleats, but everyone uses the same cleats. 

It would make the sport a lot more accessible. You'd probably find cycling being supported by highschools and colleges across the country if this were the case.

Instead what we have are guys on $7K bikes with another $800 in gear covering their body.


----------



## Frank Tuesday (Jun 1, 2002)

Why? Realistically, the bike makes very little difference. If you put every pro rider on an $800 Sora equipped aluminum frame, nothing would change. You could probably put half the field on 105/Centaur and the rest on Record/DA/Red and they'd all still finish with the same pack they do now. 

The bike companies pay the riders to be on the best so that consumers will buy things that cost more.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

interesting idea but hen you can kiss the bike industry good by as far as putting money into the sport and they do put alot in, with out that money and with out being able to generate money from charging admission you have only out side investors which would leave the budgets of teams alot smaller and thusly the races would shrink as less teams could afford to be at every one. Add to that sites like Cyclingnews.com etc would vanish so coverage would decrease, so basicly that idea would kill the sport.


----------



## roadie_490 (Jun 11, 2004)

IROC went out of business. Also, my understanding was IROC was to bring drivers from different series together in one class and to see who was truely the best driver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Race_of_Champions

So, applying that to bike racing makes no sense. 

Using an Indy Car reference makes more sense. Anyway, enough sounding a forumite for me.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

heathb said:


> Now that's a race I'd like to watch.
> 
> I've for a long time thought everyone in the race should ride identical cheap heavy steel framed bikes that anyone can afford. I'd prefer to use cleats, but everyone uses the same cleats.
> 
> ...


Then ride that if that's what you want. I love the anti technology guys, still driving the 1984 Olds Firenza too?


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Mr. Scary said:


> Then ride that if that's what you want. I love the anti technology guys, still driving the 1984 Olds Firenza too?


No anti technology from me. Like the rest of you I've got my $30,000 in bike gear sitting in my basement. 

At the same time I realize most can't afford this lifestyle even at a 1% of what I've spent over the years.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

32and3cross said:


> interesting idea but hen you can kiss the bike industry good by as far as putting money into the sport and they do put alot in, with out that money and with out being able to generate money from charging admission you have only out side investors which would leave the budgets of teams alot smaller and thusly the races would shrink as less teams could afford to be at every one. Add to that sites like Cyclingnews.com etc would vanish so coverage would decrease, so basicly that idea would kill the sport.



How does the bike industry and sport matter to the average joe blow that wants to race in the west. Very little of this sport is televised in the U.S. 

For Europe it's engrained in their culture and a part of their history, but at the same time I'd rather not subsidize it with my money. Cool to watch and I have my favorites, but at the same time most of it is thousands of miles from my backyard.

The money for cycling should come from places like McDonalds and alcoholic beverage companies....ect.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

heathb said:


> How does the bike industry and sport matter to the average joe blow that wants to race in the west. Very little of this sport is televised in the U.S.
> 
> For Europe it's engrained in their culture and a part of their history, but at the same time I'd rather not subsidize it with my money. Cool to watch and I have my favorites, but at the same time most of it is thousands of miles from my backyard.
> 
> The money for cycling should come from places like McDonalds and alcoholic beverage companies....ect.


Cycling dosn't matter to the avg joe. But if you pull the ability of bike companies to put new products in front of cyclists but "standardizing" bikes then they arn't going to support the sport the same way they do now, which will be a loss of sponsor dollars.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

I'd rather see the bike companies save those tens of millions of dollars and lower the price of their gear. 

Giving free gear to the pros is a good idea. The rest of the money should come from corporate sponsers outside of cycling. 

Everyone in pro cycling in my dream world would make less than $50K a year. They would race only because they have a passion for it.


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

heathb said:


> Now that's a race I'd like to watch.
> 
> I've for a long time thought everyone in the race should ride identical cheap heavy steel framed bikes that anyone can afford. I'd prefer to use cleats, but everyone uses the same cleats.
> 
> ...


I'll be there, I'll try to get some good pics and post them somewhere on RBR. It's a lot of fun, even though lots of the spectators are barely aware that there's a race going on. Essentially a huge outdoor party with a bike race in the center.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Cheap bike racing won't bring the multitudes. Face it- the multitudes aren't willing to put in the effort, deal with the pain and sweat, to get to the good stuff. That's the bar that too high for most people. Some days it's too high for me. Just sayin'

By the way, I watched _Breaking Away_ last night. Still holds up on many levels.


----------



## vieuphoria (Dec 10, 2008)

heathb said:


> Everyone in pro cycling in my dream world would make less than $50K a year. They would race only because they have a passion for it.


your dream is a reality


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

Do high schools not have football teams due to the high costs seen in the NFL? Do folks not watch NASCAR because of the high cost of the vehicles?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

heathb said:


> I'd rather see the bike companies save those tens of millions of dollars and lower the price of their gear.
> 
> Giving free gear to the pros is a good idea. The rest of the money should come from corporate sponsers outside of cycling.
> 
> Everyone in pro cycling in my dream world would make less than $50K a year. They would race only because they have a passion for it.



Wow nice how in your dream world people have a limited amount of money that can make. In your dream world are you limited in how much you can make at your job because you should be passionate about it? If you make more than 50K please walk into tommrow and ask you boss for a pay cut cause you want to love your job.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

The cost in the NFL is salaries, but anyone that has the talent and the very basic equipment can go out and play it. 

NASCAR would be good comparison for cycling however, because your average highschool student has about as much chance of affording a decent road bike as they do a stock car.


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

heathb said:


> The cost in the NFL is salaries, but anyone that has the talent and the very basic equipment can go out and play it.
> 
> 
> NASCAR would be good comparison for cycling however, because your average highschool student has about as much chance of affording a decent road bike as they do a stock car.


A pick up game at the local park is hardly NFL football. 

You hit it on the head with your observation of "anyone who has the *talent*" The same can be said of cycling. Top tier bikes and components can be expensive, but it doesn't make a rider. Time in the saddle does.

The same is true for highschool students and adults...... equipment can't turn the pedals for you. Bicycle racing is all about the engine. The marketing of cycling is all about the equipment. Don't confuse the two.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

We know it's about the engine. 

Of course when you line up for your races and you see nothing but bling as far as the eye can see. Granted many of these guys have the engine, they've got the legs, they've also got the $7K bikes. 

I've had people come up to me and ask about my gear and how much it costs at the races. People are preoccupied with this stuff. It's pretty obvious those that don't have the money to spend on this feel pretty uncomfortable. 

Private schools solve this problem by making the students wear uniforms, the same uniform. Your academic performance is the only thing that matters. Students feel more comfortable, kids aren't shooting each other over $200 basketball shoes. The list goes on and on why we should all race on cheap gear.


----------



## lnchrdawg (Nov 22, 2005)

*so nothing but the least for you*

I see what you are saying:

1. ride so that everything is equal
2. no lusting after anothers bike.

but, in life everything is not equal so why not with racing. If you can afford the 7,000$ bike then go for it. If you invest that kind of money then you might blow my legs off. But, i wouldn't care because i would not be judging myself against you or another. I don't race but if i did it would be to have fun not always beat the next guy into the ground.


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

*Why stop with equipment, lets*



heathb said:


> We know it's about the engine.
> 
> Of course when you line up for your races and you see nothing but bling as far as the eye can see. Granted many of these guys have the engine, they've got the legs, they've also got the $7K bikes.
> 
> ...


regulate the amount of time and type of training for all racers, everyone should be training and eating the same. Heck instead of lining up, lets just mail in our power numbers, so that equipment and tactics can be neutralized.


----------



## Justridinalong (Dec 31, 2008)

Frank Tuesday said:


> Why? Realistically, the bike makes very little difference. If you put every pro rider on an $800 Sora equipped aluminum frame, nothing would change. You could probably put half the field on 105/Centaur and the rest on Record/DA/Red and they'd all still finish with the same pack they do now.
> 
> The bike companies pay the riders to be on the best so that consumers will buy things that cost more.


Things would change. 
lots of parts would break. Sprinters could fold a rear der shifting under pressure. way slower shifting. I could just imagine there faces while waiting for the chain to drop to the next ring. oh yeah, they would have one hell of a time shifting from the drops. 

The reason pros are paid to ride the best, is so the can do there best. iROC had no good return on investment. As the old saying in nascar goes, win on sunday sell on monday. Bike companies get a ton of information from the racers on how to make there products better. i.e. how to progess. keep moving forward. 

If you want to watch something that is not progessing at an amazing rate, or be stuck with the samething watch track racing (i am going to catch flack for that one) Even in Track they are progessing with wheels and tires all the time.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Equipment shouldn't be a factor.

Think about the power lifters. They all have to use the same barbell, stacked with the same weights. You can't bring your own barbell and weights. 

Tactics, training and skill are of course what the sport is all about. It shouldn't be about how much money one can spend to gain that 1% advantage that puts you on top. 

You shouldn't be able to buy results.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

heathb said:


> You shouldn't be able to buy results.


Can you? Wait, I don't care because like 99.9% of cyclists racing at the highest level (or at any level) has nothing to do with why I started or continue to ride bikes.

Even a $7K bike is nothing compared to what the average American spends on our car-centric, junk food fueled lifestyle. Just about anybody already has the ability to buy a raceable bike -- they just plain don't want to so they are buying giant TVs instead.


----------



## Justridinalong (Dec 31, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Can you? Wait, I don't care because like 99.9% of cyclists racing at the highest level (or at any level) has nothing to do with why I started or continue to ride bikes.
> 
> Even a $7K bike is nothing compared to what the average American spends on our car-centric, junk food fueled lifestyle. Just about anybody already has the ability to buy a raceable bike -- they just plain don't want to so they are buying giant TVs instead.


:thumbsup: well said!


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

The concern that the gear makes such a difference is proof that marketing works. ;-) If a guy on a $7k bike beats me to the top of a hill on my $2k bike, it wasn't the extra $5k he spent that made the difference, that $5k doesn't even make it on to the list of reasons why he beat me.

Someone else pointed out perfectly that the majority of people in the US have no interest in racing bikes, the first time it hurts they're out. Making the bikes cheaper would be nice but it wouldn't change anything about the sport at all.


----------



## Howzitbroke (Jun 1, 2005)

They are standardized already. There is a weight limit. Beyond that the rest is just babble. It comes down to power numbers vs. weight of the rider, endurance and the size of the hole in the air a rider punches. The bike is a relatively minimal factor. Chorus, Centaur, Record, 105, Ultegra, Dura-ace, Force, Red, Rival make very little difference in performance of the bike beyond weight. Eliminating bad luck would make things more fair, everybody should stop when a dude flats, even if it was his fault he hit that pot hole. Racing is like life, we are all relatively similar, it is about the work we put into it not the shoes we wear.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Try climbing with a 23lb bike and a 14.5lb bike and tell me if you can buy results.

I've never seen a person that races in my neck of the woods have their bike weighed. 

All this high dollar stuff makes it more effiecent, anything that saves energy adds up at the end of a 100 mile race or a 60minute crit.

Take 200 grams off your pedals or shoes and see what it feels like. The advantages are there for those that want to spend $$$$$$$$$$.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

In Keirin racing, it is all completely standardized. The frames are all of same construction and material. It all comes down the rider. That's the beauty of Keirin.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

heathb said:


> Try climbing with a 23lb bike and a 14.5lb bike and tell me if you can buy results.
> 
> I've never seen a person that races in my neck of the woods have their bike weighed.
> 
> ...


Specious. First, its not that hard or expensive to build a bike significantly lighter than 23lb. Second, variations in the weights among riders at their top fitness can easily be 4 or more times that >10lb difference. Third, even the difference between a 23lb bike and a 14.5lb bike will be trumped by strategy and determination every time.

People who would use those kind of excuses to stay away from racing have no future in the sport anyway, either because they are too lazy to do the work that is going to make the real difference in performance or because they are completely off in the weeds as far as what it takes to be successful.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

heathb said:


> *Now that's a race I'd like to watch. *
> 
> I've for a long time thought everyone in the race should ride identical cheap heavy steel framed bikes that anyone can afford. I'd prefer to use cleats, but everyone uses the same cleats.
> 
> ...


It's on TV.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

heathb said:


> The cost in the NFL is salaries, but anyone that has the talent and the very basic equipment can go out and play it.


Anyone that has the talent and very basic equipment can ride their bike, as well 


heathb said:


> NASCAR would be good comparison for cycling however, because your average highschool student has about as much chance of affording a decent road bike as they do a stock car.


A decent road bike can be had for less than $1000. To pretend that this is in the same league as the six figure cost of a professional racing car is absurd


----------



## Frank Tuesday (Jun 1, 2002)

Justridinalong said:


> Things would change.
> lots of parts would break. Sprinters could fold a rear der shifting under pressure. way slower shifting. I could just imagine there faces while waiting for the chain to drop to the next ring. oh yeah, they would have one hell of a time shifting from the drops.


I guess I should have been more clear. Nothing would change from one rider relative to another. They would all have equally poor shifting, equally poor wheels, bearings and it would still just be a difference in the rider that makes the difference.


----------

