Pinkbike Poll: How Much Does the Bike Impact Racers' Results?
I have friends who believe that whatever bike has been raced to the top of the podium most often is surely the fastest, bestest bike. There's a bit of truth to that, I guess, but is the winning bike actually "the best" bike? I'm convinced that racing is far too nuanced (and sprinkled with chance) for it to be that simple. Skill, style, and countless other human factors are at play, all of which has me wondering how much the bike and equipment actually matter to a top-ten, world-class professional?
![It s getting repetitive at the top at this point but you wouldn t want to swap out legends and legends in the making like this for any old racer.]()
Could Gwin really ''win on a shopping cart,'' as it was often suggested after that mind-melting chainless run at Leogang? Not an actual shopping cart, obviously, but the implication that the American could have coasted to victory on any modern, respectable downhill bike would mean that maybe it doesn't matter what he's riding. If that's the case, could Nino have bagged that perfect 2017 season had he be on a mid-grade aluminum cross-country bike? I wonder if Ravanel could put minutes into the rest of the EWS field aboard a $4,000 enduro rig, or if Semenuk would still be Semenuk on... Nevermind, he would be.
You get the point: Assuming they're still using the right tool for the job, how much do you think the bike and equipment impact top racers' results in each of the disciplines below?
Would this podium be any different had they all been on the same type of bike? Or, what would the season have looked like if Pierron and Bruni had spent 2019 on the same type of bike?
Could Gwin really ''win on a shopping cart,'' as it was often suggested after that mind-melting chainless run at Leogang? Not an actual shopping cart, obviously, but the implication that the American could have coasted to victory on any modern, respectable downhill bike would mean that maybe it doesn't matter what he's riding. If that's the case, could Nino have bagged that perfect 2017 season had he be on a mid-grade aluminum cross-country bike? I wonder if Ravanel could put minutes into the rest of the EWS field aboard a $4,000 enduro rig, or if Semenuk would still be Semenuk on... Nevermind, he would be.
You get the point: Assuming they're still using the right tool for the job, how much do you think the bike and equipment impact top racers' results in each of the disciplines below?
How much do you think the bike and equipment impact top racers' results in World Cup XC?
Top-ten racers, and assuming they're still on the right kind of bike
How much do you think the bike and equipment impact top racers' results in World Cup DH?
Top-ten racers, and assuming they're still on the right kind of bike
How much do you think the bike and equipment impact top racers' results in the EWS?
Top-ten racers, and assuming they're still on the right kind of bike
Curve ball: How much do you think the bike and equipment impact top riders' results at the Red Bull Rampage?
Top-ten competitors, and assuming they're still on the right kind of bike
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Turns out I voted with the majority. Once you've felt the improvement (in one ride) upgraded equipment can make, i.e. a lighter wheelset, or better suspension, then you wont discount the 'better bike' idea. This poll, however is about the top 20 Worldcup DH racers, I doubt there is much difference in performance between those bikes!
Amen†
Mental state.
Skills/natural ability.
Training/strength.
Mechanic/performance tuning.
Tires.
Luck.
700 other things
Chain.
Bike.
This is assuming a top spec bike of course.
You would think that maybe he could spend the time that he pounds on his keyboard on a bike but he cant. He uses that time to post videos of him outside his house learning to turn a bike instead- one day he may master turning. He wont go far from his house because he needs to feel the wifi surging through him. I hear if you dont reply to waki he loses some his power. But that's just a rumor. He also bases his opinion of our ability to ride a bike on how many pictures we post online. Because posting pictures online = bike skills somehow. I challenge you to not reply to his comments, its hard because hes so infuriating but that is the best defence.
There is also a chrome plugin somebody made, you can google it. It's a free download and it removes him from your browser so you cant see his comments. When you use the plugin the amount of comments per article drops dramatically, possibly saving you valuable data. I wont say for sure if I use the plugin because he will see this comment and most likely unleash a verbal assault on me but he wont know if I can see his comments now so when I dont reply he will stew in front of his multi screen setup, possibly taking his anger out by going out front of his house and turning really hard on his bike as he films it.
The last time he looked dominant was 2017! 2016 he was lucky to beat Danny Hart (Hart won more races that year) and 2018 there was no consistent competition.
I keep saying it and I've yet to be proven wrong, his days are over.
I absolutely do think that bikes make a difference though. With everyone so good these days, a even a 2% advantage via the bike is huge. As someone said in a difference discussion on here, "No one seems to be hurt by changing to Commencal"
So it matters only in people's heads, but this is a foundation of bike industry...
Go to an open track event an you'll see Civics passing Ferraris-guess who's driving their car like a race driver??
As for my own bike (as a non-athlete), the bike shouldn't obstruct me. I want the top tube and saddle out of the way for moving around. And I want enough reach too. So yeah, if I'd get a bike with a high top tube and high saddle I would go slower. And just like I have my preferences which allow me to do what I need to do on my bike, athletes have their preferences too. What these preferences are? Ask the athletes.
Especially in Downhill, are we talking about "Greg Minnaar on a L size 26" V10" impact on performance or "couple clicks of compression" impact on performance? What does "right kind of bike" mean?
The top 10 guys could still outride any local racers on a trail bike, but the field is so stacked these days that even marginal differences in performance can have a relatively big impact on the time.
I remember in some interview years ago Steve Peat made some offhand comment about how they were experimenting with half a turn less spoke tension on the wheels to see if they tracked better. I imagine you have to have your bike pretty close to perfect for it to be worth paying attention to half a turn of spoke tension.
It matters most to guys like the privateer who ride fast but (no disrespect intended) have no clue when it comes to setting up a bike. The better something works out of the box, the faster those guys are gonna go.
because it would be very nice to see some work put into actually figuring this out (not really looking for a definitive answer but maybe enough data to suggest things one way or another) and then a poll. If PB has a Growth team, just treat them to lunch and borrow them for a week!
For a Pro EWS racer a good bike matters but they would finish about the same on any midgrade bike as long as they set up their suspension and preferred tires along with bike sizing. I'd guess they'd lose 5-10 positions.
However for a Pro XC rig or a DH rig at a top 10 level where milliseconds matter and every top racer is already at the very top of their game, all of those guys would no longer be top 10 on an off the shelf low end bike, in fact unlikely to be top 50. Because that's what 10 seconds on a Pro DH run or a minute in a XC race will due to your placing.
Ultimately the bike is the last 10% difference, which makes all of the difference in the world at that level.
I have yet to buy any product because it was popularized by a racer. I pick products because they work, because they’re a good value, because they represent my values, and because I like the way they look; a little vanity never hurt anyone
I can’t even tell you who raves for whom unless it’s Gwin or Hill, I think Gwin still rides Intense and Hill rides something...
. . . . .. . there's a lot of the "it's not about the gear, it's the rider.. .." and to some extent that's true - I mean, put a talented rider on a shitty bike he will still be talented. . . ... but there's a point where gear needs to, at least, match.. ...
I think you swap them bikes in the morning and you'll see everyone changing stems and lever positions, and cranks and saddles and whatnot, to match their style.. . ....
... because, in the end, gear will matter.. .. a lot !
That's what how much bikes make and probably under 1 or 2%. Those higher percentages are just stupid.
Say a pro XCO takes 1.5hrs to complete, if you're 2-3min slower that's massive and it's just 2-3% difference but makes a difference between 1st and 30th place.
I'm pretty sure if nr. 1 rider had a "comp" version of his top bike, he'd still be able to beat the rider who came 30th.
I agree bikes do make some difference, but spending more time on the bike, learning the trails, could improve a rider's ability far greater than the bike setup for the average joe. I remember working hard on trying to set a personal best on a local trail, only to beat it on a casual ride a few months later while riding the same bike. I might have done even better on a bike with current-year tech.
My overall point, is that for the pros racing at the top of the game, differences in bikes (even the most minor variances) make a much greater difference than for the rest of us.
- Mental game important
- fitness important
- Getting the right start time in relation to the weather/wind/rain/ruts in the track
- even the slightest difference in equipment could make a differnce of a fraction of a second, which is all that sets aside the top spots many cases.
The chainlesss runs are always brought up but there is more going on there with the suspension.
compare that to the 80s & early 90s were certain brands/components/frames worked very poorly, or had a rep for breaking, then that era had a massive impact on how much difference a bike made towards a racers results. henrik djernis winning world champs 3 times for ritchey, then moving to a heavyweight proflex with poor results being a classic example
So yeah, not a watcher here, don’t have cable or internet, no TV, just a phone and a computer at work.
Nike's new controversial running shoes they can test and see how much it improves the runners time obviously it's a lot less variables but when it comes to mountain biking there's just too many factors to consider why someone won or lost.
Need to pedal in off camber, slippery, chunky bits...the bike matters far more than we give credit.
Why don't we do actual anaylsis of where the suspension designs themselves may or may not improve rider result.
Take the last 5 years of World Cup results. Include World Champs.
Use a graph plotting the average finish of each bike design at race 1 for all 60 riders in the race.
That way we can see if a suspension design's average result at a World Cup changes based on the style of track.
Then assign a track style to each World Cup but keep the track categories simple with maybe 3 categories that indicate how demand the suspension system faces at each track.
If what I've always felt on a bike when riding it is true, we "should" see that the more technically demanding the track (either intensely difficult off camber traction OR straight line sprinting through rocky, momentum robbing terrain), DW Link & FSR style bikes gain in average result and single pivots & VPP on tracks that are more "no brakes & pull the pin" will have a higher average result.
SEBBBBBB....Roots and Rain....you want this challenge?
(not talking about XC here..)
It sounds quantitative but with no parameters and no agreement on scale, it's just drunk talk.
There's been plenty of pros who dominated their disciplines with bikes that we look back on now and think weren't great for their time. If you disregard the fact bikes weren't as good as they are now (obviously due to product development), there was always a few that will be looked back on for not being the greatest for their times, yet riders won riding them. Take the old GT Fury's and sanction when the Gee, Rachael Atherton and Martin Maes were all dominating on what now seem like fairly average bikes. List goes on, Peaty on Orange, Bruno and Vergier on Lapierre, Zink on Hyper, Akrigg on Mongoose, Wynn Masters on Bulls and there's definitely more....
Hey PB, where’s the Grim Donut?
Did Levy wrap it around a tree?
[Drops mic.]
Ah OK.
Yeah the bike matters...