Discussion with a friend. He says that the 'pros' ride stock frames...only 5% have custom units. I don't know where he gets his #'s. Says that Trek does not make custom frames for the team, they all ride stock. Any feedback?
I know nothing...so I couldn't add to the conversation. It was initially a debate about 'bike fit'... one guy saying that 'a bike is a bike', the other ' you need a custom frame'.

Discussion with a friend. He says that the 'pros' ride stock frames...only 5% have custom units. I don't know where he gets his #'s. Says that Trek does not make custom frames for the team, they all ride stock. Any feedback?
I know nothing...so I couldn't add to the conversation. It was initially a debate about 'bike fit'... one guy saying that 'a bike is a bike', the other ' you need a custom frame'.


Some truth, some not. Many do ride bone stock, others don't. Some companies design and re-design around what certain riders need. Think of Boonen with Specialized last year. After the Tour wins started rolling in Trek's production stuff was based around what Lance would ride, and models were designed with his direct input.

Discussion with a friend. He says that the 'pros' ride stock frames...only 5% have custom units. I don't know where he gets his #'s. Says that Trek does not make custom frames for the team, they all ride stock. Any feedback?
I know nothing...so I couldn't add to the conversation. It was initially a debate about 'bike fit'... one guy saying that 'a bike is a bike', the other ' you need a custom frame'.

Probably not far off on those estimations. I imagine only the elite of the elite get custom CF bikes. The cost to do custom for every rider would be too prohibitive, especially now as it seems monocoque frames are where it's at, so you need completely custom fabs for every size. No more cutting tubes to length and using lugs to hold things together.

Some truth, some not. Many do ride bone stock, others don't. Some companies design and re-design around what certain riders need. Think of Boonen with Specialized last year. After the Tour wins started rolling in Trek's production stuff was based around what Lance would ride, and models were designed with his direct input.

Yea Boonen comes to mind first and foremost. If I recall, originally they had him riding stock sizes only (and hyping that fact), but he had some back troubles and ended up with custom sizing.

Now I do wager that pro bikes might have extra reinforcement in the BB area, among others, but not custom sizing. So strictly speaking it's not a stock frame, but it is a stock geometry.

http://cyclingnews.com/tech/#pro

I beg to differ - carbon tubes in carbon lugs are easily customized, like some models of Colnago (which must have the widest range of stock sizes), Pinarello, De Rosa, Merckx, etc. Monocoque is kind of heavy versus tube-to-tube (no lugs) like Scott. Case in point: a medium Giant TCR Advanced is 950 grams vs. a medium Scott Addict SL is 780 grams. That's 6 ounces heavier.

Of course, frame weight is not as crucial as it was 5 or 6 years ago - every pro bike can be well under the UCI minimum of 6.8 kg. The most heavy component of a pro bike is its gruppo (Dura Ace, Record, Red) which are easily over 2 kg.

Monocoque is kind of heavy versus tube-to-tube (no lugs) like Scott. Case in point: a medium Giant TCR Advanced is 950 grams vs. a medium Scott Addict SL is 780 grams. That's 6 ounces heavier.



Whatever. A Storck Fascenario 0.7 is even lighter than the Addict and that's monocoque (or at least monocoqued in sections and glued together like a lot of monocoque frames) . '

Did you just look up what you thought was the lightest frame, saw that it was tube to tube and came to the conclusion? I need to know.

As others have said, lots of pros ride stock frames whilst some of them either require it or request it based on their comfort level on the bike and such.

So, yeah.

Whatever. A Storck Fascenario 0.7 is even lighter than the Addict and that's monocoque (or at least monocoqued in sections and glued together like a lot of monocoque frames) . '

Did you just look up what you thought was the lightest frame, saw that it was tube to tube and came to the conclusion? I need to know.

Most UCI professional cyclists do not ride Stork or Parlee or so many small frame manufacturers. If you are talking about the creme-de-la-creme top-notch cyclists (UCI 1.1), I have never seem one ride a Stork.

Now, triathlon athletes are a different story - but they are not on a UCI pro team. Some Continental teams have swtiched to small frame makers (Kuota, etc.), but that's not the same thing as the Big Leagues.

A Stork frame is very expensive - like Parlee, Crumpton, etc. - the only small frame maker I can think of is Cervelo, BMC, Scott, and BH.

Whatever. A Storck Fascenario 0.7 is even lighter than the Addict and that's monocoque (or at least monocoqued in sections and glued together like a lot of monocoque frames) . '

Did you just look up what you thought was the lightest frame, saw that it was tube to tube and came to the conclusion? I need to know.

damn...sounds like someone spends a lot of time on weight weenies or light bike wet dreams

So...you guys are going to get down on him for correcting someone's incorrect assumption?

If the sponsor offers custom geometry (i.e. Colnago, DeRosa) or the riders are on bikes make of metal, then the high-level pros are probably on custom. Otherwise, it's very rare, such as in Boonen's case.

So...you guys are going to get down on him for correcting someone's incorrect assumption?

If the sponsor offers custom geometry (i.e. Colnago, DeRosa) or the riders are on bikes make of metal, then the high-level pros are probably on custom. Otherwise, it's very rare, such as in Boonen's case.No, but it might be wiser to check before spouting off about weights. Addict WITH ISP from 790g. Storck WITHOUT ISP "as little as 790g". Plus the geometry of the Storck is super steep in the STA making it more of a TT/Crit bike possibly.

No, but it might be wiser to check before spouting off about weights. Addict WITH ISP from 790g. Storck WITHOUT ISP "as little as 790g".

The Storck weights include the headset, so it's definately lighter.


Plus the geometry of the Storck is super steep in the STA making it more of a TT/Crit bike possibly.

Er....no.

Do you want to quit now? You're making yourself look like a fool.

The Storck weights include the headset, so it's definately lighter.




Er....no.

Do you want to quit now? You're making yourself look like a fool.On the weight I was comparing ISP with non ISP. A headset makes barely any difference.

The Storck geometry does not have as much variance in seat angle as the sizes increase compared to most other makes. Reminded me of the trend rod steep track like frames used for crits a while back. That's all.

The new custom De Rosa Berserker model now being tested by LPR, at the Giro, weighs in a reported 703 grams.

Many pros, especially the average team rider rides whatever the team specs out for them. Read some of the team sites and you will be surprised how many teams run on Ultegra or Chorus rather than Dura Ace or Record because of cost. Cycling is not a big money game for all but a few, and perks that cost are rare. In 2000-2003, fully 50% of the peloton in the Tour de France was riding the league minimum around 40K. Considering that these guys don't get virtually all their training needs free, it's tough times. 50% of the top 200 cyclists in the world working for 40K. If you get hurt, sick or are just not fast enough, you are expendable. Ouch.:eek:

It wouldn't surprise me that most pros ride stock frames, in part because most pros fall within a small size range that is readily accomodated by stock frame ranges.

Many pros, especially the average team rider rides whatever the team specs out for them. Read some of the team sites and you will be surprised how many teams run on Ultegra or Chorus rather than Dura Ace or Record because of cost. Cycling is not a big money game for all but a few, and perks that cost are rare. In 2000-2003, fully 50% of the peloton in the Tour de France was riding the league minimum around 40K. Considering that these guys don't get virtually all their training needs free, it's tough times. 50% of the top 200 cyclists in the world working for 40K. If you get hurt, sick or are just not fast enough, you are expendable. Ouch.:eek:

Got a link for this.? It's pretty suprising. I knew the pay wasn't great, but I'd think the top 200 riders would be doing better than 40k :blush2:

I remember last year at the Swap meet at Lehigh valley velodrome (PA), The director of the Navigators team was there selling off the remaining new and race used bikes. (Also the lipton womans team bikes, guess same managing team) They were Alloy w/carbon rear colnagos. They were using campy CHORUS, NOT RECORD. The Lipton bikes were mixed shimano, Dura ace/Ultegra.
Bryan

Got a link for this.? It's pretty suprising. I knew the pay wasn't great, but I'd think the top 200 riders would be doing better than 40k :blush2:

The top 200 usually are. But since 20 teams have 25 riders on each team, there are still ~300 unaccounted for. Many are just the ones who can get the job done for minimum wage and are happy to be paid anything. Most teams can only afford 1-2 good riders, with 3-4 being a rarity. How do you pay the other 21-24 riders?

The top 200 usually are. But since 20 teams have 25 riders on each team, there are still ~300 unaccounted for. Many are just the ones who can get the job done for minimum wage and are happy to be paid anything. Most teams can only afford 1-2 good riders, with 3-4 being a rarity. How do you pay the other 21-24 riders?

Good point, with the top guys making an easy six figures (and occasionally seven), I guess that leaves only scraps for those who aren't winning races or the super domestiques directly supporting the winners. Hmm, 40K a year to take the wind for a few hours every race - takes some of the glamor out of bike racing!

The obvious lack of money tells you that the riders really race because they love it. I get so sick of the b.s. headlines claiming all cyclists must be doping. Most of these guys ride because they love it. The average team rider turns themselves inside out damn near weekly in the races and that doesn't even consider training. When I see how many hours it takes to increase conditioning, I appreciate their efforts, hope others do too.

I don't know if this frame is stock or not, but I was surprised to see a full Rival group on this Kelly Benefit Strategies LeMond team bike at this years Tour of California. Most of the other bikes I saw ran SRAM Red (Astana) or Dura Ace (Fuji, Slipstream...) I saw an FSA crank(with a powermeter) on a Rock Racing De Rosa but the rest was Campy Record.

Many domestic teams will have the rider's spare/training bike equipped with lesser components. The Kelly Benefits have Rival on their spare Lemonds, ditto Team Type 1 uses Rival on their spare Orbeas. Navigators used to have Colnago C50s with Record for race days, but the riders had Dream Plus with Chorus or the previous season's Record groups for their home training bikes. I think the BMC Racing team uses the less-expensive SLT01 frame for spares instead of the SLC01.

A professional's "home bike" is often one of the most abused bikes around. The guys are used to getting their bikes washed, lubed and tuned to perfection by the team mechanic but at home it is a different story. Some guys are good about keeping the bike clean, others just ride it hard and hang it up.

They were using campy CHORUS, NOT RECORD. The Lipton bikes were mixed shimano, Dura ace/Ultegra.
Bryan

Are you sure they weren't doing this for the extra weight? Often, when you put the newest and lightest wheelsets, frames, and cranks on a bike, you need some heavier pieces to make the bike come in at 7kg.