Return to Answer

There are so many influencing factors involved here it is a really complex discussion, but in my view one of the key differences comparing bikes of today with what Merckx or Hinault would have ridden is the basic mass. The bikes are literally half a stone lighter now - 15 lbs for a current UCI legal machine vs. 22lbs for a 'vintage lightweight' with 531 or Columbus SL frame. This translates to roughly 5 percent in all up weight - which is very significant in a sport where the athletes are striving for just 3-4 percent body fat. When you consider all those alpine ascents, all those little accelerations out of corners, that half a stone is enough to make a real difference. I can't prove it, but I think it quite feasible that 1.5-2 of those 5 kph ( since Merckx's days) could easily be accounted for by the weight reductions alone. Tyre technology is another important factor - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the bikes are 1-1.5 kph quicker on average just through improved rolling efficiency. Clearly, enhanced training methods and nutrition will have had some impact over the last few decades, but I tend to think that bike technology has been far and away the biggest contributor to the speed incease. Aside from the component technology, you'll also notice that riders today tend to sit a fair but higher on their machines. As Eddie B discusses in his training bible, races have become progressively shorter, so it is possible to run the saddles higher with an immediate, substantial, bio-mechanical advantage. Similarly, the bars have got progressively lower relative to the saddles which again is probably a reflection of shorter races and enhanced rider flexibility - regular stretching now being well recognised as an essential ingredient in overall fitness. Lower bars equal a flatter back, with subsequent aero benefit. Roads have undoubtedly improved greatly since the fifties, which is a factor in itself. In another sense, the billiard smooth resurfaced roads of today have facilitated super stiff contemporary bikes which would be otherwise unridable on a three week bike race. My conclusion to this is that Fausto Coppi (time-warped from the nineteen fifties) set up on the latest technology, with a modern position, would certainly give Mr Wiggins a good run for his money!

There are so many influencing factors involved here it is a really complex discussion, but in my view one of the key differences comparing bikes of today with what Merckx or Hinault would have ridden is the basic mass. The bikes are literally half a stone lighter now - 15 lbs for a current UCI legal machine vs. 22lbs for a 'vintage lightweight' with 531 or Columbus SL frame. This translates to roughly 5 percent in all up weight - which is very significant in a sport where the athletes are striving for just 3-4 percent body fat. When you consider all those alpine ascents, all those little accelerations out of corners, that half a stone is enough to make a real difference. I can't prove it, but I think it quite feasible that 1.5-2 of those 5 kph ( since Merckx's days) could easily be accounted for by the weight reductions alone. Tyre technology is another important factor - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the bikes are 1-1.5 kph quicker on average just through improved rolling efficiency. Clearly, enhanced training methods and nutrition will have had some impact over the last few decades, but I tend to think that bike technology has been far and away the biggest contributor to the speed incease. Aside from the component technology, you'll also notice that riders today tend to sit a fair bit higher on their machines. As Eddie B discusses in his training bible, races have become progressively shorter, so it is possible to run the saddles higher with an immediate, substantial, bio-mechanical advantage. Similarly, the bars have got progressively lower relative to the saddles which again is probably a reflection of shorter races and enhanced rider flexibility - regular stretching now being well recognised as an essential ingredient in overall fitness. Lower bars equal a flatter back, with subsequent aero benefit. Roads have undoubtedly improved greatly since the fifties, which is a factor in itself. In another sense, the billiard smooth resurfaced roads of today have facilitated super stiff contemporary bikes which would be otherwise unridable on a three week bike race. My conclusion to this is that Fausto Coppi (time-warped from the nineteen fifties) set up on the latest technology, with a modern position, would certainly give Mr Wiggins a good run for his money!

There are so many influencing factors involved here it is a really complex discussion, but in my view one of the key differences comparing bikes of today with what Merckx or Hinault would have ridden is the basic mass. The bikes are literally half a stone lighter now - 15 lbs for a current UCI legal machine vs. 22lbs for a 'vintage lightweight' with 531 or Columbus SL frame. This translates to roughly 5 percent in all up weight - which is very significant in a sport where the athletes are striving for just 3-4 percent body fat. When you consider all those alpine ascents, all those little acceleration out of corners, that half a stone is enough to make a real difference. I can't prove it, but I think it quite feasible that 1.5-2 of those 5 kph ( since merkx's days) could easily be accounted for by the weight reductions alone. Tyre technology is another important factor - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the bikes are 1-1.5 kph quicker on average just through improved rolling efficiency. Clearly, enhanced training methods and nutrition will have had some impact over the last few decades, but I tend to think that bike technology has been far and away the biggest contributor to the speed incease. Aside from the component technology, you'll also notice that riders today tend to sit a fair but higher on their machines. As Eddie B discusses in his training bible, races have become progressively shorter, so it is possible to run the saddles higher with an immediate, substantial, bio-mechanical advantage. Similarly, the bars have got progressively lower relative to the saddles which again is probably a reflection of shorter races and enhanced rider flexibility - regular stretching now being well recognised as an essential ingredient in overall fitness. Lower bars equal a flatter back, with subsequent aero benefit. My conclusion to this is that Fausto Coppi (time-warped from the nineteen fifties) set up on the latest technology, with a modern position, would easily give Mr Wiggins a good run for his money!

There are so many influencing factors involved here it is a really complex discussion, but in my view one of the key differences comparing bikes of today with what Merckx or Hinault would have ridden is the basic mass. The bikes are literally half a stone lighter now - 15 lbs for a current UCI legal machine vs. 22lbs for a 'vintage lightweight' with 531 or Columbus SL frame. This translates to roughly 5 percent in all up weight - which is very significant in a sport where the athletes are striving for just 3-4 percent body fat. When you consider all those alpine ascents, all those little accelerations out of corners, that half a stone is enough to make a real difference. I can't prove it, but I think it quite feasible that 1.5-2 of those 5 kph ( since Merckx's days) could easily be accounted for by the weight reductions alone. Tyre technology is another important factor - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the bikes are 1-1.5 kph quicker on average just through improved rolling efficiency. Clearly, enhanced training methods and nutrition will have had some impact over the last few decades, but I tend to think that bike technology has been far and away the biggest contributor to the speed incease. Aside from the component technology, you'll also notice that riders today tend to sit a fair but higher on their machines. As Eddie B discusses in his training bible, races have become progressively shorter, so it is possible to run the saddles higher with an immediate, substantial, bio-mechanical advantage. Similarly, the bars have got progressively lower relative to the saddles which again is probably a reflection of shorter races and enhanced rider flexibility - regular stretching now being well recognised as an essential ingredient in overall fitness. Lower bars equal a flatter back, with subsequent aero benefit. Roads have undoubtedly improved greatly since the fifties, which is a factor in itself. In another sense, the billiard smooth resurfaced roads of today have facilitated super stiff contemporary bikes which would be otherwise unridable on a three week bike race. My conclusion to this is that Fausto Coppi (time-warped from the nineteen fifties) set up on the latest technology, with a modern position, would certainly give Mr Wiggins a good run for his money!

There are so many influencing factors involved here it is a really complex discussion, but in my view one of the key differences comparing bikes of today with what Merckx or Hinault would have ridden is the basic mass. The bikes are literally half a stone lighter now - 15 lbs for a current UCI legal machine vs. 22lbs for a 'vintage lightweight' with 531 or Columbus SL frame. This translates to roughly 5 percent in all up weight - which is very significant in a sport where the athletes are striving for just 3-4 percent body fat. When you consider all those alpine ascents, all those little acceleration out of corners, that half a stone is enough to make a real difference. I can't prove it, but I think it quite feasible that 1.5-2 of those 5 kph ( since merkx's days) could easily be accounted for by the weight reductions alone. Tyre technology is another important factor - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the bikes are 1-1.5 kph quicker on average just through improved rolling efficiency. Clearly, enhanced training methods and nutrition will have had some impact over last few decades, but I tend to think that bike technology has been far and away the biggest contributor to the speed incease.

There are so many influencing factors involved here it is a really complex discussion, but in my view one of the key differences comparing bikes of today with what Merckx or Hinault would have ridden is the basic mass. The bikes are literally half a stone lighter now - 15 lbs for a current UCI legal machine vs. 22lbs for a 'vintage lightweight' with 531 or Columbus SL frame. This translates to roughly 5 percent in all up weight - which is very significant in a sport where the athletes are striving for just 3-4 percent body fat. When you consider all those alpine ascents, all those little acceleration out of corners, that half a stone is enough to make a real difference. I can't prove it, but I think it quite feasible that 1.5-2 of those 5 kph ( since merkx's days) could easily be accounted for by the weight reductions alone. Tyre technology is another important factor - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the bikes are 1-1.5 kph quicker on average just through improved rolling efficiency. Clearly, enhanced training methods and nutrition will have had some impact over the last few decades, but I tend to think that bike technology has been far and away the biggest contributor to the speed incease. Aside from the component technology, you'll also notice that riders today tend to sit a fair but higher on their machines. As Eddie B discusses in his training bible, races have become progressively shorter, so it is possible to run the saddles higher with an immediate, substantial, bio-mechanical advantage. Similarly, the bars have got progressively lower relative to the saddles which again is probably a reflection of shorter races and enhanced rider flexibility - regular stretching now being well recognised as an essential ingredient in overall fitness. Lower bars equal a flatter back, with subsequent aero benefit. My conclusion to this is that Fausto Coppi (time-warped from the nineteen fifties) set up on the latest technology, with a modern position, would easily give Mr Wiggins a good run for his money!