Zeno's Tech Paradox

I bought a new bicycle recently--a Cervelo Soloist. It's got some "aero" features. I bought it for a couple of practical reasons, but mainly I was curious if it's really any better than a bike from 2008--another Cervelo that was the winning bike in Paris-Roubaix and many other races. I bought the old bike used on e-bay for cheap. I put thousands of miles on it since. It was a real bargain. The new bike was pretty expensive.

The high-end road bicycle industry makes lots of claims they backup with "science", or really proxies in the bike media (there is such a thing) make many such claims about new bicycles.

Am I any faster? No. It's identical to my older bike. If there's some systematic improvement in power or speed, it's minute. I knew that would be the case, but it's interesting to see the numbers. I use the Strava service. It compiles a database of ride segments for all the participants. I can see how I compare against others and against my previous performances.

One of the amazing things about doing a sport like cycling is that I can go out and go absolutely ape-shit full gas over a course of almost any length, and physics and biology conspire to limit my speed to a very narrow range. I used to do a local low key time trial (an individual race against the clock). I trained very hard over the winter one year, so I thought I'd be much faster when the TT season started, but my first outing was about 1 second different than the prior year over a 20 minute ride. (1 second faster out of 1200)

A bike can be "faster" through: reduced rolling resistance, better mechanical efficiency, improved aerodynamics, better fit for more optimal power transfer, and maybe some other factors. The physics says aerodynamics is the most important factor for speed, but the bike's contribution to aerodynamic drag is probably a smallish fraction of the overall system's drag, including the rider. In my case, I'm 6' and over 200 pounds. When I get into my best aero position, I'm still the most significant contributor to drag, probably by far. So if the bike really is say 5% more efficient than the old one, it might only amount to a 0.1% overall improvement. (I don't really know the numbers.) A rider, like a pro Tour de France rider might see a more significant improvement from an aero bike, because they're more aero than a fat ass old guy like me.

When I look at the same strava segments I rode on my old bike and on my new bike, the power outputs required to go a certain speed (using the same power meter on both) are the same... so my times over the same segments are the same. I'd have to write my own software to really compare in detail, but that'd be a waste of my time.

Anyway, is the bike better in any way? Yes. The frame geometry is slightly more "relaxed" and it has a longer wheelbase so it's much easier to ride, especially at high speed. My old bike gets twitchy on downhills where the speed gets into the 35+ mph range. That's scary and induces some stress. I don't want to be stressed when I'm out trying to enjoy a ride.

I think lots of tech "peaked" in the early 2000s. Bikes included. Carbon fiber allowed bike manufacturers to produce nearly optimal frame designs... so there's not much left to improve on. I think all tech suffers from a zeno's paradox like effect. It never achieves perfection.