
Originally Posted by
Marco
This is the part of cycling I really dislike and led to me switching to running in the early 1990s.
30 odd years ago I was once beaten in a club 10 mile time-trial, (about the lowest level of cycling competition there is), by 8 seconds by someone on a full-on time-trial bike (carbon disc rear wheel, carbon fibre frame, aero front wheel, tri-bars, skinsuit, aero helmet and shoe covers) with all the clothing.
At the time I calculated that if my bike (a standard road bike) was bought new it would cost £500 tops, whilst his bike I reckoned would be at least £1600. At the time one of the cycling magazines published an article outlining how much each of the various aero parts reduced your time. At the speed we were going his bike should have been 40 seconds faster than mine over 10 miles. So there it was, I was beaten by an inferior rider with a deeper wallet, or richer parents in his case.
I'd hoped, rather naively, that this would have changed during my absence from cycling, but this is clearly not the case. That's why running, in all its forms, is better than cycling; I think we're all ok about being beaten by better runners, but believe me it leaves a nasty taste when you lose to someone inferior than you, without going off course, who can 'buy performance'.