Winning in spite of the gear: The Tour de France's tech paradox

The Tour de France is supposed to be the pinnacle, the sharp end of the sport where every watt is hunted and optimised. It’s a three-week, multi-million-dollar rolling trade show for the fastest cycling technology on the planet.

And yet, if you look closely, you’ll see some baffling choices. Teams and riders are leaving speed on the table, seemingly on purpose.

It’s a paradox. In an era of unprecedented data and technological advancement, why would anyone choose to be slower? The answers are a messy mix of money, tradition, and the simple fact that the person pedalling the bike is a human, not a machine.

The Tyre Truth

Let’s start where the bike meets the road: the tyres. The debate between inner tubes and tubeless systems should, by all rights, be over.

Based on extensive third-party data, GCN states that “Tubeless specific tyres are now the fastest tyres.” This isn't a secret.

The key factor is rolling resistance, the energy lost as a tyre deforms against the road. This is a linear force, meaning the faster you go, the more watts you lose. At professional speeds, it’s a massive performance variable.

A high-quality tubeless tyre, even with an inner tube inside, is often still faster than a dedicated tube-type clincher because of its more supple construction.

So why are so many teams still running tubes? The old argument was weight, but that’s a flimsy defence today. A modern tubeless setup with sealant and a valve is lighter than one with a latex tube, and only about 20 grams heavier than a setup with the lightest TPU tubes.

Twenty grams is noise. The watts saved by lower rolling resistance over a 200 km stage are a decisive advantage. As GCN's presenters put it, “The weight saving really isn’t worth the rolling resistance penalty, certainly not for the pros.”

For a team to choose tubes in 2024 is to knowingly accept a performance handicap. It’s a choice rooted in tradition and mechanic familiarity, not pure speed.

The Slippery Business of Lube

The drivetrain is another area where science and sponsorship collide. GCN lays out a clear hierarchy of chain lubricants: traditional drip-on, oil-based lubes are “suboptimal,” while drip-on wax lubes are a “halfway house.”

At the top of the performance pyramid sits full immersion waxing, a process that demonstrably reduces friction and saves watts.

This is where it gets interesting. GCN noted that some teams sponsored by brands making oil or drip-on lubes are almost certainly not using their sponsor’s product.

The evidence is the “telltale sort of wax chain dandruff” on their drivetrains, a distinctive flecking that only comes from an immersion-waxed chain.

This is the reality of pro cycling laid bare. A team needs a lubricant sponsor to pay the bills, but they also need the fastest equipment to win the races that keep sponsors happy.

The solution is a quiet compromise: display the sponsor’s bottle in the workshop, but dip the race-day chains in a slow cooker full of melted paraffin wax out the back. It reveals the tension between commercial obligations and the pursuit of performance.

The Rider vs. The Wind Tunnel

Perhaps the most complex factor is the one between the rider’s ears. All the wind tunnel data in the world doesn’t matter if the rider doesn’t feel comfortable or confident on their machine.

As one GCN presenter argued, “Sometimes just having the equipment that you feel best on... is worth more than that little marginal gain anyway.”

This plays out in the idiosyncratic choices of some of the sport’s biggest names, from unfashionably wide handlebars to riders adding weight back to a super-light bike because it didn’t ‘feel’ right.

GCN even floated the idea that Chris Froome might have won another Tour de France on a more aerodynamic bike, a calculation they say “people have worked out.”

This is the human element. The very top talents can often win in spite of their equipment, not because of it. Their physiological gifts are so immense that a few watts lost to aero drag or rolling resistance don’t stop them.

Conversely, as another presenter admitted, less-gifted riders often become obsessive about tech because they need every advantage: “I come from this from the perspective of being pretty crap. And so I'm always thinking like, I need... I got to maximize... the equipment side of things.”

This might be the biggest lesson. Riders like Tadej Pogačar, who combine immense natural talent with an appetite for every single marginal gain, represent the new benchmark. They leave nothing to chance.

For the rest of us—amateurs who pay for our own gear and aren't bound by sponsorship—the choices are simpler. We can learn from the science without being constrained by the compromises of the pro peloton.

We can run the fastest tyres and use the best lube without worrying about a contract. The Tour de France may be a showcase of the best riders, but it’s not always a showcase of the best tech choices. Understanding why is key to making better choices for ourselves.