Dan Bigham is one of the most influential names in road cycling right now.
Fresh off a silver medal at the Paris Olympics, Bigham is hard at work in his new role at the Red Bull-BORA-hansgrohe WorldTour team.
Ahead of the new season, which kicks off with the Tour Down Under on 21 January 2025, Bigham joined two of BikeRadar’s keenest roadies, Simon von Bromley and Liam Cahill, for a wide-ranging conversation.
Though he was understandably guarded about giving away too many of his new employer’s tech secrets, Bigham was forthright on subjects such as safety in pro cycling and the survival of weight weenies within the pro peloton.
The trio also discussed Bigham’s Olympic experience and whether a 60km UCI Hour Record is possible (spoiler, Bigham thinks it is – and has done the maths to prove it).
At the end of the conversation, Simon and Liam turned the lens on themselves and asked Bigham what he thinks about cycling media, and whether there’s anything BikeRadar can do better to help audiences cut through the marketing spiel surrounding anything aero-related.
Low-hanging aero fruit
Simon: In the last few years, we’ve seen a number of big leaps thanks to low-hanging fruit in road bike tech and setup – is there any more of this to take advantage of? Or are there only going to be marginal gains from this point, until we see another materials revolution, such as 3D printing?
Dan: I think we’re a long way off peak aero or peak performance. However, the path to get there is not that accessible, is the problem.
For Joe Public… it [performance gains] will become harder and harder to find those improvements, whereas well-funded teams, with people like myself working for them, are trying to optimise for a rider by rider, course by course, role by role, conditions by conditions.
All of those things demand unique solutions and that’s hard, and, obviously, also expensive and time-consuming.
Liam: Going into 2025, then, what are going to be the key tech trends?
Dan: Good question. I don’t want to give the game away about what we’re going to do…
Simon: One of the big things from 2024 was riders such as Tadej Pogačar switching to 165mm cranks.
Likewise, a lot of riders at the Tour de France were running narrower handlebars. Do you think we might see people pushing that UCI limit a little bit more next year?
Dan: Yeah, getting closer – and then the UCI will start pushing back a little bit more as well, which is a constant point of discussion… but that’s a big old rabbit hole to go down.
I think the trends going forward are more that people are willing to explore areas that were otherwise accepted to already be optimal – or shouldn’t be changed. I think that willingness to change, and the progressiveness of the peloton is why it’s getting quicker and records continue to be broken – or at least it’s one of the reasons why.
Short cranks are a really good example. I switched from 170s – that I did my Hour Record [with] in 2022 – soon after to 160s and that was a very significant improvement for me, like very big. I kind of wish I’d done that prior to the Hour Record because I would have stuck a few hundred more metres on to it, but hindsight’s 20/20.
I think, in general, people are just going to try new things, push more extreme solutions.
And that’s quite exciting, because it might be that one specific setup works for a specific type of race – for example, people are well aware that Paris-Roubaix requires a unique setup. But every single course, and even rider role within a team, requires a different solution and I think that’s the direction we’re going in.
Who is Dan Bigham?
Dan Bigham is the head of engineering at Red Bull-BORA-hansgrohe and a former elite road and track racer.
Bigham has held titles at the national, European and World levels, and recently secured a silver medal as part of the Great Britain team pursuit squad at the 2024 Paris Olympics.
Prior to joining the Red Bull team, Bigham worked as a performance engineer with Ineos Grenadiers.
In 2022, Bigham also broke the UCI Hour Record, setting a distance of 55.548km – a mark that has since only been bettered by Filippo Ganna.
Why pros don’t like aero bikes
Simon: Why do you think, despite how progressive the pro peloton is becoming, it still appears – from the outside – as if it still has an aversion to aero road bikes?
Dan: I would say it’s probably because weight weenie-ism is still going strong within the WorldTour peloton, as frustrating as that is.
It’s not really grounded in maths and science, because that doesn’t bear it out in most scenarios.
That’s not to say there isn’t a time and a place – if you’re trying to race up [Mont] Ventoux or Alpe d’Huez, then absolutely, you want to sit on the weight limit.
But the vast majority of riders racing the Tour de France are not the people racing up Alpe d’Huez, etc. They’re the ones who are either trying to win a sprint stage, win a breakaway stage, or help their GC [General Classification] contender get to the bottom of a climb in the best position, with the least amount of energy expended.
I feel it will change in the near future.
You do see some brands going down two directions – they have their ultra-lightweight climbing bike, that’s as aero as it can be within 6.8 kilos – give or take – and then you’ve got the other extreme of ‘let’s just make it as aero as we can’, and it’s as close as you’re probably going to get to a TT [Time Trial] bike with drop bars.
I feel that’s probably the direction most will do, because those are your two [main] scenarios – you’ve got your GC, like ‘race up a hill really fast’ kind of guys, and you’ve got everybody else, where, mostly, aero is the critical performance determinant.
I think the reason it’s not been so clear cut is [that] modelling or simulating a road race is really, really challenging.
In time trials, it’s super-easy – we can tell you tyre A versus tyre B, or helmet A versus helmet B, what the difference is likely to be, or at least be very confident in the magnitude and the direction.
However, in a road race, because you’ve got so many variables and they’re all probabilistic, and you don’t know if someone’s going to attack or not, if you’re going to have an easy day in the peloton or not, is the race going to start 10km in or is the race going start with 10km to go…
You don’t really know for sure, and therefore it’s hard to put a number on exactly what bike is going to be fastest on any given day.
I think that’s why we’ve not gone down this absolute ‘trust in the physics' side. My understanding is [that] we should probably be more on aero bikes, but until we get there objectively, it’s a bit more of a hard argument to have.
Tyres are “the next frontier” of road bike performance
Simon: One thing I wanted to ask you was why all the Specialized-sponsored teams are still running the Turbo Cotton clincher tyres, rather than switching to the latest tubeless-ready models?
Dan: I’ve only been here [at Red Bull-BORA-hansgrohe] for eight weeks, full-time, so I’m starting to get a handle on why decisions have been made, and then also trying to create the data I need to to inform the decisions I think should be… and I’m not quite there yet, so I can’t give a full, objective opinion as to why.
However, I think the Turbo Cotton is a good tyre and it has its place. As we’ve discussed, it’s horses for courses – every rider, every stage, every role, all the different conditions, they all work in different ways.
The Turbo Cotton is an ‘open tubular’, where it’s basically a [rubber] tread glued onto a cotton casing, whereas tubeless tyres tend to be fully vulcanised, so they end up with different aero and rolling resistance parameters, and you’re trying to pick the optimal [balance] between the two.
It’s a complex world, tyre dynamics, and then you throw in all the things around rolling resistance, grip, damping…
I’d say this is the next frontier, and where we should be focusing our efforts on. Aerodynamics are great, but we’ve picked the low-hanging fruit there, whereas with tyres, we’re nowhere near.
Simon: It’s interesting that you say we’re “nowhere near”, because I was wondering how much further we could go with tyres.
We’re seeing lots of people running time trial tyres in road races now, such as the Continental GP5000 TT TR or Vittoria Corsa Speed, and it hasn’t resulted in a spate of punctures in the pro peloton.
Is there more to come in this area, then?
Dan: Yeah, I hope so – at least, I think there is, from the work they’ve done so far.
I don’t want to give the game away on exactly where and how I think the performance will come, but I think they’re just not well understood, and if you don’t understand something, how are you going to optimise it?
Is pro cycling now too fast?
Simon: One of the things that’s been in the news recently is that the Tour de France director, Christian Prudhomme, said in a press conference that riders are going too fast, which is making it dangerous.
Do you think riders are going too fast?
Dan: No, I don't think they're going too fast.
I think any protagonist within the sport who proclaims speed is the problem is either trying to distract you from the actual problem, or doesn't understand the problem.
The problem is unsafe roads, unsafe equipment and poor, inadequate or slow medical response when the worst does happen.
By changing the speed, you change the magnitude of the effects of when a crash happens, but you don’t – in most scenarios – change whether a crash does or doesn’t happen.
A really good parallel is what happened in Formula One when Ayrton Senna died. It took the figurehead, the highest-profile driver in the sport, to die in an avoidable accident for the FIA [the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile – motorsport’s governing body] to take action.
The action, yes, immediately was ‘cut speeds’, but actually, in time, it was to create a car design that was consistent, and didn’t drastically change in grip through downforce very quickly, which is what was happening.
Then they created circuits where there’s enough run-off, there’s gravel traps, and they have systems and protocols in place so that medical response is quicker.
I think cycling's in the same situation, and it will probably take a significant-profile rider having a life-changing or life-ending injury for this to happen, and we can either action it now, or we can action it when that happens – and I know which I prefer.
I’ve had discussions with the UCI, and to give them their due, they are actually tackling this problem – they’re not burying their heads in the sand.
But to discuss speed is detracting from the actual problem.
How to make pro cycling safer
Simon: What could we do to make bikes safer, then? You’ve mentioned elsewhere we could increase the UCI’s minimum bike-weight limit, for example – would that allow for greater factors of safety, for example?
Dan: Yeah, factor of safety in design, factor of safety in a lot of aspects.
Even things like bottle cages – a lot of crashes are caused by loose bottles in the peloton, because they roll around, they’re really heavy and they’re not compressible.
But bottle cages, at the moment, are one way you can really drive weight [down] – we’ve got them down to 12g or something ridiculous.
[The UCI could] just regulate them – make them 50g – which is easily achievable and the retention will go up. Or we just have a clasp mechanism so they’re locked in place. I bet that would cut out 10, 20 crashes a year.
I think increasing the weight limit does a lot of other things.
It enables you to carry those additional sensors, additional systems, have a safer bike around factors of safety, and just design bikes that are a bit more fit for purpose.
We are pushing factors of safety to get closer to 6.8 [kilos, the UCI’s minimum bike-weight limit], and that’s just a necessity.
We’re having titanium bolts, we’re hollowing out bolts, we’re 3D-printing everything – it’s becoming an arms race, so people can be at 6.8 but not take a hit on performance, in terms of aerodynamics.
[There are] other things, like can you have inflatable neck braces? Can you have higher crash safety tests on helmets?
There are lots of ideas and lots of things you can do, but they [often] take weight and weight is a target, and if you’re nowhere near the limit then people are never going to be incentivised to do it unless they’re regulated to.
For more of Bigham’s thoughts on this issue, check out this feature: Dan Bigham: Pro cycling needs safer courses and heavier bikes, not reduced speeds.
Team GB’s Hope bike and racing at the Olympics
Simon: What was it like to compete at the Olympics and what do you think of the Hope bike?
Dan: I really love the Hope bike as a concept. On a velodrome, it [its aerodynamic interaction with the rider] makes so much more sense because you have a very narrow band of working parameters, around air speed and yaw angle, so it’s super-easy to optimise around.
It’s much harder in the open world, where you could be [riding] at 20kph or 80kph, [the wind] could be at 0 degrees of yaw or it could be at 25. That makes it significantly more challenging to have that rider-bike interaction perfectly modelled and perfectly interacting, whereas on the track it’s pretty cool.
I also like the fact they’ve continually refined it… and I think the next generation after that [the bike for the Paris Olympics], they’ll really make another step forward again.
The Olympics themselves… Some positive experiences and some negative ones.
I think the video of my crash leaked to press [Bigham suffered a high-speed crash on the track during a training session, in the lead up to the Games], even though I’d been trying to keep it under wraps – because the last thing you want pre-Olympics is a media storm.
So that wasn’t ideal, but the racing itself was pretty good, in that we went faster than we’ve ever gone.
We were going pretty quick in holding camp, and that gets you excited, but obviously you think the same of everybody.
I was definitely not at my best after that crash, and that’s frustrating, but obviously that’s the way it goes.
But I think it’s probably the most exciting team pursuit Olympic final we’ve ever had. To nearly go to the line, bar Ethan [Hayter] slipping off the end of his saddle, and to keep it within two tenths the entire race was awesome.
Obviously, it would have been nice to have been the other way round, two tenths up instead of down, but sport’s about entertainment and I’m pretty sure it was an entertaining Olympic final.
Liam: We saw a lot of speculation about why Hayter didn’t like his saddle anymore – was that just sheer fatigue?
Dan: Actually, at that point in time,I’d thought he’d gone to change, on the very last lap – on the straight as well…
But afterwards, I’d watched the video back and saw he’d fallen off. I’ve watched it back a few times, and what happen is that he drops down onto the cote d'azur [the bottom edge of the track surface, which is typically painted light blue].
So he goes off the track slightly, then comes back up and obviously there’s a bit of a junction there – the cote d'azur is about 10 degrees [in terms of steepness] and where we was on track is about 30, so it’s a bit of a bump.
And he was on the limit of the saddle, and that little bump just knocked him off the end, and that was that.
Simon: He should have had some Tony Martin-style grip tape on his saddle.
Dan: No, we've all seen those pictures…
Simon: I wonder if it was nice to silence a few of the people who have said you’re ‘all about aero’ and not a particularly great athlete? Obviously, to make it to the Olympic final and then to almost win gold – personally, that must have felt pretty good…
Dan: Oh yeah, I’m very happy with my career – I got to a good level.
The Hour Record
Simon: Do you think Filippo Ganna will give the Hour Record another go, and do you think it’s possible to break 60km?
Dan: So I’m thankful you gave me a bit of a heads-up on this one, as I ran some numbers – because it’s always interesting to dig into the models and see what they say.
I don’t think Filippo will have another go in the near future – just from the conversations we had soon after [his successful record attempt] – I think he would maybe have a go towards the end of his career.
But I do believe other athletes will have a go, and I do think it’s breakable.
I have a very good idea of what I did when I broke the record, and with the improvements I’ve made since then and into the Olympics… And based on that, with my aero as it is now, for the same power I did for my record [in 2022] I’d just about nudge 57km.
So I’ve found nearly 1.4 to 1.5km in aero, basically.
Liam: Is that from things like short cranks?
Dan: Yeah, that’s one of the major gains, but other things, skinsuits and… Well, I was going to talk about extensions [triathlon bars] – things that I can’t talk about.
But there have been some good improvements, and I could get close now, and then if you add a few other things – like if I went to Aguascalientes at 1,850 [metres above sea level], then I’d get 57.9km, and if I went a little bit higher I’d maybe crack 58km.
Bear in mind, these are all models, and how your aero changes at altitude is another interesting thing people don’t really account for.
But for me to do 60km… If I went to altitude it would take me about 345 watts, so about 5 watts less than I did at sea level to do 60km, so it’s not impossible,
I definitely can’t do 345 watts at altitude. However, there are athletes in the world who are close to my CdA [coefficient of aerodynamic drag], have more watts, and I’m pretty sure they could have a good nudge at it if they went to altitude.
How can cycling media be better?
Simon: What could we in the cycling media do better to help everyday riders cut through stuff [like marketing claims]?
Dan: I think the media is a necessity within every industry and teams and riders don’t engage with the media anywhere near enough.
It’s a virtuous cycle – if you develop a new component and you achieve performance, then great, but people need to know about it, and the media are the primary outlet to accessing our market. Whether that’s Red Bull, whether that’s BORA, Specialized, SRAM – whoever.
So engaging with the media is critical.
In respect of marketing claims, obviously trying to validate [them] is the key bit, but it’s challenging because you need to have a good understanding of the physics, to understand where people are playing with the numbers to their own advantage.
I would say trying to validate properly is worth doing, and I think the media has its place for that… There’s loads of attempts going in the right direction and I think we’ll continually improve because every time you do a test there’s always push-back.
Simon: We had a lot of that with our rolling resistance test – people didn’t like the results. Is that something you’ve experienced?
Dan: Yeah, I guess a lot of it depends on how you’re testing, what systems you have, what you’re trying to measure. Every rig has its flaws, every protocol has its flaws.
I leave tests sometimes and I’m like “that just doesn’t make sense”, and sometimes it’s correct, it’s just your mental model of what’s going on isn’t correct… But sometimes it’s just an erroneous test.
But you might not know that because you don’t know what to look for, and you don’t know what would flag a good or bad test, or what to keep an eye on.
