Trying to get my head around something, ideas welcome!!
Discussion
This may appear a jumbled description but I'm really trying to get my head around something and so will try and share everything that I think might be relevant.
The simple question is "why is one of my bikes significantly faster than the other when the faster bike is a snotter?"
The bikes in question are;
Bike 1 (the slower) my trusty full carbon frame with good wheels, good hubs (Mavic Krysiums) , Groupset Shimano 105. Running compact 50:34 on the front and 11:28 on the back. weighing in at 7kg. When I bought the bike I had the full "bike fit" thing is superbly comfortable and I thought quick in that it was my fitness that was the weak link.
Bike 2 (the faster) an old steel job that I put together 10 years ago from odds n sods for less than £100. Wheels and hubs were £50 specials (Campag Vento), Groupset is Campag Centaur, running standard 53:39 on the front nad 11:28 on the back. The frame is too small, the bars are slightly bent, it is uncomfortable to ride, if I stand on the pedals my knees hit the cross bar, I've had to push the saddle as far back as it will go I can barely get down low enough to get to the drops! It weights in a just over 13kgs almost twice the weight of bike #1.
As the frame for Bike #1 has had to go back to the manufacturers for repair I put some bar tape on Bike 2, sprayed some oil on bits that needed it, wiped the dust and off it and took it for a spin around my usual 20mile route.
Swings and roundabouts but it came in 15seconds slower than my pb on this route, which is within my margin of error.
Looking at the post ride stats;
- it made time up on the descents
- on the flat it was pretty much on a par with bike #1,
- on steep hills it lost time
- on long hills it made up time.
The thing that interested me most was the last one why would it be quicker.
So, yesterday I took it out to test this out on another route which is a 4 miles warm-up then a 1.7mile 3% climb then 6miles undulating ride home.
It knocked 15% off my previous best on the climb time!!
how/why/what!!!
Surely for climbing you want a light bike, good wheels/hubs that fits the rider so everything says that this bike should be slower not 15% faster!!
I've come to the conclusion that it must be that I'm running a 53:39 on it as opposed to a 50:34 but don't understand why.
If on bike 1 we assume I use the small ring (34) and am in the middle of the cassette (say 20?) but on bike 2 I'm still in the small ring (39) but more toward the top of the cassette (say 24?) then surely they're about the same in terms of distance covered versus one rotation of the pedals?
or am i over thinking it?
The simple question is "why is one of my bikes significantly faster than the other when the faster bike is a snotter?"
The bikes in question are;
Bike 1 (the slower) my trusty full carbon frame with good wheels, good hubs (Mavic Krysiums) , Groupset Shimano 105. Running compact 50:34 on the front and 11:28 on the back. weighing in at 7kg. When I bought the bike I had the full "bike fit" thing is superbly comfortable and I thought quick in that it was my fitness that was the weak link.
Bike 2 (the faster) an old steel job that I put together 10 years ago from odds n sods for less than £100. Wheels and hubs were £50 specials (Campag Vento), Groupset is Campag Centaur, running standard 53:39 on the front nad 11:28 on the back. The frame is too small, the bars are slightly bent, it is uncomfortable to ride, if I stand on the pedals my knees hit the cross bar, I've had to push the saddle as far back as it will go I can barely get down low enough to get to the drops! It weights in a just over 13kgs almost twice the weight of bike #1.
As the frame for Bike #1 has had to go back to the manufacturers for repair I put some bar tape on Bike 2, sprayed some oil on bits that needed it, wiped the dust and off it and took it for a spin around my usual 20mile route.
Swings and roundabouts but it came in 15seconds slower than my pb on this route, which is within my margin of error.
Looking at the post ride stats;
- it made time up on the descents
- on the flat it was pretty much on a par with bike #1,
- on steep hills it lost time
- on long hills it made up time.
The thing that interested me most was the last one why would it be quicker.
So, yesterday I took it out to test this out on another route which is a 4 miles warm-up then a 1.7mile 3% climb then 6miles undulating ride home.
It knocked 15% off my previous best on the climb time!!
how/why/what!!!
Surely for climbing you want a light bike, good wheels/hubs that fits the rider so everything says that this bike should be slower not 15% faster!!
I've come to the conclusion that it must be that I'm running a 53:39 on it as opposed to a 50:34 but don't understand why.
If on bike 1 we assume I use the small ring (34) and am in the middle of the cassette (say 20?) but on bike 2 I'm still in the small ring (39) but more toward the top of the cassette (say 24?) then surely they're about the same in terms of distance covered versus one rotation of the pedals?
or am i over thinking it?
Sounds to me that your natural cadence suits the taller gearing i.e. the bigger chain rings ?
I have had this that I am not far off the speed wise on my mountain vs road bike even though the mountain weighs a fare bit more and has a 46 big ring it seems to be just about right for keeping me in my optimum cadence, on the roadie I find I am running some fairly horrendous chain angles to get the same sweet spot.
Have you done any 30 mile plus routes to see if you still get the same results ??
I have had this that I am not far off the speed wise on my mountain vs road bike even though the mountain weighs a fare bit more and has a 46 big ring it seems to be just about right for keeping me in my optimum cadence, on the roadie I find I am running some fairly horrendous chain angles to get the same sweet spot.
Have you done any 30 mile plus routes to see if you still get the same results ??
Is this just over short distances though?
Over short distances all my bikes can be similarissh, its on 15miles plus the differences are really obvious...Then by 50 miles my "best" bike is mile miles in front.
Plus it takes me 1-2 hours to warm up to exploit the extra performance my best bike offers, then I'm flying
I regularly overtake people on my heavy mtb on decent road bikes, I know if I was having a bad day on the road bike , I'd be the one overtaken!
I brought a new bike that was lighter,stiffer, better fitted and more expensive and yet I am slower on flat out brutal short climbs! I think it is down to narrower bars meaning my lungs open up less
Over short distances all my bikes can be similarissh, its on 15miles plus the differences are really obvious...Then by 50 miles my "best" bike is mile miles in front.
Plus it takes me 1-2 hours to warm up to exploit the extra performance my best bike offers, then I'm flying
I regularly overtake people on my heavy mtb on decent road bikes, I know if I was having a bad day on the road bike , I'd be the one overtaken!
I brought a new bike that was lighter,stiffer, better fitted and more expensive and yet I am slower on flat out brutal short climbs! I think it is down to narrower bars meaning my lungs open up less
It looks like short rides to me, where any differences will seem greater, and maybe psychologically you are trying harder on the old clunker without thinking you are. Try a 3-4 hour ride which will really show the differences. Then another shorter test ride the next day to see how recovery is affected. You'll be knackered by the end of that!
Your first ride was 20 miles and your second was under 12; you knocked 15% off your best time on a 1.7 mile climb.
Was the wind similar on all your test rides? Were you in a better physical and mental state?
Your first ride was 20 miles and your second was under 12; you knocked 15% off your best time on a 1.7 mile climb.
Was the wind similar on all your test rides? Were you in a better physical and mental state?
There are far too many variables in this to be able to conclude that one bike is faster than the other.
To test that, ideally you want to output identical wattages with the same gear inches and the same wheels over the same piece of terrain with the same wind conditions. If one bike is faste than the other, it likely means that you+frame are more aero; and/or one frame is sapping your output through flex; and/or your position on one bike allows you to get more power down.
However, this information, *if consistenly repeatable*, might hold some clues:
Personally, I'm in the camp that says not all bike fits are equal - some are good, some are bad and some are indifferent. Having had a bike fit isn't a guarantee of much IMO.
To test that, ideally you want to output identical wattages with the same gear inches and the same wheels over the same piece of terrain with the same wind conditions. If one bike is faste than the other, it likely means that you+frame are more aero; and/or one frame is sapping your output through flex; and/or your position on one bike allows you to get more power down.
However, this information, *if consistenly repeatable*, might hold some clues:
Marcellus said:
Looking at the post ride stats;
- it made time up on the descents
- on the flat it was pretty much on a par with bike #1,
- on steep hills it lost time
- on long hills it made up time.
Making up time on descents suggests that you plus your snorter are more aero than you plus your nice bike. Possibly because the snorter is small for you, it forces you into a position that presents a smaller frontal area.- it made time up on the descents
- on the flat it was pretty much on a par with bike #1,
- on steep hills it lost time
- on long hills it made up time.
Personally, I'm in the camp that says not all bike fits are equal - some are good, some are bad and some are indifferent. Having had a bike fit isn't a guarantee of much IMO.
I don't doubt that on a longer ride I would really notice the difference between bike #1 and bike #2 with bike #2 being slower!
With the test rides, albeit only two on the snotter, over the past 6 months I've probably ridden both the 22 and the 12 miles routes 15/20 times each on bike #1 so there's a whole variety of weathers and teh wind coudl have been more favourable on the snotter..... but at the same time i suepct that the same weather conditions will have been experienced at some point in the past 6 months too.
What I was really wondering is although the ratios may look almost the same between 34:20 and 39:24 are they actually significantly different.
I've checked the cadence and it was similar between bikes so one rotate with eh legs must be pushing me further.
I'm thinking that it may be around the mechanics of the gearing...... ie on bike #1 start the climb on the 50 take it all the way up to 28 then drop front to 34 and back to say 14 ruining any rhythm whereas on bike #2 start the climb on the 53 but at a much earlier stage drop to 39 and drop to say 16 but then able to regain and maintain the rhythm all the way up to 28 if need be.
It may just be as The Walrus suggests and naturally I suit the taller gearing.
I know that I am fitter now than I was last week but that's an ongoing trend and accounts for marginal gains such as the standard variation on the 22 mile ride.
I've managed to pick up a "Nearly New" 53:39 chainset and when I get Bike #1 back I think I'll make it with this as opposed to the 50:34, they're both Hollowtech so easy to switch over.
With the test rides, albeit only two on the snotter, over the past 6 months I've probably ridden both the 22 and the 12 miles routes 15/20 times each on bike #1 so there's a whole variety of weathers and teh wind coudl have been more favourable on the snotter..... but at the same time i suepct that the same weather conditions will have been experienced at some point in the past 6 months too.
What I was really wondering is although the ratios may look almost the same between 34:20 and 39:24 are they actually significantly different.
I've checked the cadence and it was similar between bikes so one rotate with eh legs must be pushing me further.
I'm thinking that it may be around the mechanics of the gearing...... ie on bike #1 start the climb on the 50 take it all the way up to 28 then drop front to 34 and back to say 14 ruining any rhythm whereas on bike #2 start the climb on the 53 but at a much earlier stage drop to 39 and drop to say 16 but then able to regain and maintain the rhythm all the way up to 28 if need be.
It may just be as The Walrus suggests and naturally I suit the taller gearing.
I know that I am fitter now than I was last week but that's an ongoing trend and accounts for marginal gains such as the standard variation on the 22 mile ride.
I've managed to pick up a "Nearly New" 53:39 chainset and when I get Bike #1 back I think I'll make it with this as opposed to the 50:34, they're both Hollowtech so easy to switch over.
OK so since my last post I've been out and done my usual 32.2 miler on Bike #2.
I wasn't trying to get a PB as I never do, I always try and pedal as hard, as fast for as long as I can.
As we suspected over the longer distance I did notice that my legs hurt a little more and sure enough when I got home saw that I didn't get a PB missed it by 2minutes (1.5%).
However, what was of note was 25miles into the ride I had to climb the same hill as I climbed on Tuesday, I'll admit my legs were feeling it a little before the climb and i didn't get a PB.... but I got my 2nd best time which was still 7% faster than my previous best.
There's only one other hill of note which is a half mile 5% at the 15mile marker and I recorded 3rd of 10 times.
I did get a few other PBs on flat, undulating and downhill stuff.
I think there must be something around pushing a "39+something" versus pushing a "30+something" or a "53+something" versus a "50+something" that is suiting my legs at the moment.
I wasn't trying to get a PB as I never do, I always try and pedal as hard, as fast for as long as I can.
As we suspected over the longer distance I did notice that my legs hurt a little more and sure enough when I got home saw that I didn't get a PB missed it by 2minutes (1.5%).
However, what was of note was 25miles into the ride I had to climb the same hill as I climbed on Tuesday, I'll admit my legs were feeling it a little before the climb and i didn't get a PB.... but I got my 2nd best time which was still 7% faster than my previous best.
There's only one other hill of note which is a half mile 5% at the 15mile marker and I recorded 3rd of 10 times.
I did get a few other PBs on flat, undulating and downhill stuff.
I think there must be something around pushing a "39+something" versus pushing a "30+something" or a "53+something" versus a "50+something" that is suiting my legs at the moment.
To resurrect/update this topic, I have finally got my Bike back from Scott repaired and have started the re-build.
During which I just couldn't get the pedals/chain rings to rotate nicely, if I span them I was lucky to get 3/4s of a rotation out of them and the action felt really "clunky"
So I've just replaced the bottom bracket and they spin like a good 'un.
Not finished the re-build yet but when I do I'll be going around all my "Standard routes" to see how it compares as I suspect that without the resistance of the bottom bracket I may well see gains.
This might explain why I could hold a higher cadence on the climbs with the 39 than with the 34!
I've also now got a 53:39 which I'll put on but as it's "hollowtech" it's easy to swap between the 50:34 and 53:39 if I'm sad enough to try and prove my theory.
Will update once i've finished the re-build and done the standard rides, unfortunately as our TT organiser has recently died after an accident there's not likely to be any TTs at the club for the rest of this year.
During which I just couldn't get the pedals/chain rings to rotate nicely, if I span them I was lucky to get 3/4s of a rotation out of them and the action felt really "clunky"
So I've just replaced the bottom bracket and they spin like a good 'un.
Not finished the re-build yet but when I do I'll be going around all my "Standard routes" to see how it compares as I suspect that without the resistance of the bottom bracket I may well see gains.
This might explain why I could hold a higher cadence on the climbs with the 39 than with the 34!
I've also now got a 53:39 which I'll put on but as it's "hollowtech" it's easy to swap between the 50:34 and 53:39 if I'm sad enough to try and prove my theory.
Will update once i've finished the re-build and done the standard rides, unfortunately as our TT organiser has recently died after an accident there's not likely to be any TTs at the club for the rest of this year.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff