Better bike would be how much faster?

cantalach

Simple question really...if I upgraded from an ageing alloy frame with crap wheels to a €3,000 carbon wonder with decent wheels how much faster would it make me? In concrete terms, on something like a 10 minute flat-out hill climb would I be gaining 15, 30, 60 seconds? I know there are lots of variables to this, and I know that the engine is the most important factor bar none. But while I don't mind training harder to gain a few percent, I'd like to know if I could be gaining twice that much again by shedding out for a new bike. The way some bike reviews say stuff like "it's so stiff you feel every pedal stroke propelling you skyward...climbing like a goat...blah blah" would make you think the gains could be huge!

Raam

I dunno man, but it will make you feel great
Go ahead, buy it. You won't regret it.

Morgan

Impossible to put a figure on it, but a nice bike will be faster than a crap bike.

Morgan

Morgan wrote: »

Impossible to put a figure on it, but a nice bike will be faster than a crap bike.

Ah OK then, 37%.

Chips Lovell

cantalach wrote: »

while I don't mind training harder to gain a few percent, I'd like to know if I could be gaining twice that much again by shedding out for a new bike.

You've got it the wrong way around. The gains you get from training will be exponentially bigger than what you get from a new bike. A good bike is great to ride and will be slightly faster but its the training that makes the difference.

cantalach

Morgan wrote: »

Ah OK then, 37%.

That much...excellent! I must fire off a quick email to Bjarne Riis...

snubbleste

Surely there exists some mathematical equation for this request?

blorg

Big Dick wrote: »

You've got it the wrong way around. The gains you get from training will be exponentially bigger than what you get from a new bike. A good bike is great to ride and will be slightly faster but its the training that makes the difference.

What Big Dick says is entirely right, you will gain a hell of a lot more from training, but a nice bike is just so much nicer to ride, could get you out more. A light bike does feel good climbing, even if there is scope to take it off your belly rather than the bike.

petethedrummer

Stay on the cheaper bike. Even if you lose, you've got the moral victory.

blorg

snubbleste wrote: »

Surely there exists some mathematical equation for this request?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

There used to be a good calculator here but it is down right now.

cantalach

My Name is Mario wrote: »

The gains you get from training will be exponentially bigger than what you get from a new bike.

That's what I meant when I said that I knew the engine mattered more than anything else. But what you've got to take account of is that somebody might already be close to the theoretical max for the amount of time they can allocate to training each week. If you've only got 10 hours to train and you're already training smart and using that time as productively as possible then you're not going to get much better without increasing the time, which for most of us isn't an option. Hence the need to look to equipment for gains.

Lumen

For climbing it's easy to work out.

Crap bike = 10kg (e.g. cheap alloy frame & gruppo)
Decent bike = 9kg (e.g. premium alloy, better gruppo).
Nice bike = 8.5kg (e.g. my carbon Focus Cayo).
Dream bike = 6kg. (Cervelo R3SL with SRAM Force, Zipp 202 etc - I have a spreadsheet for this).

If you're 70kg, each kg will gain you a little under 1 second per minute.

This doesn't seem much, but the combination of an expensive bike, a weight loss programme, and a bit of training will add up.

e.g. weight loss: 8%, dream bike = 5%, bit of training = 10%, adds up to 25% improvement, which is huge.

The other approach is to ignore all that and focus on the things which are preventing you from going faster, e.g. improving structural fitness, posture and bike fit.

Of course, no-one wants to spend sunny summer evenings in yoga classes, so a shiny bike is a much better idea.

cantalach

petethedrummer wrote: »

Stay on the cheaper bike. Even if you lose, you've got the moral victory.

I used that line last night, telling the others that I was first person up the hill...on an alloy frame.

Raam

cantalach wrote: »

I used that line last night, telling the others that I was first person up the hill...on an alloy frame.

Think how much you can beat them by if you are on an even lighter bike.

ROK ON

Simple.
Set yourself a goal that is desirable, and at the achievable end of difficult.
eg 50km in a certain time/cadence/wattage etc
A certain amount of weight loss,
CLimb certain hills in a certain time/gearing etc

Once you achieve the goal, rewad yourself with the purchase of new bike.

No reset your goals and work even harder on the new bike.

I bought a nice new bike in Nov (but had a goal to lose 15kilos first).
I am probably a better cyclist now but that is down to the training that I do on the new bike, and not down to the new bike.

I now choose more arduous routes, rather than shirking them in the past.

Once I achieve some more goals I will reward myself with something else (dont really know what yet).

Its not about the bike. But it is great fun to ride a lovely light bike over a big heavy one. est of luck.

cantalach

Lumen wrote: »

If you're 70kg, each kg will gain you a little under 1 second per minute.

Thanks. I'm surprised that you're discussing only the weight though. Does the improved power transference from the extra stiffness in frame and wheels not have a much greater impact than the weight reduction? Certainly this is what reviews tend to bang on about all the time.

lukester

No idea what the gains would be, but they would be significant.

Apart from the defininite concrete gains, there is the enjoyment factor to take into account. Often missed when people compare road bikes and hybrids/mtbs with slicks, butcher's delivery bikes. etc.

Having/riding a road bike, makes you want to ride more. It changes your attitude to riding, and the type of riding you want to do. It's more enjoyable by orders of magnitude. I went on occasional longer spins on my now retired mtb. While they were pretty enjoyable, I never came back from a spin and thought 'Ooh, I can't wait to get out again'.

Now I have cycling dreams, and a gear buying addiction, and think man-shaved legs look macho.

Vélo

Raam wrote: »

I dunno man, but it will make you feel great
Go ahead, buy it. You won't regret it.

I think you might need a better bike after yesterdays performance;)

Raam

Aquinas73 wrote: »

I think you might need a better bike after yesterdays performance;)

Meeooowwww!

Vélo

Raam wrote: »

Meeooowwww!

Whooaaaaaaaaaaa!

Chips Lovell

Raam wrote: »

Meeooowwww!

Go on, how did you do?

Raam

My Name is Mario wrote: »

Go on, how did you do?

I'll make a new thread.

NeilMcEoigheann

Raam wrote: »

I'll make a new thread.

the rules clearly state that you cannot shell out on zipp wheels to bypass the beer belly.
secondly passing some guy in the alps decked out in full team gear and on a bike that needed to be tied down to stop it blowing away when not in use while i was on my alu trek was great,

Lumen

cantalach wrote: »

Thanks. I'm surprised that you're discussing only the weight though. Does the improved power transference from the extra stiffness in frame and wheels not have a much greater impact than the weight reduction? Certainly this is what reviews tend to bang on about all the time.

I am not a bicycle engineer but I think there's a lot of crap talked about this.

Energy doesn't just disappear. It must be transformed to friction, noise, heat etc.

Obviously getting brake rub whilst climbing due to flex in the wheels and frame would waste actual real energy; I don't know how much, but it would be very annoying.

Also, there is real energy lost in tyres as the sidewalls are deformed, the energy loss is small but probably measurable for big tyres at low pressures (that wouldn't get used on a race bike anyway).

General frame stiffness? Not convinced. Where is the energy going?

TinyExplosions

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

the rules clearly state that you cannot shell out on zipp wheels to bypass the beer belly.
secondly passing some guy in the alps decked out in full team gear and on a bike that needed to be tied down to stop it blowing away when not in use while i was on my alu trek was great,

Ahem

Raam

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

the rules clearly state that you cannot shell out on zipp wheels to bypass the beer belly.
secondly passing some guy in the alps decked out in full team gear and on a bike that needed to be tied down to stop it blowing away when not in use while i was on my alu trek was great,

why ya quoting me?!

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

General frame stiffness? Not convinced. Where is the energy going?

Into bending the frame. The energy is not recouped from the unflexing either so it does reduce the watts going from your legs to the back-wheel. I found frame stiffness to make a noticeable difference when I went form my langster to my (much stiffer) capo, and the feeling when standing to accelerate or cranking up an incline is much more direct.

Same principle as wearing spongy soled shoes while cycling.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I am not a bicycle engineer but I think there's a lot of crap talked about this.

Energy doesn't just disappear. It must be transformed to friction, noise, heat etc.

Obviously getting brake rub whilst climbing due to flex in the wheels and frame would waste actual real energy; I don't know how much, but it would be very annoying.

Also, there is real energy lost in tyres as the sidewalls are deformed, the energy loss is small but probably measurable for big tyres at low pressures (that wouldn't get used on a race bike anyway).

General frame stiffness? Not convinced. Where is the energy going?

I know you're the science guy, but doesn't the energy go into bending the frame rather than into the drivetrain on less stiff frames?

DirkVoodoo

Think of the frame as a spring, it absorbs the riders energy and not all of it may be recoverable. The stiffer the frame, the less energy is stored by the material.

I don't want to be passing this off as my own information, link is here.

For an Al frame (Trek 770 - don't know it myself):

First, note that the start-up (or hill-climbing) load generates the highest level of energy storage. The energy stored here (79.5 in-lb) represents about 4.0 percent of the rider's total energy output under typical hill-climbing conditions. This might sound like a small percentage, but in racing situations, even a slight reduction in this percentage would be noticed.

Lumen

My Name is Mario wrote: »

I know you're the science guy, but doesn't the energy go into bending the frame rather than into the drivetrain on less stiff frames?

Yes, I get that. I just can't figure out to what extent the energy is recovered.

Will read some more.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I don't want to be passing this off as my own information, link is here.

"The true intent of a stiff frame is to transfer energy efficiently from the cyclist to the rear wheel. This implies that the designer should minimize the amount of energy that goes into flexing (straining) the frame. Some of this strain energy might be recoverable (i.e., released in such a way as to add power to the rear wheel). But we know of no measurements that show how much is recovered. Thus, we assume that the best policy is to minimize strain energy absorption in the frame"

LOL.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, I get that. I just can't figure out to what extent the energy is recovered.

Will read some more.

All I know is that I can definitely notice the difference between frames.

scottreynolds

Lumen wrote: »

"The true intent of a stiff frame is to transfer energy efficiently from the cyclist to the rear wheel."

Does it really matter? . Get on your bike and ride...............

GlennaMaddy

Don't forget to factor in the psychological benefit, if you believe that the maximum amount of energy is being transferred to the back wheel, you will perform better than if you believe your energy is being wasted.

Lumen

scottreynolds wrote: »

Does it really matter? . Get on your bike and ride...............

Actually, my implicit recommendation was "put away your credit card and do some yoga". :pac:

cantalach

Lumen wrote: »

Actually, my implicit recommendation was "put away your credit card and do some yoga". :pac:

I do...well Pilates anyway which is "yoga without the bull****" as my wife puts it. No offence to any Hindus reading!

blorg

+1 on the frame stiffness, you do notice it and it feels a lot more efficient on the stiffer frame.

Lumen

cantalach wrote: »

I do...well Pilates anyway which is "yoga without the bull****" as my wife puts it. No offence to any Hindus reading!

Only just started yoga, haven't tried P yet. Is there much stretching in it?

I enjoyed my first class, but worked hard to suppress a giggle when she started talking about pulling in my anus.

Sorry, a bit off topic.

cantalach

Lumen wrote: »

Only just started yoga, haven't tried P yet. Is there much stretching in it?

Yes...lots.

lukester

cantalach wrote: »

I do...well Pilates anyway which is "yoga without the bull****" as my wife puts it. No offence to any Hindus reading!

I do yoga, kind of have to as my wife is an instructor. It's excellent for stretching, core strength, leg strength, and for just chillin.

It is written in the Hindu vedic scriptures, that yoga is the discipline of cyclists, pilates the discipline of POBs. :pac:

amjon

How much faster would I go over a 25 miles time trial over my 10kg bike with clip ons if I was to invest in decent aero kit ( helmo, socks ect), decent set of wheels (back disc and front tri spoke, and a fast frame (eg cervelo p2/ p3)?

IM0

As fast as you feel its making you is the only answer to that one...
Im FAIRLY confident that lance armstrong would beat you and any non professional to the top of AD in the Alps on a....20kg 10 speed, with cotterless cranks and mudguards rear racks...maybe even with some luggage on there just to even things up a bit...

"its not about the bike" - remember that when you killing guys on €5000 bikes in races or group spins

TinyExplosions

me@ucd wrote: »

Im FAIRLY confident that lance armstrong would beat you and any non professional to the top of AD in the Alps on a....20kg 10 speed, with cotterless cranks and mudguards rear racks...maybe even with some luggage on there just to even things up a bit...

I agree, but that's only cos of all the EPO he's takin!

niceonetom

me@ucd wrote: »

As fast as you feel its making you is the only answer to that one...
Im FAIRLY confident that lance armstrong would beat you and any non professional to the top of AD in the Alps on a....20kg 10 speed, with cotterless cranks and mudguards rear racks...maybe even with some luggage on there just to even things up a bit...

"its not about the bike" - remember that when you killing guys on €5000 bikes in races or group spins

what a load...

All other variables being equal the bike obviously makes a difference. amjon on a crap bike will be slower than amjon on an aero bike with all the trimmings. You don't know by how much so you go straight to this nonsense? pfft.

The fact that your hero would beat all of us up the alpe on a crap bike is such an obvious truth that only a complete idiot would feel the need to actually say it. The fact that you think saying it is making some sort of real point is, well, sad.

And sort your sig out too. Misquoting the dark one in some sort of text speak is not going to help people take you seriously.

alfalad

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I agree, but that's only cos of all the EPO he's takin!

Doh! Now you've gone and done it!!

Now starts the arguement!

ROK ON

There is one way to solve this.

Kippure TT, with LA on a very heavy hunk of junk (and carrying me on his back) and the OP on a top of the range Trek Madone, with all the trimmings.

Lance will be here in August, surely he will come out with us on a Boards spin. Then we could spring the challenge on him.

PS: the OP should start taking EPO now.

trek climber

ROK ON wrote: »

There is one way to solve this.

Kippure TT, with LA on a very hunk of junk (and carrying me on his back) and theOP on top of the range Trek Madone, with all the trimmings.

Lance will be hear in August, surely he will come out with us on a Boards spin. Then we could spring the challenge on him.

PS: the OP shuld start taking EPO now.

Now there's an idea !!!!

cantalach

ROK ON wrote: »

There is one way to solve this.

Kippure TT, with LA on a very hunk of junk (and carrying me on his back) and theOP on top of the range Trek Madone, with all the trimmings.

Lance will be hear in August, surely he will come out with us on a Boards spin. Then we could spring the challenge on him.

PS: the OP shuld start taking EPO now.

No need for EPO here. You see I had a twin brother in utero. The poor guy never made it but his red blood cells live on in me and turbo-charge me when I'm on the bike. :rolleyes:

petethedrummer

He'd hardly be any use with a broken collarbone would he?

TinyExplosions

petethedrummer wrote: »

He'd hardly be any use with a broken collarbone would he?

CAn't be that bad if he's starting the Giro on 9th May

petethedrummer

oh right, I was not aware of that.