Fitness vs image
Discussion
I Primarily ride an old ALU Raleigh Airlite with down tube shifters.
I have taken many KOMS and commuted over 4000km's last year.
Would I like a carbon bike.. no, not really.. I fall off alot and replacing endless carbon bits would get expensive!
I also ride BMX and a MTB... if i had a carbon bike, I wouldn't have my car or the other bikes, and my carbon bike would also be broken from me falling off all the time.
expensive isnt always better!
I have taken many KOMS and commuted over 4000km's last year.
Would I like a carbon bike.. no, not really.. I fall off alot and replacing endless carbon bits would get expensive!
I also ride BMX and a MTB... if i had a carbon bike, I wouldn't have my car or the other bikes, and my carbon bike would also be broken from me falling off all the time.
expensive isnt always better!
gazza285 said:
Perhaps he's ignoring you in the hope you'll go away?
I ride whatever takes my fancy on the day, over whatever terrain suits, as long as I'm riding I don't care. Some days I don't get a bike out and go for a run, sometimes on the roads, sometimes over the moors. As long as I'm not stagnating in the house I'm not bothered what I'm doing, or what equipment I'm using, as long as I'm out there doing it.
That's where we differ. I get a road bike out pretty much every day. I need to. Don't know why, it's just inherent.I ride whatever takes my fancy on the day, over whatever terrain suits, as long as I'm riding I don't care. Some days I don't get a bike out and go for a run, sometimes on the roads, sometimes over the moors. As long as I'm not stagnating in the house I'm not bothered what I'm doing, or what equipment I'm using, as long as I'm out there doing it.
I also love getting the MTB out but it is a rare occasion. Also with the kids on the back, different kind of ride.
I have offered okgo a ride on numerous occasions, always ignored or declined by him! I know he is far in advance of me, but the offer is always there.
vwsurfbum said:
I kind onf do this, Midweek rides i will use my Fatty, come sunday (or race day) my legs are flying because the muscle memory will be telling them to push harder.
95℅ of my mileage is done on my steel commuter bike. It's a bit heavy, but at least it's well maintained. But when I get on my 'race' bike for events and leisure rides, it feels like a dream to ride and seems to fly up hills effortlessly. pablo said:
When most people say "improve fitness" what they really mean is "maintain fitness", there is no way riding a bike for a few hours a week will have much of an effect on improving your fitness unless you are following a structured plan which also looks at nutrition and heart rate, pacing etc. If you want to improve fitness you need a baseline which can only really be accurately measured by something like a VO2 test and then you need a goal, be it to increase power, stamina etc.
People don't train to increase their fitness by using a cheap bike because it serves no purpose, to increase endurance for example, you need to ride harder, for longer, keeping your heart rate in a particular zone for long periods of time which just isn't possible on a cheap bike. Then you have the issue of racing on a different bike to your training bike which of also counterproductive for the same reason that Lewis Hamilton uses a n F1 simulator to learn a track rather than driving round of ina Renault Clio in real life.
When you've gone from couch potato to a few hours riding it will improve your fitness, maybe when you are "very fit" to improve from that you would need your structured training. Maybe all the OP was saying that round a particular route you would use more energy on a heavier bike than a lighter one so you would have to ride for longer on a lighter one. People don't train to increase their fitness by using a cheap bike because it serves no purpose, to increase endurance for example, you need to ride harder, for longer, keeping your heart rate in a particular zone for long periods of time which just isn't possible on a cheap bike. Then you have the issue of racing on a different bike to your training bike which of also counterproductive for the same reason that Lewis Hamilton uses a n F1 simulator to learn a track rather than driving round of ina Renault Clio in real life.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought to build endurance you rode at a steady maintained pace for longer,
Twistygit said:
pablo said:
When most people say "improve fitness" what they really mean is "maintain fitness", there is no way riding a bike for a few hours a week will have much of an effect on improving your fitness unless you are following a structured plan which also looks at nutrition and heart rate, pacing etc. If you want to improve fitness you need a baseline which can only really be accurately measured by something like a VO2 test and then you need a goal, be it to increase power, stamina etc.
People don't train to increase their fitness by using a cheap bike because it serves no purpose, to increase endurance for example, you need to ride harder, for longer, keeping your heart rate in a particular zone for long periods of time which just isn't possible on a cheap bike. Then you have the issue of racing on a different bike to your training bike which of also counterproductive for the same reason that Lewis Hamilton uses a n F1 simulator to learn a track rather than driving round of ina Renault Clio in real life.
When you've gone from couch potato to a few hours riding it will improve your fitness, maybe when you are "very fit" to improve from that you would need your structured training. Maybe all the OP was saying that round a particular route you would use more energy on a heavier bike than a lighter one so you would have to ride for longer on a lighter one. People don't train to increase their fitness by using a cheap bike because it serves no purpose, to increase endurance for example, you need to ride harder, for longer, keeping your heart rate in a particular zone for long periods of time which just isn't possible on a cheap bike. Then you have the issue of racing on a different bike to your training bike which of also counterproductive for the same reason that Lewis Hamilton uses a n F1 simulator to learn a track rather than driving round of ina Renault Clio in real life.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought to build endurance you rode at a steady maintained pace for longer,
I'm sure if you're at a high level then you need to worry about structured training, but for most people as long as your taking exercise and pushing yourself you will get fitter.
I've started commuting by Brompton instead of my older Dahon Matrix (MTB style full size folder).
I changed because the frame of the Dahon cracked and I've resisted buying a Brompton in the past purely because of image.
And possibly with good reason. I've had more people shout things at me (including one this morning about the colour) in one month on the Brompton, than I have in 15 years on 'normal' looking bikes.
When I finally made the decision to swap, I figured there wouldn't be much point in putting in extra miles (my commute is actually 2.5 miles, but I try and do 8.5). But I've started doing it, and while I'm not getting any more PBs compared to my old times, I'm still passing quite a lot of people and getting to work feeling like I've done a real workout.
It's definitely harder/slower than pedalling the same route on my road bike, and is noticeably slower than my old Dahon too.
I have no idea whether it's doing me any good in terms of improving overall fitness or how it would translate back to my times on the road bike (I've been off it for two months due to lower back trouble), but any miles are good miles as far as I'm concerned, no matter what you ride.
I changed because the frame of the Dahon cracked and I've resisted buying a Brompton in the past purely because of image.
And possibly with good reason. I've had more people shout things at me (including one this morning about the colour) in one month on the Brompton, than I have in 15 years on 'normal' looking bikes.
When I finally made the decision to swap, I figured there wouldn't be much point in putting in extra miles (my commute is actually 2.5 miles, but I try and do 8.5). But I've started doing it, and while I'm not getting any more PBs compared to my old times, I'm still passing quite a lot of people and getting to work feeling like I've done a real workout.
It's definitely harder/slower than pedalling the same route on my road bike, and is noticeably slower than my old Dahon too.
I have no idea whether it's doing me any good in terms of improving overall fitness or how it would translate back to my times on the road bike (I've been off it for two months due to lower back trouble), but any miles are good miles as far as I'm concerned, no matter what you ride.
Edited by Kell on Tuesday 28th July 12:01
pablo said:
When most people say "improve fitness" what they really mean is "maintain fitness", there is no way riding a bike for a few hours a week will have much of an effect on improving your fitness unless you are following a structured plan which also looks at nutrition and heart rate, pacing etc. If you want to improve fitness you need a baseline which can only really be accurately measured by something like a VO2 test and then you need a goal, be it to increase power, stamina etc.
People don't train to increase their fitness by using a cheap bike because it serves no purpose, to increase endurance for example, you need to ride harder, for longer, keeping your heart rate in a particular zone for long periods of time which just isn't possible on a cheap bike. Then you have the issue of racing on a different bike to your training bike which of also counterproductive for the same reason that Lewis Hamilton uses a n F1 simulator to learn a track rather than driving round of ina Renault Clio in real life.
I am still at a loss to understand what this means? People don't train to increase their fitness by using a cheap bike because it serves no purpose, to increase endurance for example, you need to ride harder, for longer, keeping your heart rate in a particular zone for long periods of time which just isn't possible on a cheap bike. Then you have the issue of racing on a different bike to your training bike which of also counterproductive for the same reason that Lewis Hamilton uses a n F1 simulator to learn a track rather than driving round of ina Renault Clio in real life.
My eBay bike has covered the majority of the base miles as it has a groupset and bits that can get trashed in the crap weather. You don't need a powermeter and in some cases it can make you slower on the road depending on your mentality. On the s
tiest of MTB's in the middle of winter when it's too dodgy to ride the skating rink and a turbo is boring me to tears I head to the local field and go around it for 60 mins, at a set heart rate. It's a piece of cake to calculate your zones and you know where you are. There will be variance depending on how much coffee or beer is in you but it is still close enough.The coaching plans I have seen are not rocket science. Intervals in the week and long rides at the weekends. If you want to massively boost your power and fitness go cycling for a week, 4 hours a day at a nice steady pace. Why do you need a V02 test, you can easily gauge your level on a set loop. You'll go faster as you get fitter, ride for longer. The more you ride the more you can ride....it's obvious.
There is so much BS in cycling and so many people reliant on a set of numbers for no real reason. If you ride TT's you need to know. If you race crits etc it's less important IMO. If you just want to get fitter everything can be achieved by a HRM.
From a low base line of inactivity, any form of exercise will improve fitness.
Once you have a small degree of fitness, improving it with a bike is all about how you ride, not what you ride.
So yes, it is possible to get a better "fitness return" riding a pig iron frame with knobblies than a CF road frame with CF tubs and a powermeter. It is also possible to get a worse "fitness return" though.
Once you have a small degree of fitness, improving it with a bike is all about how you ride, not what you ride.
So yes, it is possible to get a better "fitness return" riding a pig iron frame with knobblies than a CF road frame with CF tubs and a powermeter. It is also possible to get a worse "fitness return" though.
DCheeseman said:
Bit of a hijack but recommendations for a quality ride suitable for an ironman novice? Reading comments it seems carbon might be false economy after a crash or 2.
DC
Yeah simples, just don't crash! DC
Budget?
Ive got Alu, Steel and Carbon bikes , for out and out performance Carbon is my personal favourite.
My first advice to an ironman novice would be "don't crash" - it totally bu**ers up your training.
Seriously, much nonsense posted about carbon; it's not half as fragile as people like to believe, and unless you're mountainbiking, falling off should be pretty irregular, and far less of an event for the bike than for the rider. I would however avoid carbon bars (in the main) because they add very little and generally take the brunt of any drop. I bought a carbon scott in early 2009. Over 25k miles later I'm still riding it, I've crashed once (bike fine, me not). Most of the parts are not original, but there's nothing wrong with the frame.
The gains from a 'nice' bike over a cheap (road) bike are somewhat minimal, and largely in the realm of the subjective, granted. But equally, a nissan micra would suffice for the travel requirements of 90% of the folks on this board - I suspect that not so many pistonheads drive micras. Any roadbike will be significantly quicker than something upright on knobblies, which matters if you're doing an ironman (half or full). Equally, a TT type bike is a noticeable step forward from a roadbike, but a somewhat limited / one trick pony. Too many variables to recommend anything particular. Highly recommend joining a club, and / or riding whatever you have / can for a couple of months of training until you know what suits you.
Seriously, much nonsense posted about carbon; it's not half as fragile as people like to believe, and unless you're mountainbiking, falling off should be pretty irregular, and far less of an event for the bike than for the rider. I would however avoid carbon bars (in the main) because they add very little and generally take the brunt of any drop. I bought a carbon scott in early 2009. Over 25k miles later I'm still riding it, I've crashed once (bike fine, me not). Most of the parts are not original, but there's nothing wrong with the frame.
The gains from a 'nice' bike over a cheap (road) bike are somewhat minimal, and largely in the realm of the subjective, granted. But equally, a nissan micra would suffice for the travel requirements of 90% of the folks on this board - I suspect that not so many pistonheads drive micras. Any roadbike will be significantly quicker than something upright on knobblies, which matters if you're doing an ironman (half or full). Equally, a TT type bike is a noticeable step forward from a roadbike, but a somewhat limited / one trick pony. Too many variables to recommend anything particular. Highly recommend joining a club, and / or riding whatever you have / can for a couple of months of training until you know what suits you.
Amen to that swerni said:
Are we not confusing "cheap" with Heavy"?
My bikes are all heavy and I could buy cheaper carbon bikes than he steel ones I have if I wanted, but I don't
Most of my miles are on the Genesis which weighs a tonne,
i think for the vast majority it's a case of " all the gear, no idea".
So I agree with the OP ( for the most case)
I was wondering about this too. A super light, head down/arse up carbon race bike might be "faster" and go further with less effort, but does that equate to more enjoyment than a really nice steel bike with a more relaxed geometry and a more compliant ride? I find I get a better workout in less time on the hybrid commuter than I do on the road bike, and the road bike is more fun, but is there a happy medium?My bikes are all heavy and I could buy cheaper carbon bikes than he steel ones I have if I wanted, but I don't
Most of my miles are on the Genesis which weighs a tonne,
i think for the vast majority it's a case of " all the gear, no idea".
So I agree with the OP ( for the most case)
uncinqsix said:
I was wondering about this too. A super light, head down/arse up carbon race bike might be "faster" and go further with less effort, but does that equate to more enjoyment than a really nice steel bike with a more relaxed geometry and a more compliant ride? I find I get a better workout in less time on the hybrid commuter than I do on the road bike, and the road bike is more fun, but is there a happy medium?
"Fitness vs image"?Can we not have both? I get the OP's point about (thinly veiled dig at?) riders, who don't really need them, riding blingy lightweight carbon bikes. But the Nissan Micra analogy in a recent post stands just as true.
I need a bicycle. It's non-negotiable, I have to have at least one. I own four. Some people own multiple cars, but you can only drive one at a time. Same with bikes. Two of my bikes are currently broken. The serviceable bikes are a steel, 1996 Falcon Pro-Line, and a carbon fibre, 2015 Trek Emonda. If you saw me on both bikes, back-to-back, you'd see that my "image" changes a lot between the bikes, because their character is so different. On the Emonda, I'm likely to be seen in my more 'racy' PH branded Lycra, wearing a 'road' helmet and SPD-SL shoes. All my kit and accesories will be brand and colour matched to the bike. Why? Because image, of course. I'm a Trek/Bontrager brand-tart on that bike. I don't actually need that bike, nor any of the glossy goodies I've fitted to it. But I want them. A lot.
Compare that to when I ride the Falcon, and I look like a different person. Lots of older, looser Lycra, from a complete mish-mosh of bargain basement shops, Aldi, Lidl, Sports Direct. MTB style SPD boots, running tights over cheap padded shorts, and plenty of 'Hi-Vis' kit too. Lots of 'period' kit attached to the bike, some major bodges and lots of stuff like the mudguards salvaged from broken bikes that have donated all their usable components before going off to the smelters. I look like a bit of a "weird beard" on this bike. Why? Because image isn't even a consideration when I ride this one. There's no point - it's firmly in the no-man's-land between the modern road bike and the desirable classic 'racer'.
As for riding for fitness? Yes, I suppose I am. But that's not to say I'm "training" in any meaningful sense. I enjoy riding, so I do quite a lot of it. Sometimes this results in a measurable improvement, either on the ubiquitous Strava segments I ride, or in some other way, such as reduced bodyweight, or lower resting heart rate. But I set out not to "get fit", but simply to ride my bike(s). I like to ride my 18 year old steel boat anchor just as much as I like riding my new carbon bling-fest. They get used on different types of terrain, for different reasons, but the enjoyment is the same for both. Neither one of them, though, is a "$100 supermarket bike". Those types of BSO? I've had one in the garage for a good few years now. Used mainly by both my sons in turn, for the short commute to college. Both boys have 'quality' MTBs for when they want to ride for pleasure. I simply can't imagine garnering any pleasure whatsoever from a 'BSO', so I don't ride one when I want to enjoy a ride. So even if there were a supposed fitness benefit to dragging around 20kg of pig-iron, I'd never see that benefit because I simply wouldn't ride the hateful thing, and would therefore lose fitness, and slob around the house gaining weight.
Where am I going with this rambling waffle? No idea. But, suffice to say, having a nice bike (not necessarily an expensive one
) means I look forward to taking it out, and I enjoy every minute of riding it. A happy side effect of this, despite not doing any focussed training, is an improvement in fitness. Besides which, it shouldn't really matter what type of bicycle a person is riding. The fact that they are riding any bike at all is something in which to rejoice...H.G. Wells said:
Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
James E. Starrs said:
Melancholy is incompatible with bicycling.
John F. Kennedy said:
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride.
And this, which is kind of relevant to the OP's question...
"All bicycles weigh fifty pounds.
A thirty-pound bicycle needs a twenty-pound lock.
A forty-pound bicycle needs a ten-pound lock.
A fifty-pound bicycle doesn't need a lock." ~Author Unknown
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff