More money spent =more speed ?
Discussion
Spotted this article today comparing commuting times on an old steel framed road bike to a new carbon framed job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11958903
I'm surprised there was no real difference given it was a fair distance (27miles)
A few good comments on the BMJ website though:
" * Andy Ward, GP
South Wigston, Leics.
This study is flawed and should not have been published.
The last thing I want is for my wife to find out that there is no difference in performance in my "winter trainer" (i.e. old aluminium bike) and my posh carbon fibre beauty.
Competing interests: Owner of 5 bikes with various compositions of steel, carbon fibre and aluminium. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11958903
I'm surprised there was no real difference given it was a fair distance (27miles)
A few good comments on the BMJ website though:
" * Andy Ward, GP
South Wigston, Leics.
This study is flawed and should not have been published.
The last thing I want is for my wife to find out that there is no difference in performance in my "winter trainer" (i.e. old aluminium bike) and my posh carbon fibre beauty.
Competing interests: Owner of 5 bikes with various compositions of steel, carbon fibre and aluminium. "
I haven't read the article but I don't see why they would be hugely different. For me it comes down to a few things, rolling resistance, air resistance, weight and to an extent comfort. Assuming the tyres are the same we can negate rolling resistance, assuming the riding position is the same we can negate air resistance. Weight, say a decent carbon roadie weighs around 7 kilos, I bought a 1984 Raliegh for £140 last year that weighed 9 kilos, so not exactly amazing in its day i'm sure.
Now, 2 kilos may sound like a lot when you're comparing 7 kilos and 9. However taking into accout the rider (lets say 70 kilos) that puts the difference at 77 and 79, a difference of 2.5%. Of course the real figure we should be interested in is power/weight ratios. Why would the steel roadie rider have more power than the carbon roadie guy I hear you ask. Surely by virtue of having the less high performance bike, the guy will have to work harder to maintain the same speed as the guy on the carbon bike, hence having (slightly) better fitness. As a result of riding dutch bikes & mountain bikes around London on some occasions over 400 miles a week, a lot of which is with my roadie riding friends my fitness is much greater than theirs as I have to maintain the same pace on a heavier bike, hence getting a better workout.
Hence the reason you won't see me splashing out on expensive modern roadies. The one area where they are much better though is of course, reliability.
Now, 2 kilos may sound like a lot when you're comparing 7 kilos and 9. However taking into accout the rider (lets say 70 kilos) that puts the difference at 77 and 79, a difference of 2.5%. Of course the real figure we should be interested in is power/weight ratios. Why would the steel roadie rider have more power than the carbon roadie guy I hear you ask. Surely by virtue of having the less high performance bike, the guy will have to work harder to maintain the same speed as the guy on the carbon bike, hence having (slightly) better fitness. As a result of riding dutch bikes & mountain bikes around London on some occasions over 400 miles a week, a lot of which is with my roadie riding friends my fitness is much greater than theirs as I have to maintain the same pace on a heavier bike, hence getting a better workout.
Hence the reason you won't see me splashing out on expensive modern roadies. The one area where they are much better though is of course, reliability.
I'd say his argument is one we all know, if the limit is something external to you and your kit then no matter what you use it won't matter, you can use any pan you like to boil a 4minute egg it will take 4 minutes etc.
However if the kit is the limitation then it will improve your performance, a lighter bike with a greater number of gears can be faster, but only in a clear track/road situation.
However if the kit is the limitation then it will improve your performance, a lighter bike with a greater number of gears can be faster, but only in a clear track/road situation.
Engineer1 said:
I'd say his argument is one we all know, if the limit is something external to you and your kit then no matter what you use it won't matter, you can use any pan you like to boil a 4minute egg it will take 4 minutes etc.
However if the kit is the limitation then it will improve your performance, a lighter bike with a greater number of gears can be faster, but only in a clear track/road situation.
:YES:However if the kit is the limitation then it will improve your performance, a lighter bike with a greater number of gears can be faster, but only in a clear track/road situation.
I'd like to see him repeat the experiment using a £50 BSO from Argos, rather than a descent second hand road bike.
No s
t sherlock 
I could've written that research paper without even getting on either bike LOL.
When will people realise that for 99.99% of regular cycling situations lighter wheels, frames, shoes etc means absolutely bugger all for all.......except me as my carbon framed bike has actually increased my speed by at least 35%
t sherlock I could've written that research paper without even getting on either bike LOL.When will people realise that for 99.99% of regular cycling situations lighter wheels, frames, shoes etc means absolutely bugger all for all.......except me as my carbon framed bike has actually increased my speed by at least 35%
I'd go further
I'd reckon anyone would rider faster on his steel bike than the carbon on a city commute.
For one the steel frame is better suited and a more stable platform.
The tires have a larger cross-section and therefore the comfort factor would be massively more. It's probably quite a flat commute so weight has an even smaller impact, You won't be making any gains on the transmission because you'll probably only use one or two ratio's, and a more upright seated position will make dealing with traffic situation easier and quicker.
Other than theft that is why most people don't commute on Carbon road bikes you fktard!
I'd reckon anyone would rider faster on his steel bike than the carbon on a city commute.
For one the steel frame is better suited and a more stable platform.
The tires have a larger cross-section and therefore the comfort factor would be massively more. It's probably quite a flat commute so weight has an even smaller impact, You won't be making any gains on the transmission because you'll probably only use one or two ratio's, and a more upright seated position will make dealing with traffic situation easier and quicker.
Other than theft that is why most people don't commute on Carbon road bikes you f
ktard!Edited by OneDs on Wednesday 15th December 13:22
If you havent got the legs you aint going to go fast on anything , I suspect a disc wheel could infact make some people slower .
My pb for a 25 was set on my old vitus training bike with just a set of 28's and my legs feeling good on the day,
although one year I focused on the club 25 championship , tapered my training , borrowed an aero helmet and a deep rim front wheel to go with my Zipp disc and rode to a win , I put that down to my mind and legs being ready for it.
My pb for a 25 was set on my old vitus training bike with just a set of 28's and my legs feeling good on the day,
although one year I focused on the club 25 championship , tapered my training , borrowed an aero helmet and a deep rim front wheel to go with my Zipp disc and rode to a win , I put that down to my mind and legs being ready for it.
Edited by Busamav on Wednesday 15th December 15:35
The guy doing this experiment was averaging around 15 mph.
Assuming this commute does not encounter traffic lights and/or queues (which would render the experiment fairly useless), then his average speed suggests he is hampered by fitness/strength rather than any bike he chooses to ride.
Assuming this commute does not encounter traffic lights and/or queues (which would render the experiment fairly useless), then his average speed suggests he is hampered by fitness/strength rather than any bike he chooses to ride.
Busamav said:
If you havent got the legs you aint going to go fast on anything , I suspect a disc wheel could infact make some people slower .
My pb for a 25 was set on my old vitus training bike with just a set of 28's and my legs feeling good on the day,
although one year I focused on the club 25 championship , tapered my training , borrowed an aero helmet and a deep rim front wheel to go with my Zipp disc and rode to a win , I put that down to my mind and legs being ready for it.
Depends how much you won by - if it was a few seconds over someone riding a standard bike with standard rims, the speed you bought had something to do with it - sticking with the same scenario, if you left it all out on the course, would you have won without the bling hardware? No. (obviously if you crushed everyone by a few minutes and they all had uber TT rigs too, then it is a moot point, but you see where I am coming from, no?)My pb for a 25 was set on my old vitus training bike with just a set of 28's and my legs feeling good on the day,
although one year I focused on the club 25 championship , tapered my training , borrowed an aero helmet and a deep rim front wheel to go with my Zipp disc and rode to a win , I put that down to my mind and legs being ready for it.
Edited by Busamav on Wednesday 15th December 15:35
Would you have been slower without the disc, deep section front and aero helmet? Yes is the simple answer - anyone who says it isn't possible to buy speed is either a bit dim and doesn't understand simple physics or is already riding the best the world has to offer - in TTs especially it isn't possible to be competitive without it - its possible to buy 100W, but very, very hard to get it through training.
The Lance "its not about the bike" quote only applies when your bike is good enough not to enter the equation - looking at power numbers, a semi-decent club rider on a top of the range TT bike will be as quick as a tour level pro on a entry level roadie.
The study basically means nothing - it isn't possible to argue that better equipment won't make you faster (unless you believe the earth is flat and science is a crock of nonsense). Does this guy have any sort of measurement other than the time it took? There is no data to it, other than he rode faster on one bike than the other - I could do 50mph in a fiat punto and 49mph in a R15 - my study proves that a Fiat Punto would have won Le Mans this year.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff