T
Tom Salzmann
Guest
Greetings,
First some background: I am 41 years old, 6'5" and about 225 pounds. I got back into cycling in the
year 2000 and am thoroughly enjoying it! I even rode my first century in 2001, averaging 16mph.
In 2000, I gave away my old Schwinn Letour and bought a Trek 520. I figured I needed the sturdier
frame for my big body. I lived in the Virginia Beach area at the time and roads were flat. The 520
seemed like a good choice. For the past 1.5 years I've lived in some of the hilliest terrain found
in New Hampshire. I can't go anywhere without riding some intense hills. So my question... Would
there be much benefit to buying a lighter more nimble bike for my daily exercise rides? Would I
notice hill climbing improvement on, say, a Trek 2300 versus what I'm doing now on my 520? OR, is
the Rider to Bike weight ratio so high (since I'm no lightweight) that it really doesn't matter?
Questions:
1) Does bike weight alone (using my 520 -> 2300 upgrade consideration) buy me hill climbing
performance? The bikes are probably 8 to 12 pounds apart.
2) Will the change in geometry offer benefits to the hilly country rides I do here in NH?
3) Will the frame stiffness changes truly help to improve my performance?
4) What about tire size? I still run the stock 700x35s on the 520. Would the thinner 2300
tires/wheels make a noticable difference?
5) What could I do to the 520 to make it better at hills? Thinner tires? Anything else?
My goal is to increase performance so I can ride longer distances in less time, climb better, etc...
And I'd also like to have no glaring disadvantages (such as the 520 provides) when teaming up with
friends to ride the countryside. Do I need a new bike to achieve this or is the 520 really not that
much worse than a 2300 given the rides I'm doing?
The last thing I want to do is spend 1800 to 2000 on another bike - but if it's truly a performance
benefit that I will NOTICE, I'll do it!
Thanks in advance for sharing your collective expertise!
Tom
First some background: I am 41 years old, 6'5" and about 225 pounds. I got back into cycling in the
year 2000 and am thoroughly enjoying it! I even rode my first century in 2001, averaging 16mph.
In 2000, I gave away my old Schwinn Letour and bought a Trek 520. I figured I needed the sturdier
frame for my big body. I lived in the Virginia Beach area at the time and roads were flat. The 520
seemed like a good choice. For the past 1.5 years I've lived in some of the hilliest terrain found
in New Hampshire. I can't go anywhere without riding some intense hills. So my question... Would
there be much benefit to buying a lighter more nimble bike for my daily exercise rides? Would I
notice hill climbing improvement on, say, a Trek 2300 versus what I'm doing now on my 520? OR, is
the Rider to Bike weight ratio so high (since I'm no lightweight) that it really doesn't matter?
Questions:
1) Does bike weight alone (using my 520 -> 2300 upgrade consideration) buy me hill climbing
performance? The bikes are probably 8 to 12 pounds apart.
2) Will the change in geometry offer benefits to the hilly country rides I do here in NH?
3) Will the frame stiffness changes truly help to improve my performance?
4) What about tire size? I still run the stock 700x35s on the 520. Would the thinner 2300
tires/wheels make a noticable difference?
5) What could I do to the 520 to make it better at hills? Thinner tires? Anything else?
My goal is to increase performance so I can ride longer distances in less time, climb better, etc...
And I'd also like to have no glaring disadvantages (such as the 520 provides) when teaming up with
friends to ride the countryside. Do I need a new bike to achieve this or is the 520 really not that
much worse than a 2300 given the rides I'm doing?
The last thing I want to do is spend 1800 to 2000 on another bike - but if it's truly a performance
benefit that I will NOTICE, I'll do it!
Thanks in advance for sharing your collective expertise!
Tom