What makes a bike fast, anway?

[Kraig Willett]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> << So, what is it about a new bike that would make me faster? Is it worth saving up months of
> allowance, pay, a birthday, etc, for a new bike?
>
> Nothing, no, These gents are trying to justify their purchases but the
rider
> makes the difference, not the bike.

IMHO, this answer accomplishes nothing. The man essentially asked for magnitudes of equipment based
performance benefits - the answer provided (as I understand it) is that there is no performance
benefit. I disagree with this answer and have done the experimental legwork and literature review to
support my conclusions. Check out the current VeloNews with Van Petegem on the cover for an estimate
of what the current crop of aero forks (Oval, True Temper, Reynolds) might do for your performance.

The benefit of aero wheels is pretty well documented (2-3% of overall performance). Email me offline
for the Greenwell paper for his journal article that supports this conclusion. The wheel related
wind tunnel entries I have been involved with are also consistent with the published literature.

Furthermore, the answer to the OP's original question above is inconsistent with the ever popular
"custom" wheel sales pitch (lighter, cheaper - which is debatable, more durable, etc.) - i.e, if
there are no performance benefits associated with wheels, why would one tout lightness as a
selling/differentiating feature?

IMHO, the order of importance in terms of going faster:

1)ride your bike
2)work on your positioning
3)equipment selection

Once you have done all you care to do on 1 and 2, start on number 3 as the budget allows.

I do my best to put _magnitudes_ on number 3 using science - others may have different approaches.

--
=======================
Kraig Willett RBT Subscription Specials www.biketechreview.com/rbt.htm
=======================

 

[Arthur Clune]

Matt J <[email protected]> wrote:

: However, gears were not the only reason they offered as to what would make me faster: geometry and
: weight were other ones. Matt

If it's really flat, then weight won't make a lot of difference.

If you want new wheels, then if it's a steel bike (which I guess it is) you can get the back end
re-spaced (cost me about £7 when I took a frame to have it done, but strip the bike yourself or
it'll cost more) to modern 130mm OLN spacing and then use newer wheels.

THough then you'll have to do funny things with spacers to get your gears to work (if you've got 7
speed at the rear, then you're fine, anything less is a pain to get to work. 7/8 speed just needs a
spacer usually to let you use a 9 speed hub).

If you want my advice - a new bike is nice, but it's not necessary. I bought the nicest bike I could
and have never regretted it.

If you can afford a new bike without crippling yourself, then why not. If you have to eat baked
beans for months, it's not worth it.

Look a second hand bikes though - you could probably get a 9 spd/STI/posh wheel bike second-hand for
not muhc money from someone who has upgraded to the latest and greatest.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

Chris-<< Ask Lance. He rides a stock Trek, the same as can be bought from a LBS.

Get a kick outta this-altho he says it is a stock size, with ADA wheels, custom cogsets, 10s DA,
etc...it isn't quite a 'stock' TREK...

Any more than a Superbike Ducati is 'essentially a stock Ducati'...

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Robert Chung]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote
> << His hour record was beaten by an arguably less-gifted guy on aero, weighted wheel wonder
> machine (Moser).
>
> But put Eddy on the aero 'wonder' and would he beat Moser's time?

Of course not. Eddy is 57 and probably weighs 75 pounds more than when he was racing.

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<selective edits snipped>

> So an aero fork on his 1987 TREK will make him measureably faster on the bike???
>
> C'mon...

In the right situation it will improve performance, yes. For an estimate on the magnitudes of this
improvement, read VN.

> << The benefit of aero wheels is pretty well documented (2-3% of overall performance).
>
> ALL equipment changes, particularly aero changes, are measured in
contriolled
> situations, like a wind tunnel, and no doubt a aero wheelset is more
'aero'.
> But when you add a human into the equation, and put him/her outside, the measured benefits may be
> there, may not...since with human powered
vehicles,
> everything must be equal test to test, and it never is.
>
> To say aero wheels will make a rider 2-3% faster in all cases is
speculation at
> best.

I don't think the claim was _all situations_. Clearly, while sitting in, the effect will be less,
but still there. When at the front or by one's self, it is in the 2-3% range.

Relevance and applicability of wind tunnel testing to the "real world":

http://tinyurl.com/b6wh

No comment on the sales pitch and its contradiction with the "equipment does nothing claim"?

One can't have it both ways.

I am just honest with the magnitudes, and leave it up to the individual to decide the worth.

--
=======================
Kraig Willett RBT Subscription Specials www.biketechreview.com/rbt.htm
=======================

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Qui si parla
Campagnolo) wrote:

> Chris-<< Ask Lance. He rides a stock Trek, the same as can be bought from a LBS.
>
> Get a kick outta this-altho he says it is a stock size, with ADA wheels, custom cogsets, 10s DA,
> etc...it isn't quite a 'stock' TREK...
>
> Any more than a Superbike Ducati is 'essentially a stock Ducati'...

Custom cogsets? That's new to me. Yes, Lance gets the prototype gear a year ahead (though I daresay
he'll be riding an essentially identical drivetrain in 2004), but at best the difference between
Lance's bike and the one I could get at the local Trek dealer is that I'll have to wait until
September for 10v, and I'd have to ask Sheldon to build up the custom cogset for me.

If you wish to make an analogy to motorcycles, think Supersport Ducati versus stock Ducati, and even
that's a stretch.

Come September, anyone with 5 large kicking around should be able to buy a nearly perfect replica of
Lance's bike. The "customizations" on his steed don't amount to more than a drivetrain upgrade and
new wheels.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Arthur Clune" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> If you can afford a new bike without crippling yourself, then why not. If you have to eat baked
> beans for months, it's not worth it.

But I like baked beans!

--
Dave...

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jay-<< I certainly climb faster on my racing bike than on my touring or commuting bike. My
> racing bike
is
> a lot lighter and has narrower section tires.
>
> But the guys 1987 TREK road bike isn't a touring bike nor a commuter.
>
> A new bike would not make a huge improvement in his performance, was
the point,
> like his buddy said it would.

I agree that there would be little improvement if there were little difference between the new and
old bikes. STI might make things a little easier for the poster if he is an out-of-the-saddle
climber, like
me.

> << My racing bike is a lot lighter and has narrower section tires.
>
> Put skinney tires on your tourer and see how ell it 'goes'...

I have done this a lot of times, and it is still a dog, although less so.
>
> << His hour record was beaten by an arguably less-gifted guy on aero, weighted wheel wonder
> machine (Moser).
>
> But put Eddy on the aero 'wonder' and would he beat Moser's time?

That's the point. The bike would have improved his performance. The fact bikes do make a difference
accounts for the fact that we have two different hour record standards. One for 1972 retro bikes and
one for wonder bikes. It is interesting to me that Boardman beat Eddy's 1972 record by a mere 10
meters on a 1972 retro bike and beat it by almost 7km on a wonder bike. That's a big difference. --
Jay Beattie.

 

[Jim Edgar]

Kraig Willett at [email protected] wrote on 5/6/03 8:52 PM:
> IMHO, this answer accomplishes nothing. The man essentially asked for magnitudes of equipment
> based performance benefits - the answer provided (as I understand it) is that there is no
> performance benefit. I disagree with this answer and have done the experimental legwork and
> literature review to support my conclusions. Check out the current VeloNews with Van Petegem on
> the cover for an estimate of what the current crop of aero forks (Oval, True Temper, Reynolds)
> might do for your performance.

IIRC: The conclusion was that at 30 mph there was a slight difference in the wind tunnel (i.e. - TT
conditions), but at speeds below that it was within the margin of error, no?

The OP is hanging at 28 mph on group rides, and was being told he could go faster if he got a new
bike. That is a flawed statement without there being some specific problems with his rig.

 

[Jim Edgar]

Jay Beattie at [email protected] wrote on 5/7/03 8:58 AM:
> That's the point. The bike would have improved his performance. The fact bikes do make a
> difference accounts for the fact that we have two different hour record standards. One for 1972
> retro bikes and one for wonder bikes. It is interesting to me that Boardman beat Eddy's 1972
> record by a mere 10 meters on a 1972 retro bike and beat it by almost 7km on a wonder bike. That's
> a big difference. -- Jay Beattie.
>

...and said the "Retro Hour" was the hardest thing he ever did...

 

[Doc C]

First off, the guy was a woman. Second, geometry impacts a bike's ability to accelerate. If in
doubt, check a physics book. Matt J's bike is a standard bike/standard geometries. My suggestion was
to purchase a new bike with geometries which could further enhance his natural abilities. I have no
problem with his bike. Retro is fine, unresponsive is not.

As Matt J mentioned, he can do 30 mph. Last year he rode 162 in a day after no training, averaging
just under 20 mph. He's got great form and good acceleration. Hills aren't a problem. I've been
encouraging him to try a couple of races. Any words of advice for him?

PS More gears ARE better...

 

[B. Sanders]

"Nigel Grinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What makes a bicycle fast? Gosh darn it, I believe it's the rider, distantly followed by: position
> on the bike and clothing (no loose-fitting, flapping stuff) and then, so far back as to need a
> telescope to see it, there would be aero wheels and aero frames/forks.

Nigel, I think you have it exactly right.

> P.S. I forgot steep descents - they always work for me.

Coasting downhill ranks in my Top 5 Most Pleasurable Things. Most of the rest of the Top 5 can't be
mentioned in polite company

Barry

 

[B. Sanders]

"Paul Southworth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hAEta.34969$A%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Matt J
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >So we were sitting around after my school's bike club meeting, talking about riding and racing
> >and training, and the subject of me and my bike came up. Now, I ride a 1987 Trek road bike that
> >was my dad's and was never used until I got to it last year. I've upgraded tires, saddle, a rear
> >wheel (sort of) bar tape, and added a computer. Full suntour, except for the brakes, which are
> >DiaCompe. I ride it all the time on group rides and in pacelines up to 28 or so mph. Someone
> >says, "Man, you could be fast if you had a new bike." I'm puzzled by this - what is so different
> >about a new bike than my current one?
>
> I buy new bikes because I like them. Waiting around for your Trek to wear out will take a long
> long time. A new bike won't produce significant performance benefits, but if you like riding new
> bikes, then it's no worse than many other money pits and requires no apology or feigned necessity.

I agree, Paul. Particularly, there's nothing like the "snick snick" of perfect, new drivetrains.
It's almost magic. When I ride new bikes, I want one, if nothing more than to have perfection as my
riding partner.

-Barry

 

[B. Sanders]

"Doc C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First off, the guy was a woman. Second, geometry impacts a bike's ability to accelerate. If in
> doubt, check a physics book.

Cite? What kind of races are we talking about?

> Matt J's bike is a standard bike/standard geometries. My suggestion was to purchase a new bike
> with geometries which could further enhance his natural abilities. I have no problem with his
> bike. Retro is fine, unresponsive is not.

Retro is irrelevant. What is faster about a newer bike?

> As Matt J mentioned, he can do 30 mph. Last year he rode 162 in a day after no training, averaging
> just under 20 mph. He's got great form and good acceleration. Hills aren't a problem. I've been
> encouraging him to try a couple of races. Any words of advice for him?

Don't wear yourself out training. Go to the races fresh. Train on a single speed.

> PS More gears ARE better...

Why?

-B

 

[B. Sanders]

"Kraig Willett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jq%[email protected]...
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > << So, what is it about a new bike that would make me faster? Is it worth saving up months of
> > allowance, pay, a birthday, etc, for a new bike?
> >
> > Nothing, no, These gents are trying to justify their purchases but the
> rider
> > makes the difference, not the bike.

> The benefit of aero wheels is pretty well documented (2-3% of overall performance).

I can vouch for this. In fact, the Araya/Sumo ultra-deep-section aero rims on my M5 Low Racer
actually allowed me to tack into a crosswind and accelerate without pedalling! No kidding. It was a
35mph-gusting-to-50mph Illinois Prairie wind. I could barely stand up against it - it was easier to
ride than stand (go figure). I was fighting the tiller; but amazingly, the M5 felt rock-stable, and
I really was "sailing along" with the help of those monster aero rims acting as sails.

So, I gotta say, aero rims may have more effect than even wind tunnel tests show

-Barry

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Jim Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BADE92AB.40FDB%[email protected]...
> Kraig Willett at [email protected] wrote on 5/6/03 8:52
PM:
> > IMHO, this answer accomplishes nothing. The man essentially asked for magnitudes of equipment
> > based performance benefits - the answer provided (as I understand it) is that there is no
> > performance benefit. I
disagree
> > with this answer and have done the experimental legwork and literature review to support my
> > conclusions. Check out the current VeloNews with
Van
> > Petegem on the cover for an estimate of what the current crop of aero
forks
> > (Oval, True Temper, Reynolds) might do for your performance.
>
> IIRC: The conclusion was that at 30 mph there was a slight difference in
the
> wind tunnel (i.e. - TT conditions), but at speeds below that it was within the margin of
> error, no?

I am glad the data was available to you so that you could make your own conclusion.

My conclusion was not as stated above.

> The OP is hanging at 28 mph on group rides, and was being told he could go faster if he got a new
> bike. That is a flawed statement without there
being
> some specific problems with his rig.

Same power but lower axial force means more speed. Again, the question becomes one of magnitude and
significance. I have shed some light on the magnitude of the effect, it is up to the individual to
determine the significance.

--
=======================
Kraig Willett RBT Subscription Specials www.biketechreview.com/rbt.htm
=======================

 

[Kraig Willett]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kraig-<< For an estimate on the magnitudes of this improvement, read VN.
>
> "estimate" is certainly correct...
>

I think the estimate is backed up by science and puts a good, solid number on the potential
magnitude of the effect. My conclusion is more solid than the "equipment does nothing" claim. I have
presented evidence (along with the methodology) to support my conclusion; where is the evidence (and
the methodology used) to support the "nothing" claim?

What will the discussion be like the next time a customer of yours wants a Reynolds Aero fork on a
new Calfee frame? Won't it be nice to be able to intelligently comment on the subject and not just
be speculating at the answer? I always like more information. Others may approach topics
differently.

> << When at the front or by one's self, it is in the 2-3% range.
>
> Estimate only again...marketing is awash in statements like this,
implying it
> is 'boilerplate', but often it results in disappointed customers.

Aero wheels work. The effect is well documented. The literature is full of the quanitification of
the effect. I will send the Greenwell paper to you if you would care to read about the topic. What
is not so clear is how much, or even if, there is a difference between the brands. This is where I
become skeptical of many of the mfr's claims.

Aero wheels (deep section, low spoke count), in general, provide some benefit, and it is more than
likely in the 2-3% range. I have a hard time believing that one would not accept this claim. Can an
occassional glance at the speedo document this? Probably not. Will a well run experiment using a
powermeter document it - more than likely. Will a wind tunnel experiment document it - the
literature says, definitively, yes.

It comes down to magnitude and significance. I can only help out on magnitudes. The significance is
up to the individual.

Still no comment on the clear contradiction in your ever-present wheel marketing/sales pitch and
your views on the performance effects of equipment touted in this thread?

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

[Mike S.]

"Kraig Willett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Kraig-<< For an estimate on the magnitudes of this improvement, read VN.
> >
> > "estimate" is certainly correct...
> >
>
> I think the estimate is backed up by science and puts a good, solid number on the potential
> magnitude of the effect. My conclusion is more solid
than
> the "equipment does nothing" claim. I have presented evidence (along with the methodology) to
> support my conclusion; where is the evidence (and the methodology used) to support the
> "nothing" claim?
>
> What will the discussion be like the next time a customer of yours wants a Reynolds Aero fork on a
> new Calfee frame? Won't it be nice to be able to intelligently comment on the subject and not just
> be speculating at the answer? I always like more information. Others may approach topics
> differently.
>
> > << When at the front or by one's self, it is in the 2-3% range.
> >
> > Estimate only again...marketing is awash in statements like this,
> implying it
> > is 'boilerplate', but often it results in disappointed customers.
>
> Aero wheels work. The effect is well documented. The literature is full
of
> the quanitification of the effect. I will send the Greenwell paper to you if you would care to
> read about the topic. What is not so clear is how much, or even if, there is a difference between
> the brands. This is where
I
> become skeptical of many of the mfr's claims.
>
> Aero wheels (deep section, low spoke count), in general, provide some benefit, and it is more than
> likely in the 2-3% range. I have a hard time believing that one would not accept this claim. Can
> an occassional glance at the speedo document this? Probably not. Will a well run experiment using
> a powermeter document it - more than likely. Will a wind tunnel experiment document it - the
> literature says, definitively, yes.
>
> It comes down to magnitude and significance. I can only help out on magnitudes. The significance
> is up to the individual.
>
> Still no comment on the clear contradiction in your ever-present wheel marketing/sales pitch and
> your views on the performance effects of
equipment
> touted in this thread?
>
All I know is that its easier to keep up with the local hammers on my Cosmics than it is my 32-spoke
Reflex/Mavic 571 wheelset. I dunno whether the 2-3% is being added to any placebo effect, but the
result is that I'm riding one bigger gear at the same intensity.

The other thing I've observed over the years is that the faster you go, the more aero wheels help.
25mph seems to be roughly the "break even" point for
me. Till then, they're big, heavy wheels.

Mike

 

[Jim Edgar]

Kraig Willett at [email protected] wrote on 5/7/03 6:47 PM:
> "Jim Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> IIRC: The conclusion was that at 30 mph there was a slight difference in the wind tunnel (i.e. -
>> TT conditions), but at speeds below that it was within the margin of error, no?
>
> I am glad the data was available to you so that you could make your own conclusion.
>
> My conclusion was not as stated above.

See, now you make me go back and reread the thing. Didn't put it together that you were the author
of that article until now. At any rate...

You stated "Tunnel director Jorge Martinez claims that the wind tunnel balance will provide force
data that is accurate to +/-0.05 lbs."

So, if the average axial forces in pounds are TT Alpha Q = .73, Oval Jetstream .71, and Reynolds
Ouzo Pro .70 under calm conditions, (.67, .62, .61 under crosswind, respectively) as shown in your
chart, how is that not covered by the margin of error?

Clearly I didn't "RC" as I first stated above and I apologize for confusing the issue with my
initial statement.

But, I'm assuming that the extrapoloation to watts and 40K Times use the average axial force as a
basis, and times times and wattage outputs listed in the last chart also fall wthin the margin of
error you list.

Even with the margin of error, there is a demonstratable benefit from the 1996 Kestrel fork, as
you state.

>
>> The OP is hanging at 28 mph on group rides, and was being told he could go faster if he got a new
>> bike. That is a flawed statement without there
> being
>> some specific problems with his rig.
>
> Same power but lower axial force means more speed. Again, the question becomes one of magnitude
> and significance. I have shed some light on the magnitude of the effect, it is up to the
> individual to determine the significance.
>

But, my point is that if he's _not_ in a TT, rather in a dynamic environment shielded by other
riders in a moving group, how much difference will it make?

 

[Nopo]

My bike guru sez "If you could buy a faster bike, everyone will have one" It's about 90+% legs.