longhitv

So after a month or so Ive probably done 200km.
my top speed, Cant really break 37- 38 km/h on a flat surface.
My goal is 40km/h top speed.
6'3 230lbs hoping to get back to 205- 210.

I think Im going to raise my seat up.

Thoughts.





Also Cleaning up the 80s Lotus

DocJames

200 KM isn't a whole lot of distance to see a significant enough training response bringing speed gains. Unless your really young, full of hormones or on pharmaceutical assistance, your physiology will likely take a bit more of continued focus effort before seeing that increase in speed. I bet you're more fit though.

Not easiest to assess via still pic, but it appears you may have room to comfortably raise the saddle a bit.

Personally I think the biggest factor besides muscular strength (which you can build up) is your torso position. Might want to work on getting a bit lower in the drops if you can.

Those are my thoughts.

Doc James

mstateglfr 

The ride you posted has an elevation gain of 3' per mile. You may have found the flattest spot of land in the world because that has to be the flattest 14mi ride of all time.
As for your saddle height, nobody here knows if its too low based on those picks since your legs arent extended.

A general way to figure out saddle height- sit on your saddle, bring a crank arm to the 6oclock position, and place your heel on the pedal. If your hips rock for you to reach the pedal, the saddle is too high. If there is bend in your knee, the saddle is too low. Adjust the saddle accordingly and check again until you can fully extend your leg with your heel on the pedal, but without tilting your hips down.
This then gives you a slight bend in the knee when you place your foot on the pedals to ride, which is a proper saddle height an leg extension.

longhitv

Yes It is. Road bikers everywhere all throughout the day. Its a flat farmland road network that isnt that car busy and Bikers flock to it. Saturday morning is a zoo. But all during the week at any given time you will see 10 to 20 riders in your 20km 24 km ride

Bimmer69

If you are trying to burn calories then it’s more important to spend more time riding than trying to attain a high speed goal.
Try riding at a slower pace for longer. You’ll burn more calories.

also don’t forget the old adage “you can’t outrun (outbike) a bad diet.”
In other words cut back on the calories.. youll see results faster.

I spend 3-4 hours on an 80km ride but return with an 1800 calorie burn (lots of hills where I live).
avg speed is 17-18 kph.

tallbikeman

Love your tall bikes. I ride a 67cm Taiwan made Schwinn Sports Tourer and a 69cm Nishiki Sebring. Both bikes bought used and built frame up with new components. As you said you don't make money on these, you ride them for pleasure. All my rebuilt bikes cost at least a $1000 in components and wheelsets but they fit me well and ride beautifully. Neither of these two bikes is a high end bike but rather low mid range bikes. As such 32mm tires fit because both bikes could have fenders. Both bikes had 27" wheels but the Nishiki now has 700c. Brakes fit both sizes just fine. Both bikes are lugged steel frames and have been very reliable durable perfomers. Finally I ride the Schwinn off road all the time because the old 27"x1 1/4" wheel size works real well on gravel and dirt roads. I didn't know that back in the 70's but now I know, so off road I go.

tkamd73 

@ tall bike man Thanks! Just finished this one, pretty much in line with your expenditures, got it from another forum member, and probably my last. Have more then enough to ride, and just running out of storage room.
Tim



1985 Trek 670

longhitv

Hi. quick question
I am a bigger guy 6'3 220 lbs as posted
I have a 2014 Masi Partenza https://archive.harobikes.com/masi/2014-masi/partenza-2014
as Ive also posted before

Its aluminum with some carbon pieces and a little better than basic groupset.

My question just mostly out of curiosity, without buying a $2500 bike to find out myself.
How much faster are these Cannondale and Giant and S Works carbon bikes for real.
Im averaging 27 -28km per hour average speed on strava - 40-42km h top speed, and I see carbon bike riders posting 37km average speed on carbon bikes.
These are times on all flats. same flats Im doing.
TT bikes at 42km average top speeds of like 51-57km/h

Are all these riders that better and more fit than I am.....or do these Carbon bikes with Ulterga and Dura Ace gear have that much significant improvement. I just cant believe that im 20km/h less than a TT bike when my legs now are just burnin....

jamesdak 

It's all about the engine.....

northwood

i have an old trek for sale

https://www.ebay.com/itm/164857667361

mstateglfr 

They are certainly faster. If your only measure is speed, then yes they are better than you. Maybe they suck at bike handling and can only ride in a straight line though.
Either way, you will not be noticeably faster with a $2500 bike.

guachi

It's possible they are in a paceline so there will be lots of drafting going on.

icemilkcoffee 

I notice you are on flat pedals. Try using clip-in pedals. Even toe clips/straps help some.

John Valuk

You might find something of interest in this GCN video:

.

longhitv

Wow, this video was pretty amazing. Comparing the two bikes in a fast road line the Raleigh was only, 7.1% slower. I find that mind boggling.

So that means the issue is me, my weight, aerodynamics, lack of strength and my mechanics of how im set up on the bike. I could be all wrong in my position.

jamesdak 

Hence my comment about, "it's all about the engine". I logged every ride and do the same basic route over and over and over. So I've been able to pretty well compare differences in bikes since I usually have 20-30 bikes I rotate through. Sold off the C.F. bikes years ago when I realized they weren't any faster than my vintage steel but were more uncomfortable on the chipseal roads I normally ride on. In fact the steel rides were faster for centuries and left me feeling fresher at the end since my body wasn't beat up like on the C.F. bikes I had. The only measurable edge C.F. had was on one long 22 mile C2 climb.

longhitv

There is a good Youtube video of $100, $1000, $7000 bikes doing tests
There was a huge difference. I put my Masi at about $500.
But since Im new to biking, I think I should go to the store and check my geometry.
Maybe its not set up for me as it should be.

Anyways, Im never buying a $7000 bike. or a $2500 bike for that matter. Next year I may upgrade to a another used bike with better groupset that is $1000 or $1200.
But I am certainly not being aerodynamic, and I think at 26- 27km 28 km an hour on the flats for 20km distance, that plays into effect.

Im just blown away that people doing the same distance on the leader boards, are double my speed.
Im competitive and Im pushing my fat body and aluminum masi to the limits and my top speed on measured sections flats is 38 km/h. They are pushing 53km/h at the same sections.

Im not a Chris Froome, but he is 145 pounds, and I am 225 lb wearing basketball shorts and Yeezes

John Valuk

One way of thinking about some of this...

You are converting stored energy in your body, and you are doing it at some rate. Think of that as your "engine", delivering 100 W, 200 W, whatever.

• Some of that power is going into overcoming aerodynamic drag of the bike itself.
• Some of it is going into overcoming the aerodynamic drag of your body.
• Some of it is going into overcoming the rolling resistance of the tires and tubes.
• Some of it is lost through frictional losses in the drivetrain.
• When you are climbing, some of it is going into lifting your mass, and the mass of the bike, in opposition to gravity; you're doing the work of lifting a weight.

Some improvements can be purchased outright - e.g., more aero bike, lighter bike, lower rolling resistance tires.

Some improvements can come from changes to technique, and some of those can happen fairly quickly - e.g., improving your position on the bike, changing how you use gears (spinning vs. mashing) to pedal at different cadence, improving the form of your pedaling stroke.

Making significant improvements to your "engine" - increasing the amount of power you can deliver - involves physiological adaptation in response to training. That takes effort and time. Some people are content to "just ride", but some look to more structured training to get where they want to be.

philbob57

You look pretty cramped on your bike, at least in those photos. A longer stem may help.
One Sunday about 35 years ago, my time was the same (to the minute) as Greg Lemond's. My distance was about half of his. Of course, he drafted better than I did, and he had faster people to draft behind....

jamesdak 

yeah...umm...not really. For someone riding at the max of performance then the differences with a bike will matter some. For us mere mortals you ain't buying speed.

icemilkcoffee 

I bet you most of them are riding TT style:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Hw...EkF-970-80.jpg
You will never beat this type of bike on your regular road bike.

Dave Mayer

Rode through there yesterday. You'll want a bike that can handle the terrain from Pitt Lake in the north to The Stomping Grounds in the south. From Alouette Lake in the east to Colony Farm in the west. The good parts of this involves many hundreds of km of pancake-flat smooth gravel. I suggest a 10-20 year old 'cross bike with say 28-32mm tires. 32s will be fat enough for the terrain and your weight.

The world is inexorably and unnecessarily going to disc brakes, but a bike with TRP mini-V brakes and 9-10 speed brifters will provide the shifting performance you want with all the braking power you need, hopefully at a reasonable price. I rode with downtube shifters for 30 years - just say no. Clipless pedals are a major improvement as well. Frame material: I have multiple bikes each in steel, titanium, alu and carbon. I cannot tell the difference between them, as tires and the saddle and bars make all the difference in terms of the 'ride'. However, steel is heavier than alu/titanium (tie) and carbon, all things being equal. Low weight is a very good thing.

Sourcing bikes... currently we're in the middle of 'Bikemageddon', in which everything under $1k at a shop is gone, and our local Craigslist, normally a sewer of overpriced, broken and stolen junk, is far worse than usual. Folks are posting take-off reflectors for $5, tubes for $15, and thrashed department-store BSO's for higher than original retail. If you can outwait the pandemic, and the usual crush of spring bike demand, maybe some deals will be available - eventually.

rydabent

Notice how there are virtually NO brake cables flapping in the wind with the bike and its down tube shifters. It was ultra clean.

There were a lot of different brands of bikes with lugged frames from the 80s that were great bikes. IMO bikes pretty much reached their zenith in the 80s with their beautiful lugged frames.

rekmeyata

Don't take much stock on the braking section, I noticed the pads used on the cheap bike were cheap pads, and those never worked all that great, had they upgraded the pads to Kool Stop Salmon I guarantee you the results would have been a lot better on the old cheap bike, not sure how much the flex in the calipers would have contributed to braking, high end caliper brakes don't flex like the cheap ones do. I also know for a fact due to a test a friend I did, that high end calipers (mine aren't even high end I was using 105) vs his DA highend hydro disk brakes stop virtually the same. My test involved 3 sets of 3 brakings, our rules were we had to stay seated without moving our butts to the rear, we used the same tire pressure, with the bikes and us the weights were only a little less than 5 pounds difference, he was using 25c Conti 4000s tires and I had 23c on the front and 25c on the rear with Vittoria Roubaix tires, we took turns calling out when to stop, we did 3 stops at 15 mph, 3 at 20 and 3 at 25. The results were in the first 2 sets we both stopped within a foot of each other, sometimes I stopped a tad faster and sometimes he did, but the 3rd set the first stop I stopped about a foot and half faster, the second stop I stopped about 3 feet faster, and the last stop I stopped just over 6 feet faster than he did. Why? We believe the disk brakes suffered fade, he touched his rotor in the front and burned his skin, he touched my rim and while hot didn't burn his skin. I think our test was a bit more scientific than doing just a single stop and measure the stopping distance, we measure the difference between the two rather than the entire distance it took to stop each bike.

The video was not a good test comparing old technology against new technology, it was a good test for cheap poorly made bike vs a expensive bike, but then who would be debating between such an extreme price range? A person wanting a cheap bike wouldn't even entertain a super bike, so if their motivation was to pump up super bike sales...well they failed miserably at that. What they should have done was tested a cheap old bike against a cheap new bike, then flipped it and tested a superbike old bike against a new superbike.

The other thing to consider is that there is only a 2 3/4ths of a miles per hour average speed difference between the TDF from 1960 to 2016, but what that average speed doesn't mention is that the TDF is 500 miles LESS today then it use to be back in the 60's, while the number of racing days has stayed the same, so the reality is the only reason for the 2 3/4 mile per increase is due to racing less miles and therefore the riders are less tired today.

longhitv

After 10 months of posting this and new tire and clipless pedal, I have biked about 1200 km and my average speed on a 40km ride is 27-28 km/h. That's as good as it gets for me.

Id like to try a newer TT bike just to see how fast I can really be. the 2012 Masi is an entry bike and its great. Time setters on my routes with TT bikes are posting 55km/h. Im at 28km So it would be nice to see just where I fit in