Lemond1985

That YouTube view of you on your bike is mesmerizing. Reminds me of some sort of virtual reality simulation or a video game. Hope you can get it looking the way you want it to.

timtak

Thank you. The camera and its free software are state of the art. The camera is an Insta360 One X @ about $500. Some use cheaper cameras, such as the mii sphere, with the Insta360 software for similar but cheaper results.

Lemond1985

I'm still not quite clear on how this thing works, but its really cool. I hope the TV coverage of pro bike races starts using one of those, Paris Roubaix would look awesome if converted to "virtual reality" look. My Cycliq bike camera produces a similar perspective, I suspect it has something to do with the image stabilization technology.

Maelochs

No one made that argument. Someone who wanted to rant accused me of saying that but no one actually said that, as far as i can recall.

The question comes down to two things---One, the OP wondered if getting a "race bike" would make him more powerful (I say, get him a 42-pound downhill racer with nine inches of travel at both ends) and the more general question of whether a "race bike" would do him any good at all in terms of being faster.

The OP asked about power specifically, and apparently didn't consider handling, comfort, whatever. As I recall (too lazy to scroll up) he mentioned "aggressive" as a quality he sought ... can't you buy that as an accessory and bolt it on?

As for fun .... no one else mentioned that ... certainly not the OP.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but what i tired to do here was figure out what the OP was Really asking ... it seemed to me that "How much would a race bike increase my power" wasn't Really the question .... so that any advice I offered would actually be useful to the OP.

Apparently the OP thinks that bending more makes one faster (marginally true in certain cases for short periods) and more powerful (generally not true and generally the opposite.) So ... it seemed reasonable to explain what made a race bike different form his Defy, and how he could approximate the same effects with his Defy to see if he really liked the differences ... I also suggested some "race bikes" he might like to test-rdie for comparison.

Other people who like turmoil tried to raise that "You can't ride a race bike unless you race"/ "Race bikes are for everyone" debate, but aren't we all smart enough to avoid that?

I know actually responding to the OP with reason and care is frowned on here at BF ... forgive me please.

Seattle Forrest

For what it's worth, the R5 isn't a particularly aero bike. In Cervelo's line, the R series bikes are about low weight, stiffness, and quick handling. It's the S series that are aero. Not just the shape of the tubing but the rider position too. So it's not a huge surprise that it's not faster than an endurance bike under the same rider.

Maelochs

ys, thanks. Since I own the R5 clone and have friends who ride S3s .... pretty clear on that. .... but the deal with the classic "road racer" position is that it is more aero, while the normal "endurance geometry" position is more upright. I happened to build my bikes that way .... in fact the riding position on he endurance bike closely mimics the stock bar-seat drop on on my Fuji Sportiv, sold as an "endurance" bike.

My original point was that the OP could mimic the more aero SEATING POSITION by simply lowering the bars a la Timtak or something less extreme but similar.) That might give him the flat-back riding posture so he could see the aero gains and also whether his hips functioned properly that bent.

Nobody mentioned aero frames specifically, though I did mention that if the OP wanted a "race" bike the R5 or S5 (why not spend the big bucks?) would fit the bill, as would the TCR and the CAAD 12.

If we wanted to waste our lives, we could take this thread in he direction of "What differentiates "race" geometry from "endurance" geometry?"

\

timtak

I hope the OP gets a long negative angled stem and a "fast forward" type seat post to try out a more aero form.

I usually have straightish arms (at about 120-130 degrees) in my drops except when really putting in pedal to metal but not in this video. You can see me at about the 10 minute mark of my morning ride (less than half videoed)

Lemond1985

Wow, who knew Japan was so deserted, I don't think I saw a single living soul. That 360 degree camera is really neat though.

grolby

Bike fit and position certainly does affect potential power output, and a more race-oriented geometry can simplify obtaining this position. But that's really beside the point. It's reasonable to set some expectations about the likely impact of race geometry on power (small, at best). But - speaking of irrelevant! - you didn't do that. You said "unless you race," which has been a tedious non-sequiter on these boards for, oh, 15 years or so. I was even guilty of participating in the "unless you race" editorializing at various times, myself. Unfortunately, cycling culture can be very judgmental, from essentially every direction. Whether from racers, non-racers, anti-racers, commuters, the first impulse we have is too often to tell or ask people what they're doing wrong, rather than try to understand what they want or need. It's not informative and it certainly isn't very welcoming.

It's really nothing personal. It's not like you're the only person who's raised the question "but do you plan on racing?" even in this thread. You just happen to have made the post I quoted. Since you're annoyed that I only quoted a snippet, I'm happy to provide the context:

My question is, how does racing factor into this at all? The handling of a race bike doesn't make it "faster" in the context of a bike race, either. To the extent that race bike handling does make the bike faster, such as by improving confidence and ability to hold a line in a fast corner, that applies outside of a bike race. That is my point. The reflexive citation of "unless you race" answers no one's questions but it does serve to make one wonder if some believe a non-racer shouldn't be "allowed" to want a racier bike. I don't really see why not.

grolby

I mean, in general, you all are really making this sound much more complicated than it needs to be. The answer to the OP's question is a resounding "maybe." I would suggest that they try out some more "race" oriented bikes and see how they feel. Heck, I do race and I couldn't tell you how much faster I am on my road bike versus my cyclocross bike. But I can tell you it FEELS faster. That's what most people are going to be attuned to. Getting into the weeds of when is going to make you faster and by how much etc etc etc etc isn't that interesting.

caloso

Whatever you get, just make sure that it's laterally stiff but vertically compliant.

Maelochs

You are not an honest person.

I said that unless he raced, very quick handling would not affect his overall speed. But you have a need to rant on from your position of assumed superiority, maybe to try to absolve yourself of the shame of having asked ti yourself. Who knows?

Funny thing … fact. Every deal with … facts?

I in fact ended my post suggesting that he get a race bike, but not expect his power output would increase and nor would his speed. But you don’t care what I said. You are all about what YOU say, because you are all knowing and wise, and we should all feel lucky to have you here to edify us.

You are not an honest person, and your entire argument is based in untruth. You should be ashamed … not because of any past position you have held on race bikes ….

grolby

Wow. OK.

caloso

Do you typically ride in the drops now?

base2 

As much as it irks me, I tend to side with Maalox on this one. I think he genuinly tried to offer helpful advice for what the OP was meaning in his question. Although he picks-nits sometimes, I think he put some thought into trying to help the OP. I think I'd respond much the same.

Another thing: The 2016 R5 was the 12th most aero bike of all bikes sold or marketed in 2016 regardless of manufactures "aero" designated marketing or not according to wind-tunnel data and independent testing. After 3 months of research, that's why I bought one.

No, I am not going to search to the ends of the internet for a 3 year old obscure .pdf to prove xyz as "fact!" just to be a super-cool smarty-pants, always-right poster-guy. This ess just ain't worth it. I will offer that, at the time it was convincing enough to me to save up to spend 2 months salary on a bicycle. Hardly a decision to be taken lightly.

timtak

I think that that good people are divided by the UCI lBS industrial complex -- or influence of economics.

In any everyday English - such as in language used for running, or canoeing etc - the "endurance bike" would be for going a long way or long time, and a "race bike" would be for putting out the power and gaining speed.

Due to the influence of economics (UCI, lBS, sponsoring manufacturers - UCI for short) however the economic truth, as I see is:

"the UCI endurance bike" is a first time still-have-a-fat-belly buyers' bike with an upright stance because the belly gets in the way. This means the seat tube is upright and the bars are higher. (There are Grand Fondue races to give these bikes the appearance of being competitive bikes too but they are basically for the bellied, as most of us are when we take up cycling. )

"the UCI race bike" is a sell it to them later expensive dream bike used in UCI rules manufacturer sponsored peloton (lots of riders in the same TV shot) race bike with lower bars (more aerodynamic) and more rearward sloping seat tube for a shorter wheel base to enable riders to draught each other. Its rearward sloping seat tube is generally speaking less aerodynamic since it requires more hip bend to reach the aerodynamically ideal horizontal body position.

Since most cyclists (that I see) cycle on their own, rather than in peloton the "UCI race bike" is not therefore in normal parlance a race bike, in the sense that it is not a speedy high-power facilitating bike. The bars are in the right place but the seat is in a less aero position than the endurance bike.

The normal parlance "race bike" in the sense of being fast, aero, high-power-output facilitating, and usable on roads with cars, is the timtaked bike (I have tried calling it a "Lanced bike", or "Strava bike" to disassociate it from my name), with 1) A more upright bend-over facilitating seat tube like the UCI endurance bike, 2) lower handlebars (like the UCI race bike) OR a UCI time-trial bike with UCI race bike handlebars.

Or to sum up briefly: seat forward, bars down, long and low is the way to gooooo.

It helps if you listen to glam rock too.

The rural regions are pretty empty and emptying but the road is as smooth as a velodrome. It is a shame about the sea wall in my opinion. In order to invest in the emptying regions the government pours tarmac and concrete on them but it does not bring the Japanese back.

Very equanimous :-) I am impressed.

MikeDD

Want to go faster? Buy an e-bike. Sorry I just had to comment because of the e-bike haters that lurk on the Electric Bike forum.

Enjoy what you ride and ride more!!!

timtak

I don't mean to suggest that the above is 'my idea'. The adjustments are obvious once you realise what the "race bike" refers to, and observe the way many people in fact ride and "race" (using Strava for example).

It took me a long while to realise how much of a radical, poles-apart difference this makes.
https://www.tue.nl/en/news/news-over...ously-assumed/


The air resistance for each of the 121 riders in a cycling peloton, as a percentage of the air resistance of a rider who rides alone. Photo: TU Eindhoven


According to Strava's 2018 year end data, Only 61% of Strava cyclists have uploaded a group activity. This means that group rides are going to be a lot less than 61%. While not everyone uses Strava, I think that Strava users are much more representative of UCI pros, so it is a shame that bicycle manufacturers don't base their bikes on Strava use. Perhaps some do? Perhaps they will soon. I have written to Strava to ask the percentage of rides that take place in groups.

John Cobb has a road bike to time trial bike (with road handlebars) conversion video here. The seat is moved forward and the drops are almost level with the top of the front wheel.

The aerobars are not essential, or to be avoided, when riding in traffic but I have some for position variation when there are no cars around. I have a longer stem, so my narrow road bike handlebars place my hands near to the aerobar position.

(Note "A Style rider" = thin rider. B Style rider = rider with a gut/belly creating "diaphragm interference problems")

I tried to think of analogies.

A fit young man wants to eat his cereal faster, and 'race' (go quickly) through breakfast to get to work sooner, so he thinks of purchasing a new spoon. He goes to the local spoon shop and finds it full of older customers who don't look like they should be eating much of anything. The shop assistant says "Here is our Specialated spoon for races. The Pros use it. Only $150. You can't go wrong." But, by chance, the young man notices that the walls are lined with photos of professional egg and spoon racers, carrying eggs in their spoons, in a melee of egg-rapt runners. So, he says to the shop assistant, "that is not the sort of race I was thinking of doing, I just want to finish my cereal quickly." "What are you talking about? Have you ever raced? The pros have forgotten more about speed than you will ever know. Look this one, it is $140. It's a bargain." The young man leaves the shop, and buys himself a cheap Chinese spoon for $1, that fits his mouth, and modifies it a little so that it matches the curves of his cereal bowl. Some other guys at breakfast rag him saying, "that spoon looks ridiculous! You should get a spoon like ours," as they dip into their Rice Krispies with their expensive, egg-shaped, Specialated, and Truck spoons.

Maelochs

Your story needs Dr. Seuss illustrations.

dooner90

I've got the same. Lemmie ask, have replaced the seat/handlebars on yours? It's one of the few common complaints with this bike