It's the motor that matters... right?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094
Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's the motor that matters... right?
I've always argued that the motor (person) mattered much more than the bike in terms of speed, so I could ride my classic bikes with no desire for the "fast" and "light" new technology, but the rides below have me questioning that.
Two rides.
First ride was on my (Bikes direct) motobecane uhh... super record? Aluminum. FSA/Sora components. Schwalbe Durano 25c tires. Semi aero rims (maybe... 35 mm v profile?). Has an SKS raceblade fender on the front and a "skinny" rack on the back. (It's my "commuting" road bike) And it's also my rain bike. It was drizzling that day, so I didn't take the nice bikes out. I wasn't wearing a rain jacket cause it wasn't coming down hard enough for me to want to deal with the jacket. 80PSI rear 70PSI front.
I finished the climb in 9:01.
Second ride, two days later. On my Landshark Roadshark. Steel, Dura ace 7400 components. GP 4000 II 25c tires. Not at all aero rims. (Box section essentially.) Same PSI as above.
I finished the climb in 7:51.
I tried my absolute hardest on both of them, average heart rate for both rides was 169/168 and max 187/190 respectively. So if average HR is anything to go by, I tried harder on the first ride.
The only thing that was different is that on the first ride, I had taken a few days off beforehand, whereas yesterday I did a VERY slow recovery ride. And, on the first ride I pushed the bottom section MUCH harder, so by the time I got to the top, I was done. Very done. I got smart this time around and relaxed on the flat bottom section, and had plenty of energy at the top.
Can a tiny bit of rain and a day off make up for a minute on a short climb with exactly the same effort levels? Or, does the bike really matter that much?
Two rides.
First ride was on my (Bikes direct) motobecane uhh... super record? Aluminum. FSA/Sora components. Schwalbe Durano 25c tires. Semi aero rims (maybe... 35 mm v profile?). Has an SKS raceblade fender on the front and a "skinny" rack on the back. (It's my "commuting" road bike) And it's also my rain bike. It was drizzling that day, so I didn't take the nice bikes out. I wasn't wearing a rain jacket cause it wasn't coming down hard enough for me to want to deal with the jacket. 80PSI rear 70PSI front.
I finished the climb in 9:01.
Second ride, two days later. On my Landshark Roadshark. Steel, Dura ace 7400 components. GP 4000 II 25c tires. Not at all aero rims. (Box section essentially.) Same PSI as above.
I finished the climb in 7:51.
I tried my absolute hardest on both of them, average heart rate for both rides was 169/168 and max 187/190 respectively. So if average HR is anything to go by, I tried harder on the first ride.
The only thing that was different is that on the first ride, I had taken a few days off beforehand, whereas yesterday I did a VERY slow recovery ride. And, on the first ride I pushed the bottom section MUCH harder, so by the time I got to the top, I was done. Very done. I got smart this time around and relaxed on the flat bottom section, and had plenty of energy at the top.
Can a tiny bit of rain and a day off make up for a minute on a short climb with exactly the same effort levels? Or, does the bike really matter that much?
#3
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My best time on this climb is 43:33 @ 291W average. That was on a $700 aluminum frame.
On a separate attempt of that segment on a $3000 carbon frame, same wheels same tires, I averaged 297W and finished in 45:58. What accounts for the majority of the difference?
Wind.
On a separate attempt of that segment on a $3000 carbon frame, same wheels same tires, I averaged 297W and finished in 45:58. What accounts for the majority of the difference?
Wind.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 2,844
Bikes: '13 Spech Roubaix SL4 Expert
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 297 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Misread. The wind... yes the wind. Plus you tried a lot harder on the second attempt.
__________________
Cat 6 going on PRO....
Cat 6 going on PRO....
#5
Senior Member
on the first ride I pushed the bottom section MUCH harder, so by the time I got to the top, I was done. Very done. I got smart this time around and relaxed on the flat bottom section, and had plenty of energy at the top.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Richmond VA area
Posts: 2,618
Bikes: '00 Koga Miyata Full Pro Oval Road bike.
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
I dont argue it's the motor so I can ride older bikes, I argue it because imo, it's very true. That doesnt mean an older bike will perform as well as a newer one, but I do believe the rider makes by far the biggest difference. As the old saying went 'íf you traded bikes with Eddy Merckx, who do you think would be faster'?
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,684
Bikes: Paletti,Pinarello Monviso,Duell Vienna,Giordana XL Super,Lemond Maillot Juane.& custom,PDG Paramount,Fuji Opus III,Davidson Impulse,Pashley Guv'nor,Evans,Fishlips,Y-Foil,Softride, Tetra Pro, CAAD8 Optimo,
Mentioned: 156 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2326 Post(s)
Liked 5,012 Times
in
1,783 Posts
Proof that "steel is real"!
__________________
Steel is real...and comfy.
Steel is real...and comfy.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Posts: 6,681
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
is it the motor that matters? yes. are the bikes and conditions comparable? not even close.
#9
Farmer tan
#10
Erik the Inveigler
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The California Alps
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1310 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I have an 11-pound bike and I have a 30-pound bike (sans water in both cases). I can ride just as fast on the heavier bike (given equal gear ratios) but it takes a lot more effort overall to keep it in motion.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 2,844
Bikes: '13 Spech Roubaix SL4 Expert
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 297 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Scientifically riding in the rain is faster because water reduces the friction between the road and the tire therefore having better rolling resistance.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,475
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3375 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
But the water adheres to the tire and gets thrown into the air, creating a constant lifting action - and more energy.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
3 Posts
Which ones gonna get you to the top more often faster on a cat 3 climb? I dont think anyone disputes a 30 bike will maintain a top speed over long flat distance same as lightweight carbon.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,729
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5793 Post(s)
Liked 2,594 Times
in
1,437 Posts
You're over thinking and assigning too much to data that's full of unknown variables.
Athletes have always talked about being in "the zone", and cyclists are no different. Things like diet (both what's eaten and timing of the last meal), hydration at the start, wind direction and speed (big outside variable), temperature, sleep, rest or tiredness from prior rides, and so on can account for far more difference than the bike.
However, if one looks at the bike itself, fit makes the biggest difference, followed by tires, and gearing, then it's a big step down to all the others on short rides, though the bike's comfort can become very important on longer rides because it affects fatigue (or at least the feeling of fatigue).
In any case the difference between the two times is too large for the bikes to account for, so it points to one or more of those other unknowns. One might be as simple as your climbing strategy, wherein you were climbing smarter the 2nd time, by pacing yourself better.
-------------------
Side note.
Years (decades ago) I was trying to demonstrate that people unconsciously sabotage themselves when time trialing, and get the riders past the issue.
This was before the types of training tools we use today, so I set up a simple experiment. I laid out a short course ride which included a significant climb preceded by a 2 mile flat along which the climb could be seen and anticipated. I had the riders ride the course the first time at night where they couldn't see that far ahead (unlit country road) beyond the headlights, then repeat the ride a week later in the daytime.
Without exception all the riders were faster at night, proving (or at least I claimed so) that seeing the upcoming hill they unconsciously started backing off and saving for the climb, whereas at night they weren't mentally climbing until they reached the foot of the climb.
I bring this up here because it shows that our mental state has a big effect on how we ride, so we can add it to the list of variables.
Athletes have always talked about being in "the zone", and cyclists are no different. Things like diet (both what's eaten and timing of the last meal), hydration at the start, wind direction and speed (big outside variable), temperature, sleep, rest or tiredness from prior rides, and so on can account for far more difference than the bike.
However, if one looks at the bike itself, fit makes the biggest difference, followed by tires, and gearing, then it's a big step down to all the others on short rides, though the bike's comfort can become very important on longer rides because it affects fatigue (or at least the feeling of fatigue).
In any case the difference between the two times is too large for the bikes to account for, so it points to one or more of those other unknowns. One might be as simple as your climbing strategy, wherein you were climbing smarter the 2nd time, by pacing yourself better.
-------------------
Side note.
Years (decades ago) I was trying to demonstrate that people unconsciously sabotage themselves when time trialing, and get the riders past the issue.
This was before the types of training tools we use today, so I set up a simple experiment. I laid out a short course ride which included a significant climb preceded by a 2 mile flat along which the climb could be seen and anticipated. I had the riders ride the course the first time at night where they couldn't see that far ahead (unlit country road) beyond the headlights, then repeat the ride a week later in the daytime.
Without exception all the riders were faster at night, proving (or at least I claimed so) that seeing the upcoming hill they unconsciously started backing off and saving for the climb, whereas at night they weren't mentally climbing until they reached the foot of the climb.
I bring this up here because it shows that our mental state has a big effect on how we ride, so we can add it to the list of variables.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
Last edited by FBinNY; 05-29-17 at 09:38 PM.
#16
Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 37
Bikes: Fuji Cross Comp
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm not sure how much faith you can put into analysis containing only 2 data points. Too many other variables. Sleep, diet, hydration, overall body condition (caused by physical activity preceding your rides) all factor into the data you collected.
Repeat the experiment 5-10 times with each bike, then average the results for each bike. It won't be perfect, but it'll allow better analysis.
Repeat the experiment 5-10 times with each bike, then average the results for each bike. It won't be perfect, but it'll allow better analysis.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,204
Bikes: ...a few.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked 409 Times
in
235 Posts
A single data point is utterly meaningless, as others have already said. There are too many external factors other than the bike which can influence the results, not to mention the internal factor--the rider himself.
#18
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
HR isn't a reliable source for comparison, so I would suggest redoing the test using a power meter.
#19
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,305
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1451 Post(s)
Liked 731 Times
in
374 Posts
And run it 50 times, back to back, alternating which bike you ride first.
Better yet, recruit 50 riders to do the test while you record the data, and have only a third party , who doesn't know the hypothesis interact with the riders. ( and black out all brand identifiers o the bikes and components.)
And make sure the rider's position on each bike is exactly equal.
Then we might have the start of some useful data.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
#21
Senior Member
The bike CAN make a huge difference.
Excess hub drag, tires, riding position can dramatically slow you down. Especially on climbs, bike weight also matters. Tires especially can make a huge difference.
Excess hub drag, tires, riding position can dramatically slow you down. Especially on climbs, bike weight also matters. Tires especially can make a huge difference.