Issaquatch

I recently purchased a Cannondale Supersix, weighing in at 17.75 pounds. I live in a hilly area and my average speed on the bike was about 15.6 mph on my first few rides (each in the 20-30 mile range), which is only 1.1 mph faster than my average on my old bike, a Trek 7.3FX, on those same rides. This seemed like a paltry performance improvement given that (1) I was using caged pedals on the Trek and am using clipless pedals on the Cannondale, (2) the Cannondale weighs 11 pounds less than the Trek, (3) the Cannondale is running on 700x23 slicks and the Trek is running on 700x35 slicks, and (4) the Trek has a flat handle bar that leaves me in a fairly upright position, whereas the Cannondale puts me in a much more aerodynamic position, especially in the drops. I've already checked and confirmed that there isn't some mechanical issue at fault: the tires on both bikes are running at about 105psi, the brakes aren't rubbing the rims on either bike, and both bikes' computers are calibrated correctly.

I ran a side-by-side comparison of the bikes over the course of a few days (e.g. riding a 5 mile course on one bike, then 15 minutes later switching and riding the same loop on the other bike, and then the next day doing the same thing but switching the order in which I ride the bikes) and confirmed that these results are accurate and not the product of different weather conditions (the weather was dry on every ride), etc.

Any thoughts on this? Have others seen a more significant immediate jump in performance when switching from a bike like the Trek 7.3 or Specialized Cirrus to a true road bike? I'm having a hard time convincing myself that the true road bike is worth $3,000 and am considering returning it, though I do hate to get passed by other cyclists and it'll happen less on the new bike, but I could probably swallow my pride for $3k. Perhaps I should just get a less expensive, aluminum road bike and deal with the harsher ride.

Any ideas why the performance isn't much better? Has anyone else experienced this? If you own an expensive road bike, why did you decide to get it instead of saving the money and getting something cheaper?

uke

The rider makes the difference, not the ride.

If I were you, I'd return it and get a cheaper road bike. You'll have a lot more fun if you're not wondering why you paid so much more for so little in speed.

Tariq08

hmm when i had a trek 7.2 fx i went between 14-16, i'm up to 22-24 with my felt f4

the 7.2 was my first bike though so i probably would have gotten a little faster no matter what, but man i zoom on my f4, way faster and lighter than my hybrid, maybe you are limited by the hills

Durward_Kirby

You should have purchased a Cervalo, all of your troubles would have disappeared and the sky would part, birds would sing, a rainbow would appear and your average speed would've doubled.

Hickeydog

The rider makes a huge difference. You could put me on a Cervelo and Lance on a Wally world mountain bike and Lance will still drop my arse. However, Lance will be suffering from being incredibly uncomfortable. How long do you have before you can return the C'dale? I would ride it untill that cut off point and then make that decision. If you know you ride a lot and ride far, then I would keep the C'dale. Unless you need that cash, then return it.

MONGO!

You really thought a new bike and pedals would make you faster?

agarose2000

1.1 mpw is still significant if you're planning on racing in the future. It's up to you as to whether it's worth the cash.

For sure, you won't have the huge jump in performance that you see from mtn bike to road bike. I went from getting dropped by EVERYBODY on the road on a 35 lb knobby steel mtn bike averaging 17mph on the flats to the one doing all the dropping at 22+mph on a Cervelo P2C in one fell swoop. So it's not completely true that it's ALL the rider, but for sure, bikes of similar class (road/road, road/hybrid) make the rider much more important.

BengeBoy 

1.1 mph over a relatively short course is a significant difference, I think. I'm too lazy to grab a calculator but the "fast" bike would be several minutes ahead of the "slow" bike at the end of an hour. Or, close to a mile ahead.

Also, I think the difference would grow over a longer distance. It's not that hard to push a heavier bike fast for an hour. Try it for 7 or 8 hours and you'll see the average MPH steadily widen.

As for whether the more expensive bike was worth it -- if you thought the extra $ was going to give you more than 1.1 mph over a 20-mile course, then you already have the answer, no, it wasn't.

However, if you thought the bike was to help you enjoy riding more, get more fit, and feel more comfortable and faster on a longer ride, you're probably on target. Try a longer ride.

uke

I've always found the Platforms Are Bad, Clipless Are Good groupthink amusing. Nothing wrong with clipless pedals, but it is possible to go fast and far without 'em.

Paul Barnard

I was faster on my Windsor flat bar road bike than I am on my Specialized Tarmac. Go figure.

PlatyPius

People buy bikes to "go faster"? I thought people bought new bikes because they just wanted a new bike, or because it looked cool....

And no, I don't get the clipless=faster thing, either. My average MPH didn't change one bit when I went to clipless on my road bikes. The only thing that improved was my cornering angle.

MONGO!

I suspect user error.

The pedals themselves won't do anything and if you ride them like platforms you'll likely see no difference.

A clipless pedal allows a wider range of pedalling styles which means the ability to ride harder for longer using different muscle groups.

rm -rf

On both of these bike speed calculators, on the same bike setup, it takes almost 20% more watts to go from 14.5 mph to 15.6 mph. So your new bike is more efficient. It takes a big increase in power (or a lot more aero) to get even somewhat faster.

bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Will the nice bike help you ride longer distances, and enjoy the ride more? My rides add up to about 700 hours on the bike since I got my Orbea 2 years and 9 months ago. That's pretty cheap per-hour entertainment for me.

BarracksSi

You'll see a more significant difference when you get to 20 mph and above.

Unagidon

I like your analysis and your way of thinking. However, I suggest doing a longer ride with more hill's and then see what you think.

Try doing 50 miles and see what the difference in speed and condition (i.e. average heart rate, max heart rate, and how you feel). I think you'll see a greater difference.

wrobertdavis

Comparing AVERAGE speed is deceptive. You need to be looking at things like calories burned, acceleration, top speed, hill climbing, etc. These are where you see a big difference in a road bike and a hybrid. You will also get faster on your new bike as you adapt to it. I would think your body is in a different riding position and you are strengthening and adapting to the new position. You might also have to do some fine tuning on your fit as you adapt. I'm really surprise you cannot "feel" the difference between the bikes in terms of acceleration and top speed. I could barely go 19 mph on my original Giant hybrid and I had to work my butt off to do it. My first road bike (Specialized Roubaix) put it to shame on top speed and lower energy burned to get somewhere. My latest (Cervelo R3) is noticeably easier acceleration and hill climbing than the roubaix. If I compared average speed between the two, I doubt I would see more than 0.5 mph. But I don't get dropped anymore with the group I ride with. I keep stats on every ride I do. One thing I notice in the stats between the Cervelo and Roubaix is that the average speed is somewhat higher, but the average cadence 15-18 rpm higher.

Having said all of this, if you are not feeling the exhilaration of a new bike, then you didn't get your money's worth. When I was testing new bikes, I was told a Trek Madone was really hot. I went out and road it for an hour and it definitely was disappointing. The cervelo was absolutely a viscerally exciting experience. I get a kick out of it every time I ride it.

Bob

BarracksSi

While I'm thinking about efficiency --

Sometimes I feel like I should be riding my MTB just so I could get a better workout.

bigtea

pssst....I'll let you in on a dirty little secret that the bike manufacturers don't want you to know. Your speed (performance) does not increase at the same rate as your costs when you upgrade your bike.

This forum is full of froth about improved performance resulting from a pound saved here or aerodynamic drag shaved there. Most of it is from buyers who are rationalizing an expensive purchase.

How much more expensive was the new $3k bike than the one you had? Your speed increased by about 7.5%. I'm guessing you paid 200%-300% more for the Cannondale than the Trek.

That said, enjoy your new bike. Ride because it feels good and keeps you fit.

agarose2000

I'm actually with you on the mtn bike idea - I seriously contemplated bringing my mtn bike out to ride with the carbon fiber bikes in the intermediate tri group weekend ride since, well, it's pretty slow for an intermediate level ride, but I figured it would be more than slightly insulting to the other riders to do that when they know I have a Cervelo P2C. Will have to just find a faster group!

Doohickie

My thoughts exactly. I paid $100 for my primary ride, a late Nishiki hybrid with flat bars (it's basically NOS, bought it in August, it's at least 7 years old but never ridden before I got it). Would I love a $3000 bike? Sure! But a friend of mine just bought one, and I'm still faster* than him, especially on hills or anything to do with quick bursts.


*He has a higher top end because my biggest chain ring is only 38 teeth.

Doohickie

You want a workout? Try riding an old English 3-speed! After beating around on my Raleigh for a day or two, my hybrid fairly flies.

gonococcus

The difference in average speed becomes more apparent on longer rides. Having moved from a mountain bike to a road bike, I got faster by only 2kmh on short hilly rides. However, on longer rides, I feel like I could go on and on without tiring and it reflected in my average speed.

It had increased by a whopping 7kmh over a longer ride.

Val23708

the difference would be more noticable with more power. also, average speed is a terrible measure.

bccycleguy

I rode a metric century on my Trek 7500FX in 4 hrs 20 minutes, two years later I rode the exact same century ride on my Lemond in 3 hrs. 40 minutes (a solo effort, no drafting). Fitness levels were about the same in both cases but the ride on the Trek was on a hotter day (36d C vs 28d C) that probably had as big an influence as did the bike.

celerystalksme

many people in the cycling world would consider a 1.1 MPH increase because of equipment alone a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference worth every penny in their bank account...