squirtdad

I don't know about faster, but i have felt bikes that just feel super alive and responsive, and just feeling like they are saying..."dude get in shape, lose weight and push me hard, let's have some fun" notably my 84 Team Miyata (this is double butted, with mostly dura ace, mavic 330 and tubies) Enough so that I got an 85 (possible 86...serial numbers to t mar soon) to see if I can duplicate or get close to this with modern gear. hoping lightening strikes twice

zjrog

You mention lightning striking twice... I bought a rocket a few months ago. 92 Trek 1400, 105 group...

After some cleanup and tuning, it just BEGGED me to go... I couldn't afford these in 92, and I couldn't catch guys that rode them. But it is a size smaller than I like, and I gave it to my son in law. So I can still visit it...


I saw an ad for a never ridden 2006 CAAD8 R1000 frame. Bike was bought new and the Ultegra stuff stripped for a carbon bike build. The bare frame passed through a few hands, till I snagged it for an obscene low price. I am cheap... I spent more for the wheels, used... At a tick over 18 pounds, this is the lightest hike I have ridden, much less owned. As a Clydesdale, I never seriously worried about weight... But this is 7 pounds lighter than my old steel KHS, and I can hit 25 mph a lot quicker on the R1000 than the KHS. A lot... THIS rocket is my personal reward to myself, for losing 130 pounds, so far...

I also have a 98 Cannondale R200, but I can't really feel it is any quicker than my old KHS...

bikemig 

I've been impressed with how responsive my 1985 Cannondale ST 400 is. It is a long wheelbase bike (42 inches with 18 inch stays). My 1982 Trek 720 with the same geometry but built of Reynolds 531 tubing feels noodly compared to the 'dale. I'd take the Trek over the Cannondale for fully loaded touring trip; I used the Trek on a cross country. It was comfy and handled the weight well thanks to that long wheel base and stays. But for multi day events (like the ride I just did, Bike Ride Around Minnesota 2019), I like the ST 400 better. The 1985 catalog says that the bike has touring bike geometry and the stiffness of a race bike which is pretty much true.

Loose Chain

I definitely believe in faster and slower bikes. They are mostly faster when I am not on them and someone else is and mostly slower when I am supplying the motive force.

No really, whatever, some bikes just feel fast and the mental cues given I think improve the engines performance resulting in an actually faster bike. My sub-18 pound aluminum GT triple triangle is most decidedly faster than my Raleigh 3-speed "English" Racer and I do not care what you say. My Guerc SLX is most decidedly faster than my Bridegestone MB4 MTB. So there.

stardognine

Me too. 😎 There's a taller one in that color on the Phoenix cl. 😁😉

big chainring 

When I climb into the cockpit of my Mercier I'm strapping myself in for an exceptionally fast ride. Tires are melting, twine is shreading, leather is tearing. I'm dialed up, dialed in and dialing for dollars. The glue on my sew-ups starts to sizzle. My bell chimes 29 times for each man on the Edmond Fitzgerald. The red, white and blue bands on my Mercier look like a waving French flag as I take the checkered flag darting past a big yellow taxi. I slow down to take in the hissing of summer lawns, and a bug filled smile forms on my face. Strength + Endurance = SPEED!

audiomagnate

For me Strava records on segments near my house I do over and over again.

ldmataya 

I have some data on this topic, having used a power meter for a few years, and tracking things carefully up until about 3 years ago. At the same power, speed difference #1 is aero. Not just an aero bike/position vs upright, but also clothing, helmet, jacket, they all add up to slow you down. Difference #2 is wheel/tire/pressure. Aero is part of that equation, but just as big is quality of tire (casing) and pressure. Most people ride with too much pressure for the road conditions. Next time you notice the speed difference as you transition from a chip seal road to a smooth one you get an enhanced example of what difference tire quality and pressure can make. That speed difference I can prove by going from cheap tubulars to high quality tubeless clincher at low pressure. Difference #3 is body position and comfort. A coach at an indoor class I took a few years ago pointed out that when racers switched from a road bike to a tt/tri bike (indoors) he would typically see a 5-10% average power drop off because they had not adapted to the tt bike well. He looked at my data and noted that I did not happen to have that dropoff. But he also mentioned that switching bikes could amount to the same difference. I have no idea how much stiffness matters because any bike I had a power meter on was modern.

horatio 

Well, I wouldn't call her a rocket, but Ugly Betty proved pretty responsive tonight during my weekly speed drills. It was reminiscent of my first Basso Gap: easy to accelerate to 19-20 mph on the flats and stay there for 1-2 minutes. The handling will take some getting used to, as the steering is quite "twitchy," but I was feeling more at ease by the end of the ride. The AL fork telegraphed every road imperfection to the handlebars!

riva

That taper on that down tube.. that thing gets yuge.

horatio 

Yup. The top tube has the opposite taper. Weird, huh? I think the older straight downtubes, even though quite large, look better. I bought this bike to be a parts donor, but may leave it as-is. I need a rain bike.

audiomagnate

Here's an old one for reference, my 1990 3.0 Criterium.

fasthair

I've always liked this paint scheme on this bike. There are a few on the 'bay right now that are sadly not my size. (thankfully... I mean 6 C'Dale's are enough right... right?)

fasthair

riva

They must have done the tapers for a good reason. Couldn't have been easy to produce those tubes.

As far as the "fast" thing, my guess is a perfect storm of 12 other variables are matching up better with the given cdale frame stiffness here than other bikes with less or more stiffness. And it does match for the way some folks ride and what setup they like to run. And for some folks not so much. Anyway enough of an effect for a second or two on a ride from what we're reading here.

audiomagnate

If you read the old catalogs, those tapers were the result of computer modeling. The result was a lighter frame (2.8 pounds vs 3.0) and purportedly no loss of stiffness, although the 3.0 Crit frame is famous (and infamous) for being too stiff in the opinion of many (but not me, I think it's awesome). The lower end model had a steel fork which mitigated the jarring ride a bit.

horatio 

I'd always heard the efficiency (vis-a-vis power) was due to stiffness from the short seat stays.

noglider 

I definitely have fast bikes and slow bikes, but I don't understand why, either. My Lemond is my fastest. So here's a theory. When it has the 700c wheels, they are light, and the tires are narrow and light. I pull away from a stop, and the lightweight wheels make the bike seem light. Then when I get up to cruising speed, I happen to be in an aero position because the bars are lower than on my other bikes. At that point, it's the aero advantage that makes it fast. I get seriously better times on it than on my other bikes. But another factor is probably weighing in. Because it's fast, it's comfortable to ride at a higher level of effort. So it's not that it gives me more speed for a given effort. Rather, it encourages me to put in more effort. And the increased effort makes me go faster.

Does this make sense? It's all conjecture.

audiomagnate

That makes a lot of sense. Many times I hopped on my old 3.0 Crit racer and told myself, "no sense trying to break your Strava record on the kick around the corner, it's a long ride and you need to pace yourself." But two seconds after I clipped in that stupid grin would be on my face and I'd be giving it all I had on the very first segment after my driveway. With my more civilized Six that just doesn't happen.

qcpmsame 

Most of the old C'Dale, and other early aluminum framed bikes, was due to using straight gauge tubing. In order to achieve the same stiffness as quality steel, double butted, tube sets, they had to use large diameter aluminum tubes. with modern tube manufacturing techniques the interior profiles and the tapers visible on the outside can be manipulated. Hydro-forming allows butting and other exotic interior profiles, as well as the unique tapers being done by CIM methods. The early C'Dales had some large down tubes and top tubes, and the stays had thick walls to keep them from being noodlely.

On my CAAD 10, you can actually press the down and top tubes with your thumb and see it flex in the larger diameter sections, away from the butting at the ends. Alloys and manucturing techniques have come a really long ways since the first Klein and Cannondale big tubed, stiff feeling types. But, I agree about how the large tubed bikes were appealing to look at, I drooled over a test of a prototype Klein in 1978 Bicycling magazine for several months.

Bill

noglider 

Oh here's another theory. On my go-fast bike, I tend to wear tight-fitting cycling clothes. Not only do they cause less air drag, but because of the fit, they feel more comfortable while pedaling hard. I wouldn't call street clothes uncomfortable, but I suspect the little tugging on my body here and there is a very slight discouragement from pedaling my best.

due ruote 

iab

"Some is wasted flexing the frame"

coughcoughbull****coughcough

iab

This and what you wrote before says the most significant thing you can do to go fast is all in the mental prep. I totally buy into that.

For many, a bike can trigger that drive. For me, it depends on who I'm riding with. One day I can be plooting along with some folks and the next I'm with a bunch of hammerheads doing a pr with the same bike.

stardognine

Eggzactly why I like the early overbuilt ones. They really are pretty much bullet-proof. 👍

HPL

I have the same problem; very hot outside, take it easy; but NO! Got heat exhaustion from that once! I have to ride the 55 lb Raleigh 3 speed to "go slow" for me (13-15 MPH); then I put some toe clips on it and away I go again; I put LOOK pedals one it one time for an informal "bike shop criterium" (and I mean informal; everything to my 3 speed to tandems, all ages, and a pub stop [well for me anyways, others waited to finish]) and ended up beating quite a few (adult riders) on race frames when I was just "mucking about" (I think they were also!). I don't think I averaged 20 MPH (probably 17-18 with stops included; many "sprints" out of the saddle to beat traffic lights), but I rode over 20 miles on it and didn't realize the distance covered or time elapsed. Rode it like the "Wicked Witch of the West", a little hunched over with a purpose in mind! What bike did she ride in that movie? Margaret Hamilton, I think.

Certainly my best times/speed come on any bike that I've got set up for my body to be in a good aerodynamic racing posture, and staying in the drops as much as my back and wrists can handle; it doesn't seem to matter much on the weight (20-22 pounders) since I tend to turn at the same crank rpm's on any race bike I have given the same gear ratio(s). I don't usually ride with a cycling shirt so I'm sure that the clothing fit would help or hinder depending on what I wear. When doing my interval or TT type rides I'll always wear the body hugging attire.

Hard to go slow!