Originally Posted by beng1
(Post 22600612)
Personal attacks ARE against the forum rules, commenting on the subject at hand is not, and if a comment does not happen to align with your personal opinions, that is no excuse for YOU or anyone else to begin personal attacks, but that seems to be the norm for at least half the regular population here.
Originally Posted by beng1
(Post 22598920)
Sure you might enjoy them. If you are not that strong, in that good a shape, are a very tiny person, or are a senior citizen....
|
Originally Posted by beng1
(Post 22600612)
You and a bunch of other guys should try discussing the topic on hand, instead of hijacking threads every day and switching the subject to me??? Maybe you all can find a room in a forum somewhere and start a specific thread on me instead of littering and hijacking this forum and every thread I comment in with negative personal comments??? It is a commentary on the moderation of this forum that they let you guys keep dumping this trash into this forum every day of the week. Personal attacks ARE against the forum rules, commenting on the subject at hand is not, and if a comment does not happen to align with your personal opinions, that is no excuse for YOU or anyone else to begin personal attacks, but that seems to be the norm for at least half the regular population here.
This one ranks right up near the top of that ignominious pile of offal. "Dumping this trash into this forum" indeed. |
Hey, it turns out somebody just did the test of an old TT bike vs a modern aero bike. Small front wheel, tiny head tube ultra low bars. No real choice of position, just down on the bullhorns.
Which bike do you suppose won? Oh, and extra coolness factor (for me anyhow) - the TT bike is a Battaglin. |
Originally Posted by beng1
(Post 22598294)
In my town there are dozens of cyclists riding around on high-end and new racing style bicycles, many of them wearing racing style clothes who are slow casual riders. Why did they dump thousands into their bike and clothing? For the same reason they bought luxury automobiles and SUVs, daily-wear designer clothing and other trendy and fashionable consumer goods, and that is they need it as either jewelry for their egos in a flawed attempt to give empty shallow lives meaning. It is not their fault, it is just a feature of the society they have spent their lives in, which has brainwashed them since birth to believe that anything can be bought, and even that there is no other way to get anything except with dollars, and if it is not gotten with dollars then it is not a solution worth considering.
Originally Posted by beng1
(Post 22600612)
You and a bunch of other guys should try discussing the topic on hand, instead of hijacking threads every day and switching the subject to me??? Maybe you all can find a room in a forum somewhere and start a specific thread on me instead of littering and hijacking this forum and every thread I comment in with negative personal comments??? It is a commentary on the moderation of this forum that they let you guys keep dumping this trash into this forum every day of the week. Personal attacks ARE against the forum rules, commenting on the subject at hand is not, and if a comment does not happen to align with your personal opinions, that is no excuse for YOU or anyone else to begin personal attacks, but that seems to be the norm for at least half the regular population here.
So let's see, was the empty shallow lives and brainwashing of people who buy things you don't approve of the topic of this thread? You're engaging in trolling 101, a vicious attack on a group of people, none of them specifically named, so that you can pretend to be the wronged party when people don't take kindly to it. |
Originally Posted by beng1
(Post 22598294)
In my town there are dozens of cyclists riding around on high-end and new racing style bicycles, many of them wearing racing style clothes who are slow casual riders. Why did they dump thousands into their bike and clothing? For the same reason they bought luxury automobiles and SUVs, daily-wear designer clothing and other trendy and fashionable consumer goods, and that is they need it as either jewelry for their egos in a flawed attempt to give empty shallow lives meaning. It is not their fault, it is just a feature of the society they have spent their lives in, which has brainwashed them since birth to believe that anything can be bought, and even that there is no other way to get anything except with dollars, and if it is not gotten with dollars then it is not a solution worth considering.
Now just imagine if one could have nice things as well as a fulfilling life filled with success, family and good friends. Dream and it may come true for you as it has for many others. |
Originally Posted by beng1
(Post 22600612)
You and a bunch of other guys should try discussing the topic on hand, instead of hijacking threads every day and switching the subject to me??? Maybe you all can find a room in a forum somewhere and start a specific thread on me instead of littering and hijacking this forum and every thread I comment in with negative personal comments??? It is a commentary on the moderation of this forum that they let you guys keep dumping this trash into this forum every day of the week. Personal attacks ARE against the forum rules, commenting on the subject at hand is not, and if a comment does not happen to align with your personal opinions, that is no excuse for YOU or anyone else to begin personal attacks, but that seems to be the norm for at least half the regular population here.
|
Originally Posted by koala logs
(Post 22600519)
I saw a picture of your old setup. You may have over did the downward tilt . You don't need that big downward tilt unless your butt is sliding backward when pedaling. If not, it's only causing discomfort and not really making you make more power.
Originally Posted by WhyFi
(Post 22600535)
Timtak has no grounds for complaining about discussion or comparison to time trials, UCI or not - he's the one that introduced pro time trialing to the conversation, saying that pros rode setups like his when TTing.
I ride in my time trial style because my ride is a time trial. Both the instances of "time trial" in that sentence do not refer to pros.
Originally Posted by 70sSanO
(Post 22600626)
This is the actual topic at hand. The true answer is that a typical bicycle consumer is better riding a new bike than a 44 year old steel bike with a 5 speed freewheel and friction shifters. Whether or not the new bike contains carbon has no impact. Riding position, financial status, fitness level and all the other s#*t that has been posted is not relevant to the topic.
1) these improvements were small compared to those achievable by rider position changes 2) these improvements were accompanied by changes that made rider position less aerodynamic (such as, perhaps, compact bars and a higher wheel base) I do mean if. I would like tempocyclist to try lower bars on his Trek. |
Originally Posted by timtak
(Post 22601081)
I think it is the limiting of certain phrases to UCI time trials that I find burdensome.
I ride in my time trial style because my ride is a time trial. Both the instances of "time trial" in that sentence do not refer to pros. |
Originally Posted by timtak
(Post 22601081)
Yes...I was told I may have overdone the tilt at the time (and subsequently) so in an uncharacteristic bow to peer pressure, I moved my saddle to be more level, but did not notice a difference in comfort, or power. Years later the UCI changed their time trial bike slope restriction allowing slopes of 9 or 10 %. If I remake my Frankenbike I will try both..
The new UCI limit on saddle tilt may have been the result of saddle designs with upward sloping rear. The slope would have factored in even if the rest of the saddle is level. However, despite the new rule, Most pro racers still use level saddle even on TT. Even ISM, one of the popular makers of saddles for TT bikes recommends a "level" setting for their saddle, (not including the back slope). Negative tilt is only necessary if sliding backward and/or having lower back pains when riding at tempo. Arm pressure would have be dealt with changes in saddle fore and aft position, reach/stack, body weight, and even back posture. |
Originally Posted by genejockey
(Post 22600957)
Hey, it turns out somebody just did the test of an old TT bike vs a modern aero bike. Small front wheel, tiny head tube ultra low bars. No real choice of position, just down on the bullhorns. Which bike do you suppose won?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5mlqUhhYmA Oh, and extra coolness factor (for me anyhow) - the TT bike is a Battaglin. I think that I could set up a frankenbike somewhat similar to the Battaglin but with narrower handlebars, similar tyres (to the "superbike"), brifters, and a standard 700c front wheel, by adding a long negatively angled stem to a second hand carbon or steel bike for about 500UKP. The Ribble costs 4000UKP. Perhaps I could get one simliar half price second hand. The Ribble looks like it would be very difficult to maintain. Based upon that video, I don't feel inclined to purchase a Ribble but I respect that many would.
Originally Posted by WhyFi
(Post 22601088)
Again - YOU introduced pro time trialists by saying that they rode like you. If that discussion is burdensome, you have only yourself to blame.
Originally Posted by koala logs
(Post 22601105)
If you did not notice a difference in comfort and the arm pressure remained the same, you may have also set the saddle too forward. The new UCI limit on saddle tilt may have been the result of saddle designs with upward sloping rear. The slope would have factored in even if the rest of the saddle is level. However, despite the new rule, Most pro racers still use level saddle even on TT. Even ISM, one of the popular makers of saddles for TT bikes recommends a "level" setting for their saddle, (not including the back slope). Negative tilt is only necessary if sliding backward and/or having lower back pains when riding at tempo. Arm pressure would have be dealt with changes in saddle fore and aft position, reach/stack, body weight, and even back posture.
|
Originally Posted by timtak
(Post 22601131)
Thanks. That was interesting. The difference in speed was, if they were both doing 40Kmh for the full 8km time trial and 22s and 45s differences, 3 and 6 percent, depending on the rider. I would be lucky to get a 2% difference I guess.
I think that I could set up a frankenbike somewhat similar to the Battaglin but with narrower handlebars, similar tyres (to the "superbike"), brifters, and a standard 700c front wheel, by adding a long negatively angled stem to a second hand carbon or steel bike for about 500UKP. The Ribble costs 4000UKP. Perhaps I could get one simliar half price second hand. The Ribble looks like it would be very difficult to maintain. Based upon that video, I don't feel inclined to purchase a Ribble but I respect that many would. The point is, you don't have to go to all that trouble, because making the "Funny Bike" doesn't get you anything. You could be just as fast, maybe faster, on a modern aero bike. So, your whole argument that modern aero bikes are unaerodynamic is clearly nonsense. Big Bike and the Demon UCI are not forcing/seducing the bike buying public into buying unaerodynamic bikes to mimic their Pro Tour heros, leading them to be - shame of all shames! - comfortable! But of course, you're free to build your bike any way that you want. Go crazy. But just know that you're not really getting much advantage over the guy who goes into the bike shop and buys the Latest And Greatest. |
Originally Posted by genejockey
(Post 22601156)
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...be313eb6cc.gif
The point is, you don't have to go to all that trouble, because making the "Funny Bike" doesn't get you anything. You could be just as fast, maybe faster, on a modern aero bike.
Originally Posted by genejockey
(Post 22601156)
But of course, you're free to build your bike any way that you want. Go crazy. But just know that you're not really getting much advantage over the guy who goes into the bike shop and buys the Latest And Greatest.
And when you say "build" I am talking about a foward offset seat post and a very long stem (and narrow bars if it does not have them). It is a "build" that takes (if the wires are long enough, and they often are since the bards go down as well as fowards) 20 minutes or less.
Originally Posted by genejockey
(Post 22601156)
So, your whole argument that modern aero bikes are unaerodynamic is clearly nonsense. Big Bike and the Demon UCI are not forcing/seducing the bike buying public into buying unaerodynamic bikes to mimic their Pro Tour heros, leading them to be - shame of all shames! - comfortable!
1) They did seem to be having issues with the gear changing which may have slowed them on the funny bike 2) They claimed that the tires may have 10 watts less efficient 3) The time trial was very short, which may have enabled them to use the uncomfortable looking compact hooks on the Ribble 4) They had wide bars on their funny bike whereas I have or fit narrow bars to mine 5) They both ride aero road bikes and it is quite possible the only time the have ridden the funny bike was on the two runs, for which the breakdown of the two times were not given. If they had more time to get use to the funny bike and the riding position that it might have encouraged (given the chance to get used ot it) the funny bike might have done better. 6) The two GCN guys are I THINK (presumably being paid to be) on the Ribble page advertising the super-bike which may suggest a conflict of interest! https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/ribble-ultra-sl-r/ Tim |
There seems to be no limit to this guy's obtusiveness.
|
Originally Posted by timtak
(Post 22601180)
I think that it is you who is missing the point, of the thread, gene, which is regarding whether the modern aero bike is a bad bargain. Assessments will depend on income but, if you can get to within 3 percent of the modern aero bike for 1/8 to 1/4 of the cost then that that his bang on the point of the thread.
What you have missed is that cycling aerodynamics is not as simple as you think. For example, the arms and legs are particular draggy, accounting for respectively 25% and 50% of the body drag, followed by the head, 15%. So it really helps exposing less of the arms to the air flow. The funny bike and your setup is the opposite, so they are not that aero really. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by timtak
(Post 22601081)
I think it is the limiting of certain phrases to UCI time trials that I find burdensome.
|
Originally Posted by StargazeCyclist
(Post 22601191)
3 percent speed is actually great difference, about 10% in terms of CdA because power is proportional to cube of speed. Indeed the funny bike would be closer to a road bike than a time trial bike in terms of aero.
What you have missed is that cycling aerodynamics is not as simple as you think. For example, the arms and legs are particular draggy, accounting for respectively 25% and 50% of the body drag, followed by the head, 15%. So it really helps exposing less of the arms to the air flow. The funny bike and your setup is the opposite, so they are not that aero really. I am not sure about how simple my thoughts regarding aerodynamics are (or how you'd know), but.... body - 50% -25% -15% leaves only 10% for the torso. That does surprise me. Thank you. I would be grateful of your source. Oh, and I tried a fairing but mine did not help. WPHamilton has better fairings. https://live.staticflickr.com/7543/1...515f244226.jpg Did not Work: Covers a large part of my body by Timothy Takemoto, on Flickr https://live.staticflickr.com/7483/1...7f60260b0b.jpgDid not work: Motorcycle Windshield on Road bike by Timothy Takemoto, on Flickr Tim |
Show us on the doll where the UCI hurt you. Is the UCI in the room with us right now?
|
The other thing is that “Maximum Aero” isn’t the only thing that determines a “fast” ride; just your maximum speed, on a flat, straight-ish closed course (or low-traffic road). Sure, being aerodynamically efficient is important when you’re out by yourself in the wind; just look at Triathletes or long-distance riders like RAAM racers. They do it to ride as efficiently as possible, conserving energy is the goal, speed is the by-product.
Sure, the vintage TT bike is almost as fast as a ‘super bike’ on a short course, but what if you have to climb Mt Ventoux? The funny bike would get dropped at the bottom of the the hill. GCN has done a number of those old-v-new comparisons, they usually put the stronger rider on the old bike to see if the new tech bike gives the advantage to the lesser rider. In the world of everyday riding, ie; not racing; there are a lot of factors that prevent us from simply pursuing Vmax for the entire duration of our ride, like traffic, turns/navigation, terrain features or surface transitions means that the most effective bike may not be the fastest. I posted a summary of my experience of what I’d found when I compared a couple years’ worth of rides commuting to work and the discovery that 3 of the 5 fastest times were recorded on the bike with the lowest top speed. Since the professor said he didn’t understand what the significance of that was, let me elaborate: The fastest bike, both in terms of elapsed time, and top speed, was (not surprising) my banned-by-the-UCI SoftRide road bike. (Recorded Vmax 25 mph) What was surprisingly was the bike that held the remaining 3 of the 5 fastest rides; It wasn’t the vintage Bridgestone touring bike (Vmax 22 mph). It was, get this; my mountain bike. Despite running out of gears at 18.5 mph, it recorded a moving average speed within 0.5 mph of bikes that were able to attain higher peak speeds. Granted, it’s a Cannondale F-1000, a 90s era lightweight XC bike, which is very different from a modern ‘big wheel’ trail bike, but also very different from the 1970s touring bike and late 2000s road racer I used in my comparison. Why is this significant? Because on a given ride, the bike capable of dealing with all the conditions one will encounter will be the most effective: “speed” will be the byproduct. In my case, the route combined a number of segments of MUP with surface streets, and cut through a college campus, the MTBs ability to negotiate a carry speed through many sharp corners and surface transitions meant it lost less speed than the road bikes, and that Vmax was less of a factor in achieving a “good “ time for the route. https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...98be6949f.jpeg |
Originally Posted by timtak
(Post 22601131)
The saddle on my funny frankenbike was pretty level in the centre, which was the part upon which I rode. If I put it back together I will try a few saddle angles.
If you can get in a good posture, you can almost unload your arms in the TT posture even if the saddle is slammed forward. The back needs to stay convex and having shorter reach helps make it easier. That's probably one other reason why pros use undersized frames. Curving your back into a convex requires decent back flexibility though. If you can almost touch your toes with the legs straight, that is good enough flexibility. You don't need to be able to touch your toes to get in the right posture. It helps to more flexible of course but you don't need to be super flexible. |
Originally Posted by Ironfish653
(Post 22601289)
The other thing is that “Maximum Aero” isn’t the only thing that determines a “fast” ride; just your maximum speed, on a flat, straight-ish closed course (or low-traffic road). Sure, being aerodynamically efficient is important when you’re out by yourself in the wind; just look at Triathletes or long-distance riders like RAAM racers. They do it to ride as efficiently as possible, conserving energy is the goal, speed is the by-product.
Sure, the vintage TT bike is almost as fast as a ‘super bike’ on a short course, but what if you have to climb Mt Ventoux? The funny bike would get dropped at the bottom of the the hill. GCN has done a number of those old-v-new comparisons, they usually put the stronger rider on the old bike to see if the new tech bike gives the advantage to the lesser rider. In the world of everyday riding, ie; not racing; there are a lot of factors that prevent us from simply pursuing Vmax for the entire duration of our ride, like traffic, turns/navigation, terrain features or surface transitions means that the most effective bike may not be the fastest. I posted a summary of my experience of what I’d found when I compared a couple years’ worth of rides commuting to work and the discovery that 3 of the 5 fastest times were recorded on the bike with the lowest top speed. Since the professor said he didn’t understand what the significance of that was, let me elaborate: The fastest bike, both in terms of elapsed time, and top speed, was (not surprising) my banned-by-the-UCI SoftRide road bike. (Recorded Vmax 25 mph) What was surprisingly was the bike that held the remaining 3 of the 5 fastest rides; It wasn’t the vintage Bridgestone touring bike (Vmax 22 mph). It was, get this; my mountain bike. Despite running out of gears at 18.5 mph, it recorded a moving average speed within 0.5 mph of bikes that were able to attain higher peak speeds. Granted, it’s a Cannondale F-1000, a 90s era lightweight XC bike, which is very different from a modern ‘big wheel’ trail bike, but also very different from the 1970s touring bike and late 2000s road racer I used in my comparison. Why is this significant? Because on a given ride, the bike capable of dealing with all the conditions one will encounter will be the most effective: “speed” will be the by product. In my case, the route combined a number of segments of MUP with surface streets, and cut through a college campus, the MTBs ability to negotiate a carry speed through many sharp corners and surface transitions meant it lost less speed than the road bikes, and that Vmax was less of a factor in achieving a “good “ time for the route. But..
Originally Posted by Ironfish653
(Post 22601289)
Sure, the vintage TT bike is almost as fast as a ‘super bike’ on a short course, but what if you have to climb Mt Ventoux?
IF it is true that the vintage, and imho replicable, TT bike is almost as fast as very very expensive 'super ' costing thousands of dollars more is quite an amazing discovery that hits the point of this thread on the head and should imho be shouted from the rooftops.
Originally Posted by koala logs
(Post 22601335)
You might also try shortening the reach. If you're having difficulty curving your back especially the lower back (lumbar) into a convex, the back is either almost completely flat or concave and you can't make your shoulders perpendicular against your back while forearm is horizontal on the hoods, you are probably overstretched.
If you can get in a good posture, you can almost unload your arms in the TT posture even if the saddle is slammed forward. The back needs to stay convex and having shorter reach helps make it easier. That's probably one other reason why pros use undersized frames. Curving your back into a convex requires decent back flexibility though. If you can almost touch your toes with the legs straight, that is good enough flexibility. You don't need to be able to touch your toes to get in the right posture. It helps to more flexible of course but you don't need to be super flexible.
Originally Posted by genejockey
(Post 22601282)
Is the UCI in the room with us right now?
I have felt that, and asked whether, Kapusta might be a UCI sponsoring bike shop stakeholder. You, Gene, do not give me that impression, but I really don't know. I would like to know which of the forum members are in a room with the UCI (sponsoring bike makers).
Originally Posted by genejockey
(Post 22601282)
Show us on the doll where the UCI hurt you.
Having been the victim of sexual abuse is surprisingly common. I was surprised, though I can't remember the percentage. When I was 11 years old I used to go to the London Science Museum on my own. One day, close to closing, a bloke (30-50) asked me if I would like to have some fun in the toilets with him, as he had just been doing with some kids "about your age." We walked down a deserted stairwell together, behind the giant pendulum, past some public toilets with me saying "no thanks I have to get home." When I got home my parents called the police, and after recounting my experience, the policeman took my parents aside and said "sometimes children make these things up", as they told me afterwards. This got me to thinking, especially when pendulums started occurring in my nightmares, if kids make these things up then perhaps, as Gene says, I was sexually abused in a way that I can't express, without a doll. |
Originally Posted by timtak
(Post 22601375)
I have felt that, and asked whether, Kapusta might be a UCI sponsoring bike shop stakeholder..
This obsession with UCI is yours and nobody else’s. I have little interest in them. |
Originally Posted by timtak
(Post 22601180)
My argument that group ride bikes (such as the Ribble) in the video may be unaerodynamic may be proved incorrect. I am still not entirely sure however since
... 3) The time trial was very short, which may have enabled them to use the uncomfortable looking compact hooks on the Ribble The drops/hooks position exposes more of your arms to the wind, and as far as the wind is concerned, arms are round cylinders. High drag. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...98a24f117d.png |
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged
(Post 22601042)
I guess if I am forced to live a empty and shallow life I would prefer to have it filled with really nice things.
Now just imagine if one could have nice things as well as a fulfilling life filled with success, family and good friends. Dream it and it and it may come true for you as it has for many others. |
If you didn't already have an old bike, would you rather drop a few thousand dollars / euros on a retro steel bike with old components which is slightly worse in every single way than on a modern bike with modern kit which is going to cost a similar amount for a spec with something like 105? The retro bike is the bad bargain.
Just the relatively recent innovation, tubeless paired with new wheels without nipple holes and made to standards, makes any faff with tires a distant memory. On my local cyclist FB group there are always post ride photos of oldtimers changing tubes on group rides. Many of the advancements are not aimed at people pursuing a competitive edge but for typical riders. Wider road tires, disc brakes, wider gear ranges with lower ratios... |
Originally Posted by Branko D
(Post 22601551)
Many of the advancements are not aimed at people pursuing a competitive edge but for typical riders. Wider road tires, disc brakes, wider gear ranges with lower ratios...
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.