mschwett 

yep. for someone like me who isn't involved in competitive events, the value of a "better" bike is to me the pleasure it brings, plus any associated factors like reliability or durability. some people like burning their calories while pedaling flat out at 45mph on a road bike slightly downhill, some like to burn those calories going 8mph up a steep grade. you can also burn a lot of calories working against the resistance of a crappy bike!

PeteHski

Exactly right. You have the same “engine” powering all of these different bikes, so it shouldn’t be a big surprise that your average power/effort is the same when riding all of them. But Happy Feet doesn’t understand this basic concept. He appears to think that you have to ride your more efficient bikes “harder” to get the same exercise. He has even suggested that pros train on heavier bikes just to get more exercise.

PeteHski

This is where you get confused every time. The weight or efficiency of your bike has nothing to do with cadence or effort. You don’t pedal at a higher cadence on a lightweight bike with a wide gear range. That would only apply to a single speed of the same ratio on both bikes.

PeteHski

AFAIK, nobody is missing your above point or arguing that it isn't true. Feel free to point out those who disagree, because I don't see anyone.

However, where your argument goes totally off the rails is when you try to bring physics into the debate to "prove" that lighter, more efficient bikes have to be ridden "harder, with more effort" than less efficient bikes just because the "resistance is lower". This is just plain wrong and your refusal to accept it will only lead to more and more people "attacking" your false assertions. A number of people have attempted to explain where you are going wrong with your understanding of the physics, but you always refuse to listen and state the same nonsense with various flawed analogies. It's not really a matter of debate. That would be like debating whether or not Newton's laws of motion are valid.

If you really do enjoy a spirited debate, then a good starting point would be for you to understand how gearing plays a very important part in how "hard" or "easy" various bikes are to ride. A far more important part than bike weight or efficiency. Bikes in general are geared in relation to their intended usage. For example a relatively heavy mountain bike with fat knobbly tyres will come with a much lower set of gear ratios than an equivalent road bike. Similarly, a super-aero TT bike will come with higher gears than a regular road bike. While the resistance and hence speed on the road varies widely between these different types of bike, the input required to ride them (cadence and power) is pretty much the same across the board. That's the whole point of gears.

So if exercise is your main priority, then buying a bike with the appropriate gearing for your ability and terrain is by far the most important consideration. Also if you happen to live somewhere mountainous or with very steep hills, then you might want to consider spending more money on a lighter bike and/or very low gearing, otherwise there is a very real chance you will be forced to walk up those hills. For example I run a compact 50-34 chainset with an 11-34 cassette on my 8.5 kg road bike, just so I can climb the 20%+ slopes on my local loops. If I had an 11-28 or bigger chainrings I might not make it over some of those climbs. But I can climb such gradients with ease on my 13 kg mtb simply because it has a 30T chainring and 11-50T cassette. The input effort required on any bike is pretty much all about the gearing and not about the weight - in a non-competitive situation. Does that make sense?

ofajen

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. This figure is from an article by Rainer Privit that can be found on Sheldon Brown’s website. It shows the total power requirement for riding different types of bikes as a function of speed. All measurements are on level ground with no wind. The difference is largely a matter of the frontal surface area of biker and bike.




At a given speed, it can take much more power on the upright bike, for example. At a given power, the more aero bikes will go much faster.

Otto

PeteHski

Yes, you just read across the graph for your average power output. So if you are a 200W average power rider, then you are going to be riding at around 25 kph on a Dutch upright or 35 kph on an aero race bike.

ofajen

Not the only factor, but a benefit of using touring bars on my MTB is that I can ride our local trails at a fairly sane speed and still get a decent workout.

Otto

Happy Feet

Yes it does and I don't disagree but you tend to be arguing in terms of theory instead of practicality. I understand the theoretical ways that varying forms of exercise and machinery can be equated but I also understand the real world way in which many/most people engage in exercise. For example; People who cycle for exercise, and not for cycling sake, generally do not travel at the speeds in which a race oriented bike performs the same work as a less efficient bike. When you approach that level of riding it becomes an interest in itself and not just exercise. When people start thinking of cadence, pacelines etc... Earlier in the thread someone mentioned extremely fast riders using drogues to remain in a group with less capable riders. That is something the average person looking to cycling for exercise just doesn't do. It would be something someone who engages in cycling for cycling sake might.

In the same way, theoretically, modern mountain bikes allow riders to take huge jumps and get massive air, but practically, the average MTB rider is not doing that. In the same spirit I would argue that buying an expensive top tier mountain bike for average use is overkill for the average rider. You might then argue that the top tier bike could be ridden in an average way (and wonder why I don't see that) but my response would be you are paying a premium for a bike that you have to ride in a sub optimal way to perform what a more average bike can competently do. We would go back and forth, you arguing the theoretical possibility and I pointing out the practical reality.

I prefer the term less efficient rather than heavier because weight is not the only consideration. Top tier bikes also have other design features like more efficient rolling surfaces, narrower range cassettes, parts made of composite materials and smoother more precise shifting. All of these features (maybe more?) contribute to better performance on race day but add nothing to the average person seeking cycling as a form of exercise. They would gain just as much benefit on a less efficient bike and save a lot of money in the process. As far as exercise goes the more modest priced bike provides everything (in terms of exercise) that they need at a lower price. Does that last sentence make sense? If so, that's what I've been saying.

I understand the physics but the theoretical possibility doesn't change that last statement. Your argument that one can ride a top tier bike in a way that equals the exercise gained from a less efficient bike is theoretically true, but avoids looking at the real world way the average person approaches exercise. They don't ride or approach cycling like a racing cyclist.

tomato coupe

You didn't even mention that point until you had made at least 20 posts in this thread. But, it's never too late to move the goal posts ...

Happy Feet

This is an interesting graphic for a different reason as well, looking at it from a different perspective.

If the goal is utility riding - going to the store/cafe, commuting etc... is there any benefit from a more efficient/expensive form of bicycle (like a road bike)? No. That is why, in most countries that use bikes for utility purposes, the dutch style bike is dominant. It finds the sweet spot between cost, utility geometry and necessary efficiency. Theoretically you can use a road bike to do this activity by compensating but, if that bike costs more and has to be ridden in a different way most people will choose not to use one.

If the goal is racing - competitive riding or cycling as a sport in itself... the dutch style loses out to the more efficient road bike and, the average road bike loses out to the top tier bike because the greater efficiency of the latter means the rider gains a competitive edge. Everything thing is designed so that (riders being equal) the bike goes a little faster.

If the goal is only exercise, that competitive edge, that one pays a premium for with a top tier bike, provides no extra value for the rider related to the goal. The rider is not competing and does not need to go "faster" than his peers. In fact, practically speaking, they want to maintain an equal pace if they ride with others. As with the drogue statement earlier, the person on the top tier bike may even have to do something to offset the bikes efficiency to remain with his peers. Yes, they can ride the top tier bike in a way that gives just as good a workout as the less efficient road bike but one could not say that top tier bike is the "sweet spot" in terms of what is needed to gain the goal, if you add cost to that equation (which most average exercise cyclists tend to do). If we look at cost/benefit related to the goal, the efficiencies of a top tier bike are an unnecessary expenditure.

Happy Feet

At first we were just talking about running. These points are all the same ones I have consistently made in this and other threads.

So you have something substantive to add? You agree with that sentence? Or are you just sniping?

If you agree. Then the whole premise makes sense. The top tier bike adds efficiencies you pay a premium for that you don't need if exercise is your primary goal.

Sure you can ride that bike faster/harder/longer to make up for those efficiencies but you pay more for that privilege and the average exercise motivated cyclist doesn't want to do that (pay more, ride harder/longer/faster). Budgets, road safety, time constraints etc... are all real world considerations.

tomato coupe

You made several non-sensical statements about cycling (NOT running) before you introduced the issue of cost. You can try to move the goal post, but you can't whitewash what you have written.

Happy Feet

Sure. Sure. Sure.

My consistent points: If the goal is exercise, and not cycling for cycling sake, beyond a certain point, a more efficient bike provides mechanical advantages that you pay a premium for and have to compensate for in comparison to a less efficient bike.

Let's say we have two bikes: an average quality road bike (bike A) and the more efficient race oriented bike (bike B).

For both we will input 200watts

Pete's argument was that you put in the same watts but just go faster on the more efficient bike. True. but in the real world how does that look?

If at 200watts you go 20mph on bike A and 30mph on bike B...

If you are exercising based on time: one will have to ride a 20 mile course to get an hours workout on bike A and a 30 mile course on bike B. To compensate for the efficiency of bike B you have to increase the length of the course to get the same workout as A.

If you are riding a set course: one will get 1/3 less of a workout riding bike B (finishes 1/3 faster requiring 1/3 less input). You have to compensate for the efficiency by riding 1/3 longer.

If you are riding with a group using bikes similar to bike A: the bike A rider gets an equal workout. The bike B rider gets 1/3 less. You have to compensate for the efficiency by riding 1/3 longer beyond the group.

In the real world most people who aim at exercise (and not sport) look to pre determined times, distances or groups to set their goals. In those three scenarios you have to ride further/faster to compensate for the efficiencies in bike B.

PeteHski

The above (and there are plenty more examples!) strongly suggests that you don't actually understand the physics here. You keep focusing on resistance without realising that gearing compensates for it on most bikes. Singlespeeds are an exception, but in general more efficient bikes are ridden at the same effort in a higher gear. Different riding terrain might well affect your effort, but not so much the bike as long as it has the appropriate range of gears.

Happy Feet

Read post 188. it's all there. Faster, harder, longer distance... just various ways one compensates for the ease afforded by efficiencies.

What you are trying to argue is that, all things being equal, an extremely efficient bike can require, or allow, the same effort as a moderately efficient one. If that were so why would anyone buy them? Answer: those efficiencies are translated into increased speeds. I get it. Highly efficient bikes produce high speeds - good for racing.

However, from and exercise perspective, you don't seem to understand that many people don't want increased speeds. They want a workout. You say you can get an equal workout by going faster but, beyond a certain point, the average exercise oriented rider doesn't want to go that fast. Either because they perceive it as risky or because they want to stay with their group. For the average exercise oriented rider, the efficiencies that produce those speeds are not required or even desired.

With a highly efficient bike you pay a premium to produce higher speeds. For exercise, you do not need to produce higher speeds. You are paying more for something that is not intrinsic to the goal of exercise. It's intrinsic to the goal of racing.

PeteHski

Well okay, at least this is theoretically correct. Of course you have to ride for a longer distance if you want the same exercise time on a much faster bike. We went over that with the cycling vs running argument. It is obvious that if your average speed is higher, then you cover more distance in a fixed time. Nobody is going to ever argue with that! But anyone who is riding purely for exercise will be doing so on a time basis right? Like for example if I go mountain biking for an hour or road biking for an hour, I pick appropriate courses to finish both in an hour. My mountain bike course might only by 10 km long, while my road course might be 30 km. It really doesn't matter as long as it takes the amount of time I had in mind at the effort level I wanted.

I agree with your point about riding in a group. If your bike is wayyyyy more efficient than everyone else's bike then you get less exercise than everyone else in the group. But in practical terms everyone in your group is highly likely to be riding bikes very similar to your own. There will be some small variations, but unlikely to make much difference overall. It's not like you are going to rock up to a fast paced road group ride on your full suspension mtb enduro rig unless you want to get dropped or you have massive power compared to everyone else in the group. People tend to ride in groups with the same kind of bike.

PeteHski

Yeah, but it doesn't validate your other comments. Earlier you were arguing that you had to ride a more efficient bike harder to get the same exercise, which is just not true. Now you are bringing in other qualifiers like riding in a group who have far less efficient bikes than you. That is called moving the goalposts.

PeteHski

Sorry? Where did you get the impression that I don't understand that many people don't want increased speeds? I see people riding all sorts of slow bikes on the road every day. If people want to ride faster, then they buy faster bikes right? If they are not bothered how fast they ride then they might buy a more upright bike with fat tyres etc for comfort. None of this has any impact on how "hard" they may decide to ride for their exercise. What I do tend to see in the real world are guys on fast bikes riding hard (because they are usually pretty serious about riding and probably racers) and guys on slow bikes cruising along. That's kind of how it pans out don't you think? It's not often you see someone hammering on a cruiser bike, even though they could if they wanted to.

PeteHski

Going faster is simply a by-product of riding at the same effort on a more efficient bike. That's ALL I was saying, but earlier you were making multiple assertions that you had to ride a more efficient bike harder for the same exercise. From your last couple of posts I suspect you have finally realised this is not true. There's no need to put in qualifiers like riding in some fictional group where everyone else is riding less efficient bikes or being scared of riding slightly faster.

PeteHski

Is anyone actually arguing against this viewpoint? Can you name even one poster?

As group riding is now under discussion, has it occurred to you that a weaker rider in that group might need a more efficient bike to actually ride with them? It works both ways.

Branko D

Aha, now I understand the confusion!

The bikes most of us have are geared and you can use this contraption called a shifter to change the resistance of the pedals. Most riders do this all the time, practically subconsciously, to maintain a comfortable balance of resistance. So in practice, on geared bikes, the exercise stimulus is the same between different bikes, it's just that the more efficient one goes faster.

No, seriously; I train sometimes on my road bike which is notably faster on flat paved roads, and sometimes on my gravel bike. The power is the same, the exercise stimulus is the same, only the speed is different.
​​​​​

Happy Feet

Wow, way too much quotes to answer right now but ar least we are getting somewhere. I get that you are hung up on the term harder. Theoretically, if one puts in 200watts on one, and 200watts on the other, they are working the same. But, as in my example above, they will have to ride further or longer to make up the difference. If I tell one person they have to ride 20 km's for one hour and the next person they have to ride 30 km's or 1:20 minutes because their bike is more efficient, it is perceived as a harder workout.

The efficient bike allows you to go further/faster for watts input (good for racing) but requires you to go further/faster to receive the same workout in terms of effort expended (of no value in exercise). You pay more for no value.

Great back and forth but I have to attend to other duties so I may not respond for a while. Cheers

PeteHski

Why would someone have to ride for longer at the same 200W? They would ride further as a function of the increased speed, but not for longer. The distance thing is just stupid. So when I ride my mtb for 10 km, do I expect that to be much easier than riding my road bike for 20 km? People are not that stupid and soon learn how far they can ride in an hour on whatever bike they happen to have.

I don't know why you keep banging on about paying more for no value? The value is that you go faster. Whether or not that is important is entirely up to the individual and their goals. It might be so they can actually hang in a fast group without getting dropped or because they simply enjoy riding a faster bike.

hose

I would say a 25-30 minute run - for me a 5k, is equivalent to a 20 mile ride in under 1:15.

guachi

There are people who like to go further or faster who aren't racing. In addition, going further/faster does have value in exercise. If going places had no value in exercise we'd all exercise indoors. I do a LOT of riding inside but my favorite rides are all outside. I tell people who don't bike that a big reason I bike instead of run is because I can go faster and further and, therefore, see more stuff. Suffering, but with great views (for the best rides). My stupid expensive bike is 10% faster than my merely expensive bike and I absolutely can't wait to take more trips with it (especially to Europe) and be able to see just a little bit more when I go ride for the same effort.