The right road frame for a big guy!?
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote:Clever Pun wrote:DDD's Mum wrote:Leave him alone Greg66, he's big boned
:evil:Sewinman wrote:Does it really make a huge amount of difference? I mean all this technical stuff? I have a Trek 1.2 which is very basic, entry level road bike...but I think I would give the bike the huge benefit of doubt over me when apportioning blame for my slow riding.
Yes the technical stuff does make a huge difference to how well you can ride a bike.
Yes it also comes down to the person on the bike.
Both instances are correct. If I had a stiffer, lighter, more responsive, better fitting bike with a solid bottom bracket (mine is now making a clicking sound only when I ride the thing...) I'd get up hills quicker. If I was 2 stone lighter, remembered my breathing, improved my pedal technique, spun instead of mashed and MTFU. I'd have got up the hill.
You would get up hills much quicker with two stones less than you would with a 3 grand bike. Its not about the bike!0 -
Sewinman wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Clever Pun wrote:DDD's Mum wrote:Leave him alone Greg66, he's big boned
:evil:Sewinman wrote:Does it really make a huge amount of difference? I mean all this technical stuff? I have a Trek 1.2 which is very basic, entry level road bike...but I think I would give the bike the huge benefit of doubt over me when apportioning blame for my slow riding.
Yes the technical stuff does make a huge difference to how well you can ride a bike.
Yes it also comes down to the person on the bike.
Both instances are correct. If I had a stiffer, lighter, more responsive, better fitting bike with a solid bottom bracket (mine is now making a clicking sound only when I ride the thing...) I'd get up hills quicker. If I was 2 stone lighter, remembered my breathing, improved my pedal technique, spun instead of mashed and MTFU. I'd have got up the hill.
You would get up hills much quicker with two stones less than you would with a 3 grand bike. Its not about the bike!
Yes, but you (I) would enjoy getting up the hill so much more on a £3,000 bike. Not least of which because that's top end Wilier Izoard territory.... yum.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Sewinman wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Clever Pun wrote:DDD's Mum wrote:Leave him alone Greg66, he's big boned
:evil:Sewinman wrote:Does it really make a huge amount of difference? I mean all this technical stuff? I have a Trek 1.2 which is very basic, entry level road bike...but I think I would give the bike the huge benefit of doubt over me when apportioning blame for my slow riding.
Yes the technical stuff does make a huge difference to how well you can ride a bike.
Yes it also comes down to the person on the bike.
Both instances are correct. If I had a stiffer, lighter, more responsive, better fitting bike with a solid bottom bracket (mine is now making a clicking sound only when I ride the thing...) I'd get up hills quicker. If I was 2 stone lighter, remembered my breathing, improved my pedal technique, spun instead of mashed and MTFU. I'd have got up the hill.
You would get up hills much quicker with two stones less than you would with a 3 grand bike. Its not about the bike!
Yes, but you (I) would enjoy getting up the hill so much more on a £3,000 bike. Not least of which because that's top end Wilier Izoard territory.... yum.
Different strokes...I would enjoy getting up a hill much more on a cheap bike than a 3k one...its all about you (me). Then I would buy the 3k bike.0 -
Sewinman wrote:
Different strokes...I would enjoy getting up a hill much more on a cheap bike than a 3k one...its all about you (me). Then I would buy the 3k bike.
Oooo ethical psychobably debate coming on I love these.
Do you own a PC. What PC do you own and how fast is the processor? Why didn't you purchase the cheaper (but slower) version?
If you own a Car? Why did you buy that engine size when you could get a smaller engine size that could get you from A to B all the same.
Personally I think the £3K bike would get me up the hill quicker, easier etc or where else is that thousands of pounds worth of technology going? Sure the law of dimishing returns applies there is only so much difference and benefit between a £350 and £3,500 bike on a lap around Richmond Common and from that I do take your point. But still its a £3K bike going up a hill against a £350 bike. All things relative and comparable the £3K bike should win hands down. - We could put this to a test. Let me do a lap of Richmond common on my bike and then do the same on either Greg66's, Jash, Biondino or LiT's (Viner when she gets it) bikes
and we'll compare the times... Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Sewinman wrote:
Different strokes...I would enjoy getting up a hill much more on a cheap bike than a 3k one...its all about you (me). Then I would buy the 3k bike.
Oooo ethical psychobably debate coming on I love these.
Do you own a PC. What PC do you own and how fast is the processor? Why didn't you purchase the cheaper (but slower) version?
If you own a Car? Why did you buy that engine size when you could get a smaller engine size that could get you from A to B all the same.
Personally I think the £3K bike would get me up the hill quicker, easier etc or where else is that thousands of pounds worth of technology going? Sure the law of dimishing returns applies there is only so much difference and benefit between a £350 and £3,500 bike on a lap around Richmond Common and from that I do take your point. But still its a £3K bike going up a hill against a £350 bike. All things relative and comparable the £3K bike should win hands down. - We could put this to a test. Let me do a lap of Richmond common on my bike and then do the same on either Greg66's, Jash, Biondino or LiT's (Viner when she gets it) bikes and we'll compare the times...
Sorry to poke my nose into this debate but I think you'd actually find the times quite similar......
I used to ride to college (5miles) on my rubbish old hybrid thing.
Took me 27 minutes
Got my road bike
Got time down to 18 mins (over time)
(Bear with me)
Now take the rubbish bike again
Takes me 20 minutes
I get more fun out of pushing a heap of cr*p in record time, though I love the fact that my road bike is quiet and smooth and responsive.
Ultimately though I feel it's the rider who makes the ride what it is - not the bikeEmerging from under a big black cloud. All help welcome0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Sewinman wrote:
Different strokes...I would enjoy getting up a hill much more on a cheap bike than a 3k one...its all about you (me). Then I would buy the 3k bike.
Oooo ethical psychobably debate coming on I love these.
Do you own a PC. What PC do you own and how fast is the processor? Why didn't you purchase the cheaper (but slower) version?
If you own a Car? Why did you buy that engine size when you could get a smaller engine size that could get you from A to B all the same.
Personally I think the £3K bike would get me up the hill quicker, easier etc or where else is that thousands of pounds worth of technology going? Sure the law of dimishing returns applies there is only so much difference and benefit between a £350 and £3,500 bike on a lap around Richmond Common and from that I do take your point. But still its a £3K bike going up a hill against a £350 bike. All things relative and comparable the £3K bike should win hands down. - We could put this to a test. Let me do a lap of Richmond common on my bike and then do the same on either Greg66's, Jash, Biondino or LiT's (Viner when she gets it) bikes and we'll compare the times...
I buy the faster computer and car because I can not physically change the performance of the computer or car. I can with a bike. Therefore I concentrate my efforts on me, which will have a bigger pay back. The 3k of extra technology would be lost on me and a total waste of money. 1k on a persoanl trainer would be better spent IMHO.
Its the same with fishing or golf - people spend £££ on kit rather than on a lesson. The phrase in golf is - 'All the gear, No Idea'. Funnily enough - some more expensive golf clubs/fishing rods are harder to use than cheap ones and make the perfromance of the beginner get worse...i am not sure if this applies to cycling though,
All in my very humble opinion of course...and i am not expert!0 -
I'm with DDD on this, although it's right to say that it's not about the bike.
The bike will make a marginal difference in speed (perhaps more so with a stiffer frame on a long climb or a balls out sprint). But put someone on the better frame and 9 times out 10 they will push themselves harder, simply to avoid the "all the gear and no idea" trap.0 -
It's true that training is more important than an expensive bike. Why does it have to be either/or though? You can do both.0
-
linsen wrote:I used to ride to college (5miles) on my rubbish old hybrid thing.
Took me 27 minutes
Got my road bike
Got time down to 18 mins (over time)
(Bear with me)
Now take the rubbish bike again
Takes me 20 minutes
I get more fun out of pushing a heap of cr*p in record time, though I love the fact that my road bike is quiet and smooth and responsive.
Ultimately though I feel it's the rider who makes the ride what it is - not the bike
Hi Linsen.
I have to say that those times aren't similar. In sports (Dad was a national athlete for Britain he drumed this into me - he now coaches as a hobby) seconds lost and gained make a huge difference to times so if your doing you journey with noticable minutes of difference then they aren't similar times. Yes we aren't racing but we area measuring times and racing is a good reference point.
I'm not disputing that a large part of it comes down to the rider. "Lance Armstrong completed the Tour de France on a bike worst than many used for a 10mile commute...."
But if the bike didn't make any difference then why the large differences in price, why all the technology poured into developing bikes to make them faster, lighter and more responsive?
I've forgotten what this thread was all about.... Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
No-one would argue that a 10% difference in importance is a big one in terms of sporting endeavour, but in terms of being 2 minutes earlier or later for college it ain't a thing. So if it's more satisfying to push yourself with a worse bike and it doesn't mean you're late, then on those terms the worse bike is prefereable.0
-
DonDaddyD wrote:"Lance Armstrong completed the Tour de France on a bike worst than many used for a 10mile commute...."
I wouldn't quite buy into that line too much. Armstrong's quite the tech-weenie when it comes down to it, and chooses his equipment very carefully (eg in 1999, I think, he didn't like the Trek climbing bikes so used a Litespeed repainted in the Trek livery).
I avoid this problem of course, by sometimes commuting on the same frame used by the current TdF winner I find it pays to have something like that for the climb up from Temple tube to the Aldwych Pretty essential, in fact. 0 -
Greg66 wrote:But put someone on the better frame and 9 times out 10 they will push themselves harder, simply to avoid the "all the gear and no idea" trap.
Agreed. From my current (temporarily retired) steed I take the greatest satisfaction in scalping people on pricier kit than me. Right now (ok, not right now) this is pretty much everyone.
However, were I to find myself riding through london on £3k of bike, I would be petrified of being overtaken by some bird on a Bowery FG with panniers thinking 'pah. All show and no go'...
So I'd go faster. And TBH, with my current bikes, I honestly think a better machine would make me faster. Mashing up hills on either of them I can feel the damn things flexing like blazes.0 -
Greg66 wrote:I wouldn't quite buy into that line too much. Armstrong's quite the tech-weenie when it comes down to it, and chooses his equipment very carefully (eg in 1999, I think, he didn't like the Trek climbing bikes so used a Litespeed repainted in the Trek livery).
I should have used an emoticon when I typed what I did. Possibly the rolls eyes emoticon. I never really bought into that line just said it for effect.I avoid this problem of course, by sometimes commuting on the same frame used by the current TdF winner I find it pays to have something like that for the climb up from Temple tube to the Aldwych Pretty essential, in fact.
Exactly It's also why we drive big cars some with V-configuration engines that go up to 150mph even though we barely get them over 70mph tops....
Bet you feel better about your self climbing that hill on your Cervelo. I feel better about you leaving me behind now. See if I had your bike, I would be so fast...
Expensive bikes save the World.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Exactly It's also why we drive big cars some with V-configuration engines that go up to 150mph even though we barely get them over 70mph tops....
That's not *quite* right .... I've had my car up to, ooooh, about 72mph over that figure.
The world comes towards you fast at that pace, I can assure you!0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Exactly It's also why we drive big cars some with V-configuration engines that go up to 150mph even though we barely get them over 70mph tops....
70mph tops?? Speak for yourself! I for one have had mine well over double that... and it was on an airfield, before the fun police come a'shouting...0 -
The rampant materialism of Thatchers children. :shock:0
-
But...but...you need something to blame! Or is that just me?
When I ride my heavy, hub-geared hybrid and get overtaken it doesn't matter - it's my heavy hub-geared hybrid! Blame that! I've been using it as a winter commuter mostly because it has protected gears, but also in the hope that I will also be fitter as a bonus. It's a most wonderful scapegoat, bless it.
The vintage 531 light tourer is better on hills and much nippier than the ponderous hybrid, but it's still very accomodating when it comes to blame - it's still miles away from a 'proper' road bike, after all, although it is lighter and better geared than the hybrid. And it has lots of character to boot.
And yet, if I do manage to scalp someone on either of those, it's a nice bonus because of their nice high FCNs.
(This is a tongue-in-cheek post DDD, go buy your fancy road bike, I know you will eventually. Heck, I probably would get one myself if a) I wasn't saving for a new bathroom and b) I actually had any spare room at all [me and the bloke have four bikes between us in my studio flat, it is getting ridiculous])0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Exactly It's also why we drive big cars some with V-configuration engines that go up to 150mph even though we barely get them over 70mph tops....
70mph tops?? Speak for yourself! I for one have had mine well over double that... and it was on an airfield, before the fun police come a'shouting...
Ah. I availed myself of the autoroute when Mrs G66 and juniors were all asleep (in the car, not at home). I ran out of road at that point, and had to hit the brakes...0 -
biondino wrote:No-one would argue that a 10% difference in importance is a big one in terms of sporting endeavour, but in terms of being 2 minutes earlier or later for college it ain't a thing. So if it's more satisfying to push yourself with a worse bike and it doesn't mean you're late, then on those terms the worse bike is prefereable.
I disagree, from experience I know the better bike is preferable on a commute. I've experienced this fact since I was 18 and rode a Townsend to work and instantly bought a better bike. A better bike with gears that work and a non-buckled wheel
will always be more enjoyable on a commute (let alone sporting event) than a crappy one.
What I don't disagree with is this: The law of diminishing returns. At some point the more you spend the less return for your money you're gonna get. But at £350 I don't think the law of diminishing returns has begun to work its magic.
However, we are talking sporting laps albeit around Richmond Common. And I'd hope that I'd be faster on your Focus than my SCR or the £1,250+ difference (carbon frame, wheels, tyres, durace groupset etc...) would all be for nothing.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:70mph tops?? Speak for yourself! I for one have had mine well over double that... and it was on an airfield, before the fun police come a'shouting...
Ah. I availed myself of the autoroute when Mrs G66 and juniors were all asleep (in the car, not at home). I ran out of road at that point, and had to hit the brakes...
I wanted to see what mine would do, and am in the fortunate position of having an airfield at my disposal a lot of the time... I'd worry about the real police much over 100mph on a real road!
I did run out of runway though, pretty bl**dy quickly. Just over 160mph, but it will allegedly do 180+... I need a bigger airfield... :twisted:0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:70mph tops?? Speak for yourself! I for one have had mine well over double that... and it was on an airfield, before the fun police come a'shouting...
Ah. I availed myself of the autoroute when Mrs G66 and juniors were all asleep (in the car, not at home). I ran out of road at that point, and had to hit the brakes...
I wanted to see what mine would do, and am in the fortunate position of having an airfield at my disposal a lot of the time... I'd worry about the real police much over 100mph on a real road!
I did run out of runway though, pretty bl**dy quickly. Just over 160mph, but it will allegedly do 180+... I need a bigger airfield... :twisted:
Much over 100mph on a real road is an instant ban, so you are right to worry!0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:
70mph tops?? Speak for yourself! I for one have had mine well over double that... and it was on an airfield, before the fun police come a'shouting...
AndThat's not *quite* right .... I've had my car up to, ooooh, about 72mph over that figure.
The world comes towards you fast at that pace, I can assure you!
@LIt, not everyones family home has an Airfield as part of the Garden... (Mine has a volcanic spring, Sugar Cane fields and Coconut trees - St Thomas, Jamaica)
@Greg, aren't you a defender of the law?Sewinman wrote:The rampant materialism of Thatchers children.
+1
To, which i am a slave. But I work in a job I hate so that I can have money to buy things I love. It's a vicious circle of emptiness!Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Sewinman wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:70mph tops?? Speak for yourself! I for one have had mine well over double that... and it was on an airfield, before the fun police come a'shouting...
Ah. I availed myself of the autoroute when Mrs G66 and juniors were all asleep (in the car, not at home). I ran out of road at that point, and had to hit the brakes...
I wanted to see what mine would do, and am in the fortunate position of having an airfield at my disposal a lot of the time... I'd worry about the real police much over 100mph on a real road!
I did run out of runway though, pretty bl**dy quickly. Just over 160mph, but it will allegedly do 180+... I need a bigger airfield... :twisted:
Much over 100mph on a real road is an instant ban, so you are right to worry!
That's why I chose the autoroute. This was back in the days when the French would pull you over, make you sit don for 15 mins, and fine you 600 francs. I had four little bundles of 600 francs set aside in the armrest for just such purposes! And I only had to use one! Hurrah for me! I'm the best! 0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:What I don't disagree with is this: The law of diminishing returns. At some point the more you spend the less return for your money you're gonna get. But at £350 I don't think the law of diminishing returns has begun to work its magic.
However, we are talking sporting laps albeit around Richmond Common. And I'd hope that I'd be faster on your Focus than my SCR or the £1,250+ difference (carbon frame, wheels, tyres, durace groupset etc...) would all be for nothing.
IMHO your psychology is wrong, you are blaming a perfectly good bike on why you can't get up a hill. I think you would be better of practising some hills, getting the most out of your bike (miximum utility) - and then deciding what to upgrade to. You are no-where near the point of diminishing marginal utility from that bike.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:But put someone on the better frame and 9 times out 10 they will push themselves harder, simply to avoid the "all the gear and no idea" trap.
Agreed. From my current (temporarily retired) steed I take the greatest satisfaction in scalping people on pricier kit than me. Right now (ok, not right now) this is pretty much everyone.
However, were I to find myself riding through london on £3k of bike, I would be petrified of being overtaken by some bird on a Bowery FG with panniers thinking 'pah. All show and no go'...
So I'd go faster. And TBH, with my current bikes, I honestly think a better machine would make me faster. Mashing up hills on either of them I can feel the damn things flexing like blazes.
This is true, though there are cheaper ways to get the same effect. In summer I occasionally sport a Molteni cap with WC stripes. The horrendous prospect of being scalped while actually wearing this thing has the same motivational effect of being whipped on the bare arse by a trio of aggravated military PT instuctors for your entire ride.0 -
Totalnewbie wrote:But...but...you need something to blame! Or is that just me?
When I ride my heavy, hub-geared hybrid and get overtaken it doesn't matter
You clearly (and I mean this literally "how YOU doing" ) aren't male.
I don't even like it when people walk faster than me....
:shock:
I do agree, I am a bad workman and do blame my tools. It's just my bike is fine on a commute, just not for... and my bottom bracket needs to be more solid to handle the awesome lashing of power I unleash upon it... If I had a better bike I'd negate time...
I'll stop the willy waving nowFood Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Sewinman wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:What I don't disagree with is this: The law of diminishing returns. At some point the more you spend the less return for your money you're gonna get. But at £350 I don't think the law of diminishing returns has begun to work its magic.
However, we are talking sporting laps albeit around Richmond Common. And I'd hope that I'd be faster on your Focus than my SCR or the £1,250+ difference (carbon frame, wheels, tyres, durace groupset etc...) would all be for nothing.
IMHO your psychology is wrong, you are blaming a perfectly good bike on why you can't get up a hill. I think you would be better of practising some hills, getting the most out of your bike (miximum utility) - and then deciding what to upgrade to. You are no-where near the point of diminishing marginal utility from that bike.
No one seems to understand. I agree! That's why I told LiTs I'm not good enough for a Wilier, yet....
I realise I'm fat, I know I need to come down a few stone (I am the most skillful cyclist in the way and in no way need to improve my technique ). But it shouldn't take away from the fact that as I am a better bike would improve my performance as I am.
I agree the most important part to improve is me. But a better bike will give me a faster time as I am. It doesn't mean I should buy a better bike - the SCR is a good bike for what I need right now. But I want a better bike and this thread was intended to identify what I should look for - by addressing issues I've found with this bike - when I buy my next bike.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Sewinman wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:What I don't disagree with is this: The law of diminishing returns. At some point the more you spend the less return for your money you're gonna get. But at £350 I don't think the law of diminishing returns has begun to work its magic.
However, we are talking sporting laps albeit around Richmond Common. And I'd hope that I'd be faster on your Focus than my SCR or the £1,250+ difference (carbon frame, wheels, tyres, durace groupset etc...) would all be for nothing.
IMHO your psychology is wrong, you are blaming a perfectly good bike on why you can't get up a hill. I think you would be better of practising some hills, getting the most out of your bike (miximum utility) - and then deciding what to upgrade to. You are no-where near the point of diminishing marginal utility from that bike.
I think I missed that start of this... did you get off the bike and walk DDD?? did you really? did a small child on a trike scalp you?
if I couldn't make it for whatever reason I would bl00dy well got back and make sure I made it at some point with the same bike to prove to myself I could do it... then ride a cr@ppier up it to train harderPurveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Clever Pun wrote:
I think I missed that start of this... did you get off the bike and walk DDD?? did you really? did a small child on a trike scalp you?
if I couldn't make it for whatever reason I would bl00dy well got back and make sure I made it at some point with the same bike to prove to myself I could do it... then ride a cr@ppier up it to train harder
Hang on a sec, did I wake up in an alternate reality where its ok to gang up on DonDaddyD!?
This is why I ride alone.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
He's only winding you up. I admitted on the other thread that I had to get off and walk twice first time I tried RP (and have people enquire after my wellbeing)...like he says, you just have to go back and try again.0
