Making my bike faster
Comments
-
Rushmore wrote:What sort of speed are you doing at the minute? As getting more earo won't do THAT much untill you actually get fitter yourself..
Aero wheels prob won't really do anything untill your doing over 20mph to begin with..
well this was my last ride: the route is more or less flat. http://app.strava.com/rides/19909008 - was pretty happy with it.
was averaging 16.5 mph would of been more if there wasn't a headwind id reckon. My aim is to get to 20 and be comfortable with 20 as an average. I KNOW THIS is more or less down to fitness, but if i can adjust posture, bike set up or make my bike faster with modifications (ie wheelset) to get me there then im happy to do so.
I weigh 66 kilos already, think that is a good weight to be at, at 5'80 -
I think EPO would probably help make your bike faster, although it's obviously an enhancement for your body rather than the bike
Simon0 -
springtide9 wrote:I think EPO would probably help make your bike faster, although it's obviously an enhancement for your body rather than the bike
clean suggestions only please :P lol0 -
iampaulb wrote:springtide9 wrote:I think EPO would probably help make your bike faster, although it's obviously an enhancement for your body rather than the bike
clean suggestions only please :P lol
I am no expert on training, so take this with a pinch of salt.
OK, there is obviously no magic component you can fit (or magic legal pill) to get you there. Being honest, to be able to ride with an average of 20mph you need to average maybe 200 watts I would guess at your weight for a similar ride.
Being realistic, you need to ride probably 2-3 times a week / 8+ hrs/week for maybe a year to get from 16.5 to 20mph based on if you work and obviously have normal (other) priorities in your life other than cycling.
But, looking at your HR I would guess you are younger than me (43), so maybe that's an over estimate
There are some people who ride for years and never get to a 20 mph average because they can't commit (or won't commit) the hours to their hobby. Also once you get there, unless you keep up the riding, you can quickly loose the fitness. I think most people's fitness peaks in the summer and drops off in the winter.Simon0 -
With your goal of getting significantly faster changes to the bike are only going to get you part of the way there and cost a lot for the gain. A much more cost effective way to get faster would be to invest in time with a coach (which also has the potential to make a much bigger difference to your speed).0
-
am i looking to get a turbo trainer for winter. to get the hours in, i also weight train (but not too much)
im 27, 28 in a few months.
im willing to put the dedication in fo sho! Just a matter of getting round to it.0 -
Have you tried pedalling harder? Works for me0
-
bompington wrote:Have you tried pedalling harder? Works for me
LOL yes thanks! works well ha0 -
Here's one that works remarkably well but you do need a speed recorder of some description. What you do is this:
Shift down one gear on your cassette.
Chances are, most people who haven't trained themselves to do it are tending to ride in too high a gear. Change down and there's a good chance you'll gain a good mile an hour though it won't feel like it (hence why you do need the computer). This tends to be my experience anyway. It'll probably do more than an £800 wheelset for most people!Faster than a tent.......0 -
iampaulb wrote:well this was my last ride: the route is more or less flat. http://app.strava.com/rides/19909008 - was pretty happy with it.
was averaging 16.5 mph would have been more if there wasn't a headwind id reckon. My aim is to get to 20 and be comfortable with 20 as an average. I KNOW THIS is more or less down to fitness, but if i can adjust posture, bike set up or make my bike faster with modifications (ie wheelset) to get me there then im happy to do so.
I weigh 66 kilos already, think that is a good weight to be at, at 5'8
You should be able to get it up to the 20mph mark. This is only my 2nd year of cycling and I've only had my road bike for a handful of rides - and that is only a cheap entry level 2nd hand bike. I can average between 17 and 18mph over a 30 mile ride but it would have twice as much climbing as you've got there as a minimum. My best yet was averaging 20mph over 20 miles but it was hard work! I weigh a fair bit more than you at around 90kgs (6'3).
I've got to be honest and I would say you were no where near the limits of the bike yet, I'd work at getting those times up slowly, then when you reach the point where you find it hard to progress any further - then look at some new lighter wheels etc.0 -
I changed to the big ring at the front - that has probably made the biggest difference for me ... I now only change down when I'm going up a "big hill" or riding slowly with others ...Rolf F wrote:Here's one that works remarkably well but you do need a speed recorder of some description. What you do is this:
Shift down one gear on your cassette.
Chances are, most people who haven't trained themselves to do it are tending to ride in too high a gear. Change down and there's a good chance you'll gain a good mile an hour though it won't feel like it (hence why you do need the computer). This tends to be my experience anyway. It'll probably do more than an £800 wheelset for most people!0 -
Slowbike wrote:
I changed to the big ring at the front - that has probably made the biggest difference for me ... I now only change down when I'm going up a "big hill" or riding slowly with others ...Rolf F wrote:Here's one that works remarkably well but you do need a speed recorder of some description. What you do is this:
Shift down one gear on your cassette.
Chances are, most people who haven't trained themselves to do it are tending to ride in too high a gear. Change down and there's a good chance you'll gain a good mile an hour though it won't feel like it (hence why you do need the computer). This tends to be my experience anyway. It'll probably do more than an £800 wheelset for most people!
+1
I also got improvements when I switched from my 12-26 to 11-23 (on a compact obviously). I fancy switching to a standard chainset, but as I currently have 'Red' it would be a very costly experiment :-)Simon0 -
Lose some fat, stop weight training, devote more hours to cycling. Then you'll get fast.0
-
styxd wrote:Lose some fat, stop weight training, devote more hours to cycling. Then you'll get fast.
+1
This is the key factor. You will see some very fast older riders out on the roads. It's not their bike or wheels that makes them fast, but hours of training, week after week, year after year.
We had a new bathroom fitted and I was going out for a spin at lunchtime and the fitters commented on my bike when I got back....
He said to me, "That bike looks like it goes fast." I replied, 'It doesn't have an engine. It's the engine that is the key to speed.".
Question to the OP: How many hours / days per week are you currently riding?Simon0 -
i have been back on a road bike for 3 years now after a long break and years of mountain biking on and off , when i start i was averaging 15-16 mph ,but this is key ,i was choosing to do flatish routes and was scared of hills !
My average speed now is 17-18 mph ,now that may not sound much of an improvement but i now look for hills ,big ones ! i average 1000m of climbing a week which to some is nothing but i am 42 and weigh 75kg
now the reason i dont get hung up on average speed is that i know my fitness is much better and i proved this to my self by doing the 20 mile flatter route i used to do (time was short) in a average of 21mph and peaked on the flat at 30mph . i am not fast ,i know that, but its alot easier and more fun now.
the key was ,
A) change diet
self belief
C) more hills ,more more more miles
D) bl**dy enjoy it , if you dont there's no point
oh and comfy shoes !last month wilier gt -this month ? bh rc10 -
Talking shoot, ignore me.0
-
Why is it then that when the only bikes available were made from 531 and would probably be thought of as touring bikes today, people were still setting incredible time trial times? Beryl Burton set hers on a fixed gear.
The issue, as I argued in my post earlier in this thread, is that the bike is already light. The kinds of differences in weight that you can pay hundreds and thousands (a few kilos) for can naturally occur between riders, and the rider is the majority contingent by a very long way. Most of the upgrades are so small that if you don't spend your money wisely you're lightening your wallet more than anything else.
But I think your arguments are vague and insubstantial. There is no subjectivity to this. I understand that a modern high-spec bicycle made for the job is going to be better - why else would they be in production and use? - and that a rider is going to feel faster on an expensive bike, but unless you can demonstrate that a given subject cyclist could ride significantly faster on a carbon fibre bike, I can only stick with what I currently believe to be true.
By that I mean that there are two bikes, two riders and one course. One bike is a high spec carbon fibre racing machine. The other is an old 531 (or even 753 or other heat-treated tubeset) road racer, high end in its time. Each bike is properly fitted to the rider, and both are set up as similarly as possible as far as reasonably possible: Modern stem at a similar height, similar or identical handlebars, modern levers, clipless pedals, modern wheels and transmission, etc etc.
There are two races; both riders ride both bikes. Is the rider of the carbon fibre bike going to effortlessly trounce the other in each contest? By that I mean a very convincing lead. Not just paltry minutes and seconds important only in time trial terms. I can accept that the rider of the carbon bike very probably might win - it's not exactly a fair contest - but for my purposes the rider of the carbon fibre bike needs to be about 25% quicker at least. I'm open to correction, but I just can't see it. Is the Tour de France now massively faster now that everyone has featherweight carbon fibre machines? If Merckx and Anquetil could be brought back at the height of their respective powers to take on the greats of 2012 but on the bikes they rode back then, I am sure it would still be a very impressive contest.
Therefore I feel I have to continue denouncing any suggestion that a beginner must have a Pinarello in order to go fast, as I feel it's the only right thing to do.
If I weren't below my best at the moment from not being able to cycle much, I'd be happy to race anyone who disagrees with me; my favourite bike is an Ernie Clements-era Falcon of about 30 years old and made of plain gauge Tange steel. I've modernised nearly everything on it, but it still has 27" wheels. In fact I snapped an axle the other week going into a bend (ouch), and the replacement cost a princely £30.
0 -
Simon Masterson wrote:Why is it then that when the only bikes available were made from 531 and would probably be thought of as touring bikes today, people were still setting incredible time trial times? Beryl Burton set hers on a fixed gear.
The issue, as I argued in my post earlier in this thread, is that the bike is already light. The kinds of differences in weight that you can pay hundreds and thousands (a few kilos) for can naturally occur between riders, and the rider is the majority contingent by a very long way. Most of the upgrades are so small that if you don't spend your money wisely you're lightening your wallet more than anything else.
But I think your arguments are vague and insubstantial. There is no subjectivity to this. I understand that a modern high-spec bicycle made for the job is going to be better - why else would they be in production and use? - and that a rider is going to feel faster on an expensive bike, but unless you can demonstrate that a given subject cyclist could ride significantly faster on a carbon fibre bike, I can only stick with what I currently believe to be true.
By that I mean that there are two bikes, two riders and one course. One bike is a high spec carbon fibre racing machine. The other is an old 531 (or even 753 or other heat-treated tubeset) road racer, high end in its time. Each bike is properly fitted to the rider, and both are set up as similarly as possible as far as reasonably possible: Modern stem at a similar height, similar or identical handlebars, modern levers, clipless pedals, modern wheels and transmission, etc etc.
There are two races; both riders ride both bikes. Is the rider of the carbon fibre bike going to effortlessly trounce the other in each contest? By that I mean a very convincing lead. Not just paltry minutes and seconds important only in time trial terms. I can accept that the rider of the carbon bike very probably might win - it's not exactly a fair contest - but for my purposes the rider of the carbon fibre bike needs to be about 25% quicker at least. I'm open to correction, but I just can't see it. Is the Tour de France now massively faster now that everyone has featherweight carbon fibre machines? If Merckx and Anquetil could be brought back at the height of their respective powers to take on the greats of 2012 but on the bikes they rode back then, I am sure it would still be a very impressive contest.
Therefore I feel I have to continue denouncing any suggestion that a beginner must have a Pinarello in order to go fast, as I feel it's the only right thing to do.
If I weren't below my best at the moment from not being able to cycle much, I'd be happy to race anyone who disagrees with me; my favourite bike is an Ernie Clements-era Falcon of about 30 years old and made of plain gauge Tange steel. I've modernised nearly everything on it, but it still has 27" wheels. In fact I snapped an axle the other week going into a bend (ouch), and the replacement cost a princely £30.
You have obviously been riding for a long time and are a strong rider but i think there are 2 reasons people change to carbon frames and high spec components and they are
A) we now live in a consumer world were we have the option to spend £100 - £25000 on a bike depending on budgets we never had that span in the 80s i spent £600 in 85 on a top range vitus and that was near the limit for a time trial bike. lighter bikes means that you use less effort and that is a fact ,people still did great time trial times in 80s but with more effort , you could say that momentum takes overs on the flats/down hills ,but on ascents it is easier with a lighter bike . beginners, if they can afford it by the lightest bikes and put less watts in but maintain higher speeds thats the crunch . and aero dynamics do count, if they didn't why do we drop on the bars ? F1 etc etc
i am a design engineer and could go into the details but wont. i must say though light is not always better ,a badly designed frame can flex in all the wrong places and thats just wrong!
i love my metal bike and i love my carbon bike ,but for different reasons ,all out speed = carbon , feel good factor and memory lane = steel cruising . nobody is in the wrong we are all different
last month wilier gt -this month ? bh rc10 -
springtide9 wrote:styxd wrote:Lose some fat, stop weight training, devote more hours to cycling. Then you'll get fast.
Question to the OP: How many hours / days per week are you currently riding?
loose fat? i am trying, but 66 kilos is a good weight for me i rekcon. hopefully replace the fat i do actually have with muscle in my legs. I would ideally like to get out at least 2/3 times a week, but working in london makes it hard, then a big ride on the weekend...
i have just completed this ride: http://app.strava.com/activities/20443007 which ill be doing again as its a nice short "evening ride" so to speak...0 -
The good thing about modern technology is that we can now see how fast we are really going using various GPS devices and a the internet. I've been out on a few bikes this year, including what I would call quite an expensive one, and if you were to look at my Strava data you'd never be able to tell when I was riding which bike. The differences that equipment makes are really very marginal indeed.
I dont think there are any shortcuts - if you want to go faster you just need to put in more time on the saddle. Alternatively you could go and get one of those electric bikes and modify it for extreme speed like the guy I sometimes see on the way to work.0 -
limoneboy wrote:You have obviously been riding for a long time and are a strong rider
I'm flattered that you think so. I'm actually 23 and have been riding 'as an adult' since last spring. I'm rather blessed in that my cycling 'mentor' (who also bought me my first adult bike; it's a completely un-speedy Raleigh leisure bike from the 80s, purchased for commuting) has been cycling for decades, and therefore has a huge amount of wisdom and perspective. I like to think that I've picked up a few things, but more to the point, I have some idea of how much impact the bike has on my speed because that Raleigh was my only bike once. It's pretty heavy as bikes go, it has flat bars, the gearing is pretty low, and it even has steel rimmed wheels. The best recorded speed I did on that bike was over 25mph average over 18 miles (I did it in 43 minutes). I now have the bike mentioned in the previous post, which has widened my perspective somewhat...limoneboy wrote:but i think there are 2 reasons people change to carbon frames and high spec components and they are
A) we now live in a consumer world were we have the option to spend £100 - £25000 on a bike depending on budgets we never had that span in the 80s i spent £600 in 85 on a top range vitus and that was near the limit for a time trial bike. lighter bikes means that you use less effort and that is a fact ,people still did great time trial times in 80s but with more effort , you could say that momentum takes overs on the flats/down hills ,but on ascents it is easier with a lighter bike . beginners, if they can afford it by the lightest bikes and put less watts in but maintain higher speeds thats the crunch . and aero dynamics do count, if they didn't why do we drop on the bars ? F1 etc etc
i am a design engineer and could go into the details but wont. i must say though light is not always better ,a badly designed frame can flex in all the wrong places and thats just wrong!
i love my metal bike and i love my carbon bike ,but for different reasons ,all out speed = carbon , feel good factor and memory lane = steel cruising . nobody is in the wrong we are all different
I think you're very right about that. My next bike will certainly be a carbon fibre one. My only horse in this race is that I dislike the 'throw money at it to fix it' culture that seems to be the norm today. Rather than training harder, it seems to be the norm to find another toy to buy. I'm all for beginners having great bikes, but not being fooled into throwing away hundreds and thousands on saving a couple of grams that they probably won't notice, etc!0 -
a 400 quid light wheelset may save you half a kilo.
eating properly and training harder will save you double, triple....more, without that price tag. not to mention the weight your losing is also accompanied by stronger, and longer lasting muscles to keep that cadence in tough gears.
thats the key to getting faster, once you have that, then maybe it would be worth 400 quid to upgrade if you dont have anywhere else to improve independent from the bike.Bikes: CAAD8 105, CAAD10 105.0 -
ethanhayes wrote:springtide9 wrote:
We had a new bathroom fitted and I was going out for a spin at lunchtime and the fitters commented on my bike when I got back....
He said to me, "That bike looks like it goes fast." I replied, 'It doesn't have an engine. It's the engine that is the key to speed.".
If you slap a 100000bhp engine into a 100 meter cube made of pure lead it's not going to go as fast as 10bhp engine on an aerodynamic body which weighs less than 100kg, is it.
I obviously exaggerate the point - but a point it still is.
You maths seem a poor as the weigh differences are minimal.
The difference in weight between a light carbon road bike and a fairly average road bike is only between 1.5 -> 2kg. So basically the weight of two 750ml bottles of water on the bike. You can cycle without fluids for an hour, so why not try and see the difference in speed 1.5 kg makes to your average speed? My guess it that it will be negligible with the biggest factor being how fresh or good you feel on the day.
And remember, your power is what your body produces, where as the weight is the combined weight of your bike and the rider. So 8kg to 10kg difference in bike weight might look like a 20% decrease in weight, but if the rider is 80kg it's only the difference between 88kg and 90kg (so more like 2%)
In terms of 'aerodynamics'.... Look at the the bike directly from the front to get an idea of the profile a non aero bikes makes to the wind. Next, look at yourself in a mirror in a tuck. Yes hopefully you've got it, it's body profile that makes a huge difference not the bike.
The reason why the pros are keen on improving aerodynamics is that they are not averaging 16mph, but averaging more like 28mph. As speed increases, aerodynamics comes more into play.
But there is definitely belief out there when you see people riding in groups, 'taking their turn at the front' to spread the effort, but riding at about 12mph on an incline with zero wind.
I have stated before, the OP will need to average around 200 watts to be able to average 20mph. He is currently (according to Strava at about 130 watts). So to get to a 20mph average, he doesn't need new wheels or a more aero frame, but a more powerful engine.
With all that said, don't think I'm suggesting you shouldn't spend what you want on a bike. There is huge amounts of enjoyment about using equipment that professionals use; a pro camera for photography, a set of carbon golf clubs, etc. Buy what you like and enjoy it. I replaced my FSA chainset for an SRAM Red chainset so it matched the other Red components. A purely aesthetic upgrade at great expense, and I don't regret it at all.Simon0 -
I'd spend and enjoy...
Even though doin low level amateur racing, no one skimps on decent kit..it does make you faster,honest!
I have already destroyed 1 wheelset this season, so havin to make do on Fulcrum 5s. Nice wheels though!0 -
JGSI wrote:I'd spend and enjoy...
Even though doin low level amateur racing, no one skimps on decent kit..it does make you faster,honest!
I have already destroyed 1 wheelset this season, so havin to make do on Fulcrum 5s. Nice wheels though!
Interesting... so on a training ride (rather than racing, as Cat 4 is still 24mph average)...
How much slower are you with the Racing 5's compared to your good wheelset?
And as any gains are a percentage of your power output, for these training rides we are comparing, what is the average wattage? (or Strava average wattage)
Note that this thread is specifically looking at speed rather than durability, as this is a separate discussion Simon0 -
grechzoo wrote:a 400 quid light wheelset may save you half a kilo.
eating properly and training harder will save you double, triple....more, without that price tag. not to mention the weight your losing is also accompanied by stronger, and longer lasting muscles to keep that cadence in tough gears.
thats the key to getting faster, once you have that, then maybe it would be worth 400 quid to upgrade if you dont have anywhere else to improve independent from the bike.
Bingo.
As always, cold hard training is the key. It's not easy, it doesn't necessarily produce instantaneous results, or even consistent results, but it is the missing link between you and all of the things that can enhance your performance. Light body weight will be to your advantage, but sitting at home all day and starving yourself won't do a lot of good for you. Using sports supplements can benefit you, but sipping protein shakes at your desk won't turn you into Mark Cavendish at the weekend. And of course, having a lighter bike will benefit you, but not if you don't put in the work.
I understand where this form of denial comes from, but 'denial' is what it is. Either you accept that it is an indisputable fact that losing a few grams will make a very small difference and nothing else, and that you don't really 'need' aero wheels unless you are seldom travelling at less than 30mph and are racing (etc etc etc), or you do not. You can't agree with that statement but still argue that the expensive bike parts that you are buying because you don't have time to train more still represent an equivalent or otherwise significant performance enhancement.
That isn't to say that you can't have expensive bike stuff, of course. That logic taken to its full extension is that which dictates that few around here really 'need' anything more than a Carrera. Spend what disposable income you have on your hobby; it's not as if you should care about the judgment of people on the internet who think that you have all the gear and no idea, or that you're buying things you don't 'need'. The problem is that no beginner deserves to be deluded by the lightness police into throwing money at a problem that needs more than money throwing at it. That, and they are wrong, and we all know about people who are wrong on the internet. 0 -
In a month or two when the weather gets crap and the old salt is back on the roads I'll be using my old alu bike.
To be honest I dont notice the difference even with the cheap wheels and unbranded tyres, 18 averages take no effort at all, im a similar weight to you at 5 '11 and 63 kg's.
Some people do seem to develop faster than others though, I was averaging 18 mph on my rides within 2 months while my brother 2 years later has only just managed it. (not many flat routes in Wales though!) 10 mile TT pb - 20:56 R10/17
25 - 53:07 R25/7
Now using strava http://app.strava.com/athletes/1551520 -
OK, just for fun. Most of my rides are commutes of 9 to 30 miles distance. Then there are weekend rides of generally longer distances - mostly 60 miles plus; a bit of a poor show this year but never mind.
Anyway, the image below summarises my mileage in terms of average speeds including a 45 day moving average. For a small number of days this year I have commuted on my heavy steel MTB. For the rest, it is probably evenly spread between my heavy steel 501 framed tourer and my carbon Ribble Gran Fondo. There are a few trips in there on my Look 585 carbon, my 531 Raleigh Record Ace and a folder but those probably aren't that obvious.
So, the question is, can you tell when I was commuting on my heavy Dawes and when I was commuting on my Ribble?! Bonus points if you can spot when I was on the MTB!
Faster than a tent.......0 -
This post is getting interesting, see what different opinions people hold. Although it all points to getting out on the bike and training harder. Although i am just doing that, was just curious to see what could make the bike faster if you took out the rider. As in component wise - curiosity and all that...
since my rides, i have noticed a little marginal increase in performance...time will tell.RoadMeridaBen wrote:In a month or two when the weather gets crap and the old salt is back on the roads I'll be using my old alu bike.
To be honest I dont notice the difference even with the cheap wheels and unbranded tyres, 18 averages take no effort at all, im a similar weight to you at 5 '11 and 63 kg's.
Some people do seem to develop faster than others though, I was averaging 18 mph on my rides within 2 months while my brother 2 years later has only just managed it. (not many flat routes in Wales though!)
Just started following you on Strava 0
