How Much Faster Will I Go?

dween

Didn't say I could keep that speed up for 4 hours! Maybe 4 minutes

Buckled_Rims

I love these type of questions because I've actually done my own research on my own bikes. Here's "almost" the answer. At times are the "Best times". I've done this route regular for over 10 years.

The old 8 speed MTB did the training route in 58 minutes best time. I converted it into a singlespeed MTB and did the route in 61 minutes. My Kona Jake cyclocross bike with cross tyres can do it in about 57mins. My road bike in about 56 minutes. My heavy Malt 4 MTB can do it in 59 mins with thinnish tyres or semislicks.

The big problem is no 2 days are the same. Significantly the road bike is not much faster because the MTB had the advantage of disc brakes and was much more nimble and rugged on tracks/paths. If it had been a pure road route that had little traffic then the CAAD would have won hands down with 23mm tyres. But all in all, on mixed busy roads and paths the old MTB was probably better with it's 1.5 inch tyres. I'm still surprised at how little difference in time there is between road and MTB.

SPD's made a bit of a difference as it enabled my foot to remain on the pedals instead of kicking away yappy dogs ;-)

simon_masterson

There's a problem with averaging 25mph now is there?

karlth

Simon Masterson wrote:

There's a problem with averaging 25mph now is there?

Not at all, if you're a candidate for the TdF.

nolight

1. 16mph
2. 19mph
3. 20mph

simon_masterson

karlth wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

There's a problem with averaging 25mph now is there?

Not at all, if you're a candidate for the TdF.

In that case, do you know if any of the teams have any vacancies? I could use a better job...

(Averaging 25mph within 20 miles or so on a mostly flat course isn't difficult. Any half-decent road cyclist who likes going fast can do that. Being able to do it for 5 hours in the French alps isn't the same thing!)

sub55

Simon Masterson wrote:

karlth wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

There's a problem with averaging 25mph now is there?

Not at all, if you're a candidate for the TdF.

In that case, do you know if any of the teams have any vacancies? I could use a better job...

(Averaging 25mph within 20 miles or so on a mostly flat course isn't difficult. Any half-decent road cyclist who likes going fast can do that. Being able to do it for 5 hours in the French alps isn't the same thing!)

my point was you don't go from 16 to 25 mph by spending £800 on a new bike.

no loads of peeps who can AV 25 for extended period of time. but There again no many who have never broken the hour in a TT

simon_masterson

sub55 wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

karlth wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

There's a problem with averaging 25mph now is there?

Not at all, if you're a candidate for the TdF.

In that case, do you know if any of the teams have any vacancies? I could use a better job...

(Averaging 25mph within 20 miles or so on a mostly flat course isn't difficult. Any half-decent road cyclist who likes going fast can do that. Being able to do it for 5 hours in the French alps isn't the same thing!)

my point was you don't go from 16 to 25 mph by spending £800 on a new bike.

no loads of peeps who can AV 25 for extended period of time. but There again no many who have never broken the hour in a TT

Bingo. As you can probably see from my passionate preaching in this thread, I couldn't more agree with that viewpoint!

My point of contention is with the honourable gent who seems to think that only professionals can manage an average speed of 25mph. Jealousy is a cruel mistress.

Anonymous

Can you borrow a bike and see? I remember changing from a slicked up MTB to my roadie and it FELT like a revalation. I never had a speedo on them so cant give a scientific comparison, but it felt like the roadie was lurching forward at each pedal stroke.

Now after a year, it feels buttery and flexible in the BB, so I want a new one. Mind you, it is 10 years old, so it's hardly top of the range, but still.

Id say, each time you change, you will notice it. Whether that affects your times/speeds is another matter - BUT, which is important - for some people (a lot of people, perhaps) its how you feel. When I stuck SPDs on, it felt like I could pedal faster, and I reckon it does help when really puffing up hills (not because you can pull up though!) and perhaps is a teeny bit more efficient so good for longer rides.

If you're just commuting though - save your money and stick some slicks on. In general, most upgrades are marginal, but the difference you 'think' or 'feel' are much larger, so probably worth it, if not too expensive. SPDs can be had for 20-30 quid. Shoes, same again.

RDW

Sprool wrote:

mwalters wrote:

Probably not much- see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999990/
Mark

I have to dispute that report, one guy on 2 bikes over a year. All these factors are at work to benefit a road bike

I think it's a nice article - tongue in cheek but making a valid point (and extra credit for what is probably the first use of 'MAMIL' in the medical research literature). He actually compared two road bikes, a relatively heavy old steel bike and a new carbon model, so most of these factors wouldn't have changed much. And:

"Though a 30% reduction in bicycle weight may seem large, the reduction in total weight (bicycle + rider) of 4% is much less impressive...A new lightweight bicycle may have many attractions, but if the bicycle is used to commute, a reduction in the weight of the cyclist rather than that of the bicycle may deliver greater benefit and at reduced cost."

Hoopdriver

Simon Masterson wrote:

Very, very little difference between them. The smallest difference is between the road bikes.

Firstly, weight is pretty much irrelevant until you reach a very, very high level of cycling; at which you are so good that your performances are consistent enough time after time that the 2 minutes that you might gain by having a £5000 bike rather than a £500 bike actually matter.

Secondly, SPD pedals will not make you faster. Being linked to the pedals, whether that's with clips and straps or clipless pedals, will stop your foot slipping around, thereby allowing you to pedal at faster cadence with confidence. It's difficult to pedal efficiently if you are having to reposition your foot throughout the stroke. They also allow you to pull up. But both of those things have to be learned; SPD pedals and clips and straps are merely tools.

If you want my 'past experience', the fastest time I recorded (I don't obsess about keeping records) on the bike I'll post a pic of below was 18 miles in 43 minutes; average speed over 25mph.

I started my road cycling on this bike: it's my steel Raleigh leisure bike from the '80s; a bargain 21st birthday gift intended to get me to work. It's made from 'heavy' low-end plain gauge tubing, it has very cheap old steel-rimmed wheels (the rear one doesn't even run true) with very worn (original!) 35mm tyres, flat handlebars, and a rack. It even came with a kick-stand.



The important difference is between perceived speed and actual speed. Many beginners seem to become convinced that they are going much faster or exerting less effort because they are riding a bike that feels flightier; this is a common trap. In reality, the difference is very small. If you think about it it's pretty stupid to expect that riding a bicycle that's lighter than another by the amount of body weight (at least!) that a person might lose by cycling or might naturally occur between people, could make them go 5-10mph faster, isn't it?

+1

It might not be what you most want to hear but I think he's right.

lawrences

1: 16mph
2:20mph
3:20mph

there you go.

Anonymous

Like the above guy said, its mostly perceived - but its important to note that the feeling of going faster can make it a lot more enjoyable

nolight

I believe you may go significantly faster on a $5000 bike, not because the bike is great but because you will cycle harder to satisfy your own ego and self-esteem and to justify the fact that your $5000 is well spent (look ma, I went 3mph faster, THAT's why it is worth $5000)!

simon_masterson

Hoopdriver wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Very, very little difference between them. The smallest difference is between the road bikes.

Firstly, weight is pretty much irrelevant until you reach a very, very high level of cycling; at which you are so good that your performances are consistent enough time after time that the 2 minutes that you might gain by having a £5000 bike rather than a £500 bike actually matter.

Secondly, SPD pedals will not make you faster. Being linked to the pedals, whether that's with clips and straps or clipless pedals, will stop your foot slipping around, thereby allowing you to pedal at faster cadence with confidence. It's difficult to pedal efficiently if you are having to reposition your foot throughout the stroke. They also allow you to pull up. But both of those things have to be learned; SPD pedals and clips and straps are merely tools.

If you want my 'past experience', the fastest time I recorded (I don't obsess about keeping records) on the bike I'll post a pic of below was 18 miles in 43 minutes; average speed over 25mph.

I started my road cycling on this bike: it's my steel Raleigh leisure bike from the '80s; a bargain 21st birthday gift intended to get me to work. It's made from 'heavy' low-end plain gauge tubing, it has very cheap old steel-rimmed wheels (the rear one doesn't even run true) with very worn (original!) 35mm tyres, flat handlebars, and a rack. It even came with a kick-stand.



The important difference is between perceived speed and actual speed. Many beginners seem to become convinced that they are going much faster or exerting less effort because they are riding a bike that feels flightier; this is a common trap. In reality, the difference is very small. If you think about it it's pretty stupid to expect that riding a bicycle that's lighter than another by the amount of body weight (at least!) that a person might lose by cycling or might naturally occur between people, could make them go 5-10mph faster, isn't it?

+1

It might not be what you most want to hear but I think he's right.

Exactly, that was pretty much my thinking. Some cyclists do a very good job of convincing themselves that they can substitute fancy bike for training.

But I'm all for people buying what they can afford and enjoying what for any amateur is a leisure pursuit, but mental attitude is a HUGE element in performance athletics; hence the legions of sports psychologists that all the major teams employ. If you can persuade yourself that it's the bike's fault and not yours, you can probably convince yourself that it's work, argument with wife, weather, the fact that your tights are dhb and not Assos, that you need a haircut...