Forum home Road cycling forum Road beginners

Importance factor

Jerry185Jerry185 Posts: 143
edited June 2016 in Road beginners
Afternoon all,

Newbie here, so first question. Been proper riding for just over a year and put about 2,000 miles in various different places.

So here's the thing, I would put myself as (squeezing head through door) very fit for my age, with a B'Twin 540 road bike a pro described as 'perfectly reasonable.'

Having done a bike camp and a couple of Sportives, what I'd like to know from you experts is how much importance you factor into the following categories;-

Strength
Aerobic capacity
Bike
Bike positioning e.g. Retul
Experience/Technique

i.e. is it worth spending another £1000 on a carbon bike which might gain me, say, 2% in performance, whereas reading and improving technique may get me 15%

Thanks for your thoughts

Posts

  • oxomanoxoman Posts: 8,843
    Any bike is only as good as its engine, aka you. As long as you are comfortable on the bike then the only real improvements will come from strength, fitness and technique etc. If you get the above correct then look at a fancy lightweight bike.
    Too many bikes according to Mrs O.
  • fenixfenix Posts: 5,437
    Your bike is fine. Looking at your milage and you're really just starting. You should just get out on the bike and spend the cash on clothes that fits and doesn't flap round. Anything loose just burns watts. And your new kit will also work on your next bike that you will probably get next year....

    If you want to get really serious look at trainerroad for the winter turbo sessions.
  • jgsijgsi Posts: 5,027
    This is Beginners, marra.. just learn how to pedal in circles before all that sh it
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,023
    ^^^ yes, that.

    BTW - 2,000 miles over a year is an average of about 40 miles per week. It's obviously better than nothing, but 2, 3 or 4 times that amount is more typical of a regular, non-competitive rider.
  • Jerry185Jerry185 Posts: 143
    Thanks guys, all advice is taken on board. Mileage is difficult as its not my main sport, but I'm doing what I can. I also live on a small island so events are few and getting off is expensive.

    Happy cycles.
  • markhewitt1978markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    As said your bike is decent and more than capable of anything you want to do with it, including racing. If you wanted to upgrade your bike it's a reasonable thing to do because it may well be more enjoyable to ride as better bikes are - but don't try and justify it to yourself in speed terms ;)
  • Simon MastersonSimon Masterson Posts: 2,740
    Once you've achieved an agreeable compromise between biomechanical efficiency, relative comfort, and aerodynamics, your 'performance' will be a matter of pedalling. This assumes that you're actually using metrics, though - simply not being in pain and making it to the end of your ride without passing out - isn't the same thing.

    P.S. Don't waste your money on things like Retul.
  • Jerry185 wrote:

    Having done a bike camp and a couple of Sportives, what I'd like to know from you experts is how much importance you factor into the following categories;-

    Strength
    Aerobic capacity
    Bike
    Bike positioning e.g. Retul
    Experience/Technique

    In my opinion, you have missed off the biggest influence.... BODY WEIGHT.

    Especially if your rides are hilly.

    Theres no point in spending £1000's on a bike JUST to save 2 or 3kg If you're 10 Kg overweight. However I agree there's other reasons to buy a nice bike if it makes you want to ride it more. Also it's your money, but what bike you want.
    The analogy I think of is... You're having to carry that extra 10Kg of weight against gravity uphill and again and again for every metre of accent. Its like carrying a rucksack with 10 litres of water around.

    Aerobic capacity helps if you're at the correct weight and spinning away with a high cadence uphill. The gearing mechanical advantage is trading off muscular effort for aerobic capacity.
    From what I understand, those top cyclists on the mountain stages will have a low body weight to high length strength ratio. Not necessary massive leg strength, but relatively for their size and low weight. Watts per Kilogram ?

    Bike positioning / bike fit helps over really a long distance when you're feeling comfortable and a long time on the bike isn't making your back, shoulders and neck hurt.
    "The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby
  • Jerry185Jerry185 Posts: 143
    Thanks Ben,

    forgot to post what I'd factored out (assumptions n'all)

    I'm 5'10" and weigh 74K with 4% body fat.
  • mattbabsmattbabs Posts: 86
    I'm not doubting your fitness, but what method did you use to get a measurement of 4% body fat? Most pros would be a few percentage points above that. Chris Froome's was 9.8% when he released his data. I'm the same height as you and weigh 69kg and I could definitely lose a lot of fat, and still be healthy.
  • nochekmatenochekmate Posts: 3,460
    Jerry185 wrote:
    Thanks Ben,

    forgot to post what I'd factored out (assumptions n'all)

    I'm 5'10" and weigh 74K with 4% body fat.

    Heavy boned obviously :lol:

    4% body fat - you sure??
  • Jerry185Jerry185 Posts: 143
    Yep, one of those caliper measurements. Either way, not one that has to lose 10K. Or even 5K.
  • webboowebboo Posts: 3,135
    Jerry185 wrote:
    Thanks Ben,

    forgot to post what I'd factored out (assumptions n'all)

    I'm 5'10" and weigh 74K with 4% body fat.
    That makes you mid range healthy on the BMI scale, were you still wearing your steel capped boots when you got weighed. :D
  • ForumNewbieForumNewbie Posts: 1,664
    Jerry185 wrote:

    Having done a bike camp and a couple of Sportives, what I'd like to know from you experts is how much importance you factor into the following categories;-

    Strength
    Aerobic capacity
    Bike
    Bike positioning e.g. Retul
    Experience/Technique

    In my opinion, you have missed off the biggest influence.... BODY WEIGHT.

    Especially if your rides are hilly.

    Theres no point in spending £1000's on a bike JUST to save 2 or 3kg If you're 10 Kg overweight. However I agree there's other reasons to buy a nice bike if it makes you want to ride it more. Also it's your money, but what bike you want.
    The analogy I think of is... You're having to carry that extra 10Kg of weight against gravity uphill and again and again for every metre of accent. Its like carrying a rucksack with 10 litres of water around.
    I agree a person's weight is a big factor, but I would assume that in most cases an 80kg cyclist on an 8kg bike would be quicker uphill than a 70kg cyclist on an 18kg bike?
  • I agree a person's weight is a big factor, but I would assume that in most cases an 80kg cyclist on an 8kg bike would be quicker uphill than a 70kg cyclist on an 18kg bike?

    I cant think of any quality bikes that weigh 18Kg, even full sus mountain bikes.

    The point Im making is if a bike weighs a realistic 9Kg . It will be considerably cheaper to lose 2 or 3kg of excess bodyweight than shave 2 or 3Kg from the bike.
    Bikes have a law of diminishing returns... The more top end you go, the difference in price is greater but the weight saving is less and less. The biggest difference per £ is actually between the supermarket bargain bikes and a reputable mid end bike, spend any more money and the differences are less. To the point where you're spending £185 on a seat post thats 11 grammes lighter than a seatpost thats £89. Whats 11 grammes, the weight of half an energy gel ?

    For "marginal gains" shaving off 11g here and there. You'll be spending £ thousands to get a bike thats just be a few hundred grammes lighter. To get a complete bike thats lightweight, the Trek Emonda SLR8 costs £5800. Yet this is only 1.63Kg lighter than a Trek Emonda SL5 that costs £1800, yet this Emonda SL5 is around 4Kg lighter than a budget bike thats £280

    Trek Emonda SLR8, 6.19Kg, £5800, http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/cate ... r-8-48958/

    Trek Emonda SL5, 7.82 Kg, £1800

    Carrera Virtuoso 2015, 11.8Kg, £280




    Basically, buy a mid range bike and get fitter.
    "The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby
  • ForumNewbieForumNewbie Posts: 1,664
    I agree a person's weight is a big factor, but I would assume that in most cases an 80kg cyclist on an 8kg bike would be quicker uphill than a 70kg cyclist on an 18kg bike?

    I cant think of any quality bikes that weigh 18Kg, even full sus mountain bikes.

    The point Im making is if a bike weighs a realistic 9Kg . It will be considerably cheaper to loose 2 or 3kg of excess bodyweight than shave 2 or 3Kg from the bike.
    Bikes have a law of diminishing returns... The more top end you go, the difference in price is greater but the weight saving is less and less. The biggest difference per £ is actually between the supermarket bargain bikes and a reputable mid end bike, spend any more money and the differences are less. To the point where you're spending £185 on a seat post thats 11 grammes lighter than a seatpost thats £89. Whats 11 grammes, the weight of half an energy gel ?

    For "marginal gains" shaving off 11g here and there. You'll be spending £ thousands to get a bike thats just be a few hundred grammes lighter. To get a complete bike thats lightweight, the Trek Emonda SLR8 costs £5800. Yet this is only 1.63Kg lighter than a Trek Emonda SL5 that costs £1800
    I know the point you're making. That was probably an extreme example I used, but a lot of people say rather than spend an extra £x amount on a 2kg lighter bike, just lose the same amount of body weight, and I was wondering if that's definitely the case, i.e. as long as the aggregate weight of cyclist and bike is the same, there is no difference in performance.

    A more realistic example is that I have an 8 kg carbon bike, and an 11.5 kg 'light' touring bike. I am currently about 70kg. If I lost 3.5kg in body weight, I'm not sure it would mean that I would then be as fast uphill on the heavier bike as I used to be on the lighter bike?
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,123
    A more realistic example is that I have an 8 kg carbon bike, and an 11.5 kg 'light' touring bike. I am currently about 70kg. If I lost 3.5kg in body weight, I'm not sure it would mean that I would then be as fast uphill on the heavier bike as I used to be on the lighter bike?

    You would be as long as the weight you'd lost was all fat and not muscle too.

    I lost 8kg and got a CR1-SL frameset. Win-win :D
  • Jerry185Jerry185 Posts: 143
    webboo wrote:
    Jerry185 wrote:
    Thanks Ben,

    forgot to post what I'd factored out (assumptions n'all)

    I'm 5'10" and weigh 74K with 4% body fat.
    That makes you mid range healthy on the BMI scale, were you still wearing your steel capped boots when you got weighed. :D

    Cheers Webboo, my main sport is obstacle course (foot) races so you need a bit of dimension on the top deck. Cycling is new to me, hence these questions; I thought you just got on any old bike and rode it :roll: :roll: :roll:
Sign In or Register to comment.