sportive bikes: is it more than just upright riding position
Comments
-
You're right plip. Have you tried letting some air out of the tyres?
.I do believe 1psi is the optimum amount0 -
-
Ah popette, I was just wondering whtether you were still following the 'conversation' and felt a worthwhile return from the bad boys posturing. They're funny when they start preening, aren't they?- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I\'m only escaping to here because the office is having a conniption0 -
McBain_v1 wrote:Good to see a bike retailer getting involved in the forum.
My Enigma Esprit frame is billed as suitable for sportives, although I haven't actually done one yet. Despite this, I really like it
mmmm, titanium - that could be good for me0 -
rustychisel wrote:Ah popette, I was just wondering whtether you were still following the 'conversation' and felt a worthwhile return from the bad boys posturing. They're funny when they start preening, aren't they? 0
-
Going back to the point of the OP.
It would be time and money well spent to consider a bike fitting and a custom frame with someone that can take account of what you'll use the bike for, your abilities as a rider and your preferences for riding position. Frame geometry, size, stem length, crank length will then be better optimised.
I've been investigating this and the fitting cost can be deducted from the bike cost and the custom option isn't as expensive as I'd thought.
Obviously having got all the above dimensions right you can then attend to the really important aspects such as micro adjustments to tyre pressure.
Where the neon madmen climb0 -
gents, put your saddlebags away!
I really wish stiffness, frame material and weight were all unimportant as it would save me a ton of money. I'd just ride my old 11kg trek with sora and 1cm thick alu tubing and it would all be ok. If it is mainly a placebo effect when I jump on my 6.5kg carbon rig, then it is one hell of a big placebo effect and needs to be investigated.
i don't know what all the scientists would say, but let's say that over a hilly ride i could sustain 1mph higher for the same wattage due to stiffer, more comfortable, lighter, better handling bike ... in group riding or racing that is one hell of a big difference no?0 -
wildmoustache wrote:gents, put your saddlebags away!
i don't know what all the scientists would say, but let's say that over a hilly ride i could sustain 1mph higher for the same wattage due to stiffer, more comfortable, lighter, better handling bike
1mph might be conservative. Two years ago I swapped my Scott Sportster (flat barred hybrid with susp fork) for a Bianchi via Nirone. On a 27 mile flattish loop my average speed went from 15 to 17 mph immediately. In the 2 years since, I've trained better and harder and have got to 18.5mph average on this run. My conclusion would be the bike change delivered better improvement than revised training/more miles etc.
However I think it was a one off, i don't think i can get to 20mph by buying the lightest, stiffest, most expensive road bike I can find. Actually, why the hell not just do it........................ Where the neon madmen climb0 -
Back to the bit about head tube length.
This is based on my own experience with the frame size that I ride and is purely my own opinion.
I ride a 57cm top tube. If a road frame is made at say 57cm C to C on the top and seat tube then I would expect to find a head tube about 170mm. Stick in an external headset and this will give a head tube around 200mm.
What seems to have happened is that with integrated headsets the length of the head tube has been left at 170 ish including the headset. Many bikes now come up shorter than that and are very very low at the front. It might look racey but in my view it's wrong. OK if you never use the drops but for any sort of distance very uncomfortable.
A frame of these sort of dimensions will now be branded as a sportive frame.
Lets look at an example of the sort of stuff pro riders use. I've picked at random Colnagos "top of the range" Extreme Power. Colnago say "born to meet the demands of sprinters Alessandro Petacchi and Erik Zabel of Team Milram and three time World Champion Oscar Freire", yet the frame sizes are based on traditional dimensions with traditional length head tubes. Obviously sportive riders using sportive frames.
But the Colnago uses an external headset. How about a "pro" frame with an internal headset. The Ridley Noah in my size has a 200mm head tube. Cadel Evans must be riding sportives.0 -
It would be a huge difference if it was pooossible, yes. Unfortunately there's no UCI legal bike in existence which will give you that much advantage over your 11kg Trek.wildmoustache wrote:i don't know what all the scientists would say, but let's say that over a hilly ride i could sustain 1mph higher for the same wattage due to stiffer, more comfortable, lighter, better handling bike ... in group riding or racing that is one hell of a big difference no?
The wonderful thing about the placebo effect is that it really does work!0 -
Possibly it did - mostly down to a change in riding position I'd suggest (the other factors being faster rolling tyres and getting rid of sus-fork energy loss).pedylan wrote:1mph might be conservative. Two years ago I swapped my Scott Sportster (flat barred hybrid with susp fork) for a Bianchi via Nirone. On a 27 mile flattish loop my average speed went from 15 to 17 mph immediately. In the 2 years since, I've trained better and harder and have got to 18.5mph average on this run. My conclusion would be the bike change delivered better improvement than revised training/more miles etc.0 -
Pirahna wrote:Back to the bit about head tube length.
This is based on my own experience with the frame size that I ride and is purely my own opinion.
I ride a 57cm top tube. If a road frame is made at say 57cm C to C on the top and seat tube then I would expect to find a head tube about 170mm. Stick in an external headset and this will give a head tube around 200mm.
What seems to have happened is that with integrated headsets the length of the head tube has been left at 170 ish including the headset. Many bikes now come up shorter than that and are very very low at the front. It might look racey but in my view it's wrong. OK if you never use the drops but for any sort of distance very uncomfortable.
A frame of these sort of dimensions will now be branded as a sportive frame.
Lets look at an example of the sort of stuff pro riders use. I've picked at random Colnagos "top of the range" Extreme Power. Colnago say "born to meet the demands of sprinters Alessandro Petacchi and Erik Zabel of Team Milram and three time World Champion Oscar Freire", yet the frame sizes are based on traditional dimensions with traditional length head tubes. Obviously sportive riders using sportive frames.
But the Colnago uses an external headset. How about a "pro" frame with an internal headset. The Ridley Noah in my size has a 200mm head tube. Cadel Evans must be riding sportives.
Fair play if it suits you pirahna. has to be said that many pros are riding custom frames and the norm is to get pretty low at the front, rather than upright as you suggest.
I just don't like the handling on bikes with long headtubes ... as I said I don't really know whether it's the change in body /hand position or the frame itself that is the issue.
I'd rather have a mediumish head tube and have the option to use a space or two if i needed and the flexibilty that allows.
Just checked and my frame in a 54.5cm TT has a 148mm headtube and i currently use 0.5cm of spacer on top of that. In your size (57.5cm), it has a 175mm ht.
Each to their own!0 -
greg roche wrote:Hi. As far as we at Sunday are concerned, it is of course a marketing term. Marketing term means a sales term, but to be fair its also about giving a certain profile of customer a product that's likely to suit them.
We market the Silk Road as a sportive bike. We consider a number of factors that make it's design suited to the sportive user and to the sportive event. Heres a quick run down:
Longer head tube - because a sportive event will probably take a minimum of 6 hours and the 'typical' sportivist is relatively new / revisiting teh sport after a lay-off, 35+ years old and therefore wants something that's a comfortable riding position for a long day out and isn't actually interested in being in a cramped race position at all.
Shorter Top tube - For the same reasons listed above, we noticed that people on traditional geometry race bikes but using them for sportives were running shorter stems - to achieve a comfortable reach position. But a short stem can mean dodgy handling. So we shortened teh top tube of the bike, allowing for a decent length stem to be fitted, so that the rider is avoiding a stretched out position but gaining from the better handling of a longer stem.
Semi compact geometry - Again, a sportive event is a long day out. The rider will want to carry two large bottles, as well as having room for other bits n bobs. Particularly on small frame sizes, compact frames struggle to accomodate two large bottles. So we designed semi compact, so that you've got that as well as the benefits of lighter weight and greater lateral stiffness associated with the compact geometry.
Measured stiffness - lateral stiffness and some verticle compliance, particularly in the rear triangle. We achieve this in Ti by selecting carefully the most suitable tube profiles.
Finally, other user requirements. Riders making forrays into Europe and beyond to 'bag the marmott' or the etape or a grand fondo or whatever is becoming really popular. So it sdoesn't take much to spot these users will be wanting to load their bikes onto aeroplanes... and therefore be at the whims of baggage handlers. We make in ti because it'll take a good few knocks... but we also DONT make with the currently fashionable integrated seast post / tube because obviously it can be awkward to fit into a bike box... We're currently designing a TT frame that does do this...
Anyway, there are the basics of what we take into consideration on either custom geo bikes and when we designed the Silk Road.
Greg
The most sensible reply so far. If a conventional race geometry is uncomfortable, then there is an alternative. I would suggest though that after say 12 months of regular cycling, then most people can get comfortable on a normal racing position (from personal experience) for extended periods of time - i.e. several hours.
The advantage is that in this position you can probably ride a little faster due to the more aerodynamic position, certainly it will feel faster, as there is nothing quite like being down on the drops balls out...0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:.............then most people can get comfortable on a normal racing position (from personal experience) for extended periods of time - i.e. several hours.
..
several hours is straightforward for most people I imagine. However sportives could be 7 - 10 hours easily. On runs up to 4 or 5 hours the sorest part of my body is my backside.
It wasn't til I did runs of 7 or 8 hours that I discovered shoulder ache, back pain, pain on the outside of my feet and a host of other suffering not remotely evident in shorter rides.
I'm not saying a sportive frame would be like a feather bed but ability to endure standard race position on standard frame for several hours doesn't indicate it's satisfactory for spotive durations.Where the neon madmen climb0 -
aracer wrote:
It would be a huge difference if it was pooossible, yes. Unfortunately there's no UCI legal bike in existence which will give you that much advantage over your 11kg Trek.wildmoustache wrote:i don't know what all the scientists would say, but let's say that over a hilly ride i could sustain 1mph higher for the same wattage due to stiffer, more comfortable, lighter, better handling bike ... in group riding or racing that is one hell of a big difference no?
The wonderful thing about the placebo effect is that it really does work!
It does in your case big boy.
You are wonderful. :roll:
Well I guess something must have convinced you.
Which egopill are you taking?
Fantastic result.0 -
As far as I can see a sportive bike is usually just a road bike with lower gears, and maybe clearance for 25mm tyres instead of 23mm. It can be a bit less stiff/more comfy due to lower power output over the longer event, and maybe higher/closer bars might help if the rider has strength or flexibility issues.
Having said that, my experience has been that the right position for a shorter event and stupid things like PBP is pretty much the same. What is crucial for longer events is comfort and setup. This means that you cannot get away with adopting a stupidly low bar for aero reasons like you can in a 1 hour event, and that too high tyre pressures and harsh riding frames aren't going to be too pleasant. The longer the event, the bigger a deal just sitting on the bike becomes; there's not the extra energy to get off the seat over every miniscule bump, and cringing gets old pretty fast. Having the bars at a less extreme height and actually using the drops (not just the hoods) helps, and one can always bend the elbows a bit more to get lower. Fit is more crucial the longer the event, as is sensible tyre pressure and having a low enough gear to climb comfortably.
I agree with those who have said that excessively high bars or long head tubes are not necessary - at least for those without biomechanical problems. It's be nice if bike manufacturers added a few extra spacers rather than cutting the steerer right down though...
I'd also vote for Ti for reasons of durability and greater possibilities of a custom fit than for carbon, but if you can get a carbon frame that fits well (and isn't too stiff) it'll do the job fine.0 -
aracer wrote:
It would be a huge difference if it was pooossible, yes. Unfortunately there's no UCI legal bike in existence which will give you that much advantage over your 11kg Trek.wildmoustache wrote:i don't know what all the scientists would say, but let's say that over a hilly ride i could sustain 1mph higher for the same wattage due to stiffer, more comfortable, lighter, better handling bike ... in group riding or racing that is one hell of a big difference no?
The wonderful thing about the placebo effect is that it really does work!
but my bike isn't UCI legal.
On a hilly ride I think 1mph difference for the two different bikes would be a reasonable starting point. It might not be right, but it feels to me like there's a big difference ... despit (as I've alluded) my financial interest in there not being ...
Lower weight and greater stiffness for climbing, better handling for descending.0 -
I meant "several hours" being 7-9 hours continous riding. Remenber, 12 months training for this isnt a beginner, and would have hopefully done 8+ hours a week in prep. You shouold be able to work out when/where bike pains wil occure well before any sportive, and if you havent then its down to poor prep sorry.0
