Looking for some unbiased cost-benefit analysis for cycling upgrades
May 13, 2013 11:53 AM Subscribe
After a year of strenuous work, I am finally at the point where I think it's worth upgrading my bike to try to eke out some more speed. But I want to know what kinds of improvements are really worth it.
I've been riding for 3 years, and over the last year putting a lot of time into becoming a stronger cyclist. My bike is an entry level specialized road bike (A 2010 Secteur if it matters, an aluminum-framed, low-grade-shimano-group bike). For most of those 3 years I was unconcerned about my bike, my theory being that I had a lot of work to do on myself (weight and proficiency) before I needed to worry about trying to buy performance.
I don't think I'm quite at my peak of performance but I'm getting there, and I'm doing the kind of riding where I would benefit from some upgrades. I'm an extremely practical and economical (in some senses) person and I am not going to buy The Best Bike or The Fanciest Wheels or whatever without figuring out what upgrades make sense and what don't.
Basically, I would be happy to spend $1000-1500 upgrading, or say $2500 replacing my bike, if it was likely to improve my flat-road average speed by 1mph+. And I'm basically trying to find out, what I can expect the improvement to be, in mph/$ for various upgrades.
I found this
and it's definitely along the right lines, although if you follow it back to the original research it's geared around a person going 30 mph on a 40k time trial, I think. And it's specifically based on aerodynamics - I expect there are also many weight improvements I could do.
The most expedient thing to do would probably be to get a whole new bike. I'm open to that idea, but I'd probably still need the same help figuring out what wheel sets are worth their price, how much weight reductions will help, and so forth.
That link above had some surprises to me. I knew that shoe covers help, for example, but was surprised they helped that much - more than an aero frame for example, while costing a mere $50 vs thousands for the frame. That's a perfect example of what I'm interested in, avoiding big dollar purchases that will barely help and focusing on things that will make a difference.
I've been riding for 3 years, and over the last year putting a lot of time into becoming a stronger cyclist. My bike is an entry level specialized road bike (A 2010 Secteur if it matters, an aluminum-framed, low-grade-shimano-group bike). For most of those 3 years I was unconcerned about my bike, my theory being that I had a lot of work to do on myself (weight and proficiency) before I needed to worry about trying to buy performance.
I don't think I'm quite at my peak of performance but I'm getting there, and I'm doing the kind of riding where I would benefit from some upgrades. I'm an extremely practical and economical (in some senses) person and I am not going to buy The Best Bike or The Fanciest Wheels or whatever without figuring out what upgrades make sense and what don't.
Basically, I would be happy to spend $1000-1500 upgrading, or say $2500 replacing my bike, if it was likely to improve my flat-road average speed by 1mph+. And I'm basically trying to find out, what I can expect the improvement to be, in mph/$ for various upgrades.
I found this
and it's definitely along the right lines, although if you follow it back to the original research it's geared around a person going 30 mph on a 40k time trial, I think. And it's specifically based on aerodynamics - I expect there are also many weight improvements I could do.
The most expedient thing to do would probably be to get a whole new bike. I'm open to that idea, but I'd probably still need the same help figuring out what wheel sets are worth their price, how much weight reductions will help, and so forth.
That link above had some surprises to me. I knew that shoe covers help, for example, but was surprised they helped that much - more than an aero frame for example, while costing a mere $50 vs thousands for the frame. That's a perfect example of what I'm interested in, avoiding big dollar purchases that will barely help and focusing on things that will make a difference.
So, a good 40k TT time for an amateur cyclist might be say, 1 hour. That's 24.85 mph.
You can cut two minutes off that with a set of Aerobars, which gets you up to 25.72 mph, so that's your one MPH difference right there for $200.
Weight changes aren't going to make much difference on flat ground. You can test this pretty easily: buy a pound of fishing weights and tape it to your downtube, and see how much slower you go. It won't be much. Then start pricing out components that are going to save you that much weight and see if it's going to be worth the cost.
You'd see more of a difference with weight reduction if you focused on climbing, and if you're normally riding by yourself, you may really want to consider the aerobars and other aero improvements over weight reduction, because they'll make a bigger difference on flat ground.
You also might want to consider stiffer wheels.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 12:16 PM on May 13, 2013
You can cut two minutes off that with a set of Aerobars, which gets you up to 25.72 mph, so that's your one MPH difference right there for $200.
Weight changes aren't going to make much difference on flat ground. You can test this pretty easily: buy a pound of fishing weights and tape it to your downtube, and see how much slower you go. It won't be much. Then start pricing out components that are going to save you that much weight and see if it's going to be worth the cost.
You'd see more of a difference with weight reduction if you focused on climbing, and if you're normally riding by yourself, you may really want to consider the aerobars and other aero improvements over weight reduction, because they'll make a bigger difference on flat ground.
You also might want to consider stiffer wheels.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 12:16 PM on May 13, 2013
Can you be more specific about the kind of cycling that you're doing? Are you a competitive cyclist, or, even if you don't compete, are you essentially recreating a specific competition modality? For instance, the article you linked considers gear that is very specific to time trials, to the extent that serious road cyclists basically never use any of it, for various reasons. You don't even use that kind of gear in the non-time trial sections of the Tour de France.
posted by pullayup at 12:16 PM on May 13, 2013
posted by pullayup at 12:16 PM on May 13, 2013
It's unclear to me what your goal is here. It'd be helpful to know what sort of cycling you want to do, what you do now, what your average speed is now, and what sort of course that's measured over.
There's a world of difference between, for instance, time trialing (which tends to emphasize aerodynamics over everything else, including weight), road racing (which deemphasizes aerodynamics and emphasizes weight), road touring (which emphasizes comfort and frame strength), and cyclocross racing (which emphasizes rapid acceleration). You seem to be focusing on miles per hour, which may or may not be what you actually want. For instance, if you are interested in road racing, a time trial bike would not only not be what you want, it'd actually not be allowed into the race. If you're interested in, for instance, doing a century in 5 hours, it'd seem like a time trial bike would make sense, but time trial bikes are notoriously painful to ride for extended times.
As an empirical note, I gained about 1.5 mph instantly and 2.5 mph very rapidly by moving from a heavy aluminum bike to a ~19.0 pound carbon fiber bike. I deliberately picked a "heavy" (for carbon fiber) bike for comfort reasons. I also didn't notice, in speed, any difference between Shimano 105, Ultegra, and SRAM Apex when on the same bike frame. However, I did notice distinct ergonomic differences that affected me.
posted by saeculorum at 12:23 PM on May 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's a world of difference between, for instance, time trialing (which tends to emphasize aerodynamics over everything else, including weight), road racing (which deemphasizes aerodynamics and emphasizes weight), road touring (which emphasizes comfort and frame strength), and cyclocross racing (which emphasizes rapid acceleration). You seem to be focusing on miles per hour, which may or may not be what you actually want. For instance, if you are interested in road racing, a time trial bike would not only not be what you want, it'd actually not be allowed into the race. If you're interested in, for instance, doing a century in 5 hours, it'd seem like a time trial bike would make sense, but time trial bikes are notoriously painful to ride for extended times.
As an empirical note, I gained about 1.5 mph instantly and 2.5 mph very rapidly by moving from a heavy aluminum bike to a ~19.0 pound carbon fiber bike. I deliberately picked a "heavy" (for carbon fiber) bike for comfort reasons. I also didn't notice, in speed, any difference between Shimano 105, Ultegra, and SRAM Apex when on the same bike frame. However, I did notice distinct ergonomic differences that affected me.
posted by saeculorum at 12:23 PM on May 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: OK, good point.
I live in Austin so the terrain is not flat - there is a fair amount of climbing. Flat routes near where I live probably average 500ft of climbing per 20 miles, hilly routes about double that. The reason I specified 1mph on flat ground is that "flat" is easy to specify but "not flat" means a lot of different things to different people.
I ride by myself about half the time, in a group the other half. Group riding is actually part of my current "problem" if you want to call it that. The middle-speed rides (rec riders who ride once a week or twice) are too slow, the club rides are barely - and I mean barely - possible. I guess the best approximation would be road racing, i.e. fast riding in a group or in formation, over medium to long distances (50 miles+). I would like these rides to be easier.
I would like to race, probably plain road racing. If I get comfortable in groups, maybe criteriums.
I do have aerobars, but clip-ons that I don't usually use, so they're not that useful (can't shift while on them). They're frowned on in group rides and not very useful in hilly terrain since I can't shift, so I don't use them often. They were the first crutch I bought, at the beginning, when the rec rides were hard for me, I used them to catch up when I got dropped.
As an example, consider wheels, though. There is a HUGE price range and a lot of different options (materials, spoke types and count, aero or non-aero, etc). It is impossible for me to rank wheels by price/mph and googling basically just gets you tons of anecdotal advice (I bought these wheels and now I'm way faster) and marketing materials.
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:32 PM on May 13, 2013
I live in Austin so the terrain is not flat - there is a fair amount of climbing. Flat routes near where I live probably average 500ft of climbing per 20 miles, hilly routes about double that. The reason I specified 1mph on flat ground is that "flat" is easy to specify but "not flat" means a lot of different things to different people.
I ride by myself about half the time, in a group the other half. Group riding is actually part of my current "problem" if you want to call it that. The middle-speed rides (rec riders who ride once a week or twice) are too slow, the club rides are barely - and I mean barely - possible. I guess the best approximation would be road racing, i.e. fast riding in a group or in formation, over medium to long distances (50 miles+). I would like these rides to be easier.
I would like to race, probably plain road racing. If I get comfortable in groups, maybe criteriums.
I do have aerobars, but clip-ons that I don't usually use, so they're not that useful (can't shift while on them). They're frowned on in group rides and not very useful in hilly terrain since I can't shift, so I don't use them often. They were the first crutch I bought, at the beginning, when the rec rides were hard for me, I used them to catch up when I got dropped.
As an example, consider wheels, though. There is a HUGE price range and a lot of different options (materials, spoke types and count, aero or non-aero, etc). It is impossible for me to rank wheels by price/mph and googling basically just gets you tons of anecdotal advice (I bought these wheels and now I'm way faster) and marketing materials.
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:32 PM on May 13, 2013
All the TT improvements are basically negated when you're riding in a group and can draft. (That's why aero is so critical in TT/tri-- no one in front of you.)
For the kind of outlay you're talking about you could either gain a few MPH with a new bike -- and have room to grow from there -- or get a set of wheels that you could take with you to a new bike later. Or a new groupset. Obviously, the wheels would be the least expensive.
I think the way to go -- if you're ok shelling out for a new bike -- is probably to get a carbon frame with a lower-end groupset. It is going to give you an immediate advantage and you'll have room to keep improving by upgrading drivetrain and wheels-- something like this Apex Roubaix. Those are a nice combination of comfort and lightness. Plus: sale.
posted by supercres at 12:40 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
For the kind of outlay you're talking about you could either gain a few MPH with a new bike -- and have room to grow from there -- or get a set of wheels that you could take with you to a new bike later. Or a new groupset. Obviously, the wheels would be the least expensive.
I think the way to go -- if you're ok shelling out for a new bike -- is probably to get a carbon frame with a lower-end groupset. It is going to give you an immediate advantage and you'll have room to keep improving by upgrading drivetrain and wheels-- something like this Apex Roubaix. Those are a nice combination of comfort and lightness. Plus: sale.
posted by supercres at 12:40 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
It is impossible for me to rank wheels by price/mph and googling basically just gets you tons of anecdotal advice (I bought these wheels and now I'm way faster) and marketing materials.
That's because it's nearly impossible to measure for the reasons we're talking about. The differences will be, at most, slight. Further, you'll probably notice a distinct relationship between weight/price of the wheel and how impractical the wheel is for riding frequently. There's no "magic bullet" here - if you want to upgrade your bike, you will likely have to upgrade everything to accumulate all of the slight differences. I'd concur with supercres that it's worth considering shelling out for a new bike, mostly to avoid the mechanical awkwardness associated with whole groupset swaps or the aesthetic awkwardness of having a Secteur with wheels that cost more than the original bike.
In general, lighter wheels help you with climbing and acceleration. In general, aero wheels help you with top speed and tend not to do anything (beyond extra weight) below ~18 mph. Since you say that you are riding in formation, you likely want wheels more towards the lighter side than the aero side. I'm a fan of Fulcrum Wheels as a nice balance between both sides while still managing some modicum of practicality.
I would love to live somewhere where 1000 feet per 20 miles is "hilly".
posted by saeculorum at 12:45 PM on May 13, 2013
That's because it's nearly impossible to measure for the reasons we're talking about. The differences will be, at most, slight. Further, you'll probably notice a distinct relationship between weight/price of the wheel and how impractical the wheel is for riding frequently. There's no "magic bullet" here - if you want to upgrade your bike, you will likely have to upgrade everything to accumulate all of the slight differences. I'd concur with supercres that it's worth considering shelling out for a new bike, mostly to avoid the mechanical awkwardness associated with whole groupset swaps or the aesthetic awkwardness of having a Secteur with wheels that cost more than the original bike.
In general, lighter wheels help you with climbing and acceleration. In general, aero wheels help you with top speed and tend not to do anything (beyond extra weight) below ~18 mph. Since you say that you are riding in formation, you likely want wheels more towards the lighter side than the aero side. I'm a fan of Fulcrum Wheels as a nice balance between both sides while still managing some modicum of practicality.
I would love to live somewhere where 1000 feet per 20 miles is "hilly".
posted by saeculorum at 12:45 PM on May 13, 2013
Response by poster: I would love to live somewhere where 1000 feet per 20 miles is "hilly".
I'm guessing you live somewhere hillier? I just completed a week-long ride across *completely* flat terrain and I could not believe how much people bitched about the one thing we had to climb (bridges, usually 1/day)
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:48 PM on May 13, 2013
I'm guessing you live somewhere hillier? I just completed a week-long ride across *completely* flat terrain and I could not believe how much people bitched about the one thing we had to climb (bridges, usually 1/day)
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:48 PM on May 13, 2013
Response by poster: Is buying a used carbon fiber bike a bad idea? Someone I know has basically transitioned nearly 100% into mountain biking and has expressed some interest in selling me their Specialized Tarmac.
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:54 PM on May 13, 2013
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:54 PM on May 13, 2013
I kind of remember a similar list in Joe Friel's "Cyclist Training Bible". It's a good reference for someone in your position, anyway.
posted by disconnect at 12:57 PM on May 13, 2013
posted by disconnect at 12:57 PM on May 13, 2013
To upgrade you existing bike, the quickest route is to buy new wheels. Simply weigh your existing wheels (without tires or tubes or cassette) and buy something lighter. These Neuvation wheels are very good, or the Easton EA70 (which apparently are on closeout now). Anything made of aluminum under 1700 grams per set is fine, and any clincher set near 1400 grams is way light
Or With $2500 you could get a new carbon bike with a better component list and save a couple pounds right away.
But as some guy said, 'its not about the bike'. Do you have a cycling computer on your bike? Do you follow an organized training schedule? do you regularly ride with folks faster than you? For anyone who races the answer is 'yes'. If your answer to any of these is 'no', make a change and you will quickly get faster.
Oh, and the tarmac is a great racing bike. If your friend can guarantee its condition and if it fits you it could be a good choice.
posted by TDIpod at 12:57 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Or With $2500 you could get a new carbon bike with a better component list and save a couple pounds right away.
But as some guy said, 'its not about the bike'. Do you have a cycling computer on your bike? Do you follow an organized training schedule? do you regularly ride with folks faster than you? For anyone who races the answer is 'yes'. If your answer to any of these is 'no', make a change and you will quickly get faster.
Oh, and the tarmac is a great racing bike. If your friend can guarantee its condition and if it fits you it could be a good choice.
posted by TDIpod at 12:57 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'd stay away from TT / triathlon stuff unless you are really going to ride TTs or triathlons. This is just my opinion of course, but I find TT / tri bikes very uncomfortable to ride (even set up correctly, the aero position puts a lot more of your weight forwards), as do a lot of my cycling friends. Most people I know who do TT stuff actually have two bikes, one that they use for day-to-day training including all their group rides, and then their competition bike that they only break out for actual competitions (and a few shakedown rides right before). If I had to take a wild guess I'd say that most people are putting easily like 10x as many miles on their regular road bikes than on their TT / tri / aero bikes.
So anyway, I'd probably save the money and not get a TT / tri / aero bike until you really need it, i.e. you are riding in races and are definitely handicapped because of your equipment. Personally, I dislike going on group rides with people who have aero bars, because I think when in use they make the bike more twitchy and increase the chances of going down (and taking other riders down with them, in a group... like this guy).
I'm not really that familiar with your current bike, but what I'd do if I were you is take the wheels off (and handlebars if it's easy to do) and then weigh the wheels and the frame+drivetrain separately. Figure out where the weight is in your current bike and what it's going to be most cost-effective to upgrade. If your current frame is really hellaciously heavy, then you're going to probably need a new bike. But if the frame is reasonable (like within 25% of a current-gen frame in your price range) then I'd spend some money on decent alloy (not carbon) wheels, which you can take on to your next bike when you eventually upgrade it, swapping the stock wheels off of the new bike onto the old one for use on a trainer or whatever.
Personally I wouldn't spend a lot of money on a new groupset unless your current one is giving you trouble. Going to Shimano 105 or something isn't going to magically make you faster, unless you are wasting time with missed shifts or dropping the chain or something (in which case you probably need to tune your current setup).
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:58 PM on May 13, 2013
So anyway, I'd probably save the money and not get a TT / tri / aero bike until you really need it, i.e. you are riding in races and are definitely handicapped because of your equipment. Personally, I dislike going on group rides with people who have aero bars, because I think when in use they make the bike more twitchy and increase the chances of going down (and taking other riders down with them, in a group... like this guy).
I'm not really that familiar with your current bike, but what I'd do if I were you is take the wheels off (and handlebars if it's easy to do) and then weigh the wheels and the frame+drivetrain separately. Figure out where the weight is in your current bike and what it's going to be most cost-effective to upgrade. If your current frame is really hellaciously heavy, then you're going to probably need a new bike. But if the frame is reasonable (like within 25% of a current-gen frame in your price range) then I'd spend some money on decent alloy (not carbon) wheels, which you can take on to your next bike when you eventually upgrade it, swapping the stock wheels off of the new bike onto the old one for use on a trainer or whatever.
Personally I wouldn't spend a lot of money on a new groupset unless your current one is giving you trouble. Going to Shimano 105 or something isn't going to magically make you faster, unless you are wasting time with missed shifts or dropping the chain or something (in which case you probably need to tune your current setup).
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:58 PM on May 13, 2013
Oh, and if you don't have one already I'd probably spend money on a good cycling computer with cadence measurement before any weight savings stuff. Adding a cadence sensor to my bike changed how I train pretty substantially (you shoot for a particular cadence and shift accordingly, rather than going for a particular speed) and I think it's worth the relatively small investment.
Although more polarizing, I also think that a GPS-tracking computer or fitness watch (e.g. one of the Garmin Forerunner or Edges; the former if you also run, the latter if you are solely into cycling) are awesome, and have contributed to more mileage than any other accessory I've purchased. But some people are very against them and the whole data-based, Strava-uploading culture they arguably allow for, so YMMliterallyV.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Although more polarizing, I also think that a GPS-tracking computer or fitness watch (e.g. one of the Garmin Forerunner or Edges; the former if you also run, the latter if you are solely into cycling) are awesome, and have contributed to more mileage than any other accessory I've purchased. But some people are very against them and the whole data-based, Strava-uploading culture they arguably allow for, so YMMliterallyV.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is buying a used carbon fiber bike a bad idea?
If you trust the seller, I don't see why not. I think people tend to be overly worried about carbon fiber frames. Although there is something inherently odd about riding on a bike that is made out of "plastic", it's really the optimal material available for biking. It's even more comfortable to boot. If you didn't trust the seller, I'd take it in for an inspection at the dealer, since carbon fiber cracks are difficult to spot.
I like the mid-compact gearing (52/36) of the Tarmac series. It still allows you to climb, but it slightly reduces the annoying characteristic of compact gearing (50/34) of requiring you to constantly upshift/downshift the front derailleur if you're in the 19-21 mph range.
posted by saeculorum at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2013
If you trust the seller, I don't see why not. I think people tend to be overly worried about carbon fiber frames. Although there is something inherently odd about riding on a bike that is made out of "plastic", it's really the optimal material available for biking. It's even more comfortable to boot. If you didn't trust the seller, I'd take it in for an inspection at the dealer, since carbon fiber cracks are difficult to spot.
I like the mid-compact gearing (52/36) of the Tarmac series. It still allows you to climb, but it slightly reduces the annoying characteristic of compact gearing (50/34) of requiring you to constantly upshift/downshift the front derailleur if you're in the 19-21 mph range.
posted by saeculorum at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2013
Response by poster: I kind of remember a similar list in Joe Friel's "Cyclist Training Bible". It's a good reference for someone in your position, anyway.
I have the book, although I haven't done a lot more than just browsed it.
Do you have a cycling computer on your bike? Do you follow an organized training schedule? do you regularly ride with folks faster than you?
Yes, to all of these. Since october I've been following the guide in "The Time Crunched Cyclist" (mostly). I have a cycling computer, HRM and a power meter. The program is basically a high intensity/low volume thing. It's OK, but I'll have more time next year, which is why I bought the Cyclist's training bible.
I know I'm kind of all over the place here. I've pretty much completely ignored ever looking at gear, because I didn't think there was much point fussing about it until I was sure I was willing to put in the time, and until I got to a point where I thought my bike was something of a limitation.
I don't know why, but I'm a little skeptical of weight reduction being a huge factor - I weigh 180 lb, the minimum weight for racing a bike is something like 16lb, but I understand that people commonly race more like around 18, my bike probably weighs 22lb. So we're talking about 196lb vs 202lb, a 2% reduction in weight. Is that really enough to make a huge difference? I could probably lose another 2lb.
posted by RustyBrooks at 1:05 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have the book, although I haven't done a lot more than just browsed it.
Do you have a cycling computer on your bike? Do you follow an organized training schedule? do you regularly ride with folks faster than you?
Yes, to all of these. Since october I've been following the guide in "The Time Crunched Cyclist" (mostly). I have a cycling computer, HRM and a power meter. The program is basically a high intensity/low volume thing. It's OK, but I'll have more time next year, which is why I bought the Cyclist's training bible.
I know I'm kind of all over the place here. I've pretty much completely ignored ever looking at gear, because I didn't think there was much point fussing about it until I was sure I was willing to put in the time, and until I got to a point where I thought my bike was something of a limitation.
I don't know why, but I'm a little skeptical of weight reduction being a huge factor - I weigh 180 lb, the minimum weight for racing a bike is something like 16lb, but I understand that people commonly race more like around 18, my bike probably weighs 22lb. So we're talking about 196lb vs 202lb, a 2% reduction in weight. Is that really enough to make a huge difference? I could probably lose another 2lb.
posted by RustyBrooks at 1:05 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you haven't already done this yet, the best investment you can possibly make will be in a professional bike fitting. I absolutely guarantee it will make a radical difference to your comfort and your speed. Should also give you a better feel of what componentry to put top of your list for upgrade, too.
posted by genesta at 1:08 PM on May 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by genesta at 1:08 PM on May 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
So anyway, I'd probably save the money and not get a TT / tri / aero bike until you really need it
Echoing this, and ...actually you don't need it, period. Most triathletes don't bother getting a tri bike since they're so expensive and only worth the investment on flat courses under fairly specific conditions. I would recommend to try to use your clip-on aerobars more, though, since getting used to the position takes time and reducing your surface area exposure, as noted above, is hugely beneficial.
posted by psoas at 1:13 PM on May 13, 2013
Echoing this, and ...actually you don't need it, period. Most triathletes don't bother getting a tri bike since they're so expensive and only worth the investment on flat courses under fairly specific conditions. I would recommend to try to use your clip-on aerobars more, though, since getting used to the position takes time and reducing your surface area exposure, as noted above, is hugely beneficial.
posted by psoas at 1:13 PM on May 13, 2013
I'm surprised no one has suggested enlisting the help of a local bike shop (LBS). They will hook you up with a "professional" bike fitting (which I also highly recommend, expect them to charge you for it). A good shop will also help you figure out what your needs actually are (like this thread's discussion of TT bike features vs. general road bike features) and will recommend some stuff. A great shop will loan or cheaply rent you stuff to try.
If you're really not sure what overall direction you want to go, you can probably rent a much nicer bike than yours from an LBS for a few days. Feel them out to see if you like the shop first. Then rent the bike and thrash it and see what kind of difference it makes to your ride times. Take the numbers back to the LBS and talk to them about your experience, see what they recommend. This will probably cost the same as a nice new bike part, but then you'll have some evidence to back up further purchases.
Personally, I just upgraded my wheels on my freaking heavy steel road bike and I feel like it made a huge difference to my climbing and accelerating. The advice I got was to upgrade rotating mass first if I want to climb faster.
posted by mindsound at 1:19 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you're really not sure what overall direction you want to go, you can probably rent a much nicer bike than yours from an LBS for a few days. Feel them out to see if you like the shop first. Then rent the bike and thrash it and see what kind of difference it makes to your ride times. Take the numbers back to the LBS and talk to them about your experience, see what they recommend. This will probably cost the same as a nice new bike part, but then you'll have some evidence to back up further purchases.
Personally, I just upgraded my wheels on my freaking heavy steel road bike and I feel like it made a huge difference to my climbing and accelerating. The advice I got was to upgrade rotating mass first if I want to climb faster.
posted by mindsound at 1:19 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Forget about TT stuff and get rid of the aerobars. Just riding your road bike on the road is the best way to make the group rides more than barely-possible. It sounds like you want improvements that will make them more possible. :)
A lot of people say wheels are the best bang-for-buck improvement, rolling weight and yadda yadda, but I think of them as whipped cream on top of an already-sufficient setup. Opinions may differ.
However, my priorities are shifting and braking and I recommend improving your drivetrain, even if incrementally (front and rear deralleurs and shifters, less so bottom bracket and cranks), and better brakes are generally affordable when stepping up. On Shimano you have to upgrade shifters and derailleurs together due to a lack of interoperability between the lines.
An aluminum frame is absolutely fine, and is generally going to be the most expensive single upgrade besides.
posted by rhizome at 1:50 PM on May 13, 2013
A lot of people say wheels are the best bang-for-buck improvement, rolling weight and yadda yadda, but I think of them as whipped cream on top of an already-sufficient setup. Opinions may differ.
However, my priorities are shifting and braking and I recommend improving your drivetrain, even if incrementally (front and rear deralleurs and shifters, less so bottom bracket and cranks), and better brakes are generally affordable when stepping up. On Shimano you have to upgrade shifters and derailleurs together due to a lack of interoperability between the lines.
An aluminum frame is absolutely fine, and is generally going to be the most expensive single upgrade besides.
posted by rhizome at 1:50 PM on May 13, 2013
Response by poster: I'd like to reiterate that if possible, I'm looking for some practical research/data. The chart I linked to has kind of derailed the discussion a little. I wasn't trying to imply that I was interested in time trials, merely that someone had done some analysis on TT upgrades and produced a cost-benefit analysis of them. It was an example of the kind of data I'd like to see.
Surely it would be possible for someone to choose a 25 mile course, install a power meter, and try variations of things (adding weight, changing tires/wheels, possibly trying different bikes) and come up with some data? i.e. you can do controlled tests with a power meter by aiming at keeping your power within a predefined range.
I'll probably do this myself a bit - we have a closed track I can ride on, I can try out my friends bike vs mine pretty easily.
posted by RustyBrooks at 1:51 PM on May 13, 2013
Surely it would be possible for someone to choose a 25 mile course, install a power meter, and try variations of things (adding weight, changing tires/wheels, possibly trying different bikes) and come up with some data? i.e. you can do controlled tests with a power meter by aiming at keeping your power within a predefined range.
I'll probably do this myself a bit - we have a closed track I can ride on, I can try out my friends bike vs mine pretty easily.
posted by RustyBrooks at 1:51 PM on May 13, 2013
I was going to say a power meter. Since you have that, I'd say the best use of your money would be to hire one of the many, qualified coaches in Austin. That will definitely make you faster than anything you could buy for the bike, but it's not easy.
If you want easy, then spend your money on tires and wheels. 404's or the equivalent are a pretty good way to go.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 2:02 PM on May 13, 2013
If you want easy, then spend your money on tires and wheels. 404's or the equivalent are a pretty good way to go.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 2:02 PM on May 13, 2013
If you want to talk about these issues with people who actually race, /r/Velo might be a good place. A lot of those guys and girls are very data-centric.
My only contribution to this discussion otherwise is that the best, cheapest and most radical way to drop weight is to drop it from your body. Ryder Hesjedal is 6'2" and weighed about 160lbs last year. Before this year's Giro, he managed to drop a further 2kg (about 5lbs). His bike is probably already at the legal minimum weight (14.99lbs), so equipment upgrades would have been impossible. 5lbs is a significant amount of weight if you do any climbing at all.
And he's a pro. Almost all of us plebs can stand to drop a few pounds.
posted by klanawa at 2:05 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
My only contribution to this discussion otherwise is that the best, cheapest and most radical way to drop weight is to drop it from your body. Ryder Hesjedal is 6'2" and weighed about 160lbs last year. Before this year's Giro, he managed to drop a further 2kg (about 5lbs). His bike is probably already at the legal minimum weight (14.99lbs), so equipment upgrades would have been impossible. 5lbs is a significant amount of weight if you do any climbing at all.
And he's a pro. Almost all of us plebs can stand to drop a few pounds.
posted by klanawa at 2:05 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Some googling found me this (PDF) which has some charts outlining the effect weight has, plotted by grade. Pretty interesting.
posted by RustyBrooks at 2:11 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by RustyBrooks at 2:11 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
World human-powered vehicle records are always set by recumbents. They're more aerodynamic and, as a bonus, more ergonomic. And you can definitely get a good recumbent bicycle with your budget.
posted by aniola at 2:13 PM on May 13, 2013
posted by aniola at 2:13 PM on May 13, 2013
Rolling resistance of bicycle tires.
Here's a guy who has a model that suggests that wheels impact performance a lot.
If I were generally riding in a pack and willing to let other people lead (and I ride a ~17lb Cannondale Six13), I'd figure that aerodynamics is largely taken care of by drafting, so there are two things to worry about: Rolling resistance, and the convenience of staying in the pack.
Rolling resistance is two things, wheels and tires. You want tires that you can run hard (> 100PSI), rims that can take that, and wheels that don't have a whole lot of flex.
Convenience is being able to easily shift up and down a gear, never miss a shift, never have any of those "oh, bugger" moments where the mechanics of the bike cause you to screw up the paceline.
So I'd concentrate on that: Hard tires, a wheel set that's relatively light and gives you a decent trade-off between ride and rolling resistance (probably fairly low spoke count, because the rims are stiffer then), and Ultegra (if you're a Shimano rider) components (I've actually downgraded some DuraAce components to Ultegra for strength and reliability). If you're a Campy or whatever rider, make sure that you've upgraded whatever tends to drift out of adjustment to the point where you know a shift is going to happen that does what you want when you want it.
posted by straw at 3:35 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Here's a guy who has a model that suggests that wheels impact performance a lot.
If I were generally riding in a pack and willing to let other people lead (and I ride a ~17lb Cannondale Six13), I'd figure that aerodynamics is largely taken care of by drafting, so there are two things to worry about: Rolling resistance, and the convenience of staying in the pack.
Rolling resistance is two things, wheels and tires. You want tires that you can run hard (> 100PSI), rims that can take that, and wheels that don't have a whole lot of flex.
Convenience is being able to easily shift up and down a gear, never miss a shift, never have any of those "oh, bugger" moments where the mechanics of the bike cause you to screw up the paceline.
So I'd concentrate on that: Hard tires, a wheel set that's relatively light and gives you a decent trade-off between ride and rolling resistance (probably fairly low spoke count, because the rims are stiffer then), and Ultegra (if you're a Shimano rider) components (I've actually downgraded some DuraAce components to Ultegra for strength and reliability). If you're a Campy or whatever rider, make sure that you've upgraded whatever tends to drift out of adjustment to the point where you know a shift is going to happen that does what you want when you want it.
posted by straw at 3:35 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
You want tires that you can run hard (> 100PSI), rims that can take that, and wheels that don't have a whole lot of flex.
This is only true up to a point, and even that varies with the surface that you ride on. Jan Heine, who is a pretty data-driven kind of guy, explains, with data. On a related note, if you're interested in a viewpoint which is a little orthogonal to the standard parts sales-driven Bicycling Magazine everything-newer-lighter-and-more-expensive-is-better line, you might be interested in his magazine, Bicycle Quarterly. Here's the related article.
posted by pullayup at 4:43 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is only true up to a point, and even that varies with the surface that you ride on. Jan Heine, who is a pretty data-driven kind of guy, explains, with data. On a related note, if you're interested in a viewpoint which is a little orthogonal to the standard parts sales-driven Bicycling Magazine everything-newer-lighter-and-more-expensive-is-better line, you might be interested in his magazine, Bicycle Quarterly. Here's the related article.
posted by pullayup at 4:43 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: That article on tire pressure is a pretty good example of what I'm looking for. Bicycle Quarterly looks pretty good too.
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:04 PM on May 13, 2013
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:04 PM on May 13, 2013
If you want to nerd out on bike data here's your source.
posted by drwelby at 6:30 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by drwelby at 6:30 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
You don't say anything about *how* you've been training. I suggest you check out high intensity interval (HIT) training. Here's a good article. There are tons more of course. Perhaps you can improve a lot more on your current setup?
But, if you're focused on equipment...
Bang for the buck: Buy used. Get on the local bike racing mailing list. Lots of people sell perfectly good old equipment to buy the latest/greatest fad. When you buy used, make sure to buy from someone you trust and/or someone who is well known in the community. You are literally entrusting your life to this equipment. Another idea is to join a cycling club that is sponsored by a shop. Many cycling clubs don't require you to race and still get a decent discount at local shops. If they have a bike shop on their club jersey, chances are they're getting a discount of some sort.
You can upgrade your frame, wheels, and if you're mechanically inclined even your components/gruppo independently:
Frame: Assuming your bike fits well, that's probably not your biggest bang-for-your buck improvement. That said, the Tarmac is a well-regarded and popular frame and is a step up over the Secteur. 1) Make sure it fits you. 2) Make sure it hasn't been crashed or otherwise mistreated.
Wheels: A good set of aero wheels will make you faster. Carbon tubular wheelsets are great for high-end racing, but not for general riding. You could buy some 40-50mm carbon clinchers, but they're pretty spendy. I see a lot of guys at the local group ride with $2000 carbon clincher wheelsets, which honestly I think is crazy. Unless you start racing, look for a relatively-aero alloy <1500g wheelset and call it good. This article is a tour-de-force of wheel testing.
Components/Gruppo: The stock components on the Secteur are probably fine and I'm not sure they're holding you back performance-wise, but I bet you'd notice an enjoyable improvement with better (Ultegra/DuraAce, Force/Red, Record) components. You can often find good deals on used groupsets. Racers sometimes switch because they get a good deal from a new sponsor. Or sometimes they buy a bike, but only want the frame. They sell a brand new "take off" Ultegra gruppo (and put on the DuraAce/Red/Record gruppo they already have).
Other ideas:
1. Get Aero/Slam that stem. Ever wonder why some people seem to ride at 24mph easily and you're sucking wind? Get more aero. Of course, dropping your stem requires flexibility and lots of other stuff.
2. Riding with faster riders makes you faster. Yes it sucks at first, but eventually you get faster.
3. After a certain point, there are no shortcuts. Cycling at a high level requires a decent amount of training time investment.
Regarding tire pressure: Any modern bike wheel will handle tire pressures over 100psi. I agree with pullayup. You don't want to *maximize* tire pressure. Unless you're riding on a glass-flat surface where cushioning isn't required, you generally want to run your tires at the *lowest* pressure that will prevent pinch flats. This will make your rides more comfortable. If you're a big guy on 23mm tires, that might be 120psi. If you're smaller, maybe 100psi. If you run 25mm tires, you can go even lower because there's a bigger volume of air. You could run latex tubes for lower rolling resistance, but they're pricey, hard to find, and aren't really patchable if you get multiple flats out on a ride.
posted by sarah_pdx at 6:37 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
But, if you're focused on equipment...
Bang for the buck: Buy used. Get on the local bike racing mailing list. Lots of people sell perfectly good old equipment to buy the latest/greatest fad. When you buy used, make sure to buy from someone you trust and/or someone who is well known in the community. You are literally entrusting your life to this equipment. Another idea is to join a cycling club that is sponsored by a shop. Many cycling clubs don't require you to race and still get a decent discount at local shops. If they have a bike shop on their club jersey, chances are they're getting a discount of some sort.
You can upgrade your frame, wheels, and if you're mechanically inclined even your components/gruppo independently:
Frame: Assuming your bike fits well, that's probably not your biggest bang-for-your buck improvement. That said, the Tarmac is a well-regarded and popular frame and is a step up over the Secteur. 1) Make sure it fits you. 2) Make sure it hasn't been crashed or otherwise mistreated.
Wheels: A good set of aero wheels will make you faster. Carbon tubular wheelsets are great for high-end racing, but not for general riding. You could buy some 40-50mm carbon clinchers, but they're pretty spendy. I see a lot of guys at the local group ride with $2000 carbon clincher wheelsets, which honestly I think is crazy. Unless you start racing, look for a relatively-aero alloy <1500g wheelset and call it good. This article is a tour-de-force of wheel testing.
Components/Gruppo: The stock components on the Secteur are probably fine and I'm not sure they're holding you back performance-wise, but I bet you'd notice an enjoyable improvement with better (Ultegra/DuraAce, Force/Red, Record) components. You can often find good deals on used groupsets. Racers sometimes switch because they get a good deal from a new sponsor. Or sometimes they buy a bike, but only want the frame. They sell a brand new "take off" Ultegra gruppo (and put on the DuraAce/Red/Record gruppo they already have).
Other ideas:
1. Get Aero/Slam that stem. Ever wonder why some people seem to ride at 24mph easily and you're sucking wind? Get more aero. Of course, dropping your stem requires flexibility and lots of other stuff.
2. Riding with faster riders makes you faster. Yes it sucks at first, but eventually you get faster.
3. After a certain point, there are no shortcuts. Cycling at a high level requires a decent amount of training time investment.
Regarding tire pressure: Any modern bike wheel will handle tire pressures over 100psi. I agree with pullayup. You don't want to *maximize* tire pressure. Unless you're riding on a glass-flat surface where cushioning isn't required, you generally want to run your tires at the *lowest* pressure that will prevent pinch flats. This will make your rides more comfortable. If you're a big guy on 23mm tires, that might be 120psi. If you're smaller, maybe 100psi. If you run 25mm tires, you can go even lower because there's a bigger volume of air. You could run latex tubes for lower rolling resistance, but they're pricey, hard to find, and aren't really patchable if you get multiple flats out on a ride.
posted by sarah_pdx at 6:37 PM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
pyallup, I suspect there's more to tire selection that they're glossing over some tire selection issues.
Anecdotally: In particular, I (158 lbs, 17 lbs bike weight, a few extra lbs for water) have several times gotten out on the bike, wondered why I was so sluggish, checked my tire pressure, and found that I was down in the 90PSI range. Added 20PSI and been able to lead the pack... The Jann Heine table suggests that the 90PSI is where I should stop feeling the difference on 23mm tires (currently Continental Grand Prix 400s, but I've had the same feeling with other tires). So, yeah, 140PSI is probably silly, but on western Sonoma and Marin County pavement I'm going with closer to 120PSI than 90PSI for 23mm wheels.
On "new wheels should handle any reasonable pressure": The Mavic A719 wheels on our road tandem suggest a max PSI for 28mm tires of 103PSI, 35mms down in the 88PSI range. Tandems aren't singles, but don't assume that you can put 120PSI in any semi-modern wheel (yeah, these are tandem wheels, with a lot of spokes, and probably 10 years old, but...).
But I think the fact that the measurement data that's out there isn't necessarily consistent with other measured data reaffirms my notion that if you're a social (ie: non-tri, not spending a whole lot of time pulling) rider trying to move from the B riders to the C group, a few fractional boosts in MPH aren't nearly as useful as becoming more comfortable in a tight pack. That may be a higher stem, not a lower one, which flies in the face of aerodynamics but lets you keep your head up to see two or three axles ahead so you can see the accordion action and damp it. It could be smoother shifting. It could be a more comfortable saddle. So don't get too hung up on the numbers, remember that most of us can lose grams from our bellies cheaper than from the bike, and concentrate on what's really keeping you from drafting in the pack, which probably isn't rolling resistance or even wind drag.
posted by straw at 10:37 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Anecdotally: In particular, I (158 lbs, 17 lbs bike weight, a few extra lbs for water) have several times gotten out on the bike, wondered why I was so sluggish, checked my tire pressure, and found that I was down in the 90PSI range. Added 20PSI and been able to lead the pack... The Jann Heine table suggests that the 90PSI is where I should stop feeling the difference on 23mm tires (currently Continental Grand Prix 400s, but I've had the same feeling with other tires). So, yeah, 140PSI is probably silly, but on western Sonoma and Marin County pavement I'm going with closer to 120PSI than 90PSI for 23mm wheels.
On "new wheels should handle any reasonable pressure": The Mavic A719 wheels on our road tandem suggest a max PSI for 28mm tires of 103PSI, 35mms down in the 88PSI range. Tandems aren't singles, but don't assume that you can put 120PSI in any semi-modern wheel (yeah, these are tandem wheels, with a lot of spokes, and probably 10 years old, but...).
But I think the fact that the measurement data that's out there isn't necessarily consistent with other measured data reaffirms my notion that if you're a social (ie: non-tri, not spending a whole lot of time pulling) rider trying to move from the B riders to the C group, a few fractional boosts in MPH aren't nearly as useful as becoming more comfortable in a tight pack. That may be a higher stem, not a lower one, which flies in the face of aerodynamics but lets you keep your head up to see two or three axles ahead so you can see the accordion action and damp it. It could be smoother shifting. It could be a more comfortable saddle. So don't get too hung up on the numbers, remember that most of us can lose grams from our bellies cheaper than from the bike, and concentrate on what's really keeping you from drafting in the pack, which probably isn't rolling resistance or even wind drag.
posted by straw at 10:37 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I suspect there's more to tire selection that they're glossing over some tire selection issues.
Oh, yeah, TOTALLY. I in no way want to present that as the last word in tire pressure and selection. Like everyone in the bicycle industry, Jan Heine is a guy with an axe to grind (in this specific case, a type of retro-grouch axe) and a product to sell--in addition to BQ he's the current trademark-holder/flame-carrier for the venerable and redoubtable René Herse marque, and he imports and sells a range of high-end boutique brands. Many of these are French constructeur-inspired parts of Japanese manufacture and cost a freaking mint for what they are.
As for the tires, he tends to advocate a certain type of low rolling resistance tire which is very light, often has a handmade casing, and has zero flat protection. Dugast is a brand you may be familiar with (I know some cyclocross types that like them), but I think all of his are Japanese. They're also quite expensive. I think that the combination of this general type of tire, often in a smaller diameter (650b) and a wider profile (30mm+), are what he would recommend for the optimal lower-pressure experience.
For the record, I can't ride on this kind of tire at all, because most of my routes scintillate with broken glass, and I'd be patching a flat every 40 miles. On the other hand, I'm grateful that there are contrarians like Jan Heine (and Grant Peterson, as much as his/Rivendell's stuff isn't to my taste at all) in the bicycle industry, because I think the message that the best amateur cycling performance and experience comes from the latest, priciest innovation is also 100% driven by a profit motive. I think Grant Peterson's observation that pro cycling casts a much longer shadow over amateur cyclists than it should is an astute one, and one of the implications of that is cyclists are frequently encouraged to dump money into pro-level gear as a cure for any kind of performance problem. I'm glad that the OP wants to conduct a data-driven cost-benefit analysis, but at the same time, if he only looks at industry-based sources (which includes a lot of the press, many of the blogs, and plenty of the guys on those club rides), there is a danger that he's still going to wind up comparison shopping for carbon wheelsets.
don't get too hung up on the numbers, remember that most of us can lose grams from our bellies cheaper than from the bike, and concentrate on what's really keeping you from drafting in the pack, which probably isn't rolling resistance or even wind drag.
Cycling at a high level requires a decent amount of training time investment.
This is really why I mentioned someone who is ultimately just hawking 40-year-old bike technology. He also does things like enter the Paris-Brest-Paris (a ~750 mile round trip which must be completed in fewer than 90 hours) on a tandem built in the fifties. As much as it would certainly be possible to drop $2500 outfitting a bicycle with his parts, I think that the existence of an $400 aluminum crank intended for square-taper bottom brackets and friction shifting (I know that modern external-bearing cranksets are a different animal, but bear with me) to an extent belies the notion that incremental weight and aerodynamic upgrades are the best way to be a better cyclist.
In my case, I don't have trouble with club rides on a 20 year old steel frame, but I feel silly doing it. I built it up myself, it fits me very well, and it rides exactly the way I want it to ride. That counts for quite a bit. Not only does it make me more comfortable in a pack, it means that I have the taste for more hours in the saddle, and I push myself harder when I'm there.
posted by pullayup at 6:46 PM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Oh, yeah, TOTALLY. I in no way want to present that as the last word in tire pressure and selection. Like everyone in the bicycle industry, Jan Heine is a guy with an axe to grind (in this specific case, a type of retro-grouch axe) and a product to sell--in addition to BQ he's the current trademark-holder/flame-carrier for the venerable and redoubtable René Herse marque, and he imports and sells a range of high-end boutique brands. Many of these are French constructeur-inspired parts of Japanese manufacture and cost a freaking mint for what they are.
As for the tires, he tends to advocate a certain type of low rolling resistance tire which is very light, often has a handmade casing, and has zero flat protection. Dugast is a brand you may be familiar with (I know some cyclocross types that like them), but I think all of his are Japanese. They're also quite expensive. I think that the combination of this general type of tire, often in a smaller diameter (650b) and a wider profile (30mm+), are what he would recommend for the optimal lower-pressure experience.
For the record, I can't ride on this kind of tire at all, because most of my routes scintillate with broken glass, and I'd be patching a flat every 40 miles. On the other hand, I'm grateful that there are contrarians like Jan Heine (and Grant Peterson, as much as his/Rivendell's stuff isn't to my taste at all) in the bicycle industry, because I think the message that the best amateur cycling performance and experience comes from the latest, priciest innovation is also 100% driven by a profit motive. I think Grant Peterson's observation that pro cycling casts a much longer shadow over amateur cyclists than it should is an astute one, and one of the implications of that is cyclists are frequently encouraged to dump money into pro-level gear as a cure for any kind of performance problem. I'm glad that the OP wants to conduct a data-driven cost-benefit analysis, but at the same time, if he only looks at industry-based sources (which includes a lot of the press, many of the blogs, and plenty of the guys on those club rides), there is a danger that he's still going to wind up comparison shopping for carbon wheelsets.
don't get too hung up on the numbers, remember that most of us can lose grams from our bellies cheaper than from the bike, and concentrate on what's really keeping you from drafting in the pack, which probably isn't rolling resistance or even wind drag.
Cycling at a high level requires a decent amount of training time investment.
This is really why I mentioned someone who is ultimately just hawking 40-year-old bike technology. He also does things like enter the Paris-Brest-Paris (a ~750 mile round trip which must be completed in fewer than 90 hours) on a tandem built in the fifties. As much as it would certainly be possible to drop $2500 outfitting a bicycle with his parts, I think that the existence of an $400 aluminum crank intended for square-taper bottom brackets and friction shifting (I know that modern external-bearing cranksets are a different animal, but bear with me) to an extent belies the notion that incremental weight and aerodynamic upgrades are the best way to be a better cyclist.
In my case, I don't have trouble with club rides on a 20 year old steel frame, but I feel silly doing it. I built it up myself, it fits me very well, and it rides exactly the way I want it to ride. That counts for quite a bit. Not only does it make me more comfortable in a pack, it means that I have the taste for more hours in the saddle, and I push myself harder when I'm there.
posted by pullayup at 6:46 PM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: MeMail encouraged me to come back and do a follow up.
I ended up borrowing the Tarmac from my friend and doing some testing.
I took it to a local closed 3 mile track that I have plenty of existing lap data for (about 80 laps with a power meter). I did 10 laps of that with pretty solid results. I beat my previous record by about 1.5 mph. The mean was about 1mph faster across the board for various average powers for anything above about 180 watts (that is to say, for lower output levels, it's about the same, the harder I pushed, the better the improvement)
I also rode it about 150 miles just in general on the kind of rides I normally do. I beat the record on my local morning loop by about 1.5 mph. I don't really have enough data for these to make a good conclusion - unless you can compare the same routes and conditions it's not really apples to apples.
Another good indicator is that on pretty much every ride I went on that is a regular route for me, I'd break tons and PRs and have lots of 2nd bests (some of my PRs are basically impossible to beat because if you ride the same route 20 times your PR is going to have happened on a day with a huge wind at your back)
So, uh. I didn't get to try a lot of different things to see how each one stacked up. But replacing the bike whole-hog with a lighter/better bike definitely made a measurable difference, so, I bought it. I am still using the same wheels I was using before, that would probably be the next thing to try.
posted by RustyBrooks at 8:04 PM on June 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
I ended up borrowing the Tarmac from my friend and doing some testing.
I took it to a local closed 3 mile track that I have plenty of existing lap data for (about 80 laps with a power meter). I did 10 laps of that with pretty solid results. I beat my previous record by about 1.5 mph. The mean was about 1mph faster across the board for various average powers for anything above about 180 watts (that is to say, for lower output levels, it's about the same, the harder I pushed, the better the improvement)
I also rode it about 150 miles just in general on the kind of rides I normally do. I beat the record on my local morning loop by about 1.5 mph. I don't really have enough data for these to make a good conclusion - unless you can compare the same routes and conditions it's not really apples to apples.
Another good indicator is that on pretty much every ride I went on that is a regular route for me, I'd break tons and PRs and have lots of 2nd bests (some of my PRs are basically impossible to beat because if you ride the same route 20 times your PR is going to have happened on a day with a huge wind at your back)
So, uh. I didn't get to try a lot of different things to see how each one stacked up. But replacing the bike whole-hog with a lighter/better bike definitely made a measurable difference, so, I bought it. I am still using the same wheels I was using before, that would probably be the next thing to try.
posted by RustyBrooks at 8:04 PM on June 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older Sac-SLC-Denver road trip with a five-year-old | Backup plans for a vacation to the Front Range Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by RustyBrooks at 11:53 AM on May 13, 2013