I'm looking for help and suggestions on component upgrades that will actually make a difference in *my* riding.
I don't want to get caught in the trap of upgrading just to cut grams for its own sake. But, I am interested in covering more distance in the same amount of time. So I the goal here is to increase speed.
Some background on my riding might help.... + I'm middle aged (when this happened, I don't know) + I get in 3 or so 1 hour rides a week with one several hour ride every 2 weeks. + I may get in a century ride a year. + I live in New England, so hill climbing and rough roads are facts of life.
Some background on my current ride might help... + Frame: mid 90's Trek Aluminum (1220) with steel forks + Components: Shimano RSX (sort of like Sora) + Wheels: Matrix rims with 32 spoke (14g)
My current thinking is.... + More aero friendly front wheel + Better efficiency of moving bearings (hubs, bottom bracket, jockey pulleys) [does this even matter with today's sealed bearings?]
"pinnah" <pinnah.KILL@THIS.comcast.net> wrote in message news:hdm761dsoa6geo3oe4hdf76brkj59emoka@4ax.com...> I'm looking for help and suggestions on component upgrades that will> actually make a difference in *my* riding.>
I don't want to get caught in the trap of upgrading just to cut grams> for its own sake. But, I am interested in covering more distance in> the same amount of time. So I the goal here is to increase speed.>
Some background on my riding might help....> + I'm middle aged (when this happened, I don't know)> + I get in 3 or so 1 hour rides a week with one several hour ride> every 2 weeks.> + I may get in a century ride a year.> + I live in New England, so hill climbing and rough roads are facts of> life.>
Some background on my current ride might help...> + Frame: mid 90's Trek Aluminum (1220) with steel forks> + Components: Shimano RSX (sort of like Sora)> + Wheels: Matrix rims with 32 spoke (14g)>
My current thinking is....> + More aero friendly front wheel> + Better efficiency of moving bearings (hubs, bottom bracket, jockey> pulleys) [does this even matter with today's sealed bearings?]>
It's time for a new bike!
As for increasing speed, the new bike will (hopefully) persuade you to spend more time riding. That, and dropping any excess weight you may be carrying, will make you faster.
pinnah <pinnah.KILL@THIS.comcast.net> wrote in news:hdm761dsoa6geo3oe4hdf76brkj59emoka@4ax.com:> My current thinking is....> + More aero friendly front wheel> + Better efficiency of moving bearings (hubs, bottom bracket, jockey> pulleys) [does this even matter with today's sealed bearings?]
What is your average speed? Unless you spend a lot of time above 20mph, aero wheels aren't going to buy you much. Your best bet is to find ways to make your bike fit you better.
Also, think about a more aero riding position. Lowering your head a couple of inches will make a much bigger difference than aero wheels. Of course, the motor makes a huge difference.
"pinnah" <pinnah.KILL@THIS.comcast.net> wrote in message news:hdm761dsoa6geo3oe4hdf76brkj59emoka@4ax.com...> I'm looking for help and suggestions on component upgrades that will> actually make a difference in *my* riding.>
I don't want to get caught in the trap of upgrading just to cut grams> for its own sake. But, I am interested in covering more distance in> the same amount of time. So I the goal here is to increase speed.>
Some background on my riding might help....> + I'm middle aged (when this happened, I don't know)> + I get in 3 or so 1 hour rides a week with one several hour ride> every 2 weeks.> + I may get in a century ride a year.> + I live in New England, so hill climbing and rough roads are facts of> life.>
Some background on my current ride might help...> + Frame: mid 90's Trek Aluminum (1220) with steel forks> + Components: Shimano RSX (sort of like Sora)> + Wheels: Matrix rims with 32 spoke (14g)>
My current thinking is....> + More aero friendly front wheel> + Better efficiency of moving bearings (hubs, bottom bracket, jockey> pulleys) [does this even matter with today's sealed bearings?]>
You didn't say anything about tires. Sounds like a basic ok road bike. If you have heavy belted "puncture resistant" tires they can slow you down a lot. If so, try some light weight 700x23 or if you are a large guy, 700x25 racing tires. I love my 700x28 gatorskins for comfort and occasional gravel but if I want to sustain faster the 700x23 axial pros make an easy couple of miles per hour difference. Bill
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:02:46 GMT, "Bill" <bill@example.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
You didn't say anything about tires. Sounds like a basic ok road bike. If>you have heavy belted "puncture resistant" tires they can slow you down a>lot. If so, try some light weight 700x23 or if you are a large guy, 700x25>racing tires. I love my 700x28 gatorskins for comfort and occasional gravel>but if I want to sustain faster the 700x23 axial pros make an easy couple of>miles per hour difference.>Bill
"Art Harris" <n2ah@hotmail.com> wrote:>Why do you want to go faster anyway? It sounds like you ride mostly for>fun and fitness. So even if a new bike could suddenly make you 10>percent faster (which I doubt), what would it prove?
Good question... with 2 answers.
Perhaps most fundementally, I'm trying to understand what difference, if any, higher quality components would make for me. I am very convinced that weight of the bike, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything to me. I can think of only4 ways they might help performance: + Increased speed + Increased durability + Better performance e.g. shifting, braking, etc + More comfort e.g. STI vs barcons, clipless versus toe straps
I've heard some claim that the cleaner inner workings of the Campy freewheel/cassetts were so dramatic in limiting energy waste that they allowed riders to ride one gear higher. Now, I don't put much credit in that sort of claim, but this is the sort of stuff I'm looking for. Do better bearings tranlate into detectable increases in speed? Do aero front wheels?
If not, then I'll be more at peace with keeping with current level of quality that I'm riding. The stuff is certainly durable enough (except for the STI shifters long since replaced with barcons).
Zog The Undeniable 18 April 2005 23:06:35 [ permanent link ]
pinnah wrote:
I'm looking for help and suggestions on component upgrades that will> actually make a difference in *my* riding.>
I don't want to get caught in the trap of upgrading just to cut grams> for its own sake. But, I am interested in covering more distance in> the same amount of time. So I the goal here is to increase speed.
<snip>
My current thinking is....> + More aero friendly front wheel
Only if you're moving at time trial speeds, so probably not. If you are happy using them on longer rides, tri-bars have a significant benefit at more moderate speeds - the trade-off is that you have to be comfortable in that TT position.
+ Better efficiency of moving bearings (hubs, bottom bracket, jockey> pulleys) [does this even matter with today's sealed bearings?]
Absolutely minimal difference, assuming that they're not full of sand.
Reducing weight will show some benefit on hilly rides. I'd look at lighter tyres (folding) first, then possibly lighter wheels. Double butted spokes save a little weight and make a more resilient wheel that's less likely to go loose over time.
Apart from that, get in some more hilly rides or hit the turbo trainer...
Zog The Undeniable 18 April 2005 23:09:56 [ permanent link ]
pinnah wrote:
I'm looking for help and suggestions on component upgrades that will> actually make a difference in *my* riding.>
OK, I thought of another answer. Try riding fixed. Given a suitably challenging gear, you'll get across country significantly faster - it seems counter-intuitive but it works. Century rides might be a bit masochistic though.
Hands-on-tops, two narrow-racing-tires, 233 watts . . .>
20.0 mph>
Let's try two robust-wide-touring-tires 233 watts . . .>
18.9 mph, -1.1 mph.>
Nice calculator--it even changes the frontal area to show> the fatter tires.>
Do it all again with 350 watts for faster fellows . . .>
Hands-on-tops, pair of narrow-racing-tires, 350 watts . . .>
23.3 mph.>
Two robust-wide-touring-tires, 350 watts . . .>
22.0 mph, -1.3 mph.>
Carl Fogel
Carl, that's good work. You have established that those wider tires take at least 5% more effort. And, I suspect that's calculated with a reasonable supple touring tire. Now lets roll them up hill. If your working near your limits the difference can feel rather substantial.
The OP was interested in buying parts that could make him go faster. If he could get 5% from tires and maybe another 5% from refining his position that would be a hell of a return on investment. Add a little training and it's Tour time. Bill Bill
Hands-on-tops, two narrow-racing-tires, 233 watts . . .>>
20.0 mph>>
Let's try two robust-wide-touring-tires 233 watts . . .>>
18.9 mph, -1.1 mph.>>
Nice calculator--it even changes the frontal area to show>> the fatter tires.>>
Do it all again with 350 watts for faster fellows . . .>>
Hands-on-tops, pair of narrow-racing-tires, 350 watts . . .>>
23.3 mph.>>
Two robust-wide-touring-tires, 350 watts . . .>>
22.0 mph, -1.3 mph.>>
Carl Fogel>
Carl, that's good work. You have established that those wider tires take at>least 5% more effort. And, I suspect that's calculated with a reasonable>supple touring tire. Now lets roll them up hill. If your working near your>limits the difference can feel rather substantial.
Interesting--the offroad tire actually improves over the touring, but that may be due to rounding error. Or because at such lower speeds the mtb's greater wind drag becomes less important.
Hmmm . . . we're down to 0.2 mph difference, but the fat offroad tires are still beating the robust-wide touring tires, though it could still be a rounding error. In any case, the speed difference is down to about 1%.
Let's try my favorite exercise, coasting downhill, 0 watts and a 7% hill . . .
There's your hoped-for couple of mph--2.8 mph. It's still interesting how little difference the calculator predicts between robust-wide-touring and for-heaven's-sake-mtb tires, but at least at higher speeds the touring tire pulls ahead.
I wonder if this is an example of a slight calculator error (0.1 mph climbing hills is probably tricky) or if the calculator is trying to tell us something unexpected about robust touring tires versus mtb tires, something to do with areodynamic profile and rolling resistance. I remember being surprised that the Fury Roadmaster rolled along so well on pavement with its rhinoceros-like knobbies.
Interesting--the offroad tire actually improves over the> touring, but that may be due to rounding error. Or because> at such lower speeds the mtb's greater wind drag becomes> less important.>
Hmmm . . . we're down to 0.2 mph difference, but the fat> offroad tires are still beating the robust-wide touring> tires, though it could still be a rounding error. In any> case, the speed difference is down to about 1%.>
Let's try my favorite exercise, coasting downhill, 0 watts> and a 7% hill . . .>
There's your hoped-for couple of mph--2.8 mph. It's still> interesting how little difference the calculator predicts> between robust-wide-touring and for-heaven's-sake-mtb tires,> but at least at higher speeds the touring tire pulls ahead.>
I wonder if this is an example of a slight calculator error> (0.1 mph climbing hills is probably tricky) or if the> calculator is trying to tell us something unexpected about> robust touring tires versus mtb tires, something to do with> areodynamic profile and rolling resistance. I remember being> surprised that the Fury Roadmaster rolled along so well on> pavement with its rhinoceros-like knobbies.>
Carl Fogel
Makes me wonder about the calculator; or, maybe the one in my head. About the closest I can come to something objective would be to would be to do the same exercise with different tires at a steady heart rate. I wonder if the calculator includes the increase in weight of the tires. As the grade gets steeper that is certainly an issue. I ride three bikes regularly. A very good steel road bike. A Surly Cross Check with 700x28 touring tires and also 700x35 knobbies on the same rims and a hardtail mtb with 26x2.1 knobbies. The Surly has a triple. I can comfortable do a 5 mile 8-10% climb in the middle ring with the 700x28 Gator Skins but I have to use the granny with the 700x35 Kenda Kross knobbies mounted on the same rims. I have also done that climb with the mtb and the road bike. The mtb is not much different from the Surly w/knobbies. The road bike (about 4 lbs lighter) is way easier with a 39x27 than the Surly w/ Gator Skins and a 36 middle ring. Bill
"Dave Thompson" <davetspokane1@comcast.net> wrote:>None of what you're thinking, in and of themselves, will increase your>speed. Speed, in my experiences, comes from 'horsepower' and comfort.
I'm beginning to come around to this position. Thanks.
Ken <uce@ftc.gov> wrote:>What is your average speed? Unless you spend a lot of time above 20mph, aero >wheels aren't going to buy you much. [snip...]>Also, think about a more aero riding position. Lowering your head a couple of >inches will make a much bigger difference than aero wheels.
dkl@topowest.com wrote:>Pinnah,>I have had only steel bikes until recently when I picked up your>exact same bike just to try it out. I hate it. Get rid of that>thing asap. It is not slowing you down - it is plenty fast enough.>It is just uncomfortable. The geometry is okay but the ride is>terrible. Get yourself a nice used lugged steel frame bike from>the same time period and riding will be much more pleasant.
Doug, it's interesting how tastes on ride differ!!
The 1220 is my first and only AL bike other than short rides on my buds C'dales over the years. Prior that I rode a mid 80s Trek with 531 main triangle (which took me Seattle -> Boston) and prior to that several different late 70s to early 80s lugged CrMo Fujis. I also currently own a mid 80s Trek with Ishawata tubing that I use when riding with the kids (Nitto Moustache bars, platform pedals). End result....
My opinion on the 1220 AL is almost exactly opposite of yours. I vastly prefer the more relaxed sport touring geometry (which is finally coming back into style 20 years later) and I don't really notice the harshness AL that everybody talks about. The thing I *do* notice is the lack of bottom brack sway when climbing and sprinting. I'm 6'2" and 180lbs, so the large steel frames I used to ride (and still do) sway under me very noticably. I'm sure heavier tube sets would help fix that but...
Also:>Trek 1200 for sale - 14 speed w/downtube shifters>Mid-90s Aluminum with steel forks>Full RX-100 component group including dual pivot brakes>matrix rims with conti gatorskins>very few scratches - looks almost new - white/perl>$250 + shipping or local pickup in sf bay area
Ummm.... Dare I suggest that you probably don't have a good future in marketing and sales!?!? ;^)
pinnah wrote:>> + Better efficiency of moving bearings (hubs, bottom bracket, jockey>> pulleys) [does this even matter with today's sealed bearings?]
Zog The Undeniable <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote:>Absolutely minimal difference, assuming that they're not full of sand.
I find this surprising but I accept it. Actually, I find this to be the most surprising disconnect between price and quality. I can believe that more expensive brakes will stop faster and more expensive derailleurs will shift more cleanly. But unless I'm missing something, the only function of bearing is to turn. Back in the day (early 80s) before bearings had rubber gaskets or sealed cartridges, I could feel the difference between cheap hubs and, say, Suntour Supremes or Campy or similar. I'm not challenging what you've said, mind you. Just find it surprising that there wouldn't be a discernable difference between RSX hubs and, say, Ultegra hubs. Perhaps this just goes to show that current low end stuff is really much better than the junk we used to use.
Reducing weight will show some benefit on hilly rides. I'd look at >lighter tyres (folding) first, then possibly lighter wheels. Double >butted spokes save a little weight and make a more resilient wheel >that's less likely to go loose over time.
Sticking with non-aero wheels (which have heavier rims but fewer and bladed spokes), am I correct that the only way to get lighter wheels is to drop to 28 or 24 spoke wheels and use butted spokes?
Related, will differences in weight in the wheels be more important than other weight reductions?
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:15:15 -0400, pinnah <pinnah.KILL@THIS.comcast.net> wrote:
I'm looking for help and suggestions on component upgrades that will>actually make a difference in *my* riding.>
I don't want to get caught in the trap of upgrading just to cut grams>for its own sake. But, I am interested in covering more distance in>the same amount of time. So I the goal here is to increase speed.>
Some background on my riding might help....>+ I'm middle aged (when this happened, I don't know)>+ I get in 3 or so 1 hour rides a week with one several hour ride>every 2 weeks.>+ I may get in a century ride a year.>+ I live in New England, so hill climbing and rough roads are facts of>life.>
Some background on my current ride might help...>+ Frame: mid 90's Trek Aluminum (1220) with steel forks>+ Components: Shimano RSX (sort of like Sora)>+ Wheels: Matrix rims with 32 spoke (14g)>
My current thinking is....>+ More aero friendly front wheel>+ Better efficiency of moving bearings (hubs, bottom bracket, jockey>pulleys) [does this even matter with today's sealed bearings?]
Both of those'll be trivial.
I'd go for stuff in the ergonomic and interface department. Clothing, shoes, pedals, bar tape get the bike fitted and then do more and better riding. A computer and/or heart rate monitor might be part of that program as well.
The tire upgrade others have suggested is also sensible.
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:43:27 -0400, "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:52:46 -0600, carlfogel wrote:>
Note how long it takes before the narrow traditional tire's>> better aerodynamics let it beat the much lower rolling>> resistance of the wider radial--it loses up until 19 mph.>
Radial? Who makes a radial bike tire? Rinkowsky? Who are they? From>what I can tell by an unproductive Google search, they are somehow>bent-specific. My guess would be that they are not really bicycle tires,>but made for tricycles that don't lean, since they talk about a "flat">surface.>
I really question this calculator. The difference between a supposed>racing tire and 1.75" mountain-bike tires at 300 watts is less than 2mph. >Don't buy it.
Dear David,
I'd like to know more about the radial Rinkowsky tire, too. I gather that radial tires have noticeably lower rolling resistance and improve gas mileage in cars.
As for the results, they surprised me, too, but that's why I posted them.
First, remember that the imaginary tires are mounted on the same imaginary frame, which is not exactly something that most of us have experimented with.
Next, remember that at 20 mph bicycling speeds, even a single extra mph requires a surprising amount of power.
Next, what should we question?
The coefficient of rolling resistance is given for both tires--do they seem out of line to you?
A "narrow racing tire" is listed at the same 0.0060. A presumably racier 700c Conti drops to 0.0055. The Rinkowsky is listed at the same 0.0030. A "touring tire" is actually listed at a worse 0.0075. Nothing about 1.75" mtb tires, but I expect that the Kreuzotter calculator found that data in a table.
We can also see the calculated effective frontal area, which changes for the tire widths--should they be different?
Given a roughly 1 inch wide (or smaller) 700c tire versus a nominal 1.75" knobby, each about 28 inches high, front and back, a back-of-the-envelope scribble suggests 4 x 28" x 3/4" = 112 inches x 0.75 inches = 84 square inches, or about 0.58 ft^2. That seems roughly in line with the figures above.
Is there some other significant factor involved that the calculator skips?
Different frontal areas are shown, but the narrow tires don't do much better in terms of absolute speed.
However, to go 2 mph faster and reach 24.8 mph, the bike with mtb tires hands-on-drops needs 373 watts--an extra 73 watts. The 24% increase in power produces only an 8.7% speed increase.
When I rolled a Fury RoadMaster with fierce 26 x 1.95" knobbies inflated to 60 psi down my daily hill, the speedometer showed 38.8 mph max, where I normally expect 39 mph on a calm day on my touring bike with 700c x 26 nominal tires inflated to 125 psi. The Fury's extra weight would help, of course, but the wind could have easily helped or hindered it--the wind was too low to notice.
I'm looking for help and suggestions on component upgrades that will>> actually make a difference in *my* riding.>>
I don't want to get caught in the trap of upgrading just to cut grams>> for its own sake. But, I am interested in covering more distance in>> the same amount of time. So I the goal here is to increase speed.>>
Some background on my riding might help....>> + I'm middle aged (when this happened, I don't know)>> + I get in 3 or so 1 hour rides a week with one several hour ride>> every 2 weeks.>> + I may get in a century ride a year.>> + I live in New England, so hill climbing and rough roads are facts>> of life.>>
Some background on my current ride might help...>> + Frame: mid 90's Trek Aluminum (1220) with steel forks>> + Components: Shimano RSX (sort of like Sora)>> + Wheels: Matrix rims with 32 spoke (14g)>>
My current thinking is....>> + More aero friendly front wheel>> + Better efficiency of moving bearings (hubs, bottom bracket, jockey>> pulleys) [does this even matter with today's sealed bearings?]>
Both of those'll be trivial.>
I'd go for stuff in the ergonomic and interface department. Clothing,> shoes, pedals, bar tape get the bike fitted and then do more and> better riding. A computer and/or heart rate monitor might be part of> that program as well.>
The tire upgrade others have suggested is also sensible.>
David L. Johnson 19 April 2005 08:22:38 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:52:17 -0400, pinnah wrote:
Zog The Undeniable <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote:>>Absolutely minimal difference, assuming that they're not full of sand.>
I find this surprising but I accept it. Actually, I find this to be> the most surprising disconnect between price and quality. I can> believe that more expensive brakes will stop faster and more expensive> derailleurs will shift more cleanly.
Believe what you want, but it ain't so. Above a certain minimum, any brake will work as well as any other. Certainly the entire Campy line has the same geometry and the same basic arms and pad material. What could be different about the performance? I have two sets of Campy brakes. One a low-end Avanti, the other Chorus. The Chorus is prettier, since the outside arm has the pivot bolt inserted from the other side, while the Avanti has an exposed bolt head (which is rusted). The Chorus also has a nicer polish/finish. Other than that, they are identical. Both are from the '90s somewhere, and so don't have the single-pivot rear brake that they have now, but that was first introduced in the high-end line, and actually would be weaker (using the same lever) than the dual-pivot.
It's the same with derailleurs. If the geometry is the same, they will shift the same. The higher-end parts have better finish, more exotic materials, and a cooler logo.
There was a time when the price you paid for a component really mattered. Cheap derailleurs of the 70s could barely shift at all, and were horribly inaccurate, required constant fussing, and wore out quickly. The high-priced stuff (essentially only Campy at that time) was a dream in comparison. Now, Sora performs better than anything from that time.
I don't hear anyone saying that Dura-Ace derailleurs or brakes are any stronger than 105 -- in fact, the opposite is more likely, since they are lighter.
Bearings are the same way. Most cartridge bearing parts use industry-standard bearings; all the rest is fashion. It could be that a cup-and-cone bearing hub would depend on cost, but again anything from the major manufacturers will have the same cones and cups throughout the line.
the only function of bearing is to turn. Back in the day (early 80s)> before bearings had rubber gaskets or sealed cartridges, I could feel> the difference between cheap hubs and, say, Suntour Supremes or Campy or> similar. I'm not challenging what you've said, mind you. Just find it> surprising that there wouldn't be a discernable difference between RSX> hubs and, say, Ultegra hubs. Perhaps this just goes to show that> current low end stuff is really much better than the junk we used to> use.
Absolutely, and this holds for all components.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | "It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster." --Greg LeMond _`\(,_ | (_)/ (_) |
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:37:47 -0400, "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:54:58 -0600, carlfogel wrote:>
As for the results, they surprised me, too, but that's why I>> posted them.>>
First, remember that the imaginary tires are mounted on the>> same imaginary frame, which is not exactly something that>> most of us have experimented with.>
Yeah, but I can't imagine that that would make up for the difference in>speed capabilities I notice between a mountain bike and a road bike. If>the position is the same, the frame type would have no effect.>
The coefficient of rolling resistance is given for both tires--do they>> seem out of line to you?>>
Yeah, this seems questionable. I noticed that inflation pressure was not>mentioned on the calculator. Odd. It certainly has a large effect, as we>all know. We often first recognize that a tire is going flat by the fact>that we are having trouble keeping our speed up. These tires cannot be>assumed to be inflated to the same pressure. If I inflated my mountain>bike tires to the 110psi I use for road tires, they would blow off the>rims, or even (see other threads) burst the rims themselves.>
Is there some other significant factor involved that the calculator>> skips?>
I'm not questioning whether or not you read the output correctly, but the>assumptions that went into it.
Dear David,
I expect that all the calculator programmers are sensible enough to assume reasonably normal tire pressures for both mountain bike and narrow racing tires, but certainly the pressures could vary considerably.
My experience, however, suggests that the calculator is rather accurate.
By November 2004, I had pedalled the Fury Roadmaster on its 60 psi monster-knobby tires 247 times around a 4.06 mile flat route at an average of 18.90 mph and 12:53.
To celebrate the thousand mile mark, I rode my touring bike with 125 psi 700c x 26 tires, hands-on-drops through the same route, with a bit of a headwind. The single run easily beat the Fury, but not by as much as I'd have liked, 22.63 mph and 10:46.
I treated the Fury to 1.75" almost-slick $10 WalMart tires and set a new record the next day on the first try, 20.53 mph and 11:53.
Same 4.06 mile route, no traffic, no stop signs obeyed:
Fury Roadmaster 247-run average 18.90 mph 12:53 Fury Roadmaster slick tire run 20.53 mph 11:52 700c single run 22.63 mph 10:46
So even with hands-on-drops instead of sit-up-and-beg, narrow tires with twice the pressure, and gearing high enough that I wasn't spinning out (a problem on the undergeared Fury), my single 700c test run produced only a 2.10 mph improvement.
True, the wind could have easily slowed the touring bike down or sped the Fury up. And I might do better with more practice on the touring bike around the course. But the data does seem to fit the calculator fairly well.
Look at what the calculator predicts would be required to raise 20.53 mph to 22.63 mph for a 73-inch 195-lb rider, 32-lb bike, and 1.75" mtb tires at 4800 feet:
20.53 mph 292 watts 22.63 mph 375 watts
It looks as if the mountain bike would have needed 83 extra watts to go as fast as the touring bike. That's 28% more power for 10% speed increase.
Small as the absolute speed increases are, an impressive amount of extra power is needed for a disappointingly small speed increase after about 15 mph. Thus we should expect (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) surprisingly small differences in speed if all we do is switch tires and ride the same bike in the same position with the same effort.
David Damerell 19 April 2005 16:16:22 [ permanent link ]
Quoting pinnah <pinnah.KILL@THIS.comcast.net>:>I've heard some claim that the cleaner inner workings of the Campy>freewheel/cassetts were so dramatic in limiting energy waste that they>allowed riders to ride one gear higher. Now, I don't put much credit>in that sort of claim, but this is the sort of stuff I'm looking for.
You shouldn't, indeed, since when the rider is applying power, all those inner workings are neatly locked together and not moving against each other. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl? Today is Leicesterday, April.
David Damerell 19 April 2005 16:18:07 [ permanent link ]
Quoting pinnah <pinnah.KILL@THIS.comcast.net>:>the most surprising disconnect between price and quality. I can>believe that more expensive brakes will stop faster
Don't. Any brake of sensible design and not of extremely low quality, correctly installed and adjusted, will lift the rear wheel. You cannot have more braking than that. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl? Today is Leicesterday, April.
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:37:47 -0400, "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:54:58 -0600, carlfogel wrote:>
As for the results, they surprised me, too, but that's why I>> posted them.>>
First, remember that the imaginary tires are mounted on the>> same imaginary frame, which is not exactly something that>> most of us have experimented with.>
Yeah, but I can't imagine that that would make up for the difference in>speed capabilities I notice between a mountain bike and a road bike. If>the position is the same, the frame type would have no effect.>
The coefficient of rolling resistance is given for both tires--do they>> seem out of line to you?>>
Yeah, this seems questionable. I noticed that inflation pressure was not>mentioned on the calculator. Odd. It certainly has a large effect, as we>all know. We often first recognize that a tire is going flat by the fact>that we are having trouble keeping our speed up. These tires cannot be>assumed to be inflated to the same pressure. If I inflated my mountain>bike tires to the 110psi I use for road tires, they would blow off the>rims, or even (see other threads) burst the rims themselves.>
Is there some other significant factor involved that the calculator>> skips?>
At low off-road pressures, their CRR rises, but so would the CRR of a narrow 700c tires. Pumped up to the obvious pressures for mounting on our imaginary test bike on pavement, the ugly mtb tires have a surprisingly low CRR.
The page's explanation is a bit confusing, but I think that the idea was that the CRR was measured by rolling the loaded tires at low speeds on a flat surface to eliminate wind drag and then the CRR was extrapolated to the watts of drag in the 20-25-30 unfaired and 30-40-50 faired columns.
Related links to rolling resistance tests at the same site:
The good news was the rolling resistance was quite low, also they seemed > to transmit torque possibly better than conventional tires. At least I > seemed to feel that in on-road climbing in very low gears. (I was > running these on my 63 speed bike for a while.)>
Cornering traction was great.>
The bad news is that they're a bit floppy from side to side. Riding > straight, you're never actually riding truly straight, always curving > very slightly to the right or left. These tires seem to have a bit of > lateral flop that is quite unnerving when you're riding straight. Feels > a bit like you've got a slow leak.>
When I was riding these regularly, I found myself stopping frequently to > pinch the tires to see if they were properly inflated. They always > were, but they always felt a bit underinflated.>
They might work better on a wider rim.>
Sheldon "Radial Spokes, Not Bad; Radial Tires, So-So" Brown
<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2ggb61herapi1qs82jgj7mqnanl66ssnn4@4ax.com...> On 19 Apr 2005 19:30:49 -0700, "StaceyJ"> <s_y_jenkins@hotmail.com> wrote:>
"Radial? Who makes a radial bike tire?"> >
Didn't Sheldon do some sort of blurb about radial tires once? ISTR> >that they rolled very nicely, but squirmed like the dickens in corners.> >
The good news was the rolling resistance was quite low, also they seemed> > to transmit torque possibly better than conventional tires. At least I> > seemed to feel that in on-road climbing in very low gears. (I was> > running these on my 63 speed bike for a while.)> >
Cornering traction was great.> >
The bad news is that they're a bit floppy from side to side. Riding> > straight, you're never actually riding truly straight, always curving> > very slightly to the right or left. These tires seem to have a bit of> > lateral flop that is quite unnerving when you're riding straight. Feels> > a bit like you've got a slow leak.> >
When I was riding these regularly, I found myself stopping frequently to> > pinch the tires to see if they were properly inflated. They always> > were, but they always felt a bit underinflated.> >
They might work better on a wider rim.> > .> > Sheldon "Radial Spokes, Not Bad; Radial Tires, So-So" Brown>
Carl Fogel
I have a pair of these tires in the basement. Came as OE on a Myata LT1000. They are awful. The tread pattern squirms on the road and feels like it simply absorbs all your energy as it deforms it's way down the highway. Pretty good in gravel though. Bill Brannon
