Fifty Plus (50+) - Whats faster Steel or CF?

Did I buy this new CF bike for nothing?

Now that I am getting use to the new Tarmac I have been trying to guage if it is indeed faster than the trusty Simoncini. My first rides on the Tarmac have been dialing it in, getting the right height on the seat, then a new seat, the right fore/aft position the right tilt. Fighting a cold, fight THE cold. In general watching my condition fall apart as it does in the fall. Well my conditioning has started to come back now that I have had two good weeks of riding. Yesterday I took the Simoncini out and road one of my frequent 15 mile training loops and recorded the trip on the GPS. Today the same course on the Tarmac and recorded. This is an out and back course with two steep hills, one in the middle and one at the end. The couse runs SE to NW. Yesterday the wind was out of the NW at about 5 and today it was out of the SE about 15. Both days my nutrition intake was the same, my clothing was about the same - I had my windbreaker on both days - which I know from the past slows me down. The temperature was almost the same, maybe a little warmer today. I felt good both mornings. Most of this path is a MUP so there is a fair bit of dodging people and a few baracades - my averages are never great on this ride because it is hard to sustain speed for a long time.

Now here is the interesting thing - both averages were the same - 16.1mph:eek:

When examining the data, the Tarmac climbed faster, the data showed that on the last climb I sustain a 2mph faster speed on the Tarmac. On the first hill I was about 1 mph slower, but that hill was exposed and the wind was right in my face and wipping today. The last hill where I was faster is not so exposed so I don't think I got a lot of help on the climb. The difference was the up wind leg - my flat road speed into the 15 mph head wind was slightly lower than yesterday where I had a 5mph headwind in the opposite direction.

The jurys still out but my feeling is the Tarmac is faster, particularly due to the hill climbing ability. It shines and there is no doubt that you can feel it. The extra stiffness and the 5 lbs count. As far as the rest of the ride - about the same. You must realize, the Simoncini is a classic columbus SLX italian race frame - no slouch.

Bottom line - the Tarmac will only give me a marginal boost when I try to move up to the next level of club rides next year - I gotta work on the engine... Thats my goal and I'm stick'n to it (well maybe after I have some more Halloween candy and a class of wine :))

Bottom line: when all the money is spent, 90% of the performance is the engine.

A lighter bike is faster uphill, slower downhill, and about the same on the flats. Presumably the faster uphill speed more than makes up for the slower downhill speed, so on a rolling or hilly course a lighter bike should be slightly faster than a heavier one.

I'm going through the same thing with my Roubaix and my steel Jamis. The carbon fiber doesn't feel that much different, than the steel, to me, but I know I have a lot of work to do on the engine. The speed seems to be a little faster on the Roubaix though.

A lighter bike is faster uphill, slower downhill, and about the same on the flats. Presumably the faster uphill speed more than makes up for the slower downhill speed, so on a rolling or hilly course a lighter bike should be slightly faster than a heavier one.
That was my reasoning too but combine that with a stiffer triangle and BB and the CF bike should accelerate much faster and the overall advantage should add up even on the flats. The downhill advantage will go to the most aerodynamic bike, In my case both should be about the same but because the Tarmac has a higher top end gear I can drive it faster downhill - I can easily hit 40 with it whereas with the Simoncini I am working harder to hit 40. Coasting - you are correct with everything else being equal.

The other test I want to do is a paceline test. I think the Tarmac should be easier for riding in a pace line, my rational is that since it accelerates faster it will be easier to close a gap when one forms and to keep it closed when the hills come. I doub't I will do any paceline work with it until next spring, that is unless I do the century that is coming up in 2 weeks.

I'm going through the same thing with my Roubaix and my steel Jamis. The carbon fiber doesn't feel that much different, than the steel, to me, but I know I have a lot of work to do on the engine. The speed seems to be a little faster on the Roubaix though.

Yea - the scientist/engineer in me wants to get a measure of just how much faster and under what conditions. I've got to stop thinking like that and just enjoy it. It's a new toy - have fun with it:)

You don't think the 10mph difference in wind speed was significant?

A lighter bike is faster uphill, slower downhill, and about the same on the flats. Presumably the faster uphill speed more than makes up for the slower downhill speed, so on a rolling or hilly course a lighter bike should be slightly faster than a heavier one.

I doubt that typical differences in bike weight make any difference going downhill.

I only weigh 168 lbs, and ride a relatively lightweight Trek Madone SL, and nobody passes me on downhills. In my experience, going fast downhill is much more about aerodynamics and cornering technique.

That was my reasoning too but combine that with a stiffer triangle and BB and the CF bike should accelerate much faster and the overall advantage should add up even on the flats. The downhill advantage will go to the most aerodynamic bike, In my case both should be about the same but because the Tarmac has a higher top end gear I can drive it faster downhill - I can easily hit 40 with it whereas with the Simoncini I am working harder to hit 40. Coasting - you are correct with everything else being equal.

Different tires, perhaps?

That's a HUGE flippin wind difference that makes your test of questionable value.
Plus, there's more than speed. How'd each bike feel t the end of a 100 miler? That might matter a lot.
But seriously, try it with the same wind.
My 8 .19 mile commute can swing dramatically depending on the wind. Plus, were there the same number of stops for lights and sop signs. Just stopping and restarting is a very significant factor in average speed over 15 miles.

Wait, what am I saying???? The Tarmac is junk.Obviously slow. Dump it. I'll help... Mail to......

I In my experience, going fast downhill is much more about aerodynamics and cornering technique.

And nerve.

And nerve.

As Ray Bolger sang, "If I only had da noive."

-soma5

Bottom line: when all the money is spent, 90% of the performance is the engine.
and most of the rest is aerodynamically efficient position on the bike

Here is something to ponder about physical performance as we age. From our local rag, Pittsburgh Post Gazette article "In the running"(not available online, I checked) about training programs for "older" athletes. Performance declines about 2% per year from age 50 to 74 and 8% a year after age 75. So every year if you get 2% slower it is not your fault! Just biology.

My guess the engine has everything to do with speed and you can have a 10 pound bike and not be all that much faster. If Lance was riding a 35 lb bike vs. me on a 15 lb carbon bike he still would be faster.

CF makes a difference.

The question is how important that difference is to you.

Quite frankly, how important is a Fifteen (just to throw a number out) Minute spread getting from point A to point B on Two different bicycles?

It's huge if one is racing. A couple Hundredths of a Second is huge in a race.

It makes very little difference at all if one is just riding.

Bicycles are human powered. Performance gains and losses are measured in teeny tiny increments.

It's all insignificant outside the context of competition.

imho it is all in the legs,lungs and aerodynamics of the riders positon on a bike.

Weight off wheels, weight off other rotating parts is much better for increases in speed. Weight off frame has about the same effect as weight off you.

CF is nice for the designers ability to make frame structures that would be unachievable elsewise but CF just for light weight................its worth a little but not a huge amount.

Some of the points brought up:
Yes the 10mph wind speed is a big difference and this being an up and back course I had the wind at my back for half the trip in both cases, but you still must give the advantage to teh Tarmac in that case because the stronger headwind hurts more than the stronger tail wind helps (the math/physics is clear on that point).

As far as the wheels. The Tarmac has lighter wheels - Easton Orion 2 vs Mavic Ksyrium Equipe.
As far as the tires - the Tarmac has slightly lighter tires, a the stock specialized tire vs the Gatorskins on the Simoncini.

So - as I stated, due to the wind I still have to give it to the CF Tarmac, but only slightly and certainly within the measrument error, gut fell more than data.

Here is the real reason I bought the thing though, if you can't keep the gap closed in a paceline over long periods of time you can fall out and if you fall out you pay hell to get back in if you don't get left in the dust. Those little differences in ability to accelerate add up to a lot more effort.

This is a fun mental exercise though and I'll keep testing and trying things and we can discuss over and over again, CRS diseaese is a wonderfull thing us 50+'s all have in common:D

As Ray Bolger sang, "If I only had da noive."

Actually, that was Bert Lahr.

TCS

As said the advantages of CF are lighter and stiffer frame. This will primarily provide benefit in climbing and sprinting and less advantage in flat tempo riding but being able to transfer power more effectively from the cranks to the wheels will provide some advantage but may not be as noticeable. My move from AL to CF was very noticeable when climbing and I can certainly feel better power transfer. I also gained as I went from a upright to racing geometry frame. My average time on my daily 20mile ride has increased by about 0.5mph which is pretty significant. However, I have also lost another 5lbs in body weight as well as getting a new bike.

The bottom line is I look and feel faster on my new bike and that to me is just as important as being faster.:D

I doubt that typical differences in bike weight make any difference going downhill.

I only weigh 168 lbs, and ride a relatively lightweight Trek Madone SL, and nobody passes me on downhills. In my experience, going fast downhill is much more about aerodynamics and cornering technique.
I'm over 200# and I get dropped by the fast guys on the climbs but I really get dropped on the descents. The fastest descenders are aero and smooth, it doesn't matter how much they weigh.
I've seen the stiff frame thing debated at length. I've yet to be convinced that a stiff frame is any faster than one less stiff. I've also owned a Tesch s-22, the stiffest thing imaginable, and an old Landshark, the most noodly frame I've ridden. I think they climb about the same, maybe a slight edge to the Landshark.
Staying on in a longer paceline is an old nemesis of mine, I have a hard time if I'm following more than a few riders. I'd say do intervals to help with this. I end up doing a lot of sprinting to deal with the accordion effect.

Don't get caught up in this..."I got to work on my engine". Just have fun, unless racing is your fun. Then training is your fun, internvals, hills, more intervals, watching what you eat, getting just enough rest, finding riders to train with, etc.

Here is a nine page discussion about whether stiffer equals faster.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=257679&highlight=are+stiffer+frames+really+faster

Weight off wheels, weight off other rotating parts is much better for increases in speed. Not so. This is debunked over and over again. Light wheels are slightly easier to accelerate, but they don't hold their speed when you ease up. So a rider with lighter wheels might surge ahead a tiny bit faster than someone with heavier wheels at the start of a sprint, but the instant she eased up even slightly, the other rider would catch up. And you know that in any sprint, unless it is very short, people don't continue to accelerate: they reach top speed and then try to sustain it. Going uphill, it doesn't matter if you lighten the wheels or lighten some other non-rotating component of the bike...you get the same benefit.

I'm over 200# and I get dropped by the fast guys on the climbs but I really get dropped on the descents. But you don't get dropped on the descent because of your weight, it's because they are more skilled or stronger peddlers. I guarantee that if you all coasted downhill side by side in similar postures, you would win every time.

I'm over 200# and I get dropped by the fast guys on the climbs but I really get dropped on the descents. The fastest descenders are aero and smooth, it doesn't matter how much they weigh.
I've seen the stiff frame thing debated at length. I've yet to be convinced that a stiff frame is any faster than one less stiff. I've also owned a Tesch s-22, the stiffest thing imaginable, and an old Landshark, the most noodly frame I've ridden. I think they climb about the same, maybe a slight edge to the Landshark.
Staying on in a longer paceline is an old nemesis of mine, I have a hard time if I'm following more than a few riders. I'd say do intervals to help with this. I end up doing a lot of sprinting to deal with the accordion effect.

Agree totally with you down hill assessment. As far as your stiff vs noodle, not sure. I originally bought into the arguement that spring and distorion in the frame when cranking would be returned when you let off on the pedals - and I still believe that because a spring is an energy storage device - so given that, stiffness should have no effect. But here is the difference I see; when doing a hard standing climb - because of the rake and spring in the front fork of the Simoncini and the extra flex in the chasis it will bunny hop a little - not enough to leave the pavement in the front or back but a real unweight in the front. The Tarmac doesn't do this and thus I think I am able to get a more efficient energy transfer in and a slightly faster cadence. If I were sitting and spinning there might not be any difference.

Another reply discussed the momentum benifits of the heavier bike. I agree with this and this is a noticable difference between the two. I can feel the Tarmac winding down faster than the Simoncini. This is more noticable on longer rides where you want/need a split second rest. My guess though is this is a net zero effect.

This is a great thought provoking discussion and appreciate all the different opinions.

Thanks!!

Not so. This is debunked over and over again. Light wheels are slightly easier to accelerate, but they don't hold their speed when you ease up. So a rider with lighter wheels might surge ahead a tiny bit faster than someone with heavier wheels at the start of a sprint, but the instant she eased up even slightly, the other rider would catch up. And you know that in any sprint, unless it is very short, people don't continue to accelerate: they reach top speed and then try to sustain it. Going uphill, it doesn't matter if you lighten the wheels or lighten some other non-rotating component of the bike...you get the same benefit.

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9662.0.html

Zinn took on this premis in some tech articles for Velo News this last year. It would appear that the average pedal stroke is not linear or even, resulting in an acceleration of the wheels about twice per revolution of the crank. This micro acceleration over time results in quite a significant use of energy. Rides are also not at a constant speed. Each time the speed climbs the lighter wheel saves energy. The heavier wheel does not return the same amount of energy due to losses in the system. Net result, the lighter wheel takes less energy to ride from point a to b.

Basically, the lighter wheel saves energy twice. 1 the overall bike weight is less, saving energy.....2 the lighter wheel accelerates faster in the circular direction saving energy there as well.

If the wheel is lighter near the rim then the circular acceleration is improved more than lighter at the hub. Thus racing wheels with aluminium nipples, tubular rims with inherently lighter weights, lighter tires etc.

If lighter wheels aren't of significant advantage then Zipp, Hed and many other folks are in the wrong business.

Max,

Good article. Thanks

Well, the chatter about bikes is diverting but it really is not a big thing.

I belong to a club and a number of B+ riders went out and bought high end performance riders so they could ride with the A riders. Most of them saw no real improvement. Once you are riding a decent performance road bike (one equipped with Shimano 105 or better), you have about 98% of the benefit the bike can give you.

The real difference is in the rider. I recall doing a ride and we had covered about 25 miles in just slightly over an hour and the group slowed down a tad to recover. Gilbert was riding a tiagra equipped bike which was easily the cheapest thing in the group. Gilbert looked at the rest of us and said that he needed a little speed work and took off like a rocket at nearly 30 mph. No one chased him and we never saw him again. He was just in a whole 'nother category than the rest of us.

Having a dura ace equipped bike is nice but having the heart and legs is better.

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9662.0.html

Zinn took on this premis in some tech articles for Velo News this last year. It would appear that the average pedal stroke is not linear or even, resulting in an acceleration of the wheels about twice per revolution of the crank. This micro acceleration over time results in quite a significant use of energy. Rides are also not at a constant speed. Each time the speed climbs the lighter wheel saves energy. The heavier wheel does not return the same amount of energy due to losses in the system. Net result, the lighter wheel takes less energy to ride from point a to b.

Basically, the lighter wheel saves energy twice. 1 the overall bike weight is less, saving energy.....2 the lighter wheel accelerates faster in the circular direction saving energy there as well.

If the wheel is lighter near the rim then the circular acceleration is improved more than lighter at the hub. Thus racing wheels with aluminium nipples, tubular rims with inherently lighter weights, lighter tires etc.

If lighter wheels aren't of significant advantage then Zipp, Hed and many other folks are in the wrong business.

All this hypothetical and highly suspect argument can be trashed with one real world example: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul19news6

In his attempt, Sosenka was using a 3.2 kg wheel and 190 mm cranks, with his bike weighing a total of 9.8 kg. The reason for the heavy wheel was that although it was harder to get up to speed, it was easy to maintain it.

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9662.0.html

Zinn took on this premis in some tech articles for Velo News this last year. It would appear that the average pedal stroke is not linear or even, resulting in an acceleration of the wheels about twice per revolution of the crank. This micro acceleration over time results in quite a significant use of energy. Rides are also not at a constant speed. Each time the speed climbs the lighter wheel saves energy. The heavier wheel does not return the same amount of energy due to losses in the system. Net result, the lighter wheel takes less energy to ride from point a to b.

Basically, the lighter wheel saves energy twice. 1 the overall bike weight is less, saving energy.....2 the lighter wheel accelerates faster in the circular direction saving energy there as well.

If the wheel is lighter near the rim then the circular acceleration is improved more than lighter at the hub. Thus racing wheels with aluminium nipples, tubular rims with inherently lighter weights, lighter tires etc.

If lighter wheels aren't of significant advantage then Zipp, Hed and many other folks are in the wrong business.

Thanks MM...great article. I am very happy with my Bontrager Race XXX lite carbon clincher wheelset. FYI...the Easton deep dish (56 mm) carbon tubular wheelset I purchased for my wife weighs 1265 gms. 100 less than my Race XXX lites.

^^Furthermore, it's not just the materials that make wheels light and easy to accelerate, it's also diameter. The 20" wheels on a Bike Friday or Swift have much less rim and thus are likely to be lighter, and have less diameter and thus are easier to accelerate for that reason too, than 700c wheels; so if wheel acceleration is a big advantage to overall speed, a Swift or Friday should be able to pwn any standard road bike, but of course they can't. At best they are as fast, but definitely not faster.

Sosenka is the only heavy wheel propronent out there and he is a specialist at the steady state one hour record. His work is mentioned in the Zinn articles but his speciality is pretty far removed from every day riding or even open road racing. He dodges no potholes, climbs no hills, passes no other riders. His business is keeping a speed for 1 hour. Many of the previous 1 hour record holders has some interesting bike designs also.

If your after the one hour record then you may not want to buy light wheels.

All this hypothetical and highly suspect argument can be trashed with one real world example: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul19news6

In his attempt, Sosenka was using a 3.2 kg wheel and 190 mm cranks, with his bike weighing a total of 9.8 kg. The reason for the heavy wheel was that although it was harder to get up to speed, it was easy to maintain it.

I would say the answer is not black and white but depends. In a flat TT acceleration effects (only at the start) and weight effects are negligible while maintaining rotating speed is critical. In a road race where there is climbing, multiple acceleration/deceleration and sprints lighter more aero wheels may make a big difference.

^^Furthermore, it's not just the materials that make wheels light and easy to accelerate, it's also diameter. The 20" wheels on a Bike Friday or Swift have much less rim and thus are likely to be lighter, and have less diameter and thus are easier to accelerate for that reason too, than 700c wheels; so if wheel acceleration is a big advantage to overall speed, a Swift or Friday should be able to pwn any standard road bike, but of course they can't. At best they are as fast, but definitely not faster.

lack of gear ratio! crank rpm to forward speed.

The arguement actually holds water if you consider that some tri bikes still favor the 650c wheel for its lightness (not to mention its ability to lower the frontal area of the bike/rider machine). The overall size of the crankset however has some limitations leading to the modern 700c wheel.

One can go to the far end of the spectrum with the old fashoned hi-wheel bike (no gears so final drive ratio required a wheel big enough to go that fast)

Sosenka is the only heavy wheel propronent out there and he is a specialist at the steady state one hour record. His work is mentioned in the Zinn articles but his speciality is pretty far removed from every day riding or even open road racing. He dodges no potholes, climbs no hills, passes no other riders. His business is keeping a speed for 1 hour. Many of the previous 1 hour record holders has some interesting bike designs also.

If your after the one hour record then you may not want to buy light wheels.

BUt now you are arguing that it is maneuverability or something else that makes light wheels better, not simply their weight. Sosenka would want light wheels for climibing, of course, and he would want a light frame too, because the less weight you lug uphill the better. But it doesn't matter whether you lighten the rotating or non-rotating parts of the bike - it has the same effect.

lack of gear ratio! crank rpm to forward speed.

Folders can be geared the same as standard bikes.

BUt now you are arguing that it is maneuverability or something else that makes light wheels better, not simply their weight. Sosenka would want light wheels for climibing, of course, and he would want a light frame too, because the less weight you lug uphill the better. But it doesn't matter whether you lighten the rotating or non-rotating parts of the bike - it has the same effect.

That's not what I'm arguing at all.....The man rides for one hour on a smooth track with the smoothest power stroke that he can provide. He doesn't need to have any energy left at the end of the hour. What he needs is raw speed given a human's ability to produce power. He isn't interested in conserving energy beyond the point of finishing that hour. The effeciencies in some mechanical designs do not translate over in some specific applications. Top Fuel Dragracing engines are not very efficient but you can't beat them to the end of a quarter mile given the regulations imposed by the rules.

All this technical talk about the bikes goes above my head. So I ignore most of it except what I have found works for me.

Wheel weight is a significant factor once you start talking about excessively heavy up against light wheels. What is more Definite is the quality of the components and build quality of those wheels. I have A pair of hand built Training wheels. Heavy by most standards at 1700 grammes, but they will last me years. 105 hubs- to Mavic CXP33 rims. Theses whels are fantastic- and mainly down to the builder. The same builder tweaked my Ultegra wheels before I bought Boreas and they are good. The stock wheels on the OCR3 are not good. So I have two pairs of Hand built wheels and a set of Machine built. From the many years of Mountain biking- I can tell you that a good wheel builder will work wonders on any stock machine built wheel.

Then the tyres- Mich PR2's on the training wheels and out of preference I will use these wheels- They accelerate well- Roll well and have a good tyre life. Just about to get the same tyre on the Ultegras. There are a few tyres around that even the racers rave about and the PR2's are one of them.

Set up of the bike- I take it you are happy with- perhaps just a bit more to do. But on that new bike- You still have a bit of running in to do. Wheel bearings may still require a bit of running and the bottom bracket probably has a lot of miles before it is as free as the old bike. Took 500 miles before I was happy with mine. Then the steering may not feel different- but are you used to it and the brakes may still require a better feel for you to get the best out of them.

So I have an OCR3- heavy bike with basic components and it weighs 19 1/2 lbs. This is the bike that started me road riding, still use it for night riding and I like it. Boreas is a 15lb Lightweight. Both are set up the same- except for the crankset. Triple on the OCR and compact on Boreas. So why am I not far faster on Boreas? Easy- Its me. Only difference is- I can go up hills faster -can get a higher speed on sprints if I want and accelerate faster on Boreas. But overall on a ride- I have one speed and comfort level. Now I haven't done a 100 miler on Boreas but have done several metrics. I have also done metrics on The OCR and at the end of a Metric- I know I can do a 100 miler on Boreas with ease. That extra Milage on The heavier bike take a bit more effort.

As to the quality of CF to steel- I only ride Aluminium so can't comment

The effeciencies in some mechanical designs do not translate over in some specific applications.

But Sosenka pedalled thousands of pedal strokes, and by Zinn's logic there is a little bit of acceleration on every stroke, and for sure his power output varied of the course of an hour...unless he's a robot he's going to speed up and slow down a little bit now and then. If the acceleration ability of lighter wheels offers some kind of advantage, then it should be evident even in the hour attempt.

But Sosenka pedalled thousands of pedal strokes, and by Zinn's logic there is a little bit of acceleration on every stroke, and for sure his efforts varied of the course of an hour...unless he's a robot he's going to speed up and slow down a little bit now and then. If the acceleration ability of lighter wheels offers some kind of advantage, then it should be evident even in the hour attempt.

But this is overcome by the greater efficiency of the rotating mass, plus aerodynamics is the main resistance force on a flat track so the weight issue just becomes noise. In a normal situation that most of us ride with hills, stop lights etc lighter wheels are better than heavier wheels. Is it worth the added expense, that depends on the individual.

"unless he's a robot"

There you have the modern one hour record in a nutshell!

In a normal situation that most of us ride with hills, stop lights etc lighter wheels are better than heavier wheels.

It's true that stop lights, or any other situations where you use the brakes, do favour the lighter wheels.

But you don't get dropped on the descent because of your weight, it's because they are more skilled or stronger peddlers. I guarantee that if you all coasted downhill side by side in similar postures, you would win every time. No, I get dropped in spite of my weight. I'm talking about no pedaling, 40+mph downhills. The good descenders will roll away from me at speed because of aerodynamics, even if they are 70 pounds lighter. I'm not aerodynamic, even when I try to be.

No, I get dropped in spite of my weight. I'm talking about no pedaling, 40+mph downhills. The good descenders will roll away from me at speed because of aerodynamics, even if they are 70 pounds lighter. I'm not aerodynamic, even when I try to be.I'm pretty skeptical of that claim. When I do the Ride for Heart in Toronto I coast downhill on a section of the Don Valley Parkway on my mountain bike and pass waifs on road bikes who are pedaling. I chased down and passed a tandem on one steep section.

I'm pretty skeptical of that claim. When I do the Ride for Heart in Toronto I coast downhill on a section of the Don Valley Parkway on my mountain bike and pass waifs on road bikes who are pedaling. I chased down and passed a tandem on one steep section.

If you passed a tandem on a descent they must not have been trying. Sure, I can pass waifs, but I can't pass guys who know how to descend. I'm kinda big and wide, aero challenged.

I'm pretty skeptical of that claim. When I do the Ride for Heart in Toronto I coast downhill on a section of the Don Valley Parkway on my mountain bike and pass waifs on road bikes who are pedaling. I chased down and passed a tandem on one steep section.

Must have been a Cautious Tandem.

I am a lightweight on a light bike with light wheels. It does not matter if it is offroad or on the road- I am the fastest in our group whenever gravity takes over. Aerodynamics takes controll of me but I have one friend that is pushing 220lbs. He can overtake me on any downhill- for about 3 seconds. All I have to do is get down- pick the line- Even on the road and he is Toast.

Now the Tandem is a different matter. All up weight of 400lbs and it is a mountain Tandem. High bars and a Wide Brick wall on the front. As soon as we get tucked in- Nothing can come anywhere near us. And that one will take Road bikes with ease- on the flat aswell.

BUT one thing I have noted----WHEELS and TYRES. On the OCR3- The stock wheels are slow. When I got a better pair of wheels- The curves that are corners on the stock wheels- are straights on the good wheels. No need to Back off- Brake or hold my breath.

Then the final bit is the rider. I have always said that Downhillers- Leave their brain at the top of the hill- And let it catch up while they are lieing in the road after the wipe out- If they don't wipe out- Then the next downhill is faster. Till eventually- They have the brain catch up while they are in Hospital recovering.

When observing downhill speed, my experience suggests a heavier bike and/or wheels DOES make a difference. Old Litespeed, 19lbs. total weight with older vintage Rolf Vector Pro wheels, over same hills & course and distance and conditions about 7mph slower than the 16lb. Guru with Ksyrium SSC wheels. same cyclometer on both bikes.

Well, the chatter about bikes is diverting but it really is not a big thing.

I belong to a club and a number of B+ riders went out and bought high end performance riders so they could ride with the A riders. Most of them saw no real improvement. Once you are riding a decent performance road bike (one equipped with Shimano 105 or better), you have about 98% of the benefit the bike can give you.

The real difference is in the rider. I recall doing a ride and we had covered about 25 miles in just slightly over an hour and the group slowed down a tad to recover. Gilbert was riding a tiagra equipped bike which was easily the cheapest thing in the group. Gilbert looked at the rest of us and said that he needed a little speed work and took off like a rocket at nearly 30 mph. No one chased him and we never saw him again. He was just in a whole 'nother category than the rest of us.

Having a dura ace equipped bike is nice but having the heart and legs is better.

I know this all to well now, but I'm still glad I bought a new bike. I'll have to keep working on myself to get better though.

I know this all to well now, but I'm still glad I bought a new bike. I'll have to keep working on myself to get better though.
George - we have no excuses now though. :)