Commuting - What's faster & Why? Road Bike or MB w/Slicks?

My best time commuting 17 miles to work was on my MB with slicks. I was surprised it took longer on a new hybrid with 700c wheels. I thought the bigger diameter wheels would make me faster. So then I tried an old road bike thinking the drop bars and geometry would send more power to the wheels and shorten my ride even more. However, I have yet to beat my best time on that MB! AGH! What is going on?

A properly fitted road bike should be faster than an mtb with slicks... it's that whole lighter, more aero, taller gears thing.

Mind you, I used to run slicks on my mtb and could make some pretty excellent times... I had re-geared it to help with that.

What was your NORMAL time on your MTB? We all have days when the stars align, the lights are all green, we have a constant tail wind and it seems our cranking is effortless. Times set on those days are the stuff of legend and should be chersihed, not compared to normal riding. As noted above, a road bike should be faster on average (I know it is for me).

The one you pedal harder is the faster bike. :lol:

My normal time on the MB? Hmm ... my best time was 50 minutes. I think maybe my normal time was 55 minutes - always under an hour. The hybrid and road bike were always OVER an hour. I was really hoping to cut my time to 45 minutes. Is that a crazy goal? to cut 10 minutes over 17 miles?

A road bike should be faster than a mtb with slicks. Although it depends on many factors, I would say that maybe your gearing is making the hybrid seem slower...

Yeah, don't know what's up with that hybrid. Might be the tires & geometry but it is NOT fast. I think I'll save it for vacationing with the kids.

A properly fitted road bike should be faster than an mtb with slicks... it's that whole lighter, more aero, taller gears thing.

Mind you, I used to run slicks on my mtb and could make some pretty excellent times... I had re-geared it to help with that.


1) You're not necessarily any more aero on a road bike (especially if you're riding the hoods)
2) taller gears are rarely the limitation of the typical rider. So you don't max out your speed going down a hill... you rest and have more power for the climb up the other side.

My MTB position was very similar to my position IN THE DROPS on my road bike and my speed was very close - especially on a commute. Wider tires actually speed up the commute since I could ride over instead of around obstacles.

Assuming position can be whatever you want it to be on either bike, the only advantage I'll give the road bike is weight... and in certain situations gearing.

The road bike is an old '70s era Schwinn with steel wheels. The MB is much newer but also an old beater. But I believe it's wheels are aluminum. I should compare their weights. I guess the best way to do that is stand on a scale while holding the bike? Then subtract my body weight?

A pro-racer is faster. A mtn bike w/ slicks vs a roadbike from the same commuter, not such a great difference relative to traffic, lights, etc...

Something else to consider is that you are accustomed to the mtb and not the hybrid. Over time your results might change.

This question seems to come up over 'n over; over 'n over I'm surprised that people are surprised that, for commuting purposes, slicked mtbs are nearly as fast/as fast/faster for a specific rider on a specific route under specific conditions than 700c road bikes or hybrids. There's just too many variables to say, as many do with great certainty, that a roadbike is 'faster' than a slicked (I would say 'roadified') mtb.

We're not talking about riding long distances under 'open' conditions here, possibly in a group. Under those conditions, yes -- a roadbike will travel further/faster for a given rider output; that is primarily down to the more aerodynamic riding position, which comes into play at higher sustained speeds. Except at (near) road racing speeds, where the factor is wheel aerodynamics (i.e. narrow), it has nothing to do with wheel diameter, except insofar as that affects effective gearing.

So, to the OP: doesn't surprise me at all that you found a 700c hybrid 'slower'; the hybrid could very well have a more upright (less aerodynamic) riding position than your mtb; and its wheel/tire combination could very well be heavier, and have higher rolling resistance, than your mtb wheelset. Of course, you might also simply have been feeling better on the day of your personal best, which just goes to show once again 'it's not about the bike';)

Tire pressure may be a factor too.
The slicks on MY MTB are 26 X1.25 and 100psi as compared to my hybrid's 700 X 35 tires rated at 60psi.

Perhaps you're less aero on the hybrid.

The road bike is an old '70s era Schwinn with steel wheels. The MB is much newer but also an old beater. But I believe it's wheels are aluminum. I should compare their weights. I guess the best way to do that is stand on a scale while holding the bike? Then subtract my body weight?

Old Schwinns can be real tanks. Weight on the wheels makes more difference than probably anyplace else on the bike. You most likely have got 1.25" tires on there which may not be much narrower than the tires on your MTB. The steel wheels definitely hurt you.

Even in terms of geometry the Schwinn may offer no advantage. I'm suspecting this bike is more recreationally oriented than performance oriented given the steel wheels.

You also have to consider the relative condition of the bikes and the quality of the components. If the Schwinn has low end hubs that haven't seen new grease in 30 years, it's going to be that much harder to get it up to speed and keep it there.

Yes, the Schwinn has larger diameter wheels but that doesn't necessarily make the bike faster. High end Triathlon bikes often have smaller wheels than typical road bikes.

FWIW, I have a decent but not high end road bike from 80's and a slightly better quality MTB from the 90's. The road bike was intended to be a low end competition bike so it has an aggressive geometry.
I get to work on that bike in 25 to 30 minutes vs. 30 to 40 minutes on the MTB. The MTB time suffers worse when there's a headwind. Thirty minutes is a REALLY good time for me on the MTB while I can get home on the old road bike under 30 minutes pretty consistently.

I have a newer road bike now and that is a couple minutes faster than the old one.

Thanks everyone for this discussion. My goal of course is to go fast, take less time, not work as hard, and never get passed. :-)

Can't wait 'till spring so I can get the MB back on the rode for a testy test. Also, I may not have to buy a new old bike. Darn, I was getting better at shopping. Maybe I'll just shop for new wheels for the old Schwinn - but would still like better hardware. What's the oldest (least expensive) road bike I can look for that would have modern shifters built into the hand brakes on the drops?

1) You're not necessarily any more aero on a road bike (especially if you're riding the hoods)
2) taller gears are rarely the limitation of the typical rider. So you don't max out your speed going down a hill... you rest and have more power for the climb up the other side.

My MTB position was very similar to my position IN THE DROPS on my road bike and my speed was very close - especially on a commute. Wider tires actually speed up the commute since I could ride over instead of around obstacles.

Assuming position can be whatever you want it to be on either bike, the only advantage I'll give the road bike is weight... and in certain situations gearing.

+1 to all that.

Weight is a grossly overestimated factor. 1) People make a big deal out of a pound or two on the bike while it's inconsequential in the total weight of the bike plus rider. 2) It's on the bike and rolling down the road - it's not like you're riding around holding that pound out in front of you nor are you lifting it vertically. You can push a lot more groceries around effortlessly in a cart than you can lift over your head at one go. 3) Weight slows down acceleration and climbing accentuates it, but once up to speed extra weight helps maintain that speed and helps overcome aero drag going downhill. It's a non-factor on a commute for the most part. A time-trial up l'Alpe d'Huez? Sure. "Jumping" to catch the wheel of a breaking-away rider? Sure. Your flat or rolling ride to work? Nope.

If you hang around BF long enough, you will learn that whichever bike costs more, will always be the faster one.:D

Fill your tires with helium and pedal faster

Well, I wouldn't call 17 miles of up & down grades a flat or rolling ride to work. It's more of a "cross-country" marathon, albeit relatively short. But you make good points about "weight" & another rider made an interpreting point about wheel diameter - (bigger isn't necessarily faster).

+1 to all that.

Weight is a grossly overestimated factor. 1) People make a big deal out of a pound or two on the bike while it's inconsequential in the total weight of the bike plus rider. 2) It's on the bike and rolling down the road - it's not like you're riding around holding that pound out in front of you nor are you lifting it vertically. You can push a lot more groceries around effortlessly in a cart than you can lift over your head at one go. 3) Weight slows down acceleration and climbing accentuates it, but once up to speed extra weight helps maintain that speed and helps overcome aero drag going downhill. It's a non-factor on a commute for the most part. A time-trial up l'Alpe d'Huez? Sure. "Jumping" to catch the wheel of a breaking-away rider? Sure. Your flat or rolling ride to work? Nope.

At the same tire air pressure, my ancient steel hybrid (which weighs probably 10 lbs more than my road bike, easily) costs me about 3 mph or so when cruising, and about 4 on hills. I guess it's up to the individual as to whether that's significant enough to care about.

3 or 4 mph matter ...? Hell yeah! Especially if the commute takes about an hour! Who can do math? If a 17 mile ride takes 50 minutes on one bike, and another bike is 4 mph slower, how long would the trip take on bike #2?

Oh and while you're at it ... How much faster would the average speed have to be to make the trip in 45 minutes?

When I started commuting to work I was riding my Giant MTB with knobbies 12.1 miles in 40:09 minutes. At the time I was just riding for the hell of it but as time went by I wanted to go faster. I put 1.70 slicks on it and wrecked (broken nose) on the way home on the first day. The wreck was caused from going so much faster when I entered this one tight turn that I had been through many times before. With the slicks my best time was 34:12. In a quest to go even faster I bought a road bike and my best time so far is 31:03.

I have decided to start riding the MTB more often when I do get to ride again to see if my time will improve. I have been out-of-commission for two weeks so far due to rotator cuff surgery. :(

Thanks everyone for this discussion. My goal of course is to go fast, take less time, not work as hard, and never get passed. :-)

Can't wait 'till spring so I can get the MB back on the rode for a testy test. Also, I may not have to buy a new old bike. Darn, I was getting better at shopping. Maybe I'll just shop for new wheels for the old Schwinn - but would still like better hardware. What's the oldest (least expensive) road bike I can look for that would have modern shifters built into the hand brakes on the drops?

The other issue you may be facing is with the narrower racing tires you are having to dodge crap in the street, where as with the MTB and slicks you may be focusing more on traffic and simply pushing harder.

While I like drop bars, I find MTB straight bars work better for commuting when I want to maintain a heads up view of traffic.

SSSTANG (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=147446) - Great info! See - those slicks make a big difference don't they? But your rode bike was faster - where mine was not. You probably got a good one.

....Maybe I'll just shop for new wheels for the old Schwinn - but would still like better hardware. What's the oldest (least expensive) road bike I can look for that would have modern shifters built into the hand brakes on the drops?

+1 to looking into new wheels/hubs/tires. What model of old Schwinn is it? Are the shifters up on the stem or down on the downtube? Does your MTB have grip-shifters or RapidFires? All the small things adding a second or five here and there can potentially make up for several minutes on a 17 mile commute. Plus those old steel wheels might be accelerating slower which would give the MTB the jump on you every time you slow down and speed up, again a second or five here and there add up over the commute distance.

Post up a pic of your Schwinn and your MTB, and your Hybrid if you want to, that way we will get a better picture of what you have and will be able to give better suggestions.

As to what is the least expensive frame to look for to allow brifters? Your current Schwinn might be able to be spread or cold-set in the rear to accept an 8-speed cassette hub, but I'll defer to the frame experts for that option.

'70s era LeTour. Stem shifters so I have to shift my hands and body weight to shift when I'm in the drops. Plus old fashioned friction shifting is hurting me. You know - inaccurate and time consuming shifts. MB has indexed grip shifters.

Fill your tires with helium and pedal faster

I tried that once. The helium just bled out.

3 or 4 mph matter ...? Hell yeah! Especially if the commute takes about an hour! Who can do math? If a 17 mile ride takes 50 minutes on one bike, and another bike is 4 mph slower, how long would the trip take on bike #2?

Oh and while you're at it ... How much faster would the average speed have to be to make the trip in 45 minutes?

Answer #1: You'd be going 20.4mph on average for 17 miles in 50 minutes. Knock 4mph off that, you're looking at 1 hour, 2 minutes. So you'll lose 12 minutes.

Answer #2: For 45 minutes, you'd be looking at around 22.5 mph.

Are stoplights not a consideration? An average speed of 20+mph makes me think perhaps you either don't have any (or else the elapsed time is from your computer, which shuts off at lights). Remember, any time stopped is the same no matter what you ride. Doesn't matter how shiny the bike is, it's just as slow when it's standing still. ;)

I tried that once. The helium just bled out.

So how many grams did it save?
Heck there isn't much chance of a bike catching on fire, so why not use hydrogen?
(Of course it would probably leak out even faster than helium.)

3 or 4 mph matter ...? Hell yeah! Especially if the commute takes about an hour! Who can do math? If a 17 mile ride takes 50 minutes on one bike, and another bike is 4 mph slower, how long would the trip take on bike #2?

Oh and while you're at it ... How much faster would the average speed have to be to make the trip in 45 minutes?


17 miles at 2.941 minutes per mile = 50 minutes +/-, which works out to around 20.4mph average.

Bike #2 at 16.4mph average would do the 17 miles in a little over an hour.

17 miles in 45 minutes would have to see around 22.6mph average.

If my math is off just consider it is close enough for commuting estimations. ;)

Regarding the pictures.
The Schwinn 10-speed is the actual bike
The Schwinn hybrid is the Amazon stock picture
The Giant MB is off the internet too. Mine is much older though with no shock absorbers. I found it in the trash in Harvard Square!

Schwinn 700c Trailway
http://www.amazon.com/Men%2592s-Schwinn-700C-Trail-Hybrid/dp/B000KZ1G7Q

Mr. Underbridge & (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=81264) treebound - You guys are AWESOME! AGH STUCK IN UNDERLINE MODE (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=27909)

I don't have a computer. There are some lights. I may be a more prudent rider now, stopping more, etc. I was pretty crazy on that MB when I first started. I was an ignorant rider. I am more patient & courteous now.
(http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=27909)

I don't have a computer. There are some lights. I may be a more prudent rider now, stopping more, etc. I was pretty crazy on that MB when I first started. I was an ignorant rider. I am more patient & courteous now.


Patient and courteous is good!

If you're averaging 20mph with lights averaged in, that's pretty danged impressive. Keep it up.

Thanks, that was my best time. Haven't beat it yet.

There have been some brutal rides home lasting 30 - 40 minutes longer including laying on my back in the shade or 10 minutes. You know those hot summer days are killers, not to mention thunder and lighting storms w/ torrential rain ... don't miss those!

Mr Underbridge beat me on the math quiz. :thumb:

Your old LeTour with the stem shifters and heavier frame is part of the speed factor. Finding a bike with downtube shifters or updating your's to brifters might give you some speed gains if you also upgrade the wheelset. But now seeing a pic of your bike you might be able to just get some downtube clamp-on shifter mounts if you want to put that money into it.

Realistically, cranking out 17 miles on a commute in close to an hour is very respectable. I'd just ride it as is, don't worry about setting any speed records, keep an eye open for an alloy wheelset, and enjoy the ride.

And, for the record, some of those hardtail MTB's and even the rigid fork'd ones can be set up to be deceptively fast on the street. I've got an old Timberlin rigid MTB currently set up as a commuter and pseudo-tourer and I'm running a set of Serfas Barrista 26x1-1/4" 100psi tires on it, easily as fast as my late 80's LeTour if I'm doing my part.

Boy that would be funny if all I had to do was stick with the beater I found in the trash rather than all that other stuff with those other bikes! Ha! The MB is definitely better looking, scratches and all - you know - more testosterone, less Fred ...

Better tires and wheels, leave the shifters alone.

And get some decent lights if you are riding at night.

I'll consider it. BTW: The front & rear strobes were just for daytime visibility. I'm not a night rider. Those guys are hard-core.

At the same tire air pressure, my ancient steel hybrid (which weighs probably 10 lbs more than my road bike, easily) costs me about 3 mph or so when cruising, and about 4 on hills. I guess it's up to the individual as to whether that's significant enough to care about.

You're losing it somewhere else. Do the math - let's say the hybrid weights 10lbs more and you + the bike weigh 200lbs. That's a 5%. Like I said - it's not like you're lifting it, you're rolling it so it makes it relatively easy - there's formulas to figure that out. Anyhoo, 3mph is 5% of 60mph. So even if you do figure a 1-1 relationship, you're riding pretty darn fast. Whether you're doing 60 or 57 you're gonna get there pretty darn quick!

The reality of the physics is that at 60mph - or 30 or 20 aero drag is way more of a factor than weight. If you do the math, you find out that when cruising the weight cancels itself out. It's a total non-factor. If you could accelerate it up to 20mph a 5000lb bike would be just as easy to keep there on flat ground as a 10lb bike. Rolling resistance would be a factor in that case but let's ignore that for now.

If weight was such a factor a bike with a loaded trailer would barely move. But really, you only lose a little riding a bike like that.

Your numbers actually prove my point - you're attributing 3mph on flat ground to the weight but only 4mph on hills? 1mph for lifting the weight up the hill, but 3mph just to keep it rolling on flat ground? Think about that awhile.....

Your old LeTour with the stem shifters and heavier frame is part of the speed factor. Finding a bike with downtube shifters or updating your's to brifters might give you some speed gains if you also upgrade the wheelset.



LOL - OH COME ON NOW! Wheelset maybe, but do you really think you're going to gain time measurable by any watch by shaving a couple ounces with brazed-on shifters?!? And heck - brifters are going to be heavier - how the heck will that make him faster?

It's hard to compare totally different rides on totally different days. It depends on wind direction, light timing and how you were feeling on those particular rides.

LOL - OH COME ON NOW! Wheelset maybe, but do you really think you're going to gain time measurable by any watch by shaving a couple ounces with brazed-on shifters?!? And heck - brifters are going to be heavier - how the heck will that make him faster?


;););););) My point about going to downtube shifters was in efficiency in using downtube shifters over stem mounted shifters, and brifters have both formats beat as far as being quick to shift at least as far as my personal experiences go. Weight wasn't a factor in my figuring on the the shifters. A couple of ounces can be made up with how much water is carried in the water bottles.

Cranking out 17 miles in under an hour anywhere around Boston for a commute time is doing good in any book.

+1 to all that.

Weight is a grossly overestimated factor. 1) People make a big deal out of a pound or two on the bike while it's inconsequential in the total weight of the bike plus rider. 2) It's on the bike and rolling down the road - it's not like you're riding around holding that pound out in front of you nor are you lifting it vertically. You can push a lot more groceries around effortlessly in a cart than you can lift over your head at one go. 3) Weight slows down acceleration and climbing accentuates it, but once up to speed extra weight helps maintain that speed and helps overcome aero drag going downhill. It's a non-factor on a commute for the most part. A time-trial up l'Alpe d'Huez? Sure. "Jumping" to catch the wheel of a breaking-away rider? Sure. Your flat or rolling ride to work? Nope.

1. Your weight (and anything on your person) is sprung weight. Weight on the bike itself is unsprung. It makes a difference. Lowering unsprung weight helps more than lowering sprung weight.

You pay the price with heavier wheels every time you accelerate, whether you're going up hill or not.

3. The extra weight hurts you more going up hill than it helps you going down.

My commuter mtb feels much lower than my commuter road bike, probably a combination of geometry differences and smaller wheels. Lower=less wind resistance, which is considered by some (Jobst) to be the single biggest factor affecting speed.

I havent taken the time to read all the comments posted so far but.... My opinion, as my buddy dave and I have discussed, is that most hybrid bikes are kinda worthless. They are not great for any specific application. The design of the bike puts you in a terribly inefficient stance with no leverage. Bigger wheels, who cares when you are sitting straight up like the wicked witch of the west. My wife used to have a hybrid and I would rather ride my mtb any day over that slow machine. Also, Jdtyk, you are running 100 psi on your mtb but only 60 on your 700cm bike? Thats just bass-ackwards You need to get some new tires for the 700. The difference of 60 to 120psi would make you feel like grease-lightning.

Thanks everyone for this discussion. My goal of course is to go fast, take less time, not work as hard, and never get passed. :-)

Can't wait 'till spring so I can get the MB back on the rode for a testy test. Also, I may not have to buy a new old bike. Darn, I was getting better at shopping. Maybe I'll just shop for new wheels for the old Schwinn - but would still like better hardware. What's the oldest (least expensive) road bike I can look for that would have modern shifters built into the hand brakes on the drops?

Last year I picked up a used 2005 Specialized Allez for $350 offseason. It was ridden maybe 100 miles. Keep that in mind before spending too much $$$ on your Schwinn.

If you want indexed shifting you'll need a wheelset that's dished for at least a 6 or 7 speed freewheel. You may not find many used 27" wheelsets like that. 700c wheelsets will cost you'll more + you'll need new tires (which you'll probably want anyway).

An indexed shifter will require another derailleur. More $$$.

Think of what you could sell the Schwinn for and subtract that off the cost of another bike. You may be way better off in the long run than if you upgrade your Schwinn. If you stick with the Schwinn, no matter what you do you'll be stuck with a pretty heavy frame.

Keep in mind though that your goal is going to be a tough one to reach. I did a short "sprint" triathlon last summer and I had the 7th best time in my age class (though I am an old guy, so you need to factor that in). My average speed over 15 miles was around 20 mph and that's without having to stop at intersections. Of course that was right after having to swim 1/3 mile in some nasty wind and chop but I doubt I would have been that much faster without having swam first.

You're losing it somewhere else. Do the math - let's say the hybrid weights 10lbs more and you + the bike weigh 200lbs. That's a 5%. Like I said - it's not like you're lifting it, you're rolling it so it makes it relatively easy - there's formulas to figure that out. Anyhoo, 3mph is 5% of 60mph. So even if you do figure a 1-1 relationship, you're riding pretty darn fast. Whether you're doing 60 or 57 you're gonna get there pretty darn quick!

The reality of the physics is that at 60mph - or 30 or 20 aero drag is way more of a factor than weight. If you do the math, you find out that when cruising the weight cancels itself out. It's a total non-factor. If you could accelerate it up to 20mph a 5000lb bike would be just as easy to keep there on flat ground as a 10lb bike. Rolling resistance would be a factor in that case but let's ignore that for now.

If weight was such a factor a bike with a loaded trailer would barely move. But really, you only lose a little riding a bike like that.

Your numbers actually prove my point - you're attributing 3mph on flat ground to the weight but only 4mph on hills? 1mph for lifting the weight up the hill, but 3mph just to keep it rolling on flat ground? Think about that awhile.....

You're forgetting some reality in the math (and trust me, I'm fine with the math and Newton's laws) - if the bike weighs 35 pounds, just *getting* it to speed, and handling the hills, takes quite a bit of energy out of you such that you might be pretty drained. I should point out that on my ride, I'm looking at a lot of rolling hills and very little distance to coast, so the end result is that my top speed is effectively reduced. So when I say the bike costs me 3mph when cruising, I should be more accurate - I generally don't get to within about 3mph of real cruising speed since it takes longer to accelerate (did I mention the wheels are steel too?), and the total ride is far more draining.

If I lived in Kansas, you'd be right - I'd expect to lose less than 1 mph, assuming no aero differences. But Dorothy, this ain't Kansas, and after a steep 200 foot climb on a 35lb bike, I'm cooked. ;) Your loaded trailer is actually a good example - try a 10% grade with it, see how much slower than usual you end up going!

The most realistic assessment would be to consider how much start/stop and hill climbing goes on - if there's a lot of that, then the weight difference will be felt. If not, it's completely negligible.

Ride a Trek Madone and tell us which is faster??

You're forgetting some reality in the math (and trust me, I'm fine with the math and Newton's laws) - if the bike weighs 35 pounds, just *getting* it to speed, and handling the hills, takes quite a bit of energy out of you such that you might be pretty drained. I should point out that on my ride, I'm looking at a lot of rolling hills and very little distance to coast, so the end result is that my top speed is effectively reduced. So when I say the bike costs me 3mph when cruising, I should be more accurate - I generally don't get to within about 3mph of real cruising speed since it takes longer to accelerate (did I mention the wheels are steel too?), and the total ride is far more draining.

If I lived in Kansas, you'd be right - I'd expect to lose less than 1 mph, assuming no aero differences. But Dorothy, this ain't Kansas, and after a steep 200 foot climb on a 35lb bike, I'm cooked. ;) Your loaded trailer is actually a good example - try a 10% grade with it, see how much slower than usual you end up going!


It's tougher but not THAT much tougher. I can put both my kids in the trailer and it weights ~100lbs. The bike I tow it with weighs 19lbs. Basically 5 times the weight. It doesn't take 5 times the effort to get it up a hill. Not even close People like to think that 10lbs from their gut is a little, ten pounds from a bike is a lot. 10lbs from a bike COSTS a heck of a lot more, but they're actually even as far as overall weight goes. You don't weigh a car without the engine.