Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Hypothetical blind ride test

I've been itching for a new bike purchase this winter. I've got two very different bikes in mind- both great for my needs, but haven't pulled the trigger on a purchase because I feel like I'm comparing an apple and an orange. I likely would not be able to test ride either bike before purchase.

http://cohobicycles.com/cohobicycles/Roadie.html
http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/Html/SportivoXti.html

My interest is in a fast brevet bike. This would be a bike that would be used for fair weather brevets with light packing. I've got other bikes that satisfy the smooth, heavy load, long haul rides.

So, if I could take both of these bikes out on 200K rides with similar/same wheel sets, drive trains and components, but I was not able to be biased by the way they look (i.e. blind) how might I (or you) describe the two rides?

Thanks for any input. -Bob

At the risk of muddying the waters... If I was in your position, I'd likely look at a "performance fit" carbon fiber road bike, e.g.: Specialized Roubaix, Fuji CCR, Jamis Xenith, Giant Defy.

I happen to believe that comfort and ride feel are very subjective and personal, especially with distances greater than 100km or so; not to mention that everyone sets up their bike (particularly the fit) in different ways. So, you might be better off toying around with the setup on one of your other bikes, and using that as a basis to select a different frame geometry for the new bike.

I happen to believe that comfort and ride feel are very subjective and personal,

A whole-heartedly agree and CF frames are not ruled out. My biggest difficulty though, is trying to suss out how a bike rides vs. how a bike looks like it might ride. Putting a leg over the top tube of a classic lugged steel is going to feel different than on a ti or CF frame. But, if geometry/components are similar, are the bikes really that different? Is that Marinoni Sportivo really a quicker feeling bike than the Coho or does it just look faster? I don't know.

My biggest difficulty though, is trying to suss out how a bike rides vs. how a bike looks like it might ride....
Unfortunately, expectations play a surprisingly large part of one's evaluation, so it's kind of hard to get into it without biasing the experiment....

That said, as best I've figured out, the main things that will make a bike more efficient will be:
- training
- drafting during the event, or using aero bars
- a more aerodynamic position
- slick, narrow, high PSI tires
- more aerodynamic wheels
- a more aerodynamic frame
- a clean and well-maintained drive train
- unless it's a hilly course, weight will have a minimal effect.

E.g. on paper, a Cervelo R3 with Zipp 404's and aero bars will be faster than a Surly Pacer. However, the Cervelo setup, stiffness and feel may be comfortable for rider X but uncomfortable for you. There are some (e.g. Craig Calfee) who theorize that increased comfort and shock absorption reduces fatigue and stress on your body, so after a certain point things that ought to make you faster (e.g. high pressure tires) will actually slow you down.

More importantly, though, we're dealing with bicycles, not motorcycles. ;) I.e. upgrading the engine (training) will provide the single biggest source of a speed increase. Unless you're already riding at a very fast pace, the increased efficiencies of a faster bike may not result in actual faster times or a truly meaningful improvement.

Also, a bike that "feels" faster may just have more responsive steering and won't actually improve your time.

In summary, I'm not sure if there is really a way to predict which bike (if any) will reduce your time on a 200k, without actually doing very long rides on both bikes equipped with power meters. Just seems like too many variables to me.


Fortunately, you have the option of toying around with one of your current brevet bikes first and seeing if some of these types of alterations makes a difference and/or feel comfortable. E.g. record your current position, then try lowering the handlebars or use different tires. If you're considering building the bike from the ground up or have the wherewithal, you can put an aero wheelset on one of your current bikes, and see how that works.

If it turns out that, for example, you can do a faster century with a more aggressive position and aero wheels, and you don't want to permanently modify your brevet bike for that setup, then you know what kind of setup you can go for with the new bike.

This isn't what you're looking for at all, but I must say that Coho is unbelievably sexy. You may ride faster on it as you think about just how amazing the bike beneath you looks. Plus, steel is real.

Actually, your advice is quite good: I should not discount how much the bike will change me and my approach to riding it.

However, my OP seems like an ever more valid concern for buyers finding bikes via internet. These buyers, like myself, have little or no way of test riding. So, how can they know the characteristics of the ride? There's so little quantifiable information about "ride quality" given to prospective buyers. Jan Heine's reviews seem to get close, but Bacciagalupe's comments are true that ride quality is very subjective.
It seems I'm left with either committing to a bike and finding out whether I like it after it's mine or buying a stock bike I can test ride locally. I'm not a big fan of either option.

-GB

The rear wheel pictured on the Marinoni is worrying to me. The spoke pattern is gimmicky, and the placement of the tube stem is er... um... puzzling.

There is definitely much that is subjective, so all we can hope to do is affect your attitude. :p I subscribe to many of Jan Heine's philosophies about design and comfort as they relate to performance. However, unless you can put all the things that are plausibly suggested to the test, I don't see how you have a hope of telling what's true for you. For rides under 50 miles, the Bob Jackson I rode in 2007 was faster than the Surly LHT I rode in 2008. Over 50 - no appreciable difference in speed, but I didn't feel quite as spent afterwards. I'm pretty sure it isn't an artifact of being in better shape, since I didn't ride as much in 2008 as I did in 2007.

That said, I'm convinced the ideal bicycle for randonneuring would be lighter than my LHT - which must weigh at least 30 pounds as it sits. The only other conclusion I've reached is that for longer distances, the wheels on the LHT (Mavic A719's with 32mm Panaracers) are much more comfortable than the wheels on the Jackson (Campagnolo Omegas with 23mm Hutchinsons).