FormerFF

Bringing this one back from the dead -

Shortly after the last post last November, I went out for a 21 mile loop, that involves a couple of shortish cat 5 climbs, and came back with a very sore IT band. I wound up spending the winter resting and rehabilitating the IT band, and getting used to a different set of orthotics. Come March, I hadn't ridden all winter, and couldn't run more than a mile. I put more effort into the running part, and worked exclusively on running until mid June, when I added limited swimming and riding. Finally got to where I could run a 10K in mid July, and was able to start swimming in earnest, and riding a hybrid with super low gears to avoid re-injuring my knee. Sprang for a new road bike, a Giant Defy Composite 2, because I realized I was afraid I was going to injure the knee on one of the hills on the steel bike. After I had the new bike for a few weeks, I rode that same 21 mile loop, and on the first time on that route on the new bike, I shaved five minutes off my previous best, even though it was 50 degrees hotter than the day I set my previous best, and I had less than 200 miles on the new bike. The following week, I shaved another three minutes off the same loop.

The tri was last weekend, and I did finish it, albeit slowly. The swim was fine, though about 90 meters longer than regulation. The ride was great, rolling terrain and quiet roads, with a couple of small climbs. The run was just tough, hot, humid, and hilly. It didn't help at all that I was getting over a cold, but I'm satisfied with the results, especially considering that five months ago I couldn't run a mile and a half, and could only really train all three events for two months.

Is there a performance difference? Yes, absolutely. The new bike is five pounds lighter, which helps on the hills, but not nearly as much as having all those gears at hand. It's more comfortable on descents as well, there's no flex to speak of and no twitchiness. I'm going much faster with less effort, and that's on an endurance geometry bike. If I'd wanted something more race oriented, there'd be more gains to be had. I'm not fast enough or serious enough about triathlon to justify a more performance oriented bike, but I'm loving live on the new Giant.

iab

5 minutes over 21 miles due to a modern bike?

I haven't heard so much bull**** in one sentence since the last political convention.

Six jours

And he'd be even faster if his head tube angle was different!

Velognome 

Ah... but the bike is a total fail anyway...No fender eyelets and where's the chrome?

Chombi

But modern bikes aren't "chick magnets" like C&V bikes are.......

Chombi

trek330

That new bike's Red, right?Everyone knows red bikes are the fastest.

RobbieTunes

Not that far out. Really. All it takes is a lack of proficiency on the old bike, with DT shifters and gearing that is far from optimum for his best cadence. Weight's got nothing to do with it.

Bicycle Guide did a test around 1989, and found that position changes on the bike, 4 per mile, equaled about 4 minutes over a 25-mile ride. They were actually testing aero bars and found that shifting body position on the bike made a bigger difference than riding position. (Still, they found drops almost equal to aero; both were better than the hoods)

The gearing difference and modern components on a bike that perhaps fits better could be 5 minutes over 21 miles. I doubt if weight was a factor, unless there's a lot of climbing involved. If you went out and bought a modern bike that fits properly, with modern components, you should be faster if you're better at shifting STI's than DT shifters.

I could never ride my workout loop at 20mph on my DT-shifted Ironman. I tried. I just wasn't that proficient at anticipation and shifting smoothly, and I had to change position to shift (or miss shifts). I also had problems keeping with a 20mph pace line with DT shifters. My best tri leg was using Sora's mounted low, in the drops.

That's why I find guys like norskagent, who can friction DT shift as fast as I can STI-shift, so amazing. I tended to try to make up for my deficiencies in DT shifting by ignoring shifts and mashing like crazy.

When I upgraded it to STI's, I could run that route at 20mph repeatedly, because I never left the drops, and missed far fewer shifts. I ride it now on both an 18-lb Kestrel and a 23-lb Cinelli. I doubt my time is more than 2 minutes different on any given day, for any wind condition, regardless of the bike. I may gain some climbing speed on the Kestrel, but it's so light, I tend to mash more on the smaller cogs and ignore smooth shifting. I suppose if I really, really focused on a high-speed run, maybe I could gain some by climbing in the right gear, but I doubt more than a minute.

I honestly believe that if I focused on every aspect of my riding on the Kestrel, I'd probably be close to 5 minutes faster over the same 21-mile course as my best shot at it with my DT-shifted Ironman. The difference would be my ability to shift efficiently, nothing else.

Vote for me. Free century rides for everyone.

JPZ66

Kinda harsh Iab.

The new bike, being lighter and having more gears wasn't the sole reason for the the time reduction.....obviously OP has been training harder and was in better shape. The new bike inspired confidence to push harder, and had the lower weight and gearing options to maximize the effort.

I say to the OP, bravo, well done...keep up the training !

Joe

FormerFF

Actually, the total gain has been eight minutes. That's my experience, YMMV. I don't doubt a stronger rider would have seen less of a difference, but in my case, having all those gears at hand keeps me at my optimum longer, and wears me out less so I'm stronger for the second climb. If I still lived in Florida or the Chicago area, I don't doubt the difference would have been much less, but here in hilly north Georgia, it means a lot.

FormerFF

Total climb is 675 feet according to MapMyRide.

FormerFF

Thanks. In addition to my usual cycling, I'll be working hard on running and swim technique. I'd like to power my way up to the middle of my age group in a couple of sprint tris next year. After a lifetime of being a well below average athlete, that would be a victory.

Chrome Molly

I can easily see a couple minute difference, but for me it would need to involve lots of friction shifting vs sti. As far as the weight of the bike, it wouldn't account for much over 650 ft of climbing. My normal weeknight ride is about 1200 ft climbing and 25 miles. Over that route, the difference between modern and friction shift does become very apparent, due to getting fewer shifts in without loss of momentum.

On the flatter route I sometimes go on, it's virtually a draw.

Updating my 7 speed freewheel bike to STI bar ends made a big difference in terms of keeping the wheels spinning quickly. But I made the STI on FW mod for ease of shifting so I can keep my concentration on traffic. The better climbing was a side benefit.

JPZ66

"Where the mind goes, the body follows" - me

You guys are picking technical nits....a few grams this, XXX feet of climbing that... While training and overall fitness is the overriding factor in physical effort, you can't forget the mental aspect. How an athlete is feeling mentally is a large part of the performance as well.

Im sure if I told you about some of the demanding efforts and feats of endurance of my younger days in the military, you'd all scoff....heck, I would too at this point, as when I look back at some of the things I accomplished as a soldier, it boggles my own mind !


My point is, is that the the body can do much more then the mind normally allows. There is truth in that old saying about "Mind over matter" .......


Cheers,

Joe

Road Fan

It could have been the revised fitting.

But 15% is huge, it's hard to believe it was just one factor that changed.

StanSeven

Those savings are easily justifiable over 21 miles on different bikes. 5 lbs saves 1.5 minutes alone on a course with some elevation. The new bike is likely set up as more aero with lower bars, higher seat, etc., which will save another 1.5 to 2 minutes. Finally as you noted more gears and easier shifting likely kept you in your optimal cadence zone. Not only does that make you faster in itself, you avoid the big slowdowns from having to mash and being fresher in those last few miles.

iab

I don't doubt you improved by 5 or 8 minutes, whichever.

I doubt the gain was made due to your bike as you claim.

That's where I call bull****.

And 675 feet over 21 miles is not climbing. I can do that here in Illinois. Illinois is flat as a pancake.

RobbieTunes

Fit
Fitness
Efficiency of not changing body position to shift or brake
Proficiency anticipation and shifting
Higher cadence to minimize speed loss
= Faster

These can easily add up without you being acutely aware of them.
I can see 5 minutes over 21 miles, and I can see 8 minutes over 21 miles.
I can also see a 15% improvement, especially if gomango says it.
Like iab points out, it's hard to pin it all on the bike, and I see his point.

The people I help to get into triathlons all want to buy speed.
The vast majority don't get much faster when they do.
The ones that retain that "slow bike" see gradual improvement.
Then, when they buy that "fast bike," they see dramatic improvement.
It's not the bike, it's what the bike does for them:
1-It's always a better fit. They know what works this time around.
2-They're in better shape, and determined to go faster.
3-They're experienced as far as technique and often on more modern shifting.
4-They've stopped mashing.

All of the factors above were involved.

Many riders (and runners) see dramatic breakthroughs when they unwittingly make a mental change.
For cyclists, it can be bike change, easily, that removes a mental obstacle that was holding them back.
For runners, it's often a race where they lose track of their pace and outrun what they thought they could do.
I've seen 10K runners drop from 34's to mid 31's because they get caught up in a fast pack.
They realized they really didn't suffer all that much more, and gain confidence and get faster.

The exact same thing can happen with a bike change. Several factors combine to make you faster.
Because you went faster, you drop mental inhibitions that you had before, and you do get faster.
The initial drop of 5 minutes could easily have been the breakthrough.
The next drop of 3 more minutes could easily be because of your renewed vigor.

If you think you're faster, you often are, and you want to be able to point to a reason, when usually it's reason(s).
Take that effect, add in a better bike fit, better gearing, and better riding technique, dramatic improvement is definitely a possbility. If my trainees want to think it's their new bike, fine with me, but they're shortchanging themselves and their own efforts.

Velognome 

Check out the Tread and the interview about Obree aka the Flying Scotsman about attempting both the 1 hour record and a land speed record both on steel bikes.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...tage-quot-look

Being faster than any of us, he's worth a listen " it's not about weight it's about aerodynamics of the body". RobbieTunes hit ithe nail on the head, If the bike is set up properly and you have the "skills" unless your at 100% of your ability, vintage vs. modern is really not that much of an issue it seems.

spock

https://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html Tour De France statistics...

Compare the stats from 80's to now-a-days. All that trouble with new tech in frame material, stiffness, gears, "aero", for the sake of performance, efficiency, and speed.... and the difference is.....

That's what happens when you test things without directly testing things. True results come out. No wind tunels. Which leads me to believe that modern is 90% marketing hype and people buying it. It's a bicycle; Not an airplane.

It doesn't get easier; You just think you go faster.

Velognome 

lets not for get drugs.....the new stuff does make you faster!

FormerFF

Now I have to call bull****. I've lived in Schaumburg, Arlington Heights, and outside of West Dundee, IL. There are no hills in that area that are comparable to what's in this area. I have a 50-34 crank and an 11-32 cassette, and I use the full range every ride. When I lived up your way I had the same steel bike I mentioned in the original post, and used about three gears: One for no wind, one for upwind, and one for downwind, just about the same three gears I used when I lived in St. Petersburg, FL.

bbattle

The hills near Chester, Ill. could easily get you over 675 feet of climbing in 20 miles.

675 feet of climbing in 21 miles is a pretty flat ride. Do you mean to say 675 feet of climbing for one climb? Or that the difference between starting and finishing elevation of the ride was 675 feet?

I'm glad you like your new bike. that's all that matters.

RobbieTunes

no bull****!

iab

11 miles. 584 feet.

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/12845

I guess you didn't spend much time on a bike when you were here.

I'll post more if you like.

gomango

Switching from a nice De Rosa crit bike to a full blown Felt tri bike creates many variables.

The Felt was a much better tool for the events she entered and her conditioning had really improved as well.

Her swimming and running times improved, but not nearly as dramatically as the bike portion.

I came to realize that she is a much better athlete than most of the washed up racers I ride with.

Heck, she could have probably kicked most of our rears when we were in our prime.