Modern vs. Classic: Performance Difference?
 

I've just committed to entering an international distance (1.5k swim, 40k bike, 10 k run) triathlon next spring. My boss, who's a big time triathlete, tells me I need to replace my '84 Trek 610 with something up to date. I rode it in a sprint distance tri (400m swim, 20k bike, 5 k run) last year and did fine, but that was against a bunch of first timers. Both he and my wife think I need some up to date piece of plastrickery for this, but I'm not so sure. On one hand, it would be nice to have indexed shifting, and a shorter low gear, but I'm not seeing that I'd gain that much by spending the money on a new ride. He keeps telling me that I'll be a lot fresher for the run, and I suspect he knows what he's talking about, but would like to get some other opinions. Anyone care to share your experiences on a new vs. a vintage ride, performance wise? The course I'll be riding is somewhat hilly.

Don't worry about it, it's the motor!

Meaningless platitude. We don't know what kind of motor he has.

What kind of terrain is that 40km? "somewhat hilly" means different things to different folks. 40km is just short of 25 miles, so all things being equal you're not going to lose much time in there no matter what bike you're riding.... unless half of the distance is a 10% grade climb and you have a lackluster motor. :)

Put some areo bars on your current ride + some lightweight tires and tubes and see if it makes you faster.

yeah aero clips ons and be done with it.

You can change the gearing and get index shifting without getting a whole new bike, if that's all you really want.

I dunno, up to you. If you like this bike and are comfortable on it, I wouldn't change anything major right before a big race.

Spend your money on training. You'll get the most bang for your buck.

After that, aerodynamics matters the most. Aero bars will provide the most. Then the helmet. Then a skin suit. I think aero booties are more beneficial than aero wheels. I could be wrong, I don't entirely remember the article. It was written by some engineers at Stanford. I think.

Too many variables.

My wife does these events.

She switched from a steel framed bike to a Felt B2.

Her time improved in one race by 15%.

This was from the previous year's time.

Was it the bike, better conditioning, the weather, overall wellness, and on and on?

Good question.

weigh out what is important to you. Do you like your classic ride or is whompin' plastics more important? I think you can still do both with the right kind of upgrades. I think the best investment to improve an older bike is in a nice set of wheels. Unless you do triathlons fairly often, then I wouldn't consider getting a new tri-specific bike.

Looks like it's more rolling than anything else, say 50 ft/mile average gain over a couple of miles. Probably nothing more than 5 percent for a few hundred yards, then a little down, and then another little climb. Climb wise, it looks like less than what I have in my area. Last year's route: http://www.mapmyride.com/routes/view/54907156/ Certainly not a Burkhalter Gap Road: http://www.mapmyride.com/routes/view/32951358/

About the motor: 54 years old, in good shape but not particularly strong. On the sprint tri, I had a great time passing lots of other cyclists, but we were all first timers and most of us were on hybrids. This time it will be with experienced tri athletes and won't be so easy.

My opinion, only:

I've yet to meet a real or self-proclaimed "big time" triathlete who didn't think you could buy speed.
I've never met one who didn't tell someone to get a newer, lighter, more aero tri-bike.
Bike shops love them. Better aero, Zipps, helmets, aero shoe covers, the whole nine yards, at retail.
The fact is, you can buy a faster bike. Another fact is that it doesn't always make you faster.
You still have to ride it, and be good at doing so.

Another fact is that it only matters if you're competing against people about as fast as you are.
The people that are faster than you are faster despite your bike, and despite their bikes.

There is a heirarchy to getting faster:
Gearing to your optimum range is money more efficiently spent.
An hour more a week in the pool is time more efficiently spent.
Add another hour a week running, and you'll gain there AND on the bike.
Add another hour practicing transitions, and you'll gain quite a bit.
Know your course and how to maintain momentum in the corners, etc.
Knowing how/when to shift without upsetting your pace is crucial.
Learning to balance the effort you put into each leg is crucial.
Adding a faster bike is far down on the list as far as getting out what you put in.

I see very few folks at the end of triathlons coming in with a photo finish.
About halfway through the run, where you finish is pretty much set.

The best triathlete I ever met rode a DT-shifted aluminum road bike with aero bars.
No one could touch him on the bike, and it really didn't matter what we had.
One of the best triathletes I know, right now, rides a DT-shifted Brew steel bike, full-time drops.

I helped a novice train on a steel bike. She won her age group the first two times out.
She traded the steel in for a carbon fiber road bike. She was no faster, and couldn't figure out why.
She bought a Cervelo P2K, and was no faster, and couldn't figure out why.

My explanation is that she thought she had a disadvantage on the steel bike, and pushed herself harder.
I still believe that. She is a lot more comfortable on her tri-bike, but no faster; actually a bit slower.
If that comfort helps her on the run, then good, but she never attacked with the steel, and never burned out.
On the tri-bike, she about does a hole shot the first 3 miles, can't figure out why she's in O2 debt by 20 miles.
Being relaxed at the start of the bike leg and the run leg, to me, is worth 5 minutes on the bike, 2 minutes on the run.

In longer triathlons, the bike legs simply go to the better riders, period. They turn and burn, no matter the bike.
Quite often, it's over for all but the top two or three by the end of the bike leg. It's hard to make up much time on the run.

At that Olympic distance, the #1 error is going out too fast on the bike, because it not only kills the 2nd half of the bike leg for you, it really kills the run. Get your swim out of the way, establish a decent pace on the bike, and start looking to run down other cyclists from about 13 miles on. Same with the run, get the first couple of miles under your belt, get your stride smooth, and then look ahead for someone to track down.

If I get something new, it will be a road bike rather than a tri specific bike. From what I hear, there's enough of a climb where the aerobars aren't worth all that much. I just do the one tri per year, it's a nice way to focus my training. I'm not fast enough to get involved in cycle racing. I do kind of like riding the old bike, since I have a 27 year history with it. It's rear spacing is 126 mm, so I could upgrade to a 7 speed freewheel and get one with a bombout low gear if I need to spin up a hill, but it looks to me like I won't need it there. I don't live too far away so I'll try to carve out some time this "winter" to head down that way and ride the route.

\
Does anyone here have any notion of what constitutes a statistically valid experiment?

es en la cabeza.

+1 Best Advice. BTW, it was MIT.

Weight is kinda-sorta important in the hills, but not nearly as important as most people think. And most of the people who think bike weight is super important could stand to loose a few pounds from the gut, in my experience.

Rolling resistance, according to recent studies, is quite a bit more important than most of us had thought. Investing in a great set of tires would almost certainly net you more speed than investing in a latest-greatest bicycle.

Aerodynamics is crucial - but the rider is the critical part, not the bike. An aero frameset is worth three one thousandths of a second in a theoretical time trial to Mars (IIRC :p ) but rider position can make or break you. Get those TT bars!

Some people say the stiffness of a carbon frame makes cyclists much more efficient as compared with a "flexible" steel frame. I think those people are FOS, but impartial research doesn't support either camp.

Index shifting is critical to the criterium racer. Less so to the road racer. To the time trialist? Essentially irrelevant, IMO.

Short version - I'd keep your current bike, add TT bars and the fastest tires you can lay your hands on, and spend the $10,000 you saved on training and diet.

Who are you racing against? Yourself or are you trying to win the race? If it is yourself the equipment you choose doesn't really matter, just go out there and push yourself the most that you can. If you are trying to win the race, I suggest training more because the races I have been at the guy who wins usually does it professionally and you most probably will not be beating him.

I really think the biggest time difference you can make up in a tri is during the transitions. Figure a way to get those times down and you should do much better. If it were me, I would ride you steely.

Maybe the new bike fit better? Better selection of gears? Humans can put out decent power for a sustained length of time but, not lots of reserve power, so better gear selection is very helpful.

If I was to do a competitive event again, I would want, tubulars, 11 cogs in back, dual pivot or disc brakes if allowed, "clipless" pedals, brake / shift levers. Probably choose SRAM, and I guess do w/o one cog.
In a friendly competitive club ride setting, dual pivot brakes, tubulars and brake shift levers. Reasoning, one needs to brake with the bunch, index shifting allows shifting under load and in full control.
In any ONE gear, a classic bike is effort equal, but in the dynamics of competition, there are other things.

There you go. MIT. Have they come up with anything for memory?

Greg Lemond said: "It never gets easier, you just go faster." Who's right? Your boss or a triple TdF winner?

Quite possibly.

One thing is for certain.

She stopped dilly-daddling in the transitions.

She was clipped in and gone this summer on the bike.

She really worked on smoothing her transitions and this was profitable in her overall times.

She believes the bike is better suited, and for her, that is confidence inspiring.

Her De Rosa fit her just as well, but she thinks the Felt is a "real" tri bike.

...and it fits her like a glove.

Another variable everyone else has forgotten: what kind of standing do you want to have, and how badly do you want it? If you want a high standing and want it badly, then yes, a new bike will make a big difference. Training and the other things mentioned above will make a bigger difference, but there's no doubt that a modern plastrickery bike (nice word) will make a difference. The stronger you are, the more of an advantage the bike will offer you. If the event is soon, the bike won't make much difference. But you may want to buy yourself some nice tires.

I think the new bike will make him instantly better. Then there will be a stone wall that everyone hits where any gains are going to be misery to get. In competitive racing, any advantage one can get in the equipment, you want to take/buy, if winning is everything. I compare my vintage 12 speed to a modern 27 & 30 speed bikes. There are gear inches I simply will never have the legs/engine to get the fastest and optimal speeds from even with the 12 speed. But by the same token I definitely think there's a choice of gear inch setup in the range that the 27 or 30 speed bike that would make me faster for the overall ride, whether it's a short burst or a longer constant cadence of the ride. At that point it's a matter of cost-benefit. And yeah, you are buying a better game to win, it's not cheating because everyone plays by those rules & guidelines. The other thing, can you overcome it with what you have ? You can always use the older Trek as a trainer for the fitness aspect, then when you race the strength & endurance you built and improved upon by riding the iron sled accrues to the newer technology.