Two sport-touring bikes - why is one acting noticeably slower?
 

I've been riding my Raleigh Gran Sport more than anything else recently, but I plan to do some work on it soon, so I got out my Fuji S12-S LTD to ride in case the Gran Sport work takes more than an evening or so. But when I test rode the Fuji, I was struck by how sluggish it felt. It's been a while since I last rode it, but the difference took me completely by surprise. So now I'm trying to figure out what's behind it. I really liked the Fuji, so I'm hoping there's something that I can adjust to make it ride as smoothly as the Raleigh.

To put it in perspective, when riding the Fuji on flats I suddenly felt like it was just sucking up the effort I was putting in... even in a low gear. And even riding downhill it seemed like it was more effort-ful to keep pedaling than it would have been on the Raleigh.

Posts like this can be boring without photos, so here are the bikes in question:

http://www.routinezero.com/bikes/gran-sport.jpg
1975 Raleigh Gran Sport
- "third in the Raleigh line, behind the Professional and International, and on par with the Competition" (according to a friend who sold them at the time)
- Reynolds 531 double butted throughout
- 24 1/2 inches
- ~25.5 lbs
- front tire 27 x 1 1/4, Forte Strada
- rear tire 27 x 1 1/8, Continental Sport 1000
- 10 speed, range ~ 33 - 102 gear inches


http://www.routinezero.com/bikes/s12-s-ltd.jpg
1982-ish Fuji S12-S LTD (sorry for the crappy pic and the leaves covering the saddle nose)
- second in Fuji's touring line at the time, behind the America
- Fuji 331 double butted cromoly (hi-ten fork)
- 23 inches
- ~27.5 lbs (with currently installed rear rack)
- front tire 27 x 1 1/4, Panaracer Pasela
- rear tire 27 x 1 1/4, Panaracer Pasela Tour Guard
- 18 speed, range ~ 30 - 108+ gear inches

A couple things I'm thinking about and would like input on:

Weight
I really don't think that 2-ish pounds of weight should make a significant difference, but maybe? (I'll be trying it without the rack pretty soon...)

Frame Material
Could the difference between 531 and Fuji's cromoly really be that pronounced?

Tires
I've heard that Paselas were supposed to be pretty supple & quick, but are they possibly this much more sluggish than the Forte/Continental combo? Could the Kevlar TG tire really be that sluggish by itself?

"Planing"
Maybe I've found myself in a Jan-Heine-style Twilight Zone of bicycle physics where one bike simply works with me and another works against me due to a combination of subtle material and geometry differences (or personality)? I do remember describing to someone once that the Raleigh seemed to have the Quality Without A Name....

I'm going to keep experimenting to see if I can resolve this, but I'd really love to hear from the collective wisdom here. Any ideas?

Sincere thanks!

I am going to guess frame material and geometry. I have a 74' Raleigh Super Tourer and I get that same feeling. I had sworn off 531 bikes as "too flexy". The ride of this bike completely surprised me. It was improved by adding the Compass Tires.

[IMG]http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k2...pseivmwlsw.jpg[/IMG]

I am having this problem with my MIJ 1984 Bianchi Limited. No matter which wheel set I put on it, it feels slow.

It's one of my lighter bikes, just over 23 lbs with my best wheels on it.

Am I allergic to Ishiwata 022?

Differences: weight; gearing; geometry; stiffness. I would think that each of these could affect the ability to get the power down.


Spit-balling here ... Perhaps eliminating one or more of those aspects could help narrow down things:

• Geometry -- any differences in your effective top tube length, reach, height of seat off the BB? If significantly different, I'd think it could impact your efficiency.
• Gearing -- how about testing the same ride routes with the same gearing?
• Weight -- load up on the lighter bike, to equalize your overall weight, so weight differences aren't the issue.
• Stiffness -- investigate the tubing, any deficiencies such as cracks or stress weaknesses in areas such as the BB that could impact how the power is delivered.
• Tires -- does one have a stiffer, stronger center bead for clearly reduced rolling resistance, versus the other type, despite being similar in size and pressures?
• Possible binding in the wheels/gearing -- remote possibility, probably.
• Placebo effect -- you knowing you're on the "offending" bike, hence feeling like it's more of a chore than it really is?

Tires can make a huge difference; the Panaracer Pasela are hybrid tires, while the Conti/Forte are more on the road side. There is also air pressure and the age/condition of the tires. I would switch the wheels if possible and see if the Fuji is less sluggish with the Raleigh wheels.

Have you ruled out mechanical problems? Obvious, yes, but may be worth checking it out. Just last week my paramount felt extremely slow, and, sure enough, the freehub body had loosened up (never had that problem with a freewheel:)), which had the same effect as tightening the hub cones. Performed like normal, otherwise, but it just felt slow.

I agree swapping the wheels is the most obvious test you can try without much fuss.

I've always loved the ride of my GS and I know others feel the same.

I have no experience with Fuji but that's a nice looking bike. Ride it, be happy, get used to it, then you can be pleasantly surprised by how quick the Raleigh is when you get it back into service.

Tires.
A great set of tires will transform a bike.

Also check the spoke tension of the wheels on the Fuji. A properly tensioned wheel is more responsive and less dead.

+1

I'd whip out your computer or Strava to see if there is a real performance difference. Weather can be a factor too.

I would guess tires or wheels.

I have a Trek 400 Elance- it's a beautiful bike, I think it's the prettiest bike I own. For whatever reason, riding it was a neutral experience. I didn't dislike it, but I didn't like it. I changed wheels (actually went from 700c x32 to 27 x 1 1/8) and I found I really liked the ride much better. Whether it was the better hubs, a larger wheel, more or less air volume, different freewheel... I don't know. It was a pronounced difference in the way the bike rode.

He is right. I had the same bike, a 751 Elance 400, and with a great set of hand-built wheels, it rivaled anything I had.

Weight makes very little difference, about 36 seconds for 5 lbs over a 71-minute ride (per Cervelo's tests).

So, if you rule out weight (which I generally do), you come down to, IMO, these factors, in order:
1-geometry/riding position - the same "fit" on different geometry can still make muscle groups work differently.
2-wheelset-a properly trued and tensioned set of wheels can make a bike ride "like new."
3-tires - some just seem to suck the power; I don't know why. Easily tested with high PSI, though.

There's also the "package" effect. Just like some bikes come together like a cloud with wheels, some come together like a stubborn mule.

EV - you never mention whether you've serviced the hubs on the Fuji's wheels. Why not? What about the bottom bracket bearings?

Have you done a coasting from stop test with both bikes down the same incline? Calibrated the odometers accurately?

I have bikes that give the sensation of riding faster, but in reality, the time differences over the same course are negligible.

Check the hub and crank bearings on the Fuji.

Because you don't mention when you last cleaned and packed your bearings - front wheel, rear wheel, bottom bracket and head set - I'm going to hazard a guess that it may be time to service your bearings. Doing so can REALLY improve - that is, lessen - rolling resistance. Good luck. Beautiful bikes, by the way. DB

+10

Agreed...when I first rode my Team Miyata and RB-1...it totally felt like the RB-1 was slower, but more plush. While the plushness was true, the slowness was not. I rode them 5 miles over the exact same course...and the times came out to be within about 15 seconds of one another...with the RB-1 being 15 seconds faster! But, boy, it FELT slower.

Tires

Tires are a good place to start.

As mentioned, frame flex can have a big effect on preceived speed. I had a titanium litespeed which fit great and was super-comfy, but felt like a total slug the second I quit pedaling. Tried a number of wheel tire combos before reluctantly selling it.

As oddjob indicated, was it actually sluggish or was it in your head?

What about wind, what you ate, how much riding beforehand, road conditions, your bowel movement.

99% of the time it is the engine.

Seems to me a looser WB with less grease would have less rolling resistance. Less longevity, also , but less rolling resistance nonetheless.


OP, Nice GS !

What @iab said about the Engine.

Next:

• Tires
• Wheels
• Gearing
• Stiffness
• Trail
• Saddle

Tire pressure can make a big difference. Overinflation can be as bad as underinflation.

+1,385,421 Until you have serviced anything, who knows? BB bearings and grease, wheel hubs, freewheel, chain, etc. I just finished a typical bike that the PO said was ready to ride. . Naturally, I tore it down to the bare frame. As we were tearing it down to the frame. Crank turned OK, not great. With the crank off, you could not turn the BB spindle. Opened it up, grease had turned into a sticky, gummy mess. Wheel bearings and HS were the same way. Ditto chain.

This is the norm on older bikes.

IF recently FULLY serviced, then you have the entire question on wheels, tires, inflation, etc.

Beyond that, one might fit you just a little better than the other.

I typically ride for exercise, so when one bike is less efficient, I just figure I am getting more exercise. I treat it as a benefit!

Good question and I'd really like to know the answers with more certainty. I'm with the camps that say (1) perception doesn't always agree with reality; (2) tires and wheels make a big difference; (3) the engine varies from day to day; (4) weather matters.

All that being said, here are my takes. First, those are curious tire choices. The rear on the Fuji is both wider and TG-belted compared to the Raleigh. Both those features make it heavier. Some here argue that width doesn't matter, but width adds weight and weight does matter. Every time you slow and re-accelerate you feel the weight and you take a bit longer to get back up to speed. Some also argue that tire pressure can be too high, which I disagree with but nobody listens to me. :D Turn your handlebar with the bike stationary and the pressure high, then drop the pressure and repeat. You'll feel the increase in lateral resistance. I would think that matters in a corner, but maybe others disagree. Experiments supposedly say that rolling resistance on a real road can increase with pressure, but I question whether that conclusion applies just to straight ahead rolling and certain road surfaces. I rarely ride in a straight line or at a constant speed, so these factors would seem to matter to me. Anyway, why not go with 28mm (1 1/8") or even 25mm for both wheels, and if you want TG protection then why not both wheels? Something to consider the next time you have to invest in tires.

I have one bike which always feels sluggish, even when it wore decent tires and lighter rims. I don't know if it really is sluggish or just feels that way. Still, feel matters, but since I'm not racing a clock the actual speed doesn't. Since the bike its redeeming qualities I still ride it sometimes. I have two bikes which feel very fast and I believe they are. They certainly feel effortless to ride even if they aren't faster. I suspect geometry and wheels/tires are the key factors.

Repacking bb/hubs + adjusting properly + favorite tire (rubino pro 3 is mine) = much improved rolling on any bicycle, esp old steel.