Spendy bikes are totally not fast, it's all about the engine, really. I am curious about the terrain you're crossing though. There could be room for optimization there.

It's a paved bike path. In SoCal what they call rivers are basically cement tunnels, really ugly, but they usually build bike paths right next to them.

For 18 miles each way I don't have to cross streets either, just go through some underpasses.

Oh yeah, I've seen those in like Dirty Harry or Starsky & Hutch I think. So you are definitely wanting road-esque bike like you have. The better to outrun the car chases at least. It must get really crazy down there, according to what I've seen!

Because you probably have not met any fit riders on recumbents. Many recumbent riders are older or larger riders who want to keep or start riding longer distances without the normal discomfort associated with uprights. These riders are usually less fit and less interested in going fast.

However if you had come across a ft rider interested in recumbents because of the speed potential then you would have likely seen very different bikes and riders. I am only moderately fit and overweight but I can do 18 to 20 miles in a one hour road ride including modest hills and obeying traffic. On my uprights this speed will be closer to 16.
Here is a nice report by an upright rider at a 12hour ultramarathon competition talking about the recumbents competing.
http://dannychew.com/2007Calvins.html

Craig

But are the paths straight or twisty with a lot of dips and climbs. If the latter is the case then the path is whats really slowing you down. I know this because I've tried bike paths before because I wanted to avoid traffic but ended up with an average speed of only around 12 to 13 mph because of all the slowing down I had to do, and having to keep changing gears. Once I started using the roads I was able to increase my cruising speed to 17-20 mph with an average speed of 15-16 mph. Cruising speed is something that is hard to achieve in trails.

Also I have the same bike as you do. Before the Fastback I used an '84 Centurion Accordo RS, 28 pound, 12 speed, steel road bike. I still interchange the Fastback and the Centurion every week and I can tell you that although accelerations and climbing are easier on the Fastback I noticed that the amount of work I do to achieve the same cruising speeds is about the same.

You may also want to start using the bigger ring, 52T, on your Fastback. It makes a big difference in speed and amount of spinning. I normally use 52/19 or 52/17 when on the flats and small climbs. The only time I drop to the 42 is when I'm climbing overpasses and pedestrian overhead walkways over the the highways.

I'm from southern Cali and if the OP is talking about the reservoir trails like the San Gabriel then its pretty much straight with some dips to go below the freeways. With that said, wind is a big issue on those trails. Also the quality of the path is questionable in some areas.

Blood-doping might help, too.

Yup. I am talking about the san gabriel trail (Long beach to around whittier narrows). It's pretty straight and smooth, and not too many other folks using it.

Wind is a huge issue, on my way home I get killed by the headwind, it drops my speed by anywhere from 3 to 9 mph. Would aero bars help with this?

[You may also want to start using the bigger ring, 52T, on your Fastback. It makes a big difference in speed and amount of spinning. I normally use 52/19 or 52/17 when on the flats and small climbs. The only time I drop to the 42 is when I'm climbing overpasses and pedestrian overhead walkways over the the highways.[/QUOTE]

Wow 52x17. You are a lot stronger than I am right now. I'm hoping to get up there though. I've really only been riding a 2-4 times a weeks for about a month-and-a-half now.

My 42/15 fixed gear bike says different. Of course, YMMV.

Yes, aero bars will help some. A fast recumbent will help more. Basically anything that improves aerodynamics will help.

Craig

Its nothing to brag about really. I mainly use the 52/17 on the really flat parts of my ride. 70 percent of the time I'm on the 52/19 spinning unless there is a small incline. Then the rpms drop off a little. If 52/17 is too soon for you then start dropping your gears from 42/17 to 42/15 or even 42/14.

The point is you need to train your muscles to handle the strain of the lower gears. Thats pretty much how I started with my mountain bike and road bikes. Nobody starts at the lower gears. It takes time and training to build up. But you have to be very careful with the lower gears. Once you start feeling even just a little of knee pain drop back to the easier gears. Otherwise your knees will go bad.

I'm sorry. Now that I actually looked at it on Sheldon's gear calculator, 42/15 (73 g.i.) is a bigger gear than 52/19 (71 g.i.).


[Emily Litella] Never mind. [/Emily Litella]

What's your stem angle like? After reading "flip it" about a million times in various BF threads, I finally did a while back and my average speed on standard routes instantly went up a little more than 1 MPH.

Also, how are you riding? Keeping a steady pace for the entire ride, or do you have stretches where you try to ride faster than your 15mph average?

Doing intervals -- riding at speeds you can only hold for, say, a minute at a time before you're gasping for air and coasting -- is the fastest way to improve your overall speed.

Among recumbents there's a wider variety of design (in terms of the rider position) than there is for upright bikes, and the rider position has a major impact on overall aerodynamics. For the same pedalling effort, some recumbents would be considerably slower than an upright, some will be about the same and some are considerably faster.

Just about ALL recumbents are more comfortable than an upright bike however, so a lot of people riding recumbents are in it for the comfort, and they don't ride aggressively. ....And for the same reasoning, someone interested in competing in sanctioned bicycle races isn't usually drawn to recumbents, because there's generally more races held for uprights.
~

new bike
 

I doubt if a new bike would make much if any difference in your commute speed or time, unless your current bike just doesn't fit you right. If your bike doesn't fit, it can make riding so uncomfortable that it slows you down. That doesn't sound like your problem. You didn't mention whether your route is hilly or not, but if it's following bike paths, chances are that it isn't too hilly. So that makes it even less likely that the new bike would make you faster.

However, there are plenty of good reasons to get a new bike. You can get a new bike simply because you enjoy riding and want a better model. Or perhaps you want a second bike that provides your more versatility. There's nothing wrong with that. I've got three road bikes. One is my primary commuter, a steel lugged frame with downtube shifters and a big seatbag. I've got another steel Eddy Merckx Corsa, my favorite bike that is just fun to ride fast. And I've also got a titanium Merckx that I bought because I got a great deal on it and I knew it would fit (same size as my Corsa). It's about 1-2 pounds lighter than my steel Merckx, but I don't think it's any faster. I also like having at least two roadbikes handy in case one can't be ridden due to a flat or other maintenance issues.

Apart from on recumbents, any more areo position is going to take some adapting to. I used to get lower backache on my bike, now I can ride comfortably with my back horizontal, so low my thighs bump my chest. It makes a big difference when punching a headwind.

IMHO midrange bikes are the best. I have a $350 Giant hybrid. I average about 18.5 mph over an 11 mile commute, including 4 miles of gravel road. I've looked at more expensive bikes but I'm not convinced I'd gain much. I'm never going to be a speed demon, and my bike has only ever failed me twice and made me walk home, both of which were entirely my fault for screwing it up, and would have happened even with a $3000 bike. I've got 12,000 miles on it right now, and all I've had to do was rebuild the rear wheel (the first year, it was crap) and replace chains, brake pads and tires, plus the RD wore out after 10000 miles.

I don't think that you'll get much more UTILITY out of spending more than, say, $750 on a bike. That puts you into a pretty solid and durable bike. If you're going to rely on the bike for something like long, unsupported tours, I'd put that up to maybe $1250 for something like a nicely-equipped LHT.

However, bikes are like telescopes or any other hobby; you can get caught up in always wanting something a little better. Just realize that there's no end to that. A guy with a $2000 can convince himself that he really NEEDS a $3000 bike, probably easier than a guy with a $300 bike can convince himself that he needs a $1000 bike.

Bailing out of the high-end equipment lust treadmill is very helpful. Look at purchases objectively. Maybe that $3000 bike really will increase your enjoyment. If so, and you choose to spend your money that way, then go for it!

Oh, and look for used bikes. There ARE people caught up in the upgrade treadmill, and you might as well get their castoffs.

Thanks for the advice.

The stem is angled upwards (I don't know the degree, but it rises up quite a bit) where it is I am extremely comfortable riding on the brakes hoods. However, I do like to go into the drops for a while in each trip. By "flip it" do you mean flip it so the stem goes downward?

I generally try to maintain a fairly consistent pace, but I'm still at the "let's just try to make it to work" phase. When I ride on weekends I push the pace as fast as I can go, and definetly let it fly for stretches.