trek330

I've been getting into biking in a serious way for about 2 months now starting with the purchase of my 1989 Trek 330 road bike.I bought it to replace a walmart bike that was stolen and which i used mainly to walk rthe dogs with for about 3 years.I commute 20 miles to and from work everyday and on days off try to do a serious ride to some place in the area.Today I broke the 50 mile barrier riding from my home in Manhattan to Nyack in Rockland county and back.Included were some serious hills that I willed myself to climb however slowly I did it and if I had to rest on the way.My question is ,how much easier would it be with a more modern bike?My Trek which is infinitely superior to the Denali I rode from Walmart and I enjoy immensely,Is still 20 years old with just 12 gears and weighing 26lbs.I am a beginner,and a 54 year old beginner at that but would those people who wizz by me on hills on their 19 lb, 27 speed bikes, wizz considerably more slowly if I rode a more modern bicycle?Would my average speeds be significantly faster and my hill climbing significantly easier?The key word is "significantly".

10 Wheels

I don't think you would be any faster.
Try to ride more. You will get stronger.

cyclinfool

IMHO Your uphill speed will improve with a lighter bike, you flat road speed will improve with a better bike BUT neither will likely improve significantly - and that was the operative word. Work on the engine first.

The Weak Link

I rode a mountain bike with slicks on the road for two years.

I then upgraded to a full-carbon Ultegra equiped road bike. It was lots more fun to ride and felt great on the road.

However, at the time I was using the Garmin-based web site to keep track of my times. If you just looked at the average speed, you couldn't really tell when I started riding the road bike.

My bike weighs something like 18-19 pounds. My butt weighs probably 4 times as much. It's clear were the weight savings are to be had.

Yes. I have a carbon-fiber butt on order from Butts Direct.

Metric Man

At your early stages of getting fit, a new carbon fiber bike would help...but not $3,000 worth. Like 10 Wheel said, more saddle time is your best bet. And congrats on the 50 miles.

doctor j

Congratulations on your first 50-miler!

A lighter bike with greater gear range will help, but I agree with previous posters. The change would not be what I would call significant. Keep riding. The bug to get another new bike will get really serious. We call it N+1.

ciocc_cat

Congrats on your first half-century. That is truly a milestone.

When training for your next attempt, think quality and not quantity when it comes to increasing your mileage. Saddle time certainly helps conditioning, but riding excess "junk miles" won't help build your endurance/stamina. I've ridden two double-metrics (125 km) in my day (one un-planned), so I think that I (sort of) know what I'm talking about.

Dchiefransom

That older steel frame with 28-32 spoke wheels just might be a lot more comfortable on the road than one of those carbon or aluminumb "modern" bikes with stiff spoke wheels. I found out the hard way when I changed wheels. Get the fit of your bike adjusted to YOU and you'll ride along just as fast as everyone else.

big john

Just to play devil's advocate, you could buy a bike that is 10 pounds lighter than your Trek, and 10 pounds is huge on a long climb.

I agree that you should keep working on the engine, but do your homework and if you decide to get a new bike the placebo effect alone will make you faster.

chinarider

When I got my "modern" bike I immediately picked up 1-2 mph. Whether that's significant is subject to debate. The increase in pleasure of riding the new bike was definitely significant. And the new bike was $800.00 (in 2006) not $3000.00. Going to clipless pedals was a big improvement too.

Oh, yeah. What the others said about working on the engine. Good job on the 50. That's a significant accomplishment.

gtragitt

I have a Garmin and use the web based application to download my ride stats.

I had a 2003 hybrid with slicks. I thought it was a good bike. I bought a CF road bike. I am more comfortable on the road bike and my average speed did increase immediately by ~ 2 mph. If you are riding around 15 mph, most additional power requirements for increasing speed are due to aerodynamics. I don't wish to argue with what has already been posted, but you can't deny the scientific facts regarding aerodynamics. I can't claim that the CF or the reduced weight had that much impact but the change in ride position definitely had an impact. I can also gain about 1 mph if I encounter a head wind and use the drops. The road bars also afford more positions for long rides. I can tell you the road bike climbs a whole lot better and accelerates a whole lot better than my hybrid.

I also bought some aerodynamic wheels with fewer spokes. I did not see a change in my average speed or notice a deterioration in ride quality with the new Mavic Kysrium wheels.

I can't advocate that the OP should buy a new bike. If the OP isn't riding too fast, the aerodynamics won't have as much impact as they did for me. If the OP has a bike that currently fits well, the comfort may not be appreciably better on a new bike. I enjoy performance; so, my opinions are reinforced with that notion. Some may enjoy nostalgia and their opinions are based on that notion. I am quite nostalgic, but performance usually over-rides my decisions.

gtragitt

I apologize to the OP. I got busy addressing issues and forgot to compliment the achievement of a 50 mi ride. 50 mi is a great achievement for a" beginner".

ciocc_cat

I agree that 10 pounds is truly huge is a long climb, but you can achieve the same result by losing 10 pounds off your gut/butt and spend hundreds of dollars less in the process. If you're an elite cyclist at the top of your game then a super-duper lightweight CF bike makes sense for improving performance, but most of us could stand to shed those excess pounds off of our bodies first.

serra

Breaking 50's a cool moment. Tomorrow 100?

BengeBoy 

Congrats on the goal!

I think that on a new bike you will *feel* significantly faster but you are likely to actually be only moderately faster.

One thing that we're not addressing here is the gearing of your bike. According to an old Trek brochure, you bike came stock with a 52-40 crankset and a cassette whose largest rear cog is 28 teeth. That gives you a low gear of around 38 gear inches. If you put a modern compact crankset on your bike, you'd have a low closer to 30 gear inches -- it would feel like have two more low gears lower than what you have now. Big hills would be significantly easier, and if you can spin up them instead of mash up them you'll be faster, too.

So maybe consider some near gearing this year (a compact crankset?)...cheaper than a new bike.

Robert Foster

Everyone has given you valid points. And like them I say good going on 50 miles. Here is my experience. I started on a cruiser and didn't care much about how fast I went but was more interested in comfort. After about 1000 miles I decide I wanted to ride farther and got a road bike. It was Aluminum and compared to my old Steel bike it was different. 1200 miles later I got better wheels and I noticed in the first ride they were easier to get up hill. I had already lost 40 pounds and had hit a plateau so noticing the climbing ability was easy, and I don't know how much was mental.

After another 1000 miles I got a chance to pick up a light weight Scandium frame. It took a while to build it but by the time I had 4000 base miles and a century under my belt I had a light weight bike with a CF fork that was even easier to get up a hill even if I was still not in the front of the pack on a long grade. The difference wasn't quite what it was with new wheels but I could tell the difference. Plus I wasn't as tired in a pace line as I had been. I then got another set of new wheels with better bearings and while it didn't make as much difference as the first wheels and the first new frame I could tell it was better.

After 8000 miles I got a new frame and switched to SRAM Shifters and Derailleurs. The full carbon bike was smoother than a Aluminum bike but I keep the aluminum for a back up and an around town coffee shop ride. I once again had upgraded to Dura Ace wheels and have a feeling I will notice as much difference as I did with the first upgrade.

Now if I can just find where the Weak Link got his order form for a CF rear end maybe I can get down a few more pounds? But while I might add a steel bike in response to N+1 I wouldn't give up my CF bike for one.

MinnMan

I'm going to strongly support the consensus view here. I'm in the process of switching over from a steel-framed touring bike to an Al/carbon racing bike. the new bike feels wonderful, but at best is giving my 1 MPH additional speed. You don't need a new bike, you need to ride your a** off. Now, that's not saying that a new bike isn't a great idea, but the key words in your question were "significantly": "Would my average speeds be significantly faster and my hill climbing significantly easier?". The answer is simply "no".

And to gtragitt, who wrote "If you are riding around 15 mph, most additional power requirements for increasing speed are due to aerodynamics.", I think that's a bit of misdirection. It's true that above 15 MPH, air resistance becomes a significant factor. But that doesn't mean that the difference in aerodynamic design between two different road bicycles is the factor that allows people to overcome the resistance at higher speeds. People can ride faster than that chiefly because of their conditioning, and the difference from one road bike to another is small.

trek330

Just woke up amd was pleased to see all the great comments to my question.I do want to stress I love my Trek.The road feel of steel,the responsiveness, the quality of the brakes and shifters are great.I have the feeling I'm riding a fine and dependable machine and when I switch it'll be reluctantly.I bought it in great condition with original tires so it is really like new.I'm not in a rush to upgrade more curious as to what progress has brought.My personal progress has been outstanding.Ciocc cat you're right about weight loss.I've lost 18 lbs.And my goal is another 15 but I seem to have reached an impasse.Bengeboy I'm definitely going to look into the options of a new, more modern(or compact) crankset.I have no idea what the limitations are given the Exage index shifters and the geometry of the frame.By the way I didn't mention another milestone yesterday;a top speed of 39.4 MPH!!Yes I read about 50+ speeds from people but this was my personal best.It was done coasting completely on a steep descent with a light head wind in my face.With a few turns of the pedals and a tail wind I'd break 40!!Next time.Thanks again for all your input!!

BluesDawg

Great progress in a short time. Get a new bike if you want a new bike, but not for the performance gains. One thing to be aware of about a compact crank, they work better with 9 or 10 speed rear ends than with the 6 or 7 speeds your bike likely has. You will get the lower gears you want, but the transition between rings will be a big jump. I tried a 34/50 compact on my 7 speed Bridgestone and never got comfortable with it. I am now running a 38/50 with a 12/28 cassette and it works out pretty well.

BikeWNC

A compact crank will not work with your 6 speed. The chain is too wide for the spacing on the crank chainrings. IMO, upgrades to your current bike will not be cost effective. It would be better to buy a new bike. So much has changed since the late 80s.

ahsposo 

Cool!

Thanks for your enthusiasm. It's kind of infectious. You have convinced me I'm going to have to ride a little bit farther today than I planned.

One thing about riding is that after enough miles your thoughts inevitably turn to N+1. Don't rush it. It will happen.

gtragitt

I had an early 90's Trek road bike before I bought my Trek Hybrid. I was never comfortable in the drops. If the bike doesn't fit, getting another one with a proper fit will allow more comfort riding in the drops, which will definitely improve speed. Also brifters are much better when riding in the drops. I have a compact crankset with 10 speed Shimano 105 cassette. It shifts so much better than the either Trek, and the Shimano 105 isn't close to high end. I didn't suggest that the OP buy a new bike, I was echoing my experience with different bikes and performance. I also qualified my comments to reflect differences between a hybrid and a road bike because the OP already had a road bike.

A compact crankset makes no sense without a 10 speed cassette.

Another issue is riding pleasure. I rode the hybrid because it was more pleasurable than going to the gym. I ride my new bike because I really passionate about riding it. I can't say I ever had a passion for riding the hybrid.

Hermes

I assume this is the bike and you are riding it as equipped. https://www.vintage-trek.com/images/t...Trek89_330.jpg It is a great vintage bicycle and I am sure a pleasure to ride. Reducing the weight by 10 pounds which includes much lighter wheels will make a difference climbing. Also, integrated brake lever / shifting is wonderful and allows rapid changing of gears to select optimum climbing cadence while keeping your hands on the bars. Clipless pedals coupled with modern cycling shoes will also improve climbing performance (I am assuming you do not have cycling shoes with the metal cleats on the bottom that cleat into the pedals with toe clips and straps) and are much more comfortable for long distances.

With respect to performance, IMO it is 85% lungs and legs, 10% brain and 5% equipment. You are dealing with the 5%. So let's assume a 50% equipment performance improvement by getting a new bike would translate to an overall 2.5% improvement. It is small but small changes favor newer riders since your power production is so low.

ModeratedUser150120149

You are where I was a very short time ago. Here is my experience and my decision.

You asked for and will get all kinds of input. But, in the end you are the one paying the bill. There is no One Answer to your question. But lets' take the elements in turn:
>Weight: The cheapest most effective way to reduce weight your legs have to tote is to reduce your weight. Taking 5 or 10 pounds off the rider is a much better deal than taking it off the bike. From a cost/effectiveness point of view bike weight is a non-issue until the rider has no more weight to lose AND one is at the margins of bike performance.
>Speed: Rider body type and power are much more important than the bike used. A whippet of 150 pounds will go faster than a warrior of 190 pounds, especially up hill. Just the other day saw something that referred to Lance Armstrong as almost too big for competitive cycling at 160 pounds.
>Cost: If you can afford it and want it buy it. There is no point scrimping on a toy if you can afford a better, to you, toy. Bike makers depend on that to keep in business. Why disappint them?

What did I do? I rode bikes starting from the least expensive and working my way up the ladder. I wanted something that was comfortable on the chip coated roads and on MUPs that have potholes and root heaves. I ended up with the least expensive carbon fibre bike the dealer sold. I wanted comfort, something rugged to stand the abuse a new rider will give it and something I can grow into. I have not been disappointed.

Oh yes, your question about climbing speed. It all depends on what you mean by "significantly". If you mean a few percentage points the answer is Yes. If you mean being able to go to the head of the whippet pack the answer is No. Bottom line is that the engine is the most important thing. You are the engine.

big john

Why not do both? 10 off the body and 10 off the bike would be more than huge.
You don't have to spend a lot to get a bike under 20 pounds these days.

Here is a link to a website where you can calculate weight and power things. It's pretty cool.
https://www.analyticcycling.com/Force...ight_Page.html