halehankock

I use that dry lube squirt bottle stuff

dkatz1

So i paint my green bike yellow I will be faster?

genejockey 

I've been having fun on my weeknight rides, doing the same 25.5 mile course on each of 7 different bikes. The weather every evening has been much the same - mid 60s when I start with the usual afternoon winds out of the West. Roughly 5 minutes difference between the slowest and fastest bikes. Repeated trials tend to produce the same result. Wednesday and Friday I rode the same bike back-to-back, with the only difference being the wheels/tires. Same gears. Since the bike is a 40 year old Lotus, the wheels are 36 spoke, but one set has MA40s and Michelin Dynamic Classic tires, while the other has Monthlery Pros and Continental Giro tubulars. The first set is considerably heavier. The tires were pumped up to the same pressures. Time difference over the 25.5 miles was 24 seconds, with the heavier wheelset being the faster.

Oh, and red bikes are the slowest and the second fastest.

Barry2 

Nope, because there is green underneath.
You'd have to strip it to bare metal.

Barry

Dancing Skeleton

If it's slower it's not your better bike.

canklecat

Seemingly minor fit differences add up. I'm consistently faster on my 1993 Trek 5900 than on my mid-201x (2014, I think) Diamondback Podium.

The Diamondback should be the better bike but there are minor differences in the "same size" frame (although frame geometery is different -- the older Trek is a conventional diamond frame with horizontal top tube; the Diamondback is closer to a compact frame with slightly sloping top tube), most significantly the 175 cranks, vs the 170 cranks I was accustomed to on the older Trek. While 175 cranks technically fit me, with age, injuries and consequent loss of mobility and flexibility I find myself pedaling squares with the longer cranks, while the 170 and even 172.5 cranks feel smoother and more natural.

There were other differences as well. I used an older Biopace 52/42 chainring set on the older Trek (not the original equipment for that model), vs newer 53/39 Ultegra on the Diamondback. While there's no consensus on Biopace and eccentric chainrings in general, I found the Biopace rings suited me with that bike and those cranks. (I didn't care for the Biopace with longer 172.5 or 175 cranks -- it felt too "surge-y" and odd).

I recently pored over my Strava data since 2019 when I first got the older Trek 5900, and late 2020 when I put together the Diamondback Podium. While I'm not fast on my best day, I averaged 16-17 mph on the same 20-40 mile roller coaster routes with the Trek, but only 14-15 mph with the Diamondback. Same route, dozens of rides, generally similar wind conditions. Something about the Diamondback doesn't quite suit me... *as it's currently set up*. On the few occasions I managed 17 mph on the same route with the Diamondback, my notes indicate I was usually working harder than with the Trek. Subject to change as I try other components.

So I plan to finish overhauling the older Trek 5900 (a project I started in January 2020 and never finished), and put the Diamondback aside until I find comparable 170 or 172.5 cranks.

Chandne

It is hard to tell unless you do a lot of rides with similar tires and positioning. I had a SL4 Roubaix as well and after a couple of years, I switched to a BMC and when I ride the Roubaix again, it felt sluggish. They both had similar wheels and fit but the BMC was around 2.5 lbs lighter and stiffer. My times were slightly faster all over the rides on the BMC. I figured it would be on the climbs but the flats were faster too. Maybe the Roubaix is much more compliant and sucks up some energy? In my case, the BMC was more fun as well with its shorter wheelbase and stiffer BB and front triangle area so I got rid of the Roubaix.

tempocyclist

They're a great bike. Enjoy the project!

tcs

With your weight and your power, the Trek planes.

https://www.renehersecycles.com/what-is-planing/

CliffordK

I'm surprised you even got off the starting line with that combination.
I didn't see the crank gearing listed on both. But, you likely have slightly different gearing.

So, on the Trek, you have: (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27)
On the Specialized, you (11-12-13-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32T)

Not bad ratios on the 32T cassette, although you are missing the 15T and 17T on the Specialized. So it will depend a bit on which gear you settle into whether that would be an issue.

=================

Interesting comments on the Gatorskins. I like the Gator Hardshells, but I'm not a speed demon either.

I've been meaning to build up some kind of a deep tubular wheelset with high performance tires. Perhaps sometime.

halehankock

I rode a common 22 mile route tonight on the trek for the first time and PR'd on every strava segment along the way that I've ridden countless times with my specialized. Interesting comments on the cassette differences, maybe there's something to that! The ride felt so much easier on the trek too. I'm so confused

tdipail

The gearing theory makes sense. Had the same struggle with a Specialized AWOL. It just felt heavier and more sluggish than my beater 26" commuter, even though it wasn't on paper.

PeteHski

I very much doubt gearing would be an issue in this case. You don’t gain or lose power just because you might be 1 tooth different here and there on the cassette.

Gatorskins however are known to be slow rollers and could be 10-20W up on average power consumption compared to the GPs I think he had on the other bike.

caloso

It's not the gearing.

Calsun

I did long distance trips wih a friend and he always claimed his bike was faster than mine. I contended that the difference was that he weighed 15 lbs more than I did. We switched bikes on a long downhill section of road and he was faster on my bike as well.

I would be curious as to the gearing on both bikes. The old one may have better gears for your style of riding. In the old days when I was stronger and lighter I could drive a 60 tooth chainring but now I use a 52 tooth chainring on my road bikes as with a 60-tooth one my cadence would be greatly reduced as would my average speed.

genejockey 

So, now the question is, why is your slower bike better?

GhostRider62

Put 28 mm GP5000 with latex tubes on the Specialized and then come back and ask why the Trek is so slow.

Flatforkcrown

Seems like your better bike isn’t slower, your more expensive one is.

Metieval

This is your difference!
And a lighter bike is mostly beneficial on climbs.


So heavier bike more momentum, with less resistance on flat ground and you will fly!

I'd also be interested on which cog your chain is in on that 4 mile section on both bikes. Mostly interested on chain line. If chain is straight that will be even less resistance than a chain bending.

halehankock

I'm still waiting to get my bike back from the shop but I'd ordered GP 5000s and will put them on as soon as I get it back. I can cross off bike weight a bit from the explanation because the trek was quicker uphill for me too. I set 2 PRs the other day with minimal effort on 2 uphill strava segments.

Steel Charlie

Absolutlier

I have to admit that my first thot when I saw the thread was "why does he have to be faster?" After reading all of the comments I had a few more questions but I think I'll let it go with relating the one.

have a nice day - enjoy the ride
Charlie

tempocyclist

Cassette could be making a little bit of difference. I know on flatter courses I have big "holes" in the 11-32T cassette. My preferred cadence puts me in the middle of two cogs, so I'm either spinning too fast or grinding too slow a cadence.

Potentially the 12-27T is keeping your cadence at a more natural and efficient level.

jay4usc

. Tailwind?

LarrySellerz

Don't fight it keep riding the "slower" bike and sell the specialized

Mark Dominck

I've got a Specialized Tarmac along with a number of other bikes that I like better but every time I ride that Tarmac it seems like it is much smoother and faster, who knows?