Cancellara is from another planet but even he can only manage about 400 watts over a one hour period in neutral conditions. For shorter times he can be much higher but not for an hour. There is way more to it than just aerobic or anaerobic ability. Lactic acid thresholds and hematocrit levels play a big part. Muscle composition is also an important factor. And how well you can hide your doping regimen is crucial to some. I don't believe FC is one of those. He prefers to rely on electric motors. At least he is so strong that some have accused him of that if you can believe it.

Aparently I was looking at a "trek 7500 multitrack" instead of a "trek 750 multitrack".
I'm not very familiar with all of trek's models I must admit.

My Trek is a 7500 which is an aluminium frame with a steel fork while the 750 is rigid steel.

My 7500 while it was wearing drop bars and was fitted out for touring and cross country riding... could hang with some pretty fast riders when it was set up like this.



On another note, I weighed my Moulden XC bike the other night and with a rear rack, fenders, and a tail bag with minimal tools and a flat kit it weighs 24.5 pounds... if I stripped away the rack and fenders it would probably hit the curb at around 22 pounds.

The tyres weigh 750 grams each so with lighter tyres I could probably shed at least another pound.

It has no ultralight parts except the carbon crank and the frame and fork are Reynolds 853 which is typically used on steel road bikes because of it's extremely high strength to weight ratio.

All the FX line is more like a "roadified mtb" even the 7.9. They all have V brakes and 135 mm spaced dropouts, even the 7.9. It would be interesting to see Trek take, say, the 2.3 and put flat bars and trigger shifters with flat bar brake levers and make it what everyone kind of thinks the FX line is all about -- a road bike with flat bars.

I think the whole hybrid thing is a reaction to the dirtbike-a-zation of MTBs. And when the hybrid concept took off it was MTB based. They keep pushing it toward the Road bike. But it's still 60% MTB.

I didn't know much about bikes when I bought my 7.5. I thought it was a road bike with flat bars. After riding it for a while and loving it, I started to think I"d like a road bike proper, or to make my 7.5 more like a road bike. But I quickly learned that the 7.5 is a mountain bike without a suspension, not a road bike with flat bars.

That's OK, I really do like the 7.5. I just may have to have a road bike as well. That Trek 2.3 is calling my name.

You're wading out into some murky waters here; the whole 'hybrid' notion is really quite difficult to pin down.

The current Trek FX bikes are a good example. If your 7.5 is 60% (or more) anything, it would better be described as a "sport/light road touring bike with a horizontal top tube length [for a given size] appropriate to flat rather than drop bars". It most certainly is not 60% mountain bike. The geometry is quite typical for road tourers, for example, and the rear axle spacing is also common on full-on touring bikes.

I ride a Spec Sirrus; to me, it's a road bicycle which happens to have flat bars (my preference). It does have a top tube length appropriate for flat bars, and slightly longer chainstays than would be typical on a road racing bike (though very typical for an audax bike), and (mini) v-brakes, but otherwise ... full Apex drivetrain, road wheels, and tires. It's a road bike, but in marketing-speak often referred to as a hybrid. It is also referred to as a 'hybrid' by those who equate 'road bike' with 'road racing bicycle' (see below).

To my mind, this problem of definition arises primarily as a result of that desire to equate, or silly/snobby prejudice which equates 'road bike' with 'road racing bicycle'; to me, this simply makes no sense. A road bike is a bicycle designed, and intended, to be ridden primarily on surfaced roads. Your 7.5 is that, as is my Sirrus, as is (for example) a fully-suspended Moulton.

Some want to reserve the term 'hybrid' for a bicycle designed/intended to be ridden on mixed surfaces (paved, dirt roads), and that makes some sense to me. Not so much a function of any one or two features (drop or flat bars, axle spacing) but rather how the bike as a whole is designed and set up. Similiarly, a mountain bike is a bicycle designed, and set up, to be ridden primarily on unsurfaced/rough/singletrack terrain -- 'off-road', if you will.

That is also my definition of a hybrid bike, badger1.
Not the components and the looks are what typifies a hybrid but simply the achievement of the goal to be good at many things.
A trek 7.9FX, in that regard, is definately a flat bar roadbike ... it is designed to ride on roads.
I wouldn't want to be riding a 7.9FX through fields forsure.

My bike was thought out by me to be a 50/50 road/offroad bike ... probably not perfect but close enough for my taste

"My bike was thought out by me to be a 50/50 road/offroad bike" ... makes perfect sense to me! My main bike prior to my getting the Sirrus last year was a Giant Rainier -- designed as, and marketed as, a hardtail mtb. That is what it was, until I got through with it. I turned it into what was -- and still is -- a 'hybrid': road cassette (12-25), mixed surface tires (currently Vittoria Randonneur) and some other changes/upgrades to shed weight etc.: a "50/50 road/offroad bike." That's what I wanted -- that's how I've set it up -- that's how I use it. I purchased the Sirrus because I also wanted a more precisely-focussed 'road bike.'

OK I said earlier in this thread I would fit my computer and test my speed over two weeks, well bugger it I only fitted it on sunday night and its not fair on my body to try and set records every day.
So I rode to work on monday on my normal 9.2km commute its very flat I warmed up on the first 1km. Normaly I take longer to warm up.
I had to stop at 3 sets of traffic lights and there's one slight hill at a railway over pass with a equal down slope on the other side.
And there was a slight head wind, my average was 29.2kph.
On the way home in the reverse direction I still had a slight head wind and I would say for the first 5km was averaging over 35kph but then I gave up and finished with a average of 28.9kph I was a bit surprised seeing as I just did 8hours hard work.
So on the next day I surprised myself again I thought I was a bit more gentle and the ride seemed easyer still with a slight head wind "its never a dead wind to open"
I averaged 30.7kph. In hindsight maybe I had more in me and could do better as I was not breathing so had I could'ent talk but I was sweating also its not that hard to hold 38+kph for long distances as I was but its the average where talking about.
So I think I've put my fitness out there for every one to judge and I'm sure people will and I dont claim to be the fittest rider around.
AdelaaR maybe you just are really fit and fitter than me but it would be nice to go for a blast with you sometime and test each other, maybe next time I'm out your way. "I've never left Australia how sad"
It would be nice if other people could give a honest idea of how fast they ride.

"It would be nice if other people could give a honest idea of how fast they ride."

You do know this is Bike Forums, yes?

P.S. That is one beautiful bike, jb!

If you stop at traffic lights the average goes way down so 29.2 is nice with traffic lights
Hills should not slow you down as long as they are short hills ... I go up most short hills of about 6-8% around here at about 15-19 mph and then on the descent you can easily make up by going faster and recuperating the lost anaerobic power from going heavy in the climb.
It is a fact that timetrailers will go full on on the more difficult bits of the course and try to gain some breath on the easier parts.

To be honest the way from here to Geraardsbergen does go slightly down ... more down than up anyway.
I must have had a tailwind that day but on a bike, with the wind basicly always around your head, it is difficult to judge the direction and especially the strength of the wind.

I doubt we wil ever ride together as you live on about exactly the opposite side of the world than I do but if I ever would go to australia I'll let you know.
I don't see much point in racing or competing anyway ... I just like to give myself a challenge

[QUOTE=AdelaaR;12528015]
I don't see much point in racing or competing anyway ... I just like to give myself a challenge

As it should be.

Apparently, we have some world class level riders on the hybrid forum.

Here is some comparative data from the Sally Edwards Company.
Recently, exercise scientists completed the first study ever that evaluated the workload sustained by professional elite road cyclists during a multistage race using direct power measurements. For background information, please note that these guys are riding 1,750 miles per month or averaging about 50-60 miles a day in training. They are all members of the same team and each competed in at least one of the three major European tours: Tour de France, Giro d’Italia, or Vuelta a Espana. And, yes, they are some of the best cyclists in the world.

The researchers measured the cyclists’ power and heart rate during the six stages of a road race that included a mean uphill time trial. Here’s what they found out:

Road Race Averages for Six Professional Cyclists

Age 27.3 years

Maximum power output (peak watts) - 390 watts

Maximum power output per kilogram body weight (peak watts per kg body weight) - 5.5 watts

Watts at threshold - 248 watts

Heart rate at threshold - 137 bpm

Now you can compare your riding data with some of the best in the world. Unless, you, too, are one of the best in the world, just don’t take the comparison too seriously. Next, and more appropriately, how do you compare with others that might be more of your class of rider? We don’t have data that’s as specific for this next table; for example, what would be better is to compare watts per kilogram of body weight, to equalize the power output. For now, though, you can just use total watts as a benchmark to your standing.

Peak Power for Time Period **
(watts)
Males* 2 hours 1 hour 30 min 5 minutes 30 seconds
Fit guy 147-170 172-192 194-206 213-239 452-565
Category 4 Rider 182-209 212-237 240-254 266-293 559-698
Domestic Pro 252-291 295-330 [B]334-353[/B] 372-404 777-971
International Pro 275-317 321-359 364-388 394-452 846-1057

On mu commute I average around 19 kph incoming and 18 kph overall (more uphill when going home). This is 16.5 kmh round trip with some traffic, traffic lights and pedestrians on MUPs. I did some 60 km on rolling/flattish road at around 20 kph average with a friend. We weren't pushing it, but we couldn't have gone that much faster either. I never was a fast rider.

Something ain't right here, Talldog. Over a six stage race with a "mean uphill time trial" they measured a "peak" power of 390 W??? I'm an engineer, I need to see their definition of "peak". To an engineer "peak" means the absolute maximum observed value. Surely these world class cyclists hit peaks over 390 W in sprints and climbs. Based on the table at the end of the material you quoted I might barely qualify as a "fit guy" class cyclist and I hit peaks over 390 W as I struggle to climb the cluster of 20+% but mercifully short grades on the trail by me.

My power meter is not the most highly respected unit on the market, it is a Polar CS600X. Yet some professional mechanical engineers who have played with them claim they are reasonably accurate. My results match the "fit guy" curve quite well so I imagine it is within 10 or 20%. Even that curve predicts that a lowly fit guy cyclist will hit more than 390 W peaks in a race....

Ken

Here's another summary

I took the table directly from the article. It probably should read "average power output" for the uphill time trial. That being said, it would have to be a short uphill time trial for the riders to average 392 watts. These guys know that they largely have to operate within their lactic threshold in order to finish the stage and the race. Otherwise they would "crack" and have no chance of decent placings. In other words, it is very, very difficult to maintain high power outputs, ie., 300 watts +, for anything over 1/2 hour. You can google "power output during stage racing in professional road cycling" for a more technical take on the study.

The table that badger1 just posted uses the term "peak mean power" which would be the highest power average over some unstated time period. Most likely the "peak" power in your article is also a peak mean power. Doubtless the term is well understood by cycling/sports medicine workers but it looks nonsensical to technologists from other fields when it is undefined and abbreviated to just peak power. I just looked over a recording from a recent two hour forty three minute ride I took. I had an average power of 179 W and while the 2kW absolute peak power I see in the plot (duration 1 second) is likely to be instrument error, I have many, many peaks in the 300 to 500 W range that last a few seconds each. I'm certainly no elite international class cyclist, I'm not even an elite McHenry County cyclist. My next door neighbor is 20 years younger than me and recently switched from competitive motorcycling to competitive bicycling after one too many brushes with death. I'm not even sure what he competes at, only that his wife says it is nice to go to his events now and not see an ambulance standing by at the ready. So bottom line, I'm not even the elite cyclist on my block!

Ken

I'm a little confused Ken. I wasn't accusing you of being an elite cyclist ...

So how many miles did you cover in the 2 hours and 43 minutes ?

Whilst I seriously prefer riding my hybrid, I honestly believe it can't match my road bike on a what is concidered a normal decent ride here with my crew. The gearing does not allow for a fair match.

In about two weeks time I will be going on an approximate 105 km ride with friends using my road bike. It will compose of 6 mountains and previously my average on that ride hovers around 24 km/h with a max speed of around 72 km/h. I know, I know that average is bad but I'd doubt I can do better.
I believe that if the level of fitness is exactly the same, the gearing is exactly the same, the bike weight is exactly the same and the wind is exactly the same, only then can it be a fair comparison.

Debating over which is faster etc. Hybrid or Road is close to impossible, as most of us on this thread don't have a hybrid and road bike comparitively equal. Oh, I guess except jbchybridrider's kick arse hybrid is pretty close to a road bike with gearing weight etc. to his Pinarello.

Cool chart there

Why not simply get bigger gearing then?
My hybrid's biggest ratio is 52/11 which is a bigger gear than almost all commercial roadbikes.
I use it sometimes on long steady descents to be able to loosely turn the cranks and gain some breath.

I never said roadbikes aren't faster than hybrids ... in general ... ofcourse ... they are.
BUT: for most normal people riding at normal speeds ... they aren't.
It isn't impossible to discuss this as it comes down to physics ... in fact it all comes down to math.

What I wanted to point out is that hybrids, which are generally considered as slow, can in fact be fast.

I tried this but unfortunately because of the shape of my chain stays the 48 is the biggest I can go. So the best I've got is 48/11.
EDIT woops, I realized I have a 23-12 cluster so 48/12 is what I've got.

Sorry I got mixed up with the thread responses and I agree with your point. I too like many others on here love nothing more than sprinting down the street on my Hybrid.