It's the motor that matters... right?
 

I've always argued that the motor (person) mattered much more than the bike in terms of speed, so I could ride my classic bikes with no desire for the "fast" and "light" new technology, but the rides below have me questioning that.

Two rides.

First ride was on my (Bikes direct) motobecane uhh... super record? Aluminum. FSA/Sora components. Schwalbe Durano 25c tires. Semi aero rims (maybe... 35 mm v profile?). Has an SKS raceblade fender on the front and a "skinny" rack on the back. (It's my "commuting" road bike) And it's also my rain bike. It was drizzling that day, so I didn't take the nice bikes out. I wasn't wearing a rain jacket cause it wasn't coming down hard enough for me to want to deal with the jacket. 80PSI rear 70PSI front.

I finished the climb in 9:01.

https://s15.postimg.org/ykbiyht57/Sc...6.56.57_PM.png

Second ride, two days later. On my Landshark Roadshark. Steel, Dura ace 7400 components. GP 4000 II 25c tires. Not at all aero rims. (Box section essentially.) Same PSI as above.

I finished the climb in 7:51.

https://s15.postimg.org/9sbwr9byj/Sc...6.57.22_PM.png

I tried my absolute hardest on both of them, average heart rate for both rides was 169/168 and max 187/190 respectively. So if average HR is anything to go by, I tried harder on the first ride.

The only thing that was different is that on the first ride, I had taken a few days off beforehand, whereas yesterday I did a VERY slow recovery ride. And, on the first ride I pushed the bottom section MUCH harder, so by the time I got to the top, I was done. Very done. I got smart this time around and relaxed on the flat bottom section, and had plenty of energy at the top.

Can a tiny bit of rain and a day off make up for a minute on a short climb with exactly the same effort levels? Or, does the bike really matter that much?

Lol @2 rides

means nothing

My best time on this climb is 43:33 @ 291W average. That was on a $700 aluminum frame.

On a separate attempt of that segment on a $3000 carbon frame, same wheels same tires, I averaged 297W and finished in 45:58. What accounts for the majority of the difference?

Wind.

Misread. The wind... yes the wind. Plus you tried a lot harder on the second attempt.

It was not the exact same effort:

Yes, a faster bike is faster. No, it is not that much faster.

I dont argue it's the motor so I can ride older bikes, I argue it because imo, it's very true. That doesnt mean an older bike will perform as well as a newer one, but I do believe the rider makes by far the biggest difference. As the old saying went 'íf you traded bikes with Eddy Merckx, who do you think would be faster'?

Proof that "steel is real"! ;)

is it the motor that matters? yes. are the bikes and conditions comparable? not even close.

In my experience, a faster bike is easier.

I have an 11-pound bike and I have a 30-pound bike (sans water in both cases). I can ride just as fast on the heavier bike (given equal gear ratios) but it takes a lot more effort overall to keep it in motion.

There is other stuff like energy list in the system to flex, friction, tires.

Scientifically riding in the rain is faster because water reduces the friction between the road and the tire therefore having better rolling resistance.

But the water adheres to the tire and gets thrown into the air, creating a constant lifting action - and more energy.

Which ones gonna get you to the top more often faster on a cat 3 climb? I dont think anyone disputes a 30 bike will maintain a top speed over long flat distance same as lightweight carbon.

You're over thinking and assigning too much to data that's full of unknown variables.

Athletes have always talked about being in "the zone", and cyclists are no different. Things like diet (both what's eaten and timing of the last meal), hydration at the start, wind direction and speed (big outside variable), temperature, sleep, rest or tiredness from prior rides, and so on can account for far more difference than the bike.

However, if one looks at the bike itself, fit makes the biggest difference, followed by tires, and gearing, then it's a big step down to all the others on short rides, though the bike's comfort can become very important on longer rides because it affects fatigue (or at least the feeling of fatigue).

In any case the difference between the two times is too large for the bikes to account for, so it points to one or more of those other unknowns. One might be as simple as your climbing strategy, wherein you were climbing smarter the 2nd time, by pacing yourself better.

-------------------

Side note.

Years (decades ago) I was trying to demonstrate that people unconsciously sabotage themselves when time trialing, and get the riders past the issue.

This was before the types of training tools we use today, so I set up a simple experiment. I laid out a short course ride which included a significant climb preceded by a 2 mile flat along which the climb could be seen and anticipated. I had the riders ride the course the first time at night where they couldn't see that far ahead (unlit country road) beyond the headlights, then repeat the ride a week later in the daytime.

Without exception all the riders were faster at night, proving (or at least I claimed so) that seeing the upcoming hill they unconsciously started backing off and saving for the climb, whereas at night they weren't mentally climbing until they reached the foot of the climb.

I bring this up here because it shows that our mental state has a big effect on how we ride, so we can add it to the list of variables.

I'm not sure how much faith you can put into analysis containing only 2 data points. Too many other variables. Sleep, diet, hydration, overall body condition (caused by physical activity preceding your rides) all factor into the data you collected.

Repeat the experiment 5-10 times with each bike, then average the results for each bike. It won't be perfect, but it'll allow better analysis.

:deadhorse:

A single data point is utterly meaningless, as others have already said. There are too many external factors other than the bike which can influence the results, not to mention the internal factor--the rider himself.

HR isn't a reliable source for comparison, so I would suggest redoing the test using a power meter.

And run it 50 times, back to back, alternating which bike you ride first.

Better yet, recruit 50 riders to do the test while you record the data, and have only a third party , who doesn't know the hypothesis interact with the riders. ( and black out all brand identifiers o the bikes and components.)

And make sure the rider's position on each bike is exactly equal.

Then we might have the start of some useful data.

All of my best performances have come after a taper.

The bike CAN make a huge difference.

Excess hub drag, tires, riding position can dramatically slow you down. Especially on climbs, bike weight also matters. Tires especially can make a huge difference.