AdelaaR

Tiger, you say you go 22/23mph now ... what exactly is this number?
Is it solo or in group?
If this is your "solo cruising speed" on flat ground ... then you could definately still improve there.
If this is your "solo average speed" over a long course with traffic and all ... then this is a good speed for your physique.
If this is your "max speed" ... then you simply are bad at cycling
Going 25mph average over a long course, solo, isn't easy. It's something people train for for years.

DinoShepherd

No, you're not too heavy to go fast.

I look like what most people consider a "cyclist" should look like. And my ego is small enough to share the following:

I got dumped during the cycling leg a of a 1/2 ironman a couple months ago by a dude who looked every bit of 245.

Carry on.

hhnngg1

Been said ad nauseum, but you need to ride more, and harder.

Your ability to hold 22mph for longer periods of time is endurance, not strength based. On a flat (good luck on doing 22mph on a hill) your weight is really irrelevant to the issue - it's your power to aero profile that determines your speed. Hence, bigger guys with a good aero position will often outride smaller guys on the flats despite getting dropped on the climbs. (Taylor Phinney from proteam USA is a bigger guy at 6'5" and had the 5th fastest TT in the latest Vuelta from a field of world-class pros, yet got dropped so badly on the climb the next day that he had to quit the race.)

Your weight definitely is not limiting you on your speed on the flats - it's your fitness level. You could put weights on Fabian cancellara (world TT champion) to get him to 250lbs and he'd still crush a Cat1 or even a domestique pro field in a purely flat TT because once he's up to speed, it's not about the weight.

radshark

What's your cadence?

hhnngg1

Who cares?

There's nothing magic about that 80-90 cadence. I ride with a guy who prefers a cadence of 60-70, and he's easily 25+mph on a flat solo and also climbs in his big gear to stay in low cadence.

pdedes

how long are your rides?

i'm calling bs

Triode

Well, since I got a computer with a cadence sensor and started paying attention to cadence, my speeds have picked up and so has my "workout"

Granted, I'm new and still have a lot to learn. Even so, watching my cadence helps keep me from slacking, and also helps me stay in what is a comfortable "power bandwidth" for me.

I don't think Cadence is "magical" or "the answer" or whatever.

But, watching my cadence has helped me pick up my speed. Which is what the OP would like to do

revchuck 

FIFY.

OP - When you ride, what do you do? If you're just going out and riding with no structure, improvement will come slowly. If you only have a few hours a week to ride, it'll come slower still. I recommend that you get a book by one of the two guys who write about cycling training - Joe Friel or Chris Carmichael - and adopt one of their training plans.

I see that you live in Boston, so your cycling weather is coming to a close soon. If you take the winter off from cycling, you'll lose almost all of what you gain during the summer. Options are to buy winter cycling clothes and get used to cold air in your lungs, or get a trainer and use it to maintain and improve your performance over the winter. Alternately, you could sign up for spin classes; not as good as a bike, but better than the couch.

Good luck!

wants185s

+1 I continue to be amazed at how fast some people with strong builds and big bellies can ride. A few that I ride with, that have to weigh 50 lbs more than me, I am hard pressd to keep up with on the flats and even on short climbs. The problem is that in that big body with extra fat there is likely 30 lbs of well trained muscle more than I have. They have enough power to offset the extra weight.

Diegomayra

I disagree with this entire statement. You are absolutely wrong.

Weight to Power ratio. A small guy can put out massive amounts of energy at a relative level, which would equal a faster speed over any surface.
How?
https://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2008...ght-ratio.html

Then do some math.

https://www.mne.psu.edu/lamancusa/Pro.../bikecalc1.htm

My current average at 85-95% effort, with a consistent 6-9mph headwind/tailwind with no + elevation gain over 50miles around 21 miles an hour.
I am not fast, just balanced, don't go too far into the red.

There is a point where any further weight loss will lower this power to weight ratio, therefore you would need to reevaluate your weight accordingly for your specific type of cycling; e.g. sprinter, time trialist, climber.

gregf83 

It doesn't look like you did the math. A 250lb rider will take 338W (4.65W/kg) to ride 25mph on the flats whereas a 150lb rider will take 317W (4.7W/kg). Who do you think is working harder?

Diegomayra

Sigh....

Your argument still says nothing, the mathematics on that calculator simply state the estimated amount of wattage required to overcome resistances. It is less due to weight, period. Surface area is a factor, but unless the 150lb cyclist is shaped like a piece of plywood who faces massive air resistance, then he is still going to do less work.
Heres some math for you; e.g.

150lbs = mg or 9.81m/s2 (68).

KE = 1/2 Mass (Velocity^2)

KE = 1/2 (68) (25^2)

KE = 21250 Joules

KE = 1/2 (113.4) (25^2)

KE = 35437.5 Joules

Disregarding any frictional forces or work = F * d, (distance, e.g. 20 miles) it is clear that a heavier person demands more work to be done. The lighter the person, the less the work requirement.

Since this is an endurance sport, immediate power output at close to the zero point, is irrelevant, therefore when distance is considered; it is better to be lighter.

alexfboyle

What ever he feels comfortable at.

tagaproject6

Relax dude! Just ride more...right now, revel in the fact that you can beat them all with your superior body weight going downhill! You'll get there

Sixty Fiver

My friend was your size and was able to knock down 6 hour solo centuries after some years of riding... it does take quite a few years and lots of miles to build up to this.

He could also out sprint many roadies while on his XC mtb... the guy was all about laying down massive power and had some really decent stamina off the road but could never catch us skinnies on climbs.

znomit

Disregarding resistance is futile.

[img]********************************data/media/54/worfisfrustratedmz8.gif[/img]

patentcad

Probably.



















Fatso.

surgeonstone

Not downhill.

gregf83 

You did some math, unfortunately, it appears you don't have a sufficient understanding of the physics involved to correctly apply the math. You've calculated the kinetic energy of a couple of riders going at 25mph. All that tells you is that the heavier rider needs to put out more power to get up to speed.

Once at a steady state speed the key metric is power/aero drag. Your premise that a smaller rider with a higher power/weight ratio will always ride faster on the flats is incorrect. The top time trialers generally have lower power/weight ratios than climbers yet they still go faster.

hhnngg1

These calculations totally disregard the most important factor - air resistance. If it were just as simple as kinetic energy, we'd have no aero gear.

The exponential energy increase to go faster on flats is in part due to weight but a huge factor is the air resistance.

therhodeo

Track cyclist are never a good example. And you're talking about sprinters anyway. I don't see too many team pursuit guys being big muscle bound riders. Hoy is a monster yes but thats in very very short distances that mean little to a ride of any significance on the road. Then you're left with guys like Wiggins, Geraint Thomas, etc. Hardly good examples to use to justify being 245. Why has no rider close to that weight ever won Paris Roubaix? Its about as pan flat as possibly could be. Backstedt won at a little over 200 but still nearly 40 lbs off the 245lb mark.

Diegomayra

We can go back and forth.
The real variable is the power output of each individual which will depend on the amount of training and force being applied.
If we apply aero drag and another frictional force such as rolling resistance we still come up with the same result, except even then it still favors the lighter cyclist.

How?

If we extend the equation to WORK, we need a vector, which is assumed to be the same for both, forward, hehe. To calculate WORK we also need a distance.

Let us assume both riders begin at 0 velocity. There acceleration to 25mph takes roughly 2.3s which means a= 11.2m/s^2.

Vf= Vo + at or approx : 25 = 0 + (11.2m/s^2) (2.3s)

Using another formula Ke = mv^2 we conclude their masses at 68kg and 113.4 respectively. This removes 9.81m/s^2 for gravity.

(68)(11.2^2) = 8529.92N of force for the first rider.
(113.4)(11.2^2) = 14224.896N of force for the heavier rider.

This tells us the obvious, a larger mass will produce more force @ the same velocity.

If we conclude that they stop acceleration @ 25mph and maintain that speed we can conclude work once they reach a distance = x. x= 20miles
20 miles = 32km, keep it simple.
Traveling at 11.2m/s they will reach 20miles in almost 48 minutes. 2.3s of which are spent accelerating, we will disregard this entirely for our example.

Work formula for KE: W = Fxcosθ. Theta is the same because vector is the same, therefore 1.
Force of the lighter rider above: (8530)(32000m)= 272960000 Joules
Force of the heavier rider above: (14225)(32000m)= 455196672 Joules

The amount of work required by the lighter rider is 60% of what is required of the heavier rider. Conclusive? Hell Yes, but since you insist I do not know my physics let us take it one step further.

A frictional force such as rolling resistance. Let us assume based on Drag coefficients reference "Science of Cycling", E.R. Burke, Leisure Press, 1986
that rolling resistance for a clincher tire is .004

Ef=ma, again.
This time however we must enter in the frictional force which opposes. Kinetic friction.
Fk = µkN, N in this case being the normal force which is equal to (mass)(gravity) of each respective rider.

Since the Fk opposes the vector of the riders work it much be included as more work.
µk = (.004)

(.004)(68)(9.81m/s^2) = 2.7
(.004)(113.4)(9.81m/s^2) = 4.45

Even when we add a frictional force, it becomes more apparent that it pays off to be even lighter.

znomit

272960000 Joules expended over 48 minutes is 94777W

Diegomayra

Hehe, I give up, apparently I am dumber than even my wife believes.

This is actually alot more complicated than it looks. Since the force exerted in cycling is centripetal, that would mean acceleration would not be constant and would not cease @ 25mph.
a =v^2/r, this would be easy enough for someone with half a brain, unlike myself; however we must include the crank arm length in the first rotation, the gearing ratio and transfer to the wheels, another scenario where acceleration is not constant and velocity. Radius of the wheels and crank both converted to metric and inputted into the Centripetal force formula.

I give up, apparently fat people are actually faster.

dahut

Well, its good to see all that education is good for SOMETHING, guys.

So, where are we? A heavy guy can go fast down hills, not-so-fast uphill and has to pedal his @ss off to go much faster than 25mph on the flats for very long.... just like anyone else.