New Bike, More Watts?
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
New Bike, More Watts?
Is there any reason a new frameset would lead to an increase in watts for a given heart rate?
I got a new frameset this week and did my first two rides this weekend. On the very first ride I mentioned to my riding partner that it felt like I was able to push more watts and maintain those for longer. The numbers just weren't what I was used to seeing. Of course, it was the first ride and with new bike exuberance I was pushing hard in sections to try to put the bike through its paces. I went out again today for an endurance ride and sure enough, I averaged 20ish watts more for the entire ride and my heart rate was actually slightly lower than normal. Checking in on Training Peaks, today was the second highest 90 minute power output I've ever done. The highest 90 minute power output was the ride yesterday.
I carried over the groupset (Ultegra R8000), including the bottom bracket, from one frame to another. I changed tires (rom GP 5000 28s to Rene Herse 32s. The old frame was a steel Charge Plug and the new frame is a titanium Dean Grays All Road. That's a pretty big jump between quality of the framesets. I also made sure to calibrate the power meter before each ride.
I'm primarily trying to figure out if there is a technical setup issue that might be causing this. I cleaned the rear hub and the rear axle was a little tight when I reassembled. I was able to get it turning more freely. If there is extra friction there, I'd assume that would lead to higher watts to push the bike. But the fact that my heart rate stays in the endurance window suggests that's not the case. Maybe a result of better power transfer on the new frameset? Or maybe my old setup was just not very good.
Any others have this experience? Or any ideas on what I should check to make sure this isn't a setup issue?
Many thanks!
I got a new frameset this week and did my first two rides this weekend. On the very first ride I mentioned to my riding partner that it felt like I was able to push more watts and maintain those for longer. The numbers just weren't what I was used to seeing. Of course, it was the first ride and with new bike exuberance I was pushing hard in sections to try to put the bike through its paces. I went out again today for an endurance ride and sure enough, I averaged 20ish watts more for the entire ride and my heart rate was actually slightly lower than normal. Checking in on Training Peaks, today was the second highest 90 minute power output I've ever done. The highest 90 minute power output was the ride yesterday.
I carried over the groupset (Ultegra R8000), including the bottom bracket, from one frame to another. I changed tires (rom GP 5000 28s to Rene Herse 32s. The old frame was a steel Charge Plug and the new frame is a titanium Dean Grays All Road. That's a pretty big jump between quality of the framesets. I also made sure to calibrate the power meter before each ride.
I'm primarily trying to figure out if there is a technical setup issue that might be causing this. I cleaned the rear hub and the rear axle was a little tight when I reassembled. I was able to get it turning more freely. If there is extra friction there, I'd assume that would lead to higher watts to push the bike. But the fact that my heart rate stays in the endurance window suggests that's not the case. Maybe a result of better power transfer on the new frameset? Or maybe my old setup was just not very good.
Any others have this experience? Or any ideas on what I should check to make sure this isn't a setup issue?
Many thanks!
#2
mosquito rancher
Unless your power was already up in pro levels, that's a big improvement. At least 10%, maybe 20%? It's also relevant where the power is being metered. If it's at the pedals or cranks, the new bike and everything else is all "downstream" of the power meter and can't affect the power reading. If it's at the hub, the bike could be implicated somewhat, but I can't see anywhere near that much change. If you had an absolutely filthy drivetrain and cleaned it, I don't think even that would account for all the difference.
Is your position on the bike different? That can account for some improvement, although again, I'd be surprised to see this much change. The simplest explanation would be miscalibration of the power meter.
Is your position on the bike different? That can account for some improvement, although again, I'd be surprised to see this much change. The simplest explanation would be miscalibration of the power meter.
__________________
Adam Rice
Adam Rice
#3
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,508
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Timberjack, Expert TG, Samba tandem
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3010 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,261 Posts
What power meter is it?
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,487
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2048 Post(s)
Liked 1,709 Times
in
1,094 Posts
I guess you never been on a Honeymoon?
Likes For GhostRider62:
#5
Senior Member
I would think the cleaning and renewal of all the bearings and the chain is significant, new smoothly meshing sprocket teeth, and a properly set-up drive train are significant. Also if you had a good fitting when you bought it or if your self-fitting is better, that can also contribute. Change to tubeless tires? Hydraulic disk brakes have less drag than calipers?
A new frame can have more or less flex than your older one. Jan Heine who publishes Bicycle Quarterly, holds to the idea (called 'planing") that chainset forces cause frame flex, this frame flex stores energy during the power stroke, and releases it between power strokes to add the stored energy to the propulsion, increasing the pulling tension on the chain. His tests tend to show this is a repeatable and measurable increase in speed. This goes counter to the idea that a stiffer frame has better energy transfer, but I'm not sure scientific analysis or good engineering measurements have come up with conclusive results. If it's a good hypothesis, that probably flex in the bicycle viewed as a system would contribute to added energy delivery.
Also conservation of energy has to be considered. Ultimately physics still holds.
But I have trouble seeing even all of this giving you 20 watts. That's the difference between wins and losses!
A new frame can have more or less flex than your older one. Jan Heine who publishes Bicycle Quarterly, holds to the idea (called 'planing") that chainset forces cause frame flex, this frame flex stores energy during the power stroke, and releases it between power strokes to add the stored energy to the propulsion, increasing the pulling tension on the chain. His tests tend to show this is a repeatable and measurable increase in speed. This goes counter to the idea that a stiffer frame has better energy transfer, but I'm not sure scientific analysis or good engineering measurements have come up with conclusive results. If it's a good hypothesis, that probably flex in the bicycle viewed as a system would contribute to added energy delivery.
Also conservation of energy has to be considered. Ultimately physics still holds.
But I have trouble seeing even all of this giving you 20 watts. That's the difference between wins and losses!
#6
Senior Member
Likes For Road Fan:
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,487
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2048 Post(s)
Liked 1,709 Times
in
1,094 Posts
I do have one bike that climbs much better than all the others. Inexplicable.
Likes For GhostRider62:
#8
Newbie
Thread Starter
Unless your power was already up in pro levels, that's a big improvement. At least 10%, maybe 20%? It's also relevant where the power is being metered. If it's at the pedals or cranks, the new bike and everything else is all "downstream" of the power meter and can't affect the power reading. If it's at the hub, the bike could be implicated somewhat, but I can't see anywhere near that much change. If you had an absolutely filthy drivetrain and cleaned it, I don't think even that would account for all the difference.
Is your position on the bike different? That can account for some improvement, although again, I'd be surprised to see this much change. The simplest explanation would be miscalibration of the power meter.
Is your position on the bike different? That can account for some improvement, although again, I'd be surprised to see this much change. The simplest explanation would be miscalibration of the power meter.
The position is about the same, I think. And my RPE feels the same, and I could have carried on a conversation. The power meter is a left-side Stages. And I keep my drivetrain clean. So yea....will take a look at the power meter and recalibrate and make sure the firmware is up to date.
Appreciate the reply. Really helps me to think through the possibilities.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,487
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2048 Post(s)
Liked 1,709 Times
in
1,094 Posts
If you were using the same exact Stages PM on the old bike as the new bike and you calibrated and your speeds up hills are faster, then, you are making more power.
Likes For GhostRider62:
#11
Newbie
Thread Starter
I would think the cleaning and renewal of all the bearings and the chain is significant, new smoothly meshing sprocket teeth, and a properly set-up drive train are significant. Also if you had a good fitting when you bought it or if your self-fitting is better, that can also contribute. Change to tubeless tires? Hydraulic disk brakes have less drag than calipers?
A new frame can have more or less flex than your older one. Jan Heine who publishes Bicycle Quarterly, holds to the idea (called 'planing") that chainset forces cause frame flex, this frame flex stores energy during the power stroke, and releases it between power strokes to add the stored energy to the propulsion, increasing the pulling tension on the chain. His tests tend to show this is a repeatable and measurable increase in speed. This goes counter to the idea that a stiffer frame has better energy transfer, but I'm not sure scientific analysis or good engineering measurements have come up with conclusive results. If it's a good hypothesis, that probably flex in the bicycle viewed as a system would contribute to added energy delivery.
Also conservation of energy has to be considered. Ultimately physics still holds.
But I have trouble seeing even all of this giving you 20 watts. That's the difference between wins and losses!
A new frame can have more or less flex than your older one. Jan Heine who publishes Bicycle Quarterly, holds to the idea (called 'planing") that chainset forces cause frame flex, this frame flex stores energy during the power stroke, and releases it between power strokes to add the stored energy to the propulsion, increasing the pulling tension on the chain. His tests tend to show this is a repeatable and measurable increase in speed. This goes counter to the idea that a stiffer frame has better energy transfer, but I'm not sure scientific analysis or good engineering measurements have come up with conclusive results. If it's a good hypothesis, that probably flex in the bicycle viewed as a system would contribute to added energy delivery.
Also conservation of energy has to be considered. Ultimately physics still holds.
But I have trouble seeing even all of this giving you 20 watts. That's the difference between wins and losses!
Part of me wonders if the Charge Plug was just so noodly, despite being a steel frame, that it was undercounting the watts production? Is that a possibility?
It really is perplexing. It may also be that I am relatively new to the power meter game, only have a couple FTP tests under my belt, and this is the first time I have tried a more dedicated training block. That is to say, there are a ton of confounding factors to sift through and make sense of.
#12
Newbie
Thread Starter
I can't say for sure if I was faster up hills. Had a lot of social gatherings recently with plenty of drinks, and after 10 days off been feeling sluggish. Although speeds and other data points look good. But I will keep an eye on that. My legs feel the rides but my breathing and heart rate are steady and easy. Most likely, just a whole combination of factors. Or maybe just need to make sure the calibration is correct.
#13
I like bike
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Merry Land USA
Posts: 597
Bikes: Roubaix Comp 2020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Liked 244 Times
in
165 Posts
I'd vote you have a better fit on the new frame, either the old one was really bad, the new one is really good, or both. If you are doing more watts with the same HR there isn't much else it could be, except perhaps calibration. Since you are not comparing your speed, friction in the group set, tires, etc can't be a factor.
#14
Newbie
Thread Starter
I'd vote you have a better fit on the new frame, either the old one was really bad, the new one is really good, or both. If you are doing more watts with the same HR there isn't much else it could be, except perhaps calibration. Since you are not comparing your speed, friction in the group set, tires, etc can't be a factor.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,487
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2048 Post(s)
Liked 1,709 Times
in
1,094 Posts
Better fit, you got some rest (a taper), the honeymoon effect, and good beer.
Enjoy it while you have it
Enjoy it while you have it
#16
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 2,860 Times
in
1,968 Posts
My motto is, if you think it's faster, it's faster.
#17
more daylight today!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 12,512
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5133 Post(s)
Liked 3,615 Times
in
2,510 Posts
Your position on the bike can give you more power. That's part of why TT bikes have a more vertical seat tube. It moves the rider more over the BB where they can develop better power while very aero body position. IMO.
So between your old bike and new bike I'd wonder if your BB position is different.
So between your old bike and new bike I'd wonder if your BB position is different.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,200
Bikes: 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3561 Post(s)
Liked 2,535 Times
in
1,537 Posts
Except for perhaps a different position/geometry, I kind of doubt it. And if it's real, one would only know by comparing either well-controlled rides (route/wind condition/etc.) or a large enough average of rides or better yet.....a disciplined FTP test.
#19
Junior Member
Assuming same/similar bike fit and same power meter, no. You didn't mention how you are measuring the power. Did you install the PM correctly and/or new? Did you do zero it before ride?
#20
more daylight today!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 12,512
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5133 Post(s)
Liked 3,615 Times
in
2,510 Posts
I won't be surprised if this is just estimated power on Strava or some other site. Or even that the OP is just talking perceived effort.
But I'll be more than happy to be wrong. OP... you are up!
#21
Newbie
Thread Starter
I use a Stages L-only power meter and I did calibrate it before each ride. It is still really hard to get an accurate comparison in terms of speed because the very first day with my new bike, my speed sensor battery died. That's now been replaced, and the early conclusion seems to be that those extra watts for the same heart rate were a combination of new bike exuberance and the 10 days off the bike leading up to building/riding the new frameset. I've been out the past few days and my power output per given heart rate seems to have returned mostly to the previous range.
#22
more daylight today!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 12,512
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5133 Post(s)
Liked 3,615 Times
in
2,510 Posts
I use a Stages L-only power meter and I did calibrate it before each ride. It is still really hard to get an accurate comparison in terms of speed because the very first day with my new bike, my speed sensor battery died. That's now been replaced, and the early conclusion seems to be that those extra watts for the same heart rate were a combination of new bike exuberance and the 10 days off the bike leading up to building/riding the new frameset. I've been out the past few days and my power output per given heart rate seems to have returned mostly to the previous range.
The 10 day off might be significant. That will help ensure your glycogen levels are topped off. Many of my personal KOM's on hills that take a good effort to get up are on the first ride after a week to 2 weeks of not riding.
Along with the elation of riding something new, you might well have just reached a little harder than you might normally have on a ride.
Are you maintaining that power increase?
#23
Newbie
Thread Starter
Thanks for clearing that up.
The 10 day off might be significant. That will help ensure your glycogen levels are topped off. Many of my personal KOM's on hills that take a good effort to get up are on the first ride after a week to 2 weeks of not riding.
Along with the elation of riding something new, you might well have just reached a little harder than you might normally have on a ride.
Are you maintaining that power increase?
The 10 day off might be significant. That will help ensure your glycogen levels are topped off. Many of my personal KOM's on hills that take a good effort to get up are on the first ride after a week to 2 weeks of not riding.
Along with the elation of riding something new, you might well have just reached a little harder than you might normally have on a ride.
Are you maintaining that power increase?
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,526
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4009 Post(s)
Liked 2,889 Times
in
1,879 Posts
Yeah - fit. I raced a Lambert for my first season of racing. Went faster than I had ever gone before on a regular basis. Next year I got serious. Worked in a bikeshop and rode most mornings on the famous "Allis Loop" of the Boston racing crowd. Tracked my times. (Long, long before power meters, heart rate monitors, etc.) That May the shop mechanic told me I should buy the last year's Fuji Professional in the basement. I did. Set it up with most settings roughly mid-range. Went for an easy "Loop", easy because it was mid-season and these cranks were 175, not the 170s I'd always ridden. Going easy, never breaking a sweat I matched my best Loop time ever! Three days later 2 minutes came off that. The rest of that season I flew like I never dreamed was possible for this body.
Now, everything on this bike was different from my previous bike except the wheels, gear ratios and seat. Position was quite different. I was both lower and more stretched out. In hindsight, I know that my breathing was far better because my chest/torso was stretched, not compressed. These are order of magnitude difference, not subtle tweaks. Like putting a compressor or supercharger on your stock engine.
Document this bike. The key fit dimensions. Height from bottom bracket to seat. Distance back, BB to seat. Same for BB to handlebars. Don't by a bike that you cannot match those dimensions. 45 years later, I ride bikes set up to fit like that Fuji. (Yes, I've changed and the position has evolved but it isn't fundamentally different.)
Now, everything on this bike was different from my previous bike except the wheels, gear ratios and seat. Position was quite different. I was both lower and more stretched out. In hindsight, I know that my breathing was far better because my chest/torso was stretched, not compressed. These are order of magnitude difference, not subtle tweaks. Like putting a compressor or supercharger on your stock engine.
Document this bike. The key fit dimensions. Height from bottom bracket to seat. Distance back, BB to seat. Same for BB to handlebars. Don't by a bike that you cannot match those dimensions. 45 years later, I ride bikes set up to fit like that Fuji. (Yes, I've changed and the position has evolved but it isn't fundamentally different.)
Likes For 79pmooney:
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,526
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4009 Post(s)
Liked 2,889 Times
in
1,879 Posts
Re:"planing" - I don't buy it but I have known a long time the flexy frames don't necessarily hurt you if you ride in tune with them. I raced a steel Fuji Professional. 59 cm, just big enough for the heavier tubing but just a medium stiff bike for the day. (Mid '70s.) The summer before I took a spin on a Klein. It was obviously WAY! WAY! too stiff for me. That Fuji became part of me. I never felt I gave anything away to anyone because of bike flex.
A few years later a certain pro racer won countless sprints riding a bike that make my flexy Fuji look like a steel girder. Sean Kelly and his aluminum Vitus frames.
Now, one thing I did in my racing days (and that I am sure Sean Kelly did far more of) is I put in long mileage years of riding. 10,000 miles per year, roughly half on the Fuji. Enough time to get really "in tune" with the bike.
A few years later a certain pro racer won countless sprints riding a bike that make my flexy Fuji look like a steel girder. Sean Kelly and his aluminum Vitus frames.
Now, one thing I did in my racing days (and that I am sure Sean Kelly did far more of) is I put in long mileage years of riding. 10,000 miles per year, roughly half on the Fuji. Enough time to get really "in tune" with the bike.