I guess some bikes are slower than others

[bridgestone1]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

Now that I've been using strava a lot more and doing a bunch of rides with the same person, I've concluded that one of my bikes is significantly slower than the other one. The quality of build is similar, fit is basically the same, and weight is within 1.5lb, yet I'm seeing considerable average speed differences, consistently slower times up climbs onthe slower bike, and the only time I seem to get into difficulty chasing my riding partner is on the slower bike. I've even tried different wheels and tires on the slower bike and it didn't really change anything. I guess the data doesn't lie. The slow bike is reynolds 853 steel with an ouzo pro fork and the fast bike is a caad10. I guess it's time to try some carbon?

Not much of a point to this thread, really, but I'm curious if anyone else has similar experiences that are backed up with hard data.

It's not easy to explain. My fastest pace this year, 16.9, was done on my all steel Bridgestone RB-1. The Bridgestone weighs about 23 pounds, about 3-4 pounds heavier than my aluminum Trek 2.3(with carbon fork). The Trek's wheel set claims 20 bladed spokes, while the Bridgestone is equipped with 32 round spokes. So, on paper, the Trek should be faster. Go figure.

[mktng]

My fastest times are definitely achieved on my heavier cx bike. Could be fit and build. Less likely to slow down for bumps and cracks. Less worrying.... More steamrolling

[MattTuck]

And here I was, thinking that my slowness was caused by being out of shape, fat and weak. Turns out I got a bum frame... I'll need to get a fast one next time.

[sweet_johnny]

It's probably your ouzo pro fork that's slowing you down. I'll be happy to take it off your hands and... um... dispose of it properly.

[joosttx]

My C60 with boras vs my IF club racer with 32mm tires is about 20 seconds faster on a 1.5 mile climb at 6% grade.

[thwart]

Interesting thread.

It's amazing how much psychology plays in the perception of our bike's performance. IMO, even more so than in high end audio.

How much is real, and how much is our perception---that's very difficult to tease out.

That said...

I'm lucky enough to have a bike, a Peg Duende, that always responds nicely when I'm riding it. I never have a bad day on that bike. Although likely slightly slower, I prefer it to riding my Parlee Z4. Objectively truly a great bike in every way (including ride), but just not much personality.

On the other hand, I have a Merckx Corsa 01, an all steel classic race bike, which sometimes feels great, yet other times feels stiff and somewhat unresponsive.

And then there's my DeRosa Neo Primato, a bike which frequently surprises me with a higher average speed than I anticipate... which is in contrast to a Zancanato road bike I had a few years ago. To be fair it probably was 1 cm too small, but that bike did just the opposite, often a lower speed than I thought I was riding.

[false_Aest]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

Not much of a point to this thread, really, but I'm curious if anyone else has similar experiences that are backed up with hard data.

I'm still waiting for hard data.

[seanile]

i hear ya. i get some of my better averages when riding this monster truck (all with a pannier on the back right). of course, it might just be because im often late to work when im riding that, but my road bike is a 90s lugged merckx...so there's not tooo much advantage there.

[zap]

Zap has no data to determine if one kit is faster than another. Zap has no gizmo that provides current speed, avg. speed, etc. Zap gets dropped, Zap is slow. Simple.

Enjoy the ride.

[dgauthier]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

(. . . ) I've concluded that one of my bikes is significantly slower than the other one. (. . .) I'm curious if anyone else has similar experiences that are backed up with hard data.

I notice that my own performance varies quite a bit from day to day. Are you sure it isn't just you?

I agree the wheels would make a large difference. Can you swap the wheels?

Also, how about some pictures? It's hard to pinpoint any relevant differences without pictures.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

And here I was, thinking that my slowness was caused by being out of shape, fat and weak. Turns out I got a bum frame... I'll need to get a fast one next time.

My slowness has always been caused by being old, fat, and slow, even when I wasn't old or fat... But when I was in shape and riding hard a lot, there was definitely a difference between how fast I was on different bikes. I was slow on all of them, but I was definitely less slow on some than others...

-Ray

[mtechnica]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

And here I was, thinking that my slowness was caused by being out of shape, fat and weak. Turns out I got a bum frame... I'll need to get a fast one next time.

The frame isn't a bum frame, but my average speed is usually .5mph slower, sometimes more.

[mtechnica]

Originally Posted by dgauthier

I notice that my own performance varies quite a bit from day to day. Are you sure it isn't just you?

I agree the wheels would make a large difference. Can you swap the wheels?

Also, how about some pictures? It's hard to pinpoint any relevant differences without pictures.

I have tried two sets of wheels on the slower bike but I can't use the wheels from the faster bike on the slower bike because campy/shimano. At any rate the weight and quality of the wheels aren't that different. I definitely suspect the wheels make a difference, and before I get rid of the steel bike, I'll upgrade the wheels and ride it for a while to see if it makes a difference.

Having said that, a typical ride for me is 42-60 miles with around 3000ft elevation gain and I go up a lot of the same climbs so I can compare my times fairly consistently. The ride I went on before I became frustrated was about 70 miles with almost 6000ft elevation gain, most of the gain on one hour long climb, on which I was slower on the steel bike even though it has 39/28 and the last times I went up the climb I was on the cannon dale (first time with 39/23 which was bad, then second time with 39/25 which was still hard) there is a part that's a couple miles of 10%. Also, there's a 10 minute climb that's around 6% with ramps and I put out a good effort on the steel bike (standing the whole time in 53/23 or 21) and my time was probably 45 seconds slower than a similar effort on the cannondale. Not only that, but even on flats the steel bike feels slower. The steel bike is a lemond mj so it's not exactly a piece of crap, but I really can feel it flex.

Lastly, all of my top 10 strava segment times except one were riding the cannondale.

[redir]

Congrats mtechnica looked like you jsut talked yourself into a new carbon bike, what'l it be?

[drewellison]

Originally Posted by Tickdoc

The cervelo is twitchy, but fast. It has a huge aero, weight, and spin up advantage over the ciocc, but the whole time I am on it, I am always wishing I was on the ciocc.

Uh oh. That spells trouble in the relationship. My rule of thumb is that when I'm riding one bike and wishing I were riding another (It's kinda like cheating) then it's time to sell that bike. Don't worry, there's always ...

N+1

You mention two bikes ... it's time for some serious N+1 action.



Drew