wt and speed - 17lbs vs 26lbs

[etu]

most recent BQ bike review tested a 17lb Lynskey vs a 26lb steel randonneur. they essentially repeated hill intervals. they concluded that the bikes were equal in their climbing capabilities. curious what others thought about these findings.

[Grant McLean]

For years, I have a 120km ride over varied terrain that on a regular basis,
my total time does not vary much, or at all regardless if i'm on my 16lb Parlee
or my 19lb steel bike.

It may matter to someone in competition or in some other circumstance,
but it makes no difference to my life if one bike or another is a couple of
pounds heavier. (which is I think the crux of the issue as it's been discussed
in regard to frame weight)

Some of my bikes feel a lot different than others, but that feel doesn't translate
directly into speed.

-g

[BobbyJones]

Curious how these capabilities were determined?

Was it based on power output -specifically watts at the crank using the same crank?

[witcombusa]

put the scales away and just go ride...

[MattTuck]

Perhaps CERN and NASA should be doing some experiments where BQ did their tests, as their results indicate a strange phenomenon there in the force of gravity.

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

If you are changing the mass of something, the energy required to lift it will change. It may not be noticeable to the rider, but they'll be expending more energy with the heavier bike.

[rain dogs]

This is the type of thread that has 15 pages and then locked written all over it. Some weight weenie (like I am with one of my bikes) will come on and argue physics - which certainly says you have more weight to lift up a hill... therefore the heavier bike will be slower, which is totally true (in a physics experiment!)

The thing is, unless you're riding the TdF, which we're not, or in a very serious race at your level, I don't know anyone who climbs at their max power and then finishes at the top and gets shuttled home in a team bus.

So, if you can theoretically produce, let's say 300watts on climb A, and you ride it at 220W on your 17lb lynsky.... you ride it at 232W on your 26lb rando, and all is equal.

Real world there is almost no difference, you just turn the screw a touch harder.

Very few people climb at snot dripping, blood tasting, tunnel vision, puke on the toptube, do-this-or-lose-this output. Because it hurts too much. And if you do and aren't racing, you're just going to give yourself a heart attack.

So ride all the bikes you like and don't sweat a few pounds (certainly not a few grams) between them.

Or go out and do 30 minutes of intervals with each of all your different bikes at snot-blood-tunnel-puke output and see for yourself.... oh, don't forget to have fun with that.

[dancinkozmo]

Perhaps CERN and NASA should be doing some experiments where BQ did their tests, as their results indicate a strange phenomenon there in the force of gravity.

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

If you are changing the mass of something, the energy required to lift it will change. It may not be noticeable to the rider, but they'll be expending more energy with the heavier bike.

wouldnt you get some of that energy back with a heavier bike on the downhill ?

[1centaur]

Physics says you have to try harder to ride a heavier bike as fast as a lighter bike, so if you are going the same speed on both you are either not trying as hard on the light bike (perhaps because you don't have to) or the effort difference is within the normal variation of capability from ride to ride and you don't have enough repetitions to establish a pattern. Or both.

[PaMtbRider]

1-2 pound difference = insignificant. 9 pound difference I think would be very noticeable. To have that big of a difference it is more than just comparing frame weight. Wheels, tires, everything would be heavier, and that would be noticeable.

[MattTuck]

wouldnt you get some of that energy back with a heavier bike on the downhill ?

Sure, you'll go a bit faster. But wind resistance will erode some of that advantage.

[carpediemracing]

wouldnt you get some of that energy back with a heavier bike on the downhill ?

Not sure if your comment was meant tongue in cheek.

This is like the argument about heavier rims in a crit.

I lost ~40 lbs between the 2009 spring and 2010 spring (technically I lost the weight between Oct 2009 and Jan 2010). I race the same series of races in the spring, 6 weeks worth. In 2009, at about 190+ lbs, I struggled to try and get up the hill without exploding, my peak wattages were hitting 600-800w every lap. In 2010 (with a slightly heavier bike but weighing 155-ish) I was regularly hitting 400-600w every lap AND I was intentionally dragging the brakes on many of them because I didn't want to be accused of doping. I annihilated the field in a couple of the sprints, I could bridge to breaks, etc.

Later that year (so I'm still light weight) I used aero but heavy clinchers in the flat Tues Night training series crits. I couldn't finish a race because I was wasted after 5 or 10 minutes of lugging those nice aero wheels out of every corner. When I used my non-aero but lighter wheels I could finish and when I used my light AND aero race wheels I could win field sprints. I never won a race but that's a different thing altogether - there was a break in the races where I won the field sprint. Well one there wasn't but it was rain shortened so I really don't count it.

The thing that's similar in both situations is that my peak power dropped dramatically with less weight. I was less tired after 5 or 10 minutes and it made a HUGE difference in my performance over an hour or two.

You can't get rid of the fatigue that you feel doing more work. The body is not a perpetual machine. Work it harder and it's more tired.

It doesn't matter that at 190 or 200 lbs I could bomb down descents like mad. At 160 lbs I used so much less energy climbing that I was more fresh once the hill ended. I also remained in the shelter of the group (saves way more energy than anything else).

I do admit that I had to pedal down descents at the lighter weight. It was really depressing. Although my climbing improved when I lost weight my descending was mediocre at best, unless there were switchbacks and hard turns on the descent.

[slidey]

Horse's ass; physics is physics.

most recent BQ bike review tested a 17lb Lynskey vs a 26lb steel randonneur. they essentially repeated hill intervals. they concluded that the bikes were equal in their climbing capabilities. curious what others thought about these findings.

[mike p]

Not sure that I buy this and I'm by no means a weight weenie. If your on a flattish type course then maybe, but " repeated hill intervals " I think there would be a measurable difference. That's nine lbs, that's substantial! I'm 6'2" and have bikes from 17 to 24 lbs and if it's a hilly race I rarely reach for a 24 pounder, and that's a hilly race that has lost of flats and downhills too. If your doing " repeated hill intervals " I'll grab the lightest bike I can that won't break before I reach the top!

Mike

most recent BQ bike review tested a 17lb Lynskey vs a 26lb steel randonneur. they essentially repeated hill intervals. they concluded that the bikes were equal in their climbing capabilities. curious what others thought about these findings.

[dancinkozmo]

i just think some of the (small) gain you get with a lighter frame on the climb is negated on the downhill...

[Z3c]

This is pretty simple to grasp:

17# bike + 170# rider = 187 lbs
26# bike + 170# rider = 196 lbs

187 is 95.4% of 196; is there a difference in required effort? Of course. Is too small to be noticed by the vast majority of people? Yes. Bike weight is a small weight % of the machine that rolls down the road..

Simplistic? Certainly and please forgive my rounding. Conveys the message though IMHO.

[Peter P.]

It's a proven fact the a lighter bike makes you lazier, resulting in lower power output and therefore slower speeds than a heavier bike.

It should be intuitively obvious; if you forked out so much money for a lightweight bike, why bother to put out the extra effort-won't the bike go uphill for you?

[false_Aest]

Tests like this are bull****.

The amount + consistency of data is .... lacking.

100 riders
200 of the same model bike.
100 bikes get filled with buckshot.

Ride 4x a week. Same route, same warm-up. 52 weeks.

Week A =
Mon/Thurs = Bike 1.
Tues/Fri = Bike 2.

Week B =
Mon/Thurs = Bike 2
Tues/Fri = Bike 1
----

You might have meaningful data then.

[dancinkozmo]

im glad they used a Lynskey for this test instead of a pegoretti...the howls of derision from across the hall wouldve made the russian meteor seem like a sunday picnic

[Tandem Rider]

Gravity, it's the law.

It has more impact when the road tips up.

It actually counts when the numbers get pinned on.

In February, ride whatcha got.

[gdw]

Screw physics, randonneur bikes plane. I'm impressed that the Lynsky could even hang with the steel wonderbike.

[stuckey]

160lb rider 220 watts 6% grade 1mile climb 17lb bike 7mins 26lb bike 7.3mins.
Figure in the drag from a handlebar bag and the advantage is even higher. I can tell you my speed goes up drastically on the flats when I am not using a handlebar bag. Rando bikes have their purpose, but they are not the go fast race machines that Jan wants them to be. I say this as an owner of 2 Ellis Rando bikes.

http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

[Joachim]

I was intentionally dragging the brakes on many of them because I didn't want to be accused of doping.

Are you for real? I've seen and heard a LOT of things in my racing career, but this is a first....

[Jaq]

wouldnt you get some of that energy back with a heavier bike on the downhill ?

Yes and no.

All objects fall at the same rate; objects of different mass falling (descending) down a frictionless ramp also fall at the same rate, albeit a rate that's a trigonometric function of the angle of incline.

If two objects are traveling at the same velocity, the heavier object has more kinetic energy and greater momentum. This generally lets it penetrate (or overcome) the wind a little more easily than the lighter object. But the heavier object also has to overcome a bit more friction in the bearings and a bit more rolling resistance. Factor in the riders' postures and stuff like cables exposed to the wind, wider bars, red bikes vs. white (red is inherently faster) and the advantage can drop to nil.

[oldpotatoe]

This pretty simple to grasp:

17# bike + 170# rider = 187 lbs
26# bike + 170# rider = 196 lbs

187 is 95.4% of 196; is there a difference in required effort? Of course. Is too small to be noticed by the vast majority of people? Yes. Bike weight is a small weight % of the machine that rolls down the road..

Simplistic? Certainly and please forgive my rounding. Conveys the message though IMHO.

Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!!

Also not linear, since we are talking about a person's output, which varies and cannot be predicted. 2% lighter doesn't make you 2% faster.

[choke]

Yes and no.

All objects fall at the same rate; objects of different mass falling (descending) down a frictionless ramp also fall at the same rate, albeit a rate that's a trigonometric function of the angle of incline.

If two objects are traveling at the same velocity, the heavier object has more kinetic energy and greater momentum. This generally lets it penetrate (or overcome) the wind a little more easily than the lighter object. But the heavier object also has to overcome a bit more friction in the bearings and a bit more rolling resistance. Factor in the riders' postures and stuff like cables exposed to the wind, wider bars, red bikes vs. white (red is inherently faster) and the advantage can drop to nil.I used to ride with a friend who was a good 30lbs heavier than I am yet I could always beat him to the bottom of a hill by a fair margin....and I never pedaled. It was because I either a) made myself more aero or b) was crazier.

[lukasz]

This pretty simple to grasp:

17# bike + 170# rider = 187 lbs
26# bike + 170# rider = 196 lbs

187 is 95.4% of 196; is there a difference in required effort? Of course. Is too small to be noticed by the vast majority of people? Yes. Bike weight is a small weight % of the machine that rolls down the road..

Simplistic? Certainly and please forgive my rounding. Conveys the message though IMHO.

Yep. If we're gonna yell about physics let's set up the equation in a way that makes sense.

Wheels are a different beast. Rotational mass and aerodynamics matter more than the static weight of your frame.

[ctcyclistbob]

most recent BQ bike review tested a 17lb Lynskey vs a 26lb steel randonneur. they essentially repeated hill intervals. they concluded that the bikes were equal in their climbing capabilities. curious what others thought about these findings.

Is the BQ article online for us to read? I'd like to know what the author means by equal; does that mean speed, time, watts output? Or is there something about the Lynskey that makes it less efficient? Maybe (the lack of) planing as somebody wrote.

Like many here have stated, physics is physics and all else being equal a lighter bike should take less time to get up the hill.

[fourflys]

Is the BQ article online for us to read? I'd like to know what the author means by equal; does that mean speed, time, watts output? Or is there something about the Lynskey that makes it less efficient? Maybe (the lack of) planing as somebody wrote.

Like many here have stated, physics is physics and all else being equal a lighter bike should take less time to get up the hill.


I don't have it in front of me right now, but I do believe this was based on time it took to climb the hill... there were two riders and they kept switching off bikes to make it as equal as possible...

I have no doubt if you could produce the exact equal power output to the pedals, the lighter bike would have been marginally faster... but as Old P said, that's not how it works... BQ is as scientific as they can be, but are also real world... meaning they know an exact constant cannot be attained by people...

[T.J.]

Are you for real? I've seen and heard a LOT of things in my racing career, but this is a first....

+1. F'em ! I wouldn't worry what they thought...unless I was doping

[etu]

of course from a pure physics standpoint, more energy was required to pedal the heavier bike up the hill and i do not think Jan denies this fact. what was interesting about this study was the idea of the synergy between the rider and the bike. one example most of us would agree on is that a proper fit on a bike allows us to generate more power for longer than an ill fitting one.

physics - clear
biomechanics, physiology - less so
psychology - lord helps us

[zap]

most recent BQ bike review tested a 17lb Lynskey vs a 26lb steel randonneur. they essentially repeated hill intervals. they concluded that the bikes were equal in their climbing capabilities. curious what others thought about these findings.

Not much.

the guys in F1 (and other racing series) have it figured out. The engineers are fighting for ounces in high powered vehicles where percentile changes are even smaller.

The human body is not very consistent and the mind.......

[Ahneida Ride]

One must also factor in why some bikes are heavy ...

Consider my Bedford ....

frame = just over 4 pounds

add steel fork ... (Yes .... I wanted a steel fork)

add Mavic CXP rims with White Mtb Hubs 36 by 4 cross.

add Brooks Saddle

add Carridice Bag loaded with all sorts of crapola ....
spare, mini pump, CO2, Wallet, glass case, cell phone, keys,
jacket, cover for saddle, + even more stuff ....

add Nitto support rack for above Carridice bag

add Dinotte rear light + the LARGE 4 cell battery in Bag

add Dinotte front Amber light

add Brooks small Leather case (up front) to
accommodate battery for above light and a tool kit.

add Stainless Steel water bottles

Suddenly the 20 pound frame is now 25 pounds.

So do I REALLY want to ride with all this stuff ?
The answer is an emphatic yes.

I am riding not racing ....
The two aspects always get interlaced.

Racing = light
Riding = what ever you need to get you from point A to point B safety
on a bike that offers the proper amounts of comfort and
performance

[Rueda Tropical]

The test was of a Lynskey and a Seven titanium. They liked them both and thought they were both at the top of the performance pyramid. They found the Lynskey a bit faster then the Seven.

The climbs with the Rondonneur versus the Lynskey were a brief blurb at the end of the test. The rando was a light tubed custom made for one of the testers. He was able to equal his performance on a bike not made for him on a heavier bike that is tuned to his needs to the nth degree -so weight was only one factor in that equation.

[carpediemracing]

Are you for real? I've seen and heard a LOT of things in my racing career, but this is a first....

+1. F'em ! I wouldn't worry what they thought...unless I was doping

Yeah for real, although it was really to hide potential rather than keep people from thinking I was doping. Every recent year on the same hill I was struggling to stay in the group (and the group was pretty similar year to year). There were races where I crested the hill last, a few feet off the back, at the bell.

So this is what everyone was used to seeing. I tried to "live down to" everyone's expectations so I had a slight advantage going into the sprint.

For example in this week, the fourth one, I ended up not in great position on the last lap. The guys in blue, friendly rivals, were convinced I was out of the game. One guy later admitted he told their rider "We've taken care of him" or something to that effect. Remember I'm just under 160 lbs here, maybe 158 or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPtwfmPrgus

Compare that to a 175 lbs race. I can't pass anyone in the sprint - once I hit out to go I'm dead in the water. Terrible. Power output is similar in sprint but I've expended more energy during the race (and I didn't make any extraneous efforts like I did in the first race).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g2fwPkigE0

Now, granted, we'd just spent a couple days in the hospital as they tried to induce the Missus, so I was a bit distracted, but whatever, if I was lighter I'd have had a much better sprint than that.

[e-RICHIE]

Remember I'm just under 160 lbs here, maybe 158 or so.


Aki - That's you? I often wondered about the screen name.
I remember you and would never have guessed 160lbs atmo!!

[Hls2k6]

Aki - That's you? I often wondered about the screen name.
I remember you and would never have guessed 160lbs atmo!!

Aki is da man. When I climb that Bethel hill in 2 weeks, I'll be almost 30 pounds lighter than the previous spring. Can't wait! (And I SO will not be dragging any brakes!)

[rain dogs]

You Dorks:p (I mean that with love). I told you all in post #6 that this was going to turn into a physics argument (which isn't a real world scenario cause like old potato said 2% lighter doesn't make you 2% faster)

So instead of trying to stop you guys from arguing, or being exposed to another Lance-gush from Tony... I just went out and rode 100km and that's going to do more for making me faster uphill than the difference in weight between those two darn bikes. :banana:

Get out there! (provided you aren't under the remnants of a blizzard)

[e-RICHIE]

Aki is da man. When I climb that Bethel hill in 2 weeks, I'll be almost 30 pounds lighter than the previous spring. Can't wait! (And I SO will not be dragging any brakes!)

What's he doing in the 3-4 race? He was doing that when I was racing twice a day at Bethel doing Masters and the Elite events. No upgrade points atmo?

[spaced_ghost]

This pretty simple to grasp:

17# bike + 170# rider = 187 lbs
26# bike + 170# rider = 196 lbs

187 is 95.4% of 196; is there a difference in required effort? Of course. Is too small to be noticed by the vast majority of people? Yes. Bike weight is a small weight % of the machine that rolls down the road..

Simplistic? Certainly and please forgive my rounding. Conveys the message though IMHO.


thank you. I like how up in arms all the people who own expensive bikes get about tests like this, which happen fairly frequently. everyone has a hissy, and then the test is forgotten. new test, new hissy fit. The fact remains that for the vast majority of cyclists, yes this most likely means you, a couple to several pounds difference in bike weight won't make a meaningful difference in performance, endurance, speed, lap times, etc. psychologically and financially, yes of course. :D


I'll never forget, when i worked in shops there was always the guy who would get super amped at me about gram differences, listing off gram weights from memory, being very aggressive about how this bike was inferior to that one because of 15 grams, etc. Without fail, that guy could stand to lose the entire weight of his bicycle off of his gut, often many times over.

[mike p]

Aki great vid's as usual, I've enjoyed them for years!

Mike

[carpediemracing]

What's he doing in the 3-4 race? He was doing that when I was racing twice a day at Bethel doing Masters and the Elite events. No upgrade points atmo?

In 2010 I lost a massive amount of weight and managed to get a Cat 2 upgrade at the end of the year. At the time we wanted to start a family and that's the first time I could upgrade to 2 (in my life). In the spring of 2010 I was doing the 3-4 and P123s - the three times I seemed destined to finish the P123s I stopped to make sure people that fell were okay. So officially I think I had all DNFs for P123s.

In 2011 with very little training it was a non-year. Cat 2s is different than Cat 3s (duh). I downgraded at the end of 2011. I placed once and that was in an M35 race.

Junior came along in March of 2012 (the day before the second Bethel race). I was struggling again. 2012 was a non-year also but this time I had an excuse.

I hope that 2013 is a bit better.

This is the 21st year of the Bethel Spring Series (previously Bethel Training Series), 20th year that I'm responsible for it. And yes I did the 3-4 races every year except 2011.

[carpediemracing]

Aki - That's you? I often wondered about the screen name.
I remember you and would never have guessed 160lbs atmo!!

When you were doing the races I was lighter. 1993 I was probably 135 lbs. By 2000 I was over 160. 2004 190-200 lbs (my mom died the year before after 3 years of fighting cancer - I didn't train much for those 3 years). I was hovering at 180-200 until 2010 when I was 155-160. Gained weight again and now I'm 175 steady.

Let me tell you sprinting up that hill at 135 or 140 is a lot easier than hitting it at 190 or 200.

[jchasse]

Gravity, it's the law.

It has more impact when the road tips up.

It actually counts when the numbers get pinned on.

In February, ride whatcha got.

That's pretty much the bottom line.

[e-RICHIE]

When you <cut>

Great to cross paths again after all these years. I reckon I did about 45,000 laps at Bethel. You must be approaching a billion atmo!

[oldpotatoe]

Yep. If we're gonna yell about physics let's set up the equation in a way that makes sense.

Wheels are a different beast. Rotational mass and aerodynamics matter more than the static weight of your frame.

AND, (helmet ON, flak jacket ON), rotational mass, where the weight is on a wheels means almost nothing. Overcoming wind resistance is the biggest obstacle..weight and where it is is way down the list.

When some mention that those carbon tubulars 'spin up really fast', methinks they are feeling the stiffness, not the light weight.

[Grant McLean]

When some mention that those carbon tubulars 'spin up really fast', methinks they are feeling the stiffness, not the light weight.

Less weight in the wallet has a way of influencing one's perception too!

-g

[oldpotatoe]

Less weight in the wallet has a way of influencing one's perception too!

-g

Yep, like this one and the one you just put on the wide rim thread...

reality, what a concept.

[carpediemracing]

AND, (helmet ON, flak jacket ON), rotational mass, where the weight is on a wheels means almost nothing. Overcoming wind resistance is the biggest obstacle..weight and where it is is way down the list.

When some mention that those carbon tubulars 'spin up really fast', methinks they are feeling the stiffness, not the light weight.

^ I'll bite.

Wheels in question: Jet 6 front / Jet 9 rear; Ardennes 18/24 spoke non-aero; Stinger 6 aero/tubular. All 2010 models, all with the same hubs, virtually the same spoke counts (Stinger has a few less in the rear), clinchers have the same tires, tubulars have 23 mm tubulars. I bought all the wheels in a short time period in early 2010.

I believed that and bought the pair of aero-but-heavier wheels thinking that they'd be reasonable for a number of situations. They included solo rides (more aero - more efficient, fast on descents, better top speed when chasing trucks), group rides (more aero, better at higher speeds), or races (more aero in races without "major" turns, no hairpins or u-turns etc, better braking in the rain). Basically I wanted wheels that were faster over 30 mph (hard efforts on flat roads), comfortably fast at 35-40 mph (lead out and sprint speeds), and easier to push along at 40-50 mph (tailwind, descents, drafting).

I figured that there'd be some sacrifice in the jump but since the jump is the only strength I have I thought that I'd sacrifice gaining a length or two when I jump for a smoother, higher, and more consistent top end.

Well it's been 3 solid seasons since I bought the Jet wheels. I almost never use them now. I stopped using the front wheel after a season, maybe 30 rides total. I use the rear wheel only when I try to justify the money I spent on it (they cost basically the same as the Stingers and twice as much as the Ardennes - if I could do it over again I'd have bought a Stinger 4 front and a Stinger 9 rear instead of the Jets).

(To help justify the Jet 6 I used it while on a trainer for two winters - yes, it was holding the front of my bike up while sitting in a front wheel block. I could look down and see the aero wheel. I'd also use the Jet 9 on the trainer.)

The problem with the heavy aero wheels - on solo rides I couldn't jump and catch trucks as they passed me at 35-40 mph. The few times I did I was so cooked from the jump that I couldn't stay in the draft as long. The only time I caught a good draft I was coasting along at 20 mph as the trucks left a red light so I had recovered a fraction before I accelerated (slowly) with the slowly accelerating truck (to to about 1:50 below).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_o8CFeGG_g
Note that in both clips I start at a light with the trucks. With the yellow truck I have a Jet 9 rear, Ardennes front. The white truck Jet 6/9.

I had no luck catching trucks that weren't at a light, else I'd have posted something. At home the few times I caught trucks they were going so slowly that it wasn't a challenge once I caught them - 30 mph or so.

I'm not debating the benefit of aero wheels. I did notice that on a descent, extremely well protected by trees so virtually windless, I went over 50 mph on the Jets just tucked/coasting. I was at the front of a group ride so I didn't want to drop them too bad - they were already well out of sight on a basically straight road. Another week I managed just 49 mph while sprinting like mad on the non-aero wheels. In that instance I started the descent at the back and ended up at the front by the bottom. I learned this because I wanted to see how much faster I was sprinting/tucking through a group (aka shelter) vs descending alone with aero wheels. I was shocked to see that I was faster coasting on aero than sprinting through shelter on non-aero.

In group rides the aero wheels handicapped me significantly. I simply couldn't accelerate hard enough to stay in the draft. Regardless of aero savings from the wheels I get much more energy savings by drafting. I cannot sacrifice the ability to get into a draft.

In races the same thing, even in races where I didn't think we jumped that hard. In other words on my race wheels I never felt like I had to jump really hard - I did so only to sprint or to attack. I never thought "wow we had to jump really hard".

On the heavy aero wheels I was wiped out within a few laps of the start. The minor accelerations were so significant that I couldn't stay sheltered and I got dropped.

I went to the Stingers and started winning field sprints in the same races, against the same people, in similar wind situations.

I even used the Ardennes to win a field sprint, same people, same venue, etc.

I relate this weight effect to a group ride we did on the tandem. It was the first group ride with single bikes and what I discovered is that I do short, sharp downstrokes to close small gaps. Literally one strong(er) downstroke to close a few inches gap, then soft pedal. I learned this because on the tandem (combined weight in the 380 lbs range) it felt like I was stomping on the pavement with my foot - I'd do that short, sharp downstroke but the pedal didn't move. After a few of these I realized that I must do this when I'm on my own but the bike/rider unit responds much quicker so I wasn't aware of it. On the tandem we got shelled in about 15-20 minutes, bridged on briefly on a longer flatter section of road, then got shelled for real after that. Instead of one short, sharp downstroke it took 3-4-5 seconds of effort to close a foot or two gap, big efforts for me.

Any time I tried to use my expensive Jet 6/9 combo I found myself struggling. Cognitive dissonance says that I should have ridden better on them - I really wanted to believe that aero > weight, I spent a lot of money on the wheels, they're built around the same hubs/spokes as my other sets of HEDs, and I think they look really cool.

However, in real life, with limited power, I learned the hard way that if I can't get to (or stay in) shelter, if I have to accelerate significantly heavier wheels then I can't ride as well.

As an illustration the Jet 9 is 600g heavier than the rear Stinger 6 (as used - with tire, cassette, QR). I didn't even weigh the fronts, and they have the same hubs and spokes so it was mainly in the rim/tires/etc.

I have a kind of odd power profile. I'm really weak in sustained efforts - my best ever 40k/25mi TT was at 23.5 mph with a disk wheel, aero helmet, 24" front wheel, skinsuit, etc. I'm in the worst 5-10 in a race on a hill or in a TT. Once I got 3rd last in an 8 mi TT - I beat a guy who got hit by a truck and broke his leg. I also beat a guy that flatted shortly after starting and rode the rest of the TT on a flat tire. My FTP power is Cat 5 or "untrained".

On the other hand I have a good jump. I'm no longer top 5 or whatever in a given sprint situation but I have good peak, 5s, 10s, and 18s power (18 second because that's how long I usually sprint). My power in those ranges are Cat 2 - domestic pro.

Someone who has a higher FTP (like say twice mine) may find aero wheels to be suitable. Steady accelerations suit them better, able to close 1-3 foot gaps without going into the red, powerful enough to TT at 28 mph... that sounds like it should work. A TT rider would be good on them too, steady speeds, all about aero, less about the jump.

For me though the Jets are no good - too heavy. In fact they're for sale. To complement the Stinger 6s I bought a Stinger 7 front and a Stinger 9 rear for 2013. I want to sell the Jets. I dislike them that much.

[Hls2k6]

Cool post, Aki. How much of your sprint wattage were you gifted with & how much were you able to develop?

I ask because I have pretty much the polar opposite profile of you. Last season was my first back to racing since juniors 15+ years ago (in fact, my first races back were Bethel Cat 5's). A goal for this season is to gather points for a Cat 3 upgrade.

As I trained with power this winter, I was surprised how good my FTP is: over 4.2 w/kg. At the same time, my 5s power is atrocious. After 2.5 months that included sprint intervals twice a week, I'm still well under 15 w/kg. I know I'll never be Cavendish, but I'd sure love to improve to a respectable ability! Is there hope?

[carpediemracing]

Cool post, Aki. How much of your sprint wattage were you gifted with & how much were you able to develop?

I ask because I have pretty much the polar opposite profile of you. Last season was my first back to racing since juniors 15+ years ago (in fact, my first races back were Bethel Cat 5's). A goal for this season is to gather points for a Cat 3 upgrade.

As I trained with power this winter, I was surprised how good my FTP is: over 4.2 w/kg. At the same time, my 5s power is atrocious. After 2.5 months that included sprint intervals twice a week, I'm still well under 15 w/kg. I know I'll never be Cavendish, but I'd sure love to improve to a respectable ability! Is there hope?

Unfortunately I'm a firm believer that peak wattage is genetic. I couldn't climb when I was 103 lbs (3 years after I started racing), I couldn't climb when I was 112 lbs (7 years after I started racing), etc.

However at 112 lbs, using a Cateye that was calibrated about as well as I could measure my tires, I could hit 42 mph from a standing start in my top gear (no shifting - something Steve Bauer said he does so I went and did it too).

When I got my power meter I was both disappointed and pleased. At 1550w I was well below the peaks that other local riders reported (including a Cat 5). At the same time I was over the max power for a local leg breaker Cat 1 (1250w or so) and apparently Floyd Landis (1300w?).

What was even more interesting was what I saw in the races. I only ever hit my best peak numbers in training. In races I rarely break 1200w peak. I won a sprint at a Tues Night race, shortened by rain (so the group was together), leading out the sprint and winning it. I peaked at just over 900w in that one. At Bethel I can win a field sprint without breaking 1200w. In 2010 I was hitting 1100w peak most of the time, sustaining 1000-1050w for the 18 second sprint.

So to repeat I think peak power can't really be developed, at least not doing whatever I did.

However, and this is key, I think you can develop the time you hold high power. So pretty much any time I get on the bike I hit 1200w, pulling away from a stop sign or whatever. It's easy to do if I'm accelerating hard. When unfit I hit that peak and quickly drop in power. My 5s power might be 600w, my 20s 400w.

In race sprints where I was good I've held 1100w average for 18 seconds. So my peak power might be 1250 or something but I'm putting down close to that power for almost 20 seconds.

The thing is I don't train that much, not any more. I think that if I trained for it I would be more fresh for the finish and therefore I could hit higher numbers. I'm guessing, based on stuff I've done in the last few years, that I should be able to peak at 1400w and sustain 1200-1250w for 20-22 seconds. I think when I was younger I was not doing much more power, I was just lighter. I was 135-145 racing weight for about 10 years, 40-ish lbs lighter than I am now and 60-70 lbs lighter than I was in 2003-2004. My jump used to be pretty good - I'd be shocked if I didn't get 2-3 lengths on everyone when I jumped - but now it's mediocre at best (in one sprint in 2011 I didn't pass a single person).

So how to develop "sustained high power"?

The best thing I ever did for my sprint was the Tues Night Sprints at SUNY Purchase. There'd be 80-100+ racers, Cat 1-4, 2 mi loop, 1 mi was neutral, 1 mi was whatever you wanted to do to the line. It took about 7-8 minutes to do a loop (5-6 minutes slow, 2 minutes fast), and we went there as a team. I could count on 2-5 lead out guys for the mile and they'd launch me at 38-40 mph. Even without the leadout guys I could win the sprint, starting 10 or 15 back. I'd do 30 laps on a long night, contesting 15-18 sprints (usually I'd contest every other one and if one felt "easy" I'd contest the next).

I don't think that my jump improved at all - that's that peak power. However I could go from much further out, 300m into a bad wind, I could jump twice or three times, and I could contest 15 or 18 sprints instead of just 8 or 10. I was much more effective as a sprinter at that point.

So that's how to develop longer term power.

There's also the whole "how to beat a sprinter" thing. I detail a few ideas here:
http://sprinterdellacasa.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-to-beat-sprinter.html

Consider yourself fortunate. FTP is also something that is basically genetic (except for doping). My FTP is in the 210-220w range; I struggle to hold 290w for 5 minutes. Even a very optimistic coach won't expect me to gain 40% more power to hit a somewhat respectable 300w FTP. I certainly won't be a 400w time trailer (almost 100% increase in FTP).

I'm limited because of this. On a windswept course it takes about 300w for me to sit in when it's single file. In one flat/windy race a local Cat 1 went to the front for about 4 minutes, doing something like 30 mph avg. I was hanging on for dear life, using every trick I could remember to get shelter, balancing efforts with shelter, etc. The Cat 1 pulled off and drifted back into the group, ending up next to me. He glanced over at me and rolled back to the front. He drilled it again. I was gone in 3 or 4 more laps, I don't remember, absolutely cooked.

A couple laps later he eased and sat up. By then I was out of the race.

I may have a jump but I have to get to the finish of a race fresh and able to use it. I've never ever won a race in the actual season (May-August) in 30 seasons of racing. I've won races in March, April, September, October but not the ones where everyone is on form. It's because those races overwhelm my FTP and make it almost impossible for me to sprint.

I've even sat up in "sprinter's races" because the sprint started with a 2 mile stint at 32-35 mph as the field wound itself up. I've literally raised a hand and moved out of line because I was toasted with half a lap to go. In other races I just hold position knowing that I probably won't be able to jump.

That stuff takes FTP.

And once you're a Cat 2 then it's all about FTP. There is no "sit in and sprint" because a break always goes up the road. It's almost always like that with Masters too, because the good guys are 1s and 2s. The 3s still chase everything down but I've seen breaks succeed because all the sprinters look at each other.

A sprint where I couldn't sprint because I was cooked (and I was on fire that year, earning an upgrade to Cat 2 for the first time ever):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey2zLZwm1w4

Another where I really couldn't sprint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCQSH8JPYiA

Early exit with 2 turns to go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIWQVXLXzi8

A "sprinter's race" where there was a break of 4 up the road (and the guy that led out the sprint crashed himself, taking out the front of the field):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4v93qbn6J4

[Hls2k6]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I enjoyed the article on beating sprinters, and I'll definitely check out the rest of your blogs on the subjects of sprinting and training.

I'm glad to hear the sustained peak is trainable, because it's a massive area of weakness for me. I weigh 172, and on a trainer I can't quite hit 1100w, although I do a tad better on the road where I can throw the bike around. The even-bigger problem is that I can't sustain it for squat. I've been doing 20 second efforts, and my average for those is sub-800w (sub 700 by the 3rd interval). I am at peak for 5s or a bit longer, fading pretty badly by 10s, and literally not doing anything by 17 or 18s. That's better than it was (I used to have to all-but sit up at 12 or 13s), but I've got a long, long ways to go.

Thanks also for the kind words about the advantage of a good FTP. Unfortunately, I don't think Cat 2 is ever going to be in the cards for me, at 38, with a new baby and a career no less. At least now I have a reason to shoot for it, and an excuse to do the safer masters races in a couple years. Unfortunately also, my home situation means limited training time so I'm targeting sub-2-hour events, which means crits and events that favor the quick. But that is what it is, and I'll do the best with what I've got whenever I can. I like the point about getting so far ahead that they can't be there to sprint, and that's gonna be my plan!

Thanks again. See you in a couple weeks.

-Mike

[oldpotatoe]

Get's the award for best and fastest typist.

[carpediemracing]

Get's the award for best and fastest typist.

Ha! I worked on my typing for many years and had a typing-only (no mouse) IT support job for a number of years. I recently gave tips to a rider who wondered how I typed so much crap so quickly. My typing pales in comparison to an ex that went to secretarial school. 90 wpm no errors, so 90x5 characters in 60 seconds. 7.5 keys a second with no errors, includes numbers and grammar, gobbledygook etc. The first time I heard her typing I thought she was playing a game where you had to hit keys as fast as possible, sounded more like a whrrrr than a tap-tap-tap-tap.

[oldpotatoe]

Ha! I worked on my typing for many years and had a typing-only (no mouse) IT support job for a number of years. I recently gave tips to a rider who wondered how I typed so much crap so quickly. My typing pales in comparison to an ex that went to secretarial school. 90 wpm no errors, so 90x5 characters in 60 seconds. 7.5 keys a second with no errors, includes numbers and grammar, gobbledygook etc. The first time I heard her typing I thought she was playing a game where you had to hit keys as fast as possible, sounded more like a whrrrr than a tap-tap-tap-tap.

I could lose 8 of my 10 fingers and still type.

[carpediemracing]

<snip>

on a trainer I can't quite hit 1100w

<snip>

Most trainers (all the ones I've tried anyway) really don't support more than about 1080w (somehow I seem to hit that number). I think there's two problems - you can't rock the bike properly and the roller/tire interface is too slippery.

I find myself rocking the bike backwards on a normal trainer. This was disconcerting enough that I am modding a trainer to resemble the Kurt Rock N Roll whatever rocking trainer.

For tire slipping I tried mounting a second resistance unit, a RacerMate1 that mounts on the seat post and adds wind resistance. I couldn't get it to work well plus I normally don't do sprints indoors so I gave it up for now. I may try it when I have my mutated CycleOps back in action.

With decent FTP you have a much broader set of races you can do. Also you'll tend to finish the ones that folks like me don't finish. Finally you have a real chance at getting into breaks and such. The key will be to ride efficiently, sheltered, until you decide to make a move. Then make an absolutely decisive move. You probably saw the M40 race I recently posted but it's a great illustration of the on/off nature of Masters races. They either wait or they go, and when they go they really go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxtdxGeB_Cw

Also I make only one move in the race other than the sprint. It didn't work, mainly because I was thinking too much, but you can see it was a decisive move.

[Chance]

AND, (helmet ON, flak jacket ON), rotational mass, where the weight is on a wheels means almost nothing. Overcoming wind resistance is the biggest obstacle..weight and where it is is way down the list.

When some mention that those carbon tubulars 'spin up really fast', methinks they are feeling the stiffness, not the light weight.

Good one. Rotational mass is very easy to calculate and to convert to stationary mass equivalent. Differences in typical wheels compared to the total mass of bike plus rider is always very small. And even then it only affects a bike changing speed. While climbing it may not even make any difference at all. It's simple physics. We can't change it just because we'd like to.

[palincss]

Differences in typical wheels compared to the total mass of bike plus rider is always very small. And even then it only affects a bike changing speed. While climbing it may not even make any difference at all. It's simple physics. We can't change it just because we'd like to.

It's not all simple physics. These physics discussions all have the unstated assumption that "all else remains equal," but it never does. The "engine" is more important in all this than simple weights and measures regarding the frame, and the engine is anything but a constant. Not only does a rider's power vary from way to day, it varies from minute to minute and hour to hour; and that power output does not occur in a vacuum, there's an interaction between the rider and the bike. Some bikes simply let you work harder and better than others do.

[luno]

It's not all simple physics. These physics discussions all have the unstated assumption that "all else remains equal," but it never does. The "engine" is more important in all this than simple weights and measures regarding the frame, and the engine is anything but a constant. Not only does a rider's power vary from way to day, it varies from minute to minute and hour to hour; and that power output does not occur in a vacuum, there's an interaction between the rider and the bike. Some bikes simply let you work harder and better than others do.

yep, the rider is the real issue. upgrades are small improvements in performance, but they snowball - lighter bike means slightly lower average power output needed to sustain same speed...stiffer bike means less power needed to accelerate...better fit means easier to generate more power. etc. etc. on their own these things may not have much of an effect but together they make a noticeable difference.

[dd74]

I just went out and rode 100km and that's going to do more for making me faster uphill than the difference in weight between those two darn bikes. :banana:
'Tis true, really.

[oldpotatoe]

Good one. Rotational mass is very easy to calculate and to convert to stationary mass equivalent. Differences in typical wheels compared to the total mass of bike plus rider is always very small. And even then it only affects a bike changing speed. While climbing it may not even make any difference at all. It's simple physics. We can't change it just because we'd like to.

Grazie. I read a study done over a decade ago by Bike.com...measured the energy it took to spin up a rim that weighed a certain amount, then one weighing twice that weight..and it was in the range of .1 of 1% difference in energy.

[Chance]

It's not all simple physics. These physics discussions all have the unstated assumption that "all else remains equal," but it never does. The "engine" is more important in all this than simple weights and measures regarding the frame, and the engine is anything but a constant. Not only does a rider's power vary from way to day, it varies from minute to minute and hour to hour; and that power output does not occur in a vacuum, there's an interaction between the rider and the bike. Some bikes simply let you work harder and better than others do.

When reading my textbooks they don't state that we should apply laws of physics one way when we are having a good cycling day and another way when having a bad cycling day.

Looking at it another way, a 19 pound bike weighs two pounds more than a 17 pound bike whether the rider is strong or weak, male or female, happy or depressed, and so on. You get the point. The two-pound difference is not a function of what is happening between the rider's ears. We may all sense that 2-pounds differently but it's still 2 pounds.

You can include all kinds of "human factors" into the discussion, but they don't affect physical facts. They are what they are. No more and no less. And in the case of bike wheel rotational mass/inertia, it's a simple number to calculate. Once there, you can apply all kinds of human factors to it, but it won't change the physics of it one tiny bit. So to me it is very simple because we don't need to make it more complicated than necessary. Human factors are another discussion entirely.

[fourflys]

Good reply from Jan here...
http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/laws-of-physics/

[Hls2k6]

Most trainers (all the ones I've tried anyway) really don't support more than about 1080w (somehow I seem to hit that number). I think there's two problems - you can't rock the bike properly and the roller/tire interface is too slippery.

I find myself rocking the bike backwards on a normal trainer. This was disconcerting enough that I am modding a trainer to resemble the Kurt Rock N Roll whatever rocking trainer.

For tire slipping I tried mounting a second resistance unit, a RacerMate1 that mounts on the seat post and adds wind resistance. I couldn't get it to work well plus I normally don't do sprints indoors so I gave it up for now. I may try it when I have my mutated CycleOps back in action.

With decent FTP you have a much broader set of races you can do. Also you'll tend to finish the ones that folks like me don't finish. Finally you have a real chance at getting into breaks and such. The key will be to ride efficiently, sheltered, until you decide to make a move. Then make an absolutely decisive move. You probably saw the M40 race I recently posted but it's a great illustration of the on/off nature of Masters races. They either wait or they go, and when they go they really go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxtdxGeB_Cw

Also I make only one move in the race other than the sprint. It didn't work, mainly because I was thinking too much, but you can see it was a decisive move.

Thanks bro. I've seen almost all your vids, including that one. I appreciate all the info very much. Now to put it to use!!

[stuckey]

Good reply from Jan here...
http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/laws-of-physics/

Holy ****!!! 2% and 5% gains in power by switching bikes... I need a different bike instead of wasting time doing intervals.

[dd74]

When reading my textbooks they don't state that we should apply laws of physics one way when we are having a good cycling day and another way when having a bad cycling day.

Looking at it another way, a 19 pound bike weighs two pounds more than a 17 pound bike whether the rider is strong or weak, male or female, happy or depressed, and so on. You get the point. The two-pound difference is not a function of what is happening between the rider's ears. We may all sense that 2-pounds differently but it's still 2 pounds.

You can include all kinds of "human factors" into the discussion, but they don't affect physical facts. They are what they are. No more and no less. And in the case of bike wheel rotational mass/inertia, it's a simple number to calculate. Once there, you can apply all kinds of human factors to it, but it won't change the physics of it one tiny bit. So to me it is very simple because we don't need to make it more complicated than necessary. Human factors are another discussion entirely.
Actually, I agree with you here. If I follow you correctly, the psyche plays a huge part in "the difference." And at some points, yeah, the 22 lbs bike feels just like the 17 lbs bike, maybe better. But I bet if the hill were really long and really steep, even with a rider who's psyche is good, the elation will wear off fast toward the detriment of that 5 lbs increase.

[Grant McLean]

The two-pound difference is not a function of what is happening between the rider's ears.

Clearly you've never looked down and been surprised that you weren't
in the chainring you thought you were. 90% of cycling happens between
your ears.

-g

[Mark McM]

Holy ****!!! 2% and 5% gains in power by switching bikes... I need a different bike instead of wasting time doing intervals.

I can't vouch for Jan Heine's conclusion in this case, but the concept behind it not without precedent in the bicycle world.

Tests have repeatedly shown that cyclists don't generate as much power when bodies are bent forward forward and low and with their arms pulled together in front of them (i.e. riding with aerobars in aero-tuck position), as compared to a more normal road riding position. But the aero position is faster, because there is greater decrease in drag than there is a decrease in power generation.

[William]

This is the type of thread that has 15 pages and then locked written all over it. Some weight weenie (like I am with one of my bikes) will come on and argue physics - which certainly says you have more weight to lift up a hill... therefore the heavier bike will be slower, which is totally true (in a physics experiment!)

The thing is, unless you're riding the TdF, which we're not, or in a very serious race at your level, I don't know anyone who climbs at their max power and then finishes at the top and gets shuttled home in a team bus.

So, if you can theoretically produce, let's say 300watts on climb A, and you ride it at 220W on your 17lb lynsky.... you ride it at 232W on your 26lb rando, and all is equal.

Real world there is almost no difference, you just turn the screw a touch harder.

Very few people climb at snot dripping, blood tasting, tunnel vision, puke on the toptube, do-this-or-lose-this output. Because it hurts too much. And if you do and aren't racing, you're just going to give yourself a heart attack.

So ride all the bikes you like and don't sweat a few pounds (certainly not a few grams) between them.

Or go out and do 30 minutes of intervals with each of all your different bikes at snot-blood-tunnel-puke output and see for yourself.... oh, don't forget to have fun with that.


A difference of a few pounds is not a big difference, a difference of 20 or more is another issue.

I think it boils down to tempo. Everyone has an average tempo that they ride on any given terrain (unless you're out doing puke inducing intervals;) ). What ever bike you are on, you'll gravitate toward riding at your normal tempo. Doing hills on two different bikes, even though one may be a few pounds heavier, it's not enough of a difference to overcome your preference to ride at your average tempo. Thus no real perceived difference in output and similar times to get to the top of a given climb or route.

Just my $.02 (worth what you payed for it :D )





William

[Ti Designs]

Red bikes are fast.
Blue bikes are strong.
If you think it's about weight,
you're probably wrong.

[fourflys]

A difference of a few pounds is not a big difference, a difference of 20 or more is another issue.

I think it boils down to tempo. Everyone has an average tempo that they ride on any given terrain (unless you're out doing puke inducing intervals;) ). What ever bike you are on, you'll gravitate toward riding at your normal tempo. Doing hills on two different bikes, even though one may be a few pounds heavier, it's not enough of a difference to overcome your preference to ride at your average tempo. Thus no real perceived difference in output and similar times to get to the top of a given climb or route.

Just my $.02 (worth what you payed for it :D )





William

Careful, that's almost logical and you know that doesn't make for a fun argument... ;)

[William]

Careful, that's almost logical and you know that doesn't make for a fun argument... ;)

My head hurts now.;)





William

[soulspinner]

'Tis true, really.

On group rides from the bike shop years ago myself and another employee rode steel (read heavy) bikes and all the young studs with 15 pound carbon bikes would always try getting rid of us early. Thing is they never were with us at the end of the weekly 52 miler. We usually were gone before they hit the parking lot. When one of em asked me how I did it at my age I said I ride my bike a lot............:rolleyes:

[MadRocketSci]

new test: ride both bikes around a loop with climbs until exhaustion/collapse and/or death...compare and contrast total distance ridden, unless death was achieved in first test.

curious about the results!

[Chance]

Clearly you've never looked down and been surprised that you weren't
in the chainring you thought you were. 90% of cycling happens between
your ears.

-g

Even if we assumed that 100 % of cycling happens between the ears, it doesn’t preclude the physical world around us from following its rules. They are not negotiable and we can’t will them away.

If you flat there is nearly a 100% chance air will escape and pressure will eventually go to 0 PSI.
If your chain breaks there is 100% chance that you can’t transfer pedal power to the rear wheel to continue a climb.
And if your carbon fork suddenly snaps there is nearly a 100% chance you’ll end up on your head.

Physics dictates these things and we can’t will them away. So why is it so hard to differentiate and segregate between physics and mental stuff? It shouldn’t be that hard in my opinion. They each have their place. Besides, in many cases those who argue against the laws of physics not being right or applicable seem to be making a case for themselves being superior in some way. As if they are above normal laws of nature. Let’s face it, does anyone really think that they can climb as fast on a heavier bike when everything else is equal?:no:



By the way Grant, not sure what to make of your comment above. Misjudging which ring one is riding isn’t that big a deal, is it? Often a rider can be in a bigger gear in the small ring and vice versa. Can’t relate your example well to this “physics” discussion.:confused:

[MadRocketSci]

for the techies...

I deal with feedback control systems a lot. When we do designs we have to "tune the gains" so that the controller and the system to be controlled (aka the "plant") are working in harmony, such that desirable performance characteristics are optimized. I think of the bike and rider as an extension of this idea. Sensations, in the form of vibrational frequencies, stiffness, lightness, weather, state of rest, etc all have an effect on the rider (aka the actuator or effector) and his/her output via feedback from the plant (bike).

In this situation, the rider is the fixed entity, so the way to optimize overall performance is to tune the physics of the plant. I can believe that the lightest plant may not achieve the optimal solution.

[stuckey]

I can't vouch for Jan Heine's conclusion in this case, but the concept behind it not without precedent in the bicycle world.

Tests have repeatedly shown that cyclists don't generate as much power when bodies are bent forward forward and low and with their arms pulled together in front of them (i.e. riding with aerobars in aero-tuck position), as compared to a more normal road riding position. But the aero position is faster, because there is greater decrease in drag than there is a decrease in power generation.

Yes, but we are talking close to the same riding positions here, not aerobars or in the drops. I just find it funny how Jan seems to always be right when he tests his assumptions. I want to put a pro on a fendered 650b Reynolds 531 standard gauge 7-4-7 frame and watch his walk away from the field like he just shot up a speedball.

[William]

Because a bike is powered by a human?

There are physics truisms that most certainly apply. But within a range (the range of a few pounds being discussed here), how much they matter to a human is dictated by what happens by the humans physical and mental power. Sure, going up a hill with a bike that is a few pounds heavier takes more energy, there is no doubt about it. It's a heavier weight to move. So why is it that they find that the relative times were the same? Because mentally and physically the test subject tries to ride them in the same way (see my tempo post above). If you kept increasing the weight there will become a point where that difference can't be overcome and you will end up with slower times. To really show a difference you would probably need to have the person at the threshold of what they can do. Pushed so far (on the line between bonking and steady pace) that they have nothing in reserve to really show an appreciable difference. The problem is, no one really rides that way. Even pros need to have energy to cross the line without blowing up. The average rider rarely pushes too far into that painful envelope. For the average rider a few pounds is a non-issue.

The reality is there. How we perceive it and how it effects us (to a point) is the human element. That's the hard part to account for when testing something humans are involved in.




William

[zennmotion]

A difference of a few pounds is not a big difference, a difference of 20 or more is another issue.

I think it boils down to tempo. Everyone has an average tempo that they ride on any given terrain (unless you're out doing puke inducing intervals;) ). What ever bike you are on, you'll gravitate toward riding at your normal tempo. Doing hills on two different bikes, even though one may be a few pounds heavier, it's not enough of a difference to overcome your preference to ride at your average tempo. Thus no real perceived difference in output and similar times to get to the top of a given climb or route.

Just my $.02 (worth what you payed for it :D )

William
Yeah, that makes sense- while I appreciate Jan Heine's challenge of current orthodoxy, his various road tests fall short of the mark of randomized rigor- although they can sometimes "plane" as thought provoking reading. I have nice heavy bikes and nice light bikes and although it's been a few years since I pinned a number on for a road race, I think there is a difference but it's also not very important physically. Psychologically when you're in the pain cave may be a different story- although if you're thinking about the weight of your bike in those moments you're probably focused on the wrong thing. I think weight matters in a few situations- eg when you're at your limit in an all out sprint, and in the red zone on a climb (in my case avoiding getting stuck in no-man's land). Those can be important moments for a racer at the sharp end of the peloton. But even those could be perception more than substance. As for 99% of the time when you're not racing at your limit, well, you know, whatever.

[palincss]

Physics dictates these things and we can’t will them away. So why is it so hard to differentiate and segregate between physics and mental stuff? It shouldn’t be that hard in my opinion. They each have their place. Besides, in many cases those who argue against the laws of physics not being right or applicable seem to be making a case for themselves being superior in some way. As if they are above normal laws of nature. Let’s face it, does anyone really think that they can climb as fast on a heavier bike when everything else is equal?:no:


The "physics" that's been thrown about in this discussion assumes all else being equal, but all else is clearly NOT equal with the powerplant -- and not psychological or placebo effects, but rather biomechanical factors.

Someone's already linked to Jan's current blog posting, that discusses this very issue, but let me quote from it here:


In the last issue of Bicycle Quarterly, we compared the performance of a 17-pound titanium racing bike and of a 26-pound steel randonneur bike. We were surprised when both bikes climbed at the same speed in a set of controlled experiments. Others shared our surprise, but added: “That cannot be true. Physics require that the heavier bike climbs slower.”

Having ridden the bikes myself, I know that their performance was evenly matched. And as a scientist, I also know that this result does not contradict the laws of physics.

Our critics assume a constant power output. If we always put out 600 Watts during these climbs, then any added weight will slow us down, all other things being equal. And an extra 9 pounds is significant enough that it should be measurable. There is little disagreement on this.

And yet the two bikes did climb at the same speed, despite their different weights. It’s clear then that our power output was not constant. On one bike, we were able to put out slightly more power than on the other – just enough extra power to equalize the weight handicap.


-- http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/laws-of-physics/

[fourflys]

No one is debating the laws of physics on here... Just the human factor, which is changing by the second and is never fixed... ever...