racing bike dynamics

[r_mutt]

i'm new to the world of bike racing, and thus far, what i've gleaned from scouring the internet message boards concerning racing bikes is that stiffer is better. stiffer frames transfer power better than flexy frames as frame flex wastes energy. most point to aluminum frames as being stiffer and lighter than steel- therefore better for racing. carbon fiber, even stiffer and lighter than aluminum, theoretically is an even better material for frame construction. the bikes of the peleton bear this out.

now my question is, are steel frames stiff enough to be considered competitive race bikes? to make steel bikes as stiff as aluminum or carbon fiber, do builders have to make them so heavy as to render them uncompetitive weight-wise?

the reason i ask this often debated topic is that i have 2 modern-ish steel bikes that i bought with the intention of doing long solo and group rides. i didn't buy these with racing in mind but while i was building one of them up, i got interested in racing. the two bikes in question are a newly finished mondonico and an unbuilt merckx corsa 01.

part of me wants to race one of them while the other part says to find a cheapish scandium frame and build that up for racing. ideally, i'd like to race one of the frames i already have (easier on the wallet), but i also would want to have the best possible platform for racing that i could afford. the price of carbon frames eliminates them from contention.

all things being equal, would the relative stiffness of scandium offer more performance over a well-built steel frame? does the weight of the steel frames hinder performance?

i know this is somewhat of a newbie question, but i never have gotten a straight answer- i usually get typical canned answers such as "lose 5 pounds" or "train harder" or the "it's the engine that matters". we all know that all of that makes a difference, but if the engine was the same for all of these types of frames, which would be best?

thanks-

[kerrycycle]

From one racer (cat 3) to a new one...

Any of the materials listed is acceptable. At the end of the day, ride what you like. With any bike of any material, you have to be choosy about what you are looking for with regards to build quality, geometry. Weight & stiffness can often be tradeoffs. However, keep in mind that ride quality is just as important. If you do a race on a bike that beats you up for 2 hours, you will have less energy for the finale, especially compared with the other gunners in the pack.

Steel: It can be heavier, but you can find very good quality steel frames are sufficiently stiff and light. Your bike does not have to be sub-17 lb to be a race bike. The right mix of components and wheels can bring a steel bike below the 16-lb point. There are a number of great builders out there making quality steel frames that can be used for racing. In fact, a Serotta CDA can be custom built for racing with the stiffness & geometry needed.

Carbon: Pros are paid to ride carbon by the companies themselves. Some pros still train on aluminum bikes and only race the carbon. Lower grade carbon frames can be soft & flexy. If engineered right, a carbon frame is a dream, but it is not the end all. I currently ride carbon & have had thoughts of going back to aluminum.

Aluminum: Great material, however there are two drawbacks: 1) the ride has a tendency to be more harsh than steel or carbon 2) Aluminum frames have a lifetime of 3-5 years (although Cannondale seems to defy this trend). The rougher ride can be easily addressed by good quality carbon stays, fork, seatpost, & wheels. With regards to lifetime, just be prepared for the frame to soften over time and, if you ride it hard over time, it will likely fail at some point. I literally peeled my downtube away from the bottle cage-bosses last year and have seen others with similar failures.

At the end of the day it comes down to choice. Get a quality bike from a quality builder and you cannot go wrong.

[stevep]

the real answer is the bike does not matter in racing.

decent bike, decent fit. thats all thats important.

[Climb01742]

as usual, stevep nails it.

the "fastest" bike is the one that fits best. when going hardest, even the smallest niggles of fit bug you the most. find the bike that fits you the best, regardless of material.

[Grant McLean]

the real answer is the bike does not matter in racing.

decent bike, decent fit. thats all thats important.

holy cow. the omerta has been exploded.

-g

[J.Greene]

holy cow. the omerta has been exploded.

-g

I thought we made a promise not to tell anyone.

JG

[Fixed]

bro a merckx corsa with good wheels is all the bike any racer needs
imho
cheers

[mike p]

+1 any weight penalty will be negligible. I've race a big tube AL. and old steel all the time, no diff. in results (stink on both).

Mike



bro a merckx corsa with good wheels is all the bike any racer needs
imho
cheers

[RPS]

The effect of adding 1 or 2 pounds to a bike is very hard to measure. The best that can be done in my opinion is to acknowledge the potential differences when absolutely everything else is the same (and I know they never are).

Your question is like trying to figure out how much more fuel a 747 burns if you add an extra passenger across the Atlantic. How would you ever measure it since other variations like wind conditions, temperature, engine efficiency, etc… would far exceed the difference if you made multiple flights to compare? Comparing different flights would be pointless, as would be comparing results from different bike races – particularly since the bikes used likely did not meet your “everything else being equal” criterion.

The only thing that can be done as a “theoretical exercise” is figure out what the incremental impact of weight is on performance. Beyond that it’s speculation.

Basically weight is mostly a factor when climbing, and to a lesser degree when accelerating.

Assuming the difference between a light and heavy frameset to be in the order of about 1% range – probably less – then we can deduce that the greatest possible gain is also in the 1% range when climbing a long and steep grade.

If you race on flats or are a natural climber who doesn’t get dropped on climbs, then it’s doubtful a 1% disadvantage will often make a difference. On the other hand if you are already putting out all the power you can, you may lose 50 feet in a mile-long climb; which may be enough to do you in.

[Louis]

Basically weight is mostly a factor when climbing, and to a lesser degree when accelerating.

And when descending!!! You should see how I blast past those featherweight guys on the downhills. (Assuming they did not get too far ahead of me on the climbs, which they usually do.)

Mostly because drag is non-linear, in net, weight costs you more than you gain on the down side, but it is fun to every now and then to pass them on the way down.

[RPS]

Louis, maybe that's why so many skinny climbers like those tall 53/11 gears -- so they can pedal hard at 40+ MPH to keep up on the way down. :)

[Too Tall]

Your inclination to buy an decent good fitting race bike are all you need. The rest is up to you and am not dismissing your question. Race for a yr. and than think about tuning your game. Cannondales AND good old well made steel classic bikes are common in local racing here. I coach a cat 3 who keeps a classic steel Marinoni at my house for when he is in town...he can't decide what's a better race bike...that or his uber duber Cannondale systemSix. Hope that helps.

[Peter P.]

"...stiffer frames transfer power better than flexy frames as frame flex wastes energy."

...most point to aluminum frames as being stiffer and lighter than steel- therefore better for racing. carbon fiber, even stiffer and lighter than aluminum, theoretically is an even better material for frame construction. the bikes of the peleton bear this out. "

Stiffer is NOT necessarily better. You DO need some shock absorption or the frame will beat you up on rides. That's why cars have suspension.

"now my question is, are steel frames stiff enough to be considered competitive race bikes?"

Let me answer this statement this way: A training series was held this spring in my area. My close friend WON the series, placing no lower than 4th in any individual race. His was the ONLY steel frame in the field. Does that mean all the other racers had frames of inadequate material?

"to make steel bikes as stiff as aluminum or carbon fiber, do builders have to make them so heavy as to render them uncompetitive weight-wise?"

No; they can increase tube diameters, which will provide greater increases in stiffness per increase in weight.

all things being equal, would the relative stiffness of scandium offer more performance over a well-built steel frame? does the weight of the steel frames hinder performance?

No; ALL current frame materials, and their designs, are more than adequate for bike racing. Changing from one material to another will not magically turn you from pack fodder into podium contender.

"...i know this is somewhat of a newbie question, but i never have gotten a straight answer- i usually get typical canned answers such as "lose 5 pounds" or "train harder" or the "it's the engine that matters". we all know that all of that makes a difference, but if the engine was the same for all of these types of frames, which would be best?"

There is no BEST material. Use the material that you prefer and can afford. Fit and construction are the overarching qualities of importance.

As to the weight issues that concern you, think about it this way: a full waterbottle weighs about 2.5 pounds. In your next race, try this: throw away your full waterbottle, and see if it vaults you to the front of the field. Now that you're at the front of the pack, when the sprint winds up, throw away your second waterbottle and see if the newly lost weight magically launches you to victory.

There's too much going on in a bike race for weight and stiffness to make a REAL difference. Steel is a fine material for bike frames. Your Mondonico or Merckx will make a wonderful racing bike. It IS the engine.

[J.Greene]

[QUOTE=Peter P
As to the weight issues that concern you, think about it this way: a full waterbottle weighs about 2.5 pounds. In your next race, try this: throw away your full waterbottle, and see if it vaults you to the front of the field. Now that you're at the front of the pack, when the sprint winds up, throw away your second waterbottle and see if the newly lost weight magically launches you to victory.
[/QUOTE]


I know your just throwing out a hypo because the answer is obvious, but USA cycling has a new "pack in pack out rule". Unless you drop that bottle in a feed zone you must finish with it.

JG

[brians647]

No; ALL current frame materials, and their designs, are more than adequate for bike racing. Changing from one material to another will not magically turn you from pack fodder into podium contender.

the change won't even move you up a single place at the finish, let alone change you as a rider.

As to the weight issues that concern you, think about it this way: a full waterbottle weighs about 2.5 pounds. In your next race, try this: throw away your full waterbottle, and see if it vaults you to the front of the field. Now that you're at the front of the pack, when the sprint winds up, throw away your second waterbottle and see if the newly lost weight magically launches you to victory.

I use the water bottle theory too. I find it impossible to tell if I have 0,1, or 2 full water bottles without looking down - so how important can gram counting be?

[ada@prorider.or]

Well you can ride a bike of 20.000$ and i still beat you when my legs are better then yours.
In otherwords any bike is good enough as long you have the best legs.
The stiffnes come's in when you climb are sprinting and surge then when you chain rubs to the front derr . or even begin shifting on it own,
when thats not the case do not worry ,only for your legs.

Well of course a good stiff bike is really nice ,but if you race the legs are the only thing to worry about and of course your competitors.
:banana:

[Pete Serotta]

;)


Well you can ride a bike of 20.000$ and i still beat you when my legs are better then yours.
In otherwords any bike is good enough as long you have the best legs.
The stiffnes come's in when you climb are sprinting and surge then when you chain rubs to the front derr . or even begin shifting on it own,
when thats not the case do not worry ,only for your legs.

Well of course a good stiff bike is really nice ,but if you race the legs are the only thing to worry about and of course your competitors.
:banana:

[swoop]

don't feed the trolls.

[learlove]

bro a merckx corsa with good wheels is all the bike any racer needs
imho
cheers

yeah bro, you said it. my corsa extra should get here this week.

[shoe]

use what ya got...for all you know you may not even like racing...especially in the beginning the little things aren't going to make a difference. i rode a steel bike for a few races and did fine..i just did a race with an aluminum bike and did better...was it the bike not at all..it was in my mindset and conditioning...have fun with the races - if you love it then maybe you just might want a race specific bike..good luck....dave

[r_mutt]

thanks for the replies. i am now considering using my merckx to race with rather than seeking out a newish aluminum frame.

more so than anything else, i am worried about stiffness. yes, i am not a good climber and any weight i can shed would be help for climbing but i'm most concerned that a stiffer bike would be better for transferring power- for both the climbs and for the final sprint at the end. i'm racing guys 15-20 years younger than myself- so i need every advantage i can get!


:cool:

[ada@prorider.or]

but i'm most concerned that a stiffer bike would be better for transferring power-

Unless you capable off doing 550 watts for 1 hour then its a right concern.
Anything else do not worry the power transfer rate differance is below 1 %.
Its is between you ears.
Of course it would help your mind set when your riding on the bike you think that is the best ,it can also work other way around as i notice many many moons ago when i was racing i had a top of the bill bike ,but my condition was not so good i was passed i a heavy mountain section from a guy from east block who had huge power his bike was creaking and his chain also was like a 50 year old bike BUT he passed me with great speed as i was on a super high tech top standard bike .
Well that learned me for always a lesson i guess.

[giordana93]

didn't see this important advice in the thread:
race the bike you don't mind crashing

and stiffness, of course, has nothing to do with any of this, just search old threads

[maunahaole]

don't worry so much about the bike, make sure that the motor is ready to go. If you could buy more motor with a credit card, there would be a line around the block to get it. Instead, you can only get stuff like carbon wheels and titanium hardware...


Make sure that you have the physical and mental resolve to go out and drive the pedals. As has been said before, good fit makes a big difference too. there are lots of folks out there on old bikes that work well that are ripping the lungs out of others on the newest and slickest stuff from the shop. Make you better first - that takes time and effort, costs no money. Then worry about the little stuff on the bike.