8/7/14 9:06 PM

did my A- group ride tonite for grins. have no real condition to speak of, but it's always fun in a masochistic way.

my fitness is pretty consistent (as in consistently lacking). when i've done this ride this summer, i load up with lactic pretty early and pop off about the same place every time...riding a steel bike or the grinder, both weight about 21lbs.

this time i hopped on the C40 and man, first it's nice to get back on a go-fast bike after a couple months of MTBs, grinder and heavy steel bikes -- it's freakin rocket! and on tonites ride i lasted a solid mile longer than typical (and this is a heavy mile...constant ascending, a series of sharp ups and it's no joke riding having no condition with this group as its early in the ride and everyone has fresh legs to put the hurt down).

i attribute my improved performance entirely to dropping 4lbs by selecting the C40. -- ZOOOOM!!!

8/7/14 9:31 PM

Sounds like you enjoyed it. You may be just getting into a fitness level as well.

I think for me it is more the stiffness of the Scott over my other road bikes, the 2-4 lb probably makes little difference. But how stiff is the Nago comparatively?

Re the weight, it is cumulative I guess. I took the 29er with 32C commuter tires to go pickup up the car at the body shop, and it had to stay for another few days. So I rode more to get to Elaine work to get a ride home. 37 miles on that beast was like 75 on the Scott... 10-11 lbs more.

Last time I took the 85 SLX Nago out was a crazy fast ride. It [and me] stayed up front for the 30 miles and finished back at the car park minutes ahead of the next fastest group of few. That bike demands to be pushed. ;)

8/8/14 12:06 AM

Those pounds count on the climbs, where even 1% difference in needed output can make the difference between sustaining power and trailing off from accumulating oxygen deficit.
So, 1% difference can make a much bigger difference than that once the rider's limits are exceeded.

But geometry counts, too.
Due to more-forward saddle and body positioning (leg portion of body rotated forward) that I can achieve on certain of my bikes, I can sustain more watts (from having less bend at the waist), and be more-easily aero at the same time, versus riding any bike that I would be comfortable riding off road.

This bike (Thevenet-era PX10LE) doesn't give me any kind of a weight advantage at 24+ pounds, but the steep frame angles (North of 76 degrees) gives me the edge in terms of riding all-out, and more-easily/effortlessly transitioning from aero tuck to sprinting/chasing as needed to hold on to a passing breakaway attempt.

[/img][url=https://flic.kr/p/c6GcGq] [/url] vgv by dddd2002 , on Flickr[img][/img]

8/8/14 2:49 AM

Geometry makes a HUGE difference. During my cross state ride a few weeks back, I watched the tri-geeks STRUGGLE and get dropped in the rolling hills of northern and central SC. Boom they were gone if it went uphill. On the third day of the ride, where it is TOTALY __________________________________ flat, they blew the doors off the road bikes. Those bikes are low and aero of course and also very steep. That is great for the flat ground but stinks when things go up. Most of their bikes were not any heavier than mine and one guy on a little Felt rig I am sure was lighter. In the hills he could keep up except on the longer climbs. On the flats he was 38kph cruising for 160 kilometers. Ouch.

8/8/14 3:48 AM

On a century a couple weeks ago I chatted with a friend's son, who is a triathlete and was riding on his tri bike. He also fell back on the hills and passed people on the flats. He said that was because he rode at a constant power output whereas cyclists rode harder on hills. He was strong and I'm sure he could have outclimbed me and many others if he chose to.

8/8/14 6:01 AM

Some people climb better than others. I got dropped on flats but wait for the group on top of climbs.

Tri courses are often flat. So most tri-geeks don't train hills and don't climb too well.

I have 2 bikes. The gravel grinder is heavier but has better geometry. So I end up faster on it in most of our local rides which has lots of sshort ups and downs. But for sustain climbs, the lighter bike feels easier and end up faster.

8/8/14 10:42 AM

Eric, I don't think that it's the geometry of the tri frame that made the riders you saw slower on the climbs.

As was noted, these riders often lack usual road/climbing skills, so easy to guess that they haven't trained in the hills.

Then there's the handlebars, which offer a hands-forward grip but which is less than useful when climbing.
But a regular road bike, even with a quite-low handlebar position, levels out and becomes not-so-low when the road pitches upward.

I envision the fastest-climbing bikes as perhaps a lighter-weight version of the bike pictured above, i.e. positioning the rider quite forward, and with a "killer" hands-on-hoods position that allows a head-forward charge much as used by sprinters. On the Peugeot however, the bars actually aren't low, so I use the drops more.

Riding alongside riders using the tri bars is somewhat of a bad mix as far as two such riders having any positive effect on one another, other than, as you alluded, the positive psychological effect of being able to drop such riders over a stretch of uphill switchbacks. And ok to draft them as well, unless they by sheer fitness have the energy to drop you outright on the flats.

8/8/14 11:08 AM

I definitely sit on the front of the saddle on sustained climbs myself FWIW.

"offer a hands-forward grip but which is less than useful when climbing. "

Seated I think... Out of the saddle I grab the STI as far forward as I can when steep. How long for is another question. ;)

8/8/14 12:24 PM

"How long for is another question. ;)"

Best be for how long it takes to "crest" the hill?

And, asserting one's fitness exploits to just the very next level, powering back up to speed before returning to "seated".

It's all relative though, whether mountain or mole-hill, and who's chasing.

One thing about the "front of saddle", seems the saddle height is effectively lower there, so allows more bend in the knees and a faster spin.

8/8/14 12:48 PM

I thought I was clear 'how long' was out of the saddle.
If 'how long' runs out before crest, I finish seated. Which I thought I made obvious. If I did not make the point clear, perhaps now I have. Not that I ever type incomplete ideas or anything. ;O

8/8/14 1:19 PM

the grinder is definitely stiffer than the C40, +10 years CF evolution and much larger geometric shapes.

however, my modest power/torque values are well within the bounds of what the C40 can handle or even an old-school-noodle Vitus 979!

my positions are *identical* to the mm in all dimesions, so that's a non-factor.

8/8/14 1:47 PM

Maybe the bigger your are, the less of a difference 4lb makes.

Power/lbs ratio? Me, at over 200 as compared to even a 170 lb rider??

Even on my lightest bike, 4lb is under 2% total weight.

Well on a calculator, the 170 lb rider's 2% is only 3/4 lb difference, so maybe not? Seems position and stiffness, and certainly fitness mostly are predominant.

For climbing I sure go better once my core is tuned and fit for the season. Need to do more exorcizing in the off season so I don't start over every time the weather gets nice. In my defense, I did 300 miles on SS outside this January. I wonder if I will get back to 5k plus a year like back in Jersey days. I don't fret over it, just get on the bike and go anymore. I seem to count saddle time more than miles, cause as slow as I am these days, miles=a lot more time then they used to. ;)

Maybe my core got a head start with the SS 67-8 Gear inches. A lot of standing to get going. More than when I can start from stops sitting down certainly. 20 standing starts per early season short ride VS near none early season on a geared bike?

8/8/14 5:50 PM

In walter's case it is all weight and most likely WHEEL weight he feels. Light wheels make a HUGE difference in crowds, where aero does not help very much. If you are stuck in the bunch and not sprinting for a win, go light. Otherwise go aero of course.

The gravel grinder has tank wheels and tires.

8/8/14 6:02 PM

"The gravel grinder has tank wheels and tires."

Archetype rims [25 grams heavier than A23?] and road tires = tank? He did not put the file treads on yet, I do not believe he has them yet [the Conti speed cross 33mm].

I agree of course lighter tires/rims = better acceleration. Getting back on a wheel in front of you etc more efficient et al.

But also the wider rim IS stiffer I learned, so for an aggressive acceleration also maybe more efficient/responsive?

Probably the Vitt 190 gram tires and ultra light toobs on the nago ;)

8/8/14 6:08 PM

I have a set of 1700gr wheels and a set of 1450gr wheels. Dude the light ones feel like ROCKETS when I put them on.

8/8/14 6:37 PM

"Dude the light ones feel like ROCKETS when I put them on."

I get it, lighter wheels will accelerate faster. That is what I said [or tried to say]. If the weight [lack of] is mainly at the outer perimeter especially. Rotaional mass and like that.. ;)

8/8/14 6:46 PM

my grinders wheels are heavy 32/32 + archetypes + discs + robust rubber, whereas my C40 has my go-fast wheels 24/28 + belgiums + lasers + vittoria CXs.

8/8/14 6:49 PM

What tires are on the MajTay ? You didn't get the contis last I asked.

8/8/14 7:40 PM

How is this for some lax angles?

8/8/14 9:07 PM

I've learned to not quite trust a photograph, due to parallax, but this one looks straight-on from the lens's view, and looks about like an old, electroforged Schwinn.

Any idea what the numbers are? It is odd to see a road-style bike looking that layed back, was it on the roof of your car when...

EDIT; when I put my angle-finder on it, here on the screen, it reads 70 degrees, same as a Varsity, Continental, Suburban or Collegiate from the 60's/70's.
I so much like the line-seeking steering solidity of bikes like that, not that they'll have the snap of an Italian racing bike from the 80's.

Speaking of racing bikes, my Legnano Tipo Roma from 1962 has angles just a fraction of a degree less than 72 degrees, and even the 60's-to-early-70's PX10 or Gitane TDF were both at about 72 degrees parallel.

When people look at this one, probably the last thing they notice would be the 70-degree frame angles, which more than anything else defines the overall riding experience. And while one quickly (a few rides) gets completely used to the ride, it's the weight, ultimately, that defines the bike's overall performance, trumping even the geometry in performance-relative terms. Yes, I ride this thing in the hills, but pick my battles carefully.
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/18079002@N04/6832436050" title="DSCF0106 by dddd2002, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7059/6832436050_9ebc5b6e30_c.jpg" width="800" height="600" alt="DSCF0106"></a>

Last edited by dddd on 8/8/14 9:41 PM; edited 1 time in total

8/8/14 9:38 PM

grinder still on Vittoria Rubino Pro Tech 28s @ 280g

C40 vittoria corsa CX 23s @ 210g.