# More Expensive = Faster?? Mythbusters Style



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Okay there are innumerable threads speculating on how much faster a high end bike will make you compared to an entry level bike. Depending on who you ask and how much you spend the conventional wisdom answer to the "How much faster will I be on bike X?" question ranges from lots, to some, to not at all.

Well I'm a big fan of Mythbusters and since it was beautiful day, but I had to stay close to home I decided to test my two bikes against the clock and compare. I have not put any miles on my old Giant TCR-2 after buying a used Madone 5.0 this spring. To test them I choose a 3 mile loop near my house that has only left turns so I new have to stop or yield to traffic I rode two laps on each bike and recorded the stats with the same bike computer. I did the course twice with each bike, starting with the "old" bike, taking a quick half mile cool down in between to go back to the garage to switch bikes.

On each circuit I blinded myself to my average speed and concentrated on maintaining maximum sustainable effort.

*The test equipment:*

*Me:*
Age: 42 Height: 5' 10" Weight:167#

*Bike 1/ Old Bike:*
2003 Giant TCR 2
MSRP: $1400
Upgrades over Stock: Tires
Frame: M SL aluxx Aluminum Alloy
Fork: Compsite Aero
Grupo: 2003 Shimano 105 - crank 53/39 - cog 9 speed 11-23
Wheels: Mavic CXP-22
Tires: Michelin Krylion Carbon
Weight: 19.5#

*Bike 2/New Bike:*
2007 Trek Madone
MSRP: $2549
Upgrades over Stock: Tires, Wheelset $1200, Crank, seat
Frame: OCLV 120 Carbon
Fork: Carbon Aero
Grupo: 2007 Shimano Ultegra + FSA Gossamer crank 59/39 - cog 10 speed 12-25
Wheels: Spinergy Stealth PBO aero carbon
Tires: Continental Grad Prix 4000s
Weight: 17.5#

*The ride data:*
*Trial 1, "Old Bike"*
Distance: 5.7 miles
Time: 15:48
Ave MPH:21.65

*Trial 2, "New Bike"*
Distance: 5.7 miles
Time: 15:46
Ave MPH:21.69

*Trial 3, "Old Bike"*
Distance: 5.7 miles
Time: 15:46
Ave MPH:21.69

*Trial 4, "New Bike"*
Distance: 5.7 miles
Time: 15:58
Ave MPH:21.43

*Discussion:*
Holy Crap! My newer, carbon everything, fancy aero wheels, bike appears to be not one *damn bit faster* than my old bike!

My perceived maximum sustained effort is remarkably consistent over the first three 6 mile loops. I was starting to tire on loop 4.

*Myth: More expensive = Faster
Status: BUSTED!!!!!*

In true Mythbusters style, after this surprising result I took both bikes to the Alameda bomb range. I covered both frames with C4 wrapped with det cord, attached a JATO rocket to each.

*They blew up reeaall goooooooood!!!!!!!*:devil: 

Actually I just made up that last part...

I recommend more people go out and try a similar experiment. Discuss amongst yourself.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

To me what's even more interesting is the difference in wheels compared to the lack of difference in results. Notice I said interesting and not surprising.


----------



## RJP Diver (Jul 2, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> In true Mythbusters style, after this surprising result I took both bikes to the Alameda bomb range. I covered both frames with C4 wrapped with det cord, attached a JATO rocket to each.
> 
> *They blew up reeaall goooooooood!!!!!!!*:devil:


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

You must be kind of bummed about blowing that $2500 for the Trek then?

I've tried similar "tests" with wheels and tires. Even with power data the lack of controls made the tests laughable and non-conclusive. What I found interesting was trying to mentally convince myself I was being objective. Deep down I really wanted "x" to be faster than "y".


----------



## hikertoo (Jul 7, 2010)

I bought an expensive ($2500) bike because it makes me feel good, not because it may be faster, I like high quality things. It gets me out riding more, so worth every penny to me, I love riding it, looking at it and thinking about it, my wife is jealous


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

woodys737 said:


> You must be kind of bummed about blowing that $2500 for the Trek then?
> 
> I've tried similar "tests" with wheels and tires. Even with power data the lack of controls made the tests laughable and non-conclusive. What I found interesting was trying to mentally convince myself I was being objective. Deep down I really wanted "x" to be faster than "y".


Nah, not really bummed. I didn't actually pay $2500 for the bike, or $1200 for the wheelset.

I bought it all used for $1600 on eBay! :thumbsup: 

Both bikes look pretty hot. And they say the number of bikes you own should always be n+1. (where n=the number of bikes you currently own)

I agree it is tough to be objective. The best I could do was cover the computer so I did not know my actual speed until I stopped. Power might have helped.


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

Who says a more expensive bike is faster? People who think that way are either, new to cycling or, think people who can afford an expensive bike, think that way. 

I get passed by people on basic $2500 Trek Madonts every once in a while. Do I feel stupid my bike costs more? No. 

I pass people in Mercedes and BMW's in my MDX all the time. Am I proving anything? 
NO.
There are many reasons why I spent and bought what I did. Thinking I was gonna be the fastest was not among them..


----------



## Andy69 (Jun 14, 2008)

one of the fastest guys I ride with (not a pro but he can easily cover a century in under 5 hours) rides a 30 lb monster with entry level components


----------



## ncsu (Dec 28, 2008)

I think you should repeat this experiment at least 100 times to verify the result. 2 tests is far from conclusive. In addition, you should use a heart rate monitor and peg your heartrate exactly the same each lap. Your body position should also be dialed in to be exactly the same. Also, it may make a (measurable) difference if you had a up/down hill on your loop. 

It is a fair experiment, but I feel like you need to isolate you as the varible and repeat it many, many times.


----------



## oroy38 (Apr 27, 2010)

Even with a powermeter, your data would have been inconclusive due to an uncontrolled environment. Little things like wind speed/direction, inconsistency in power output on your part, and such make "time" an unreliable measure.

To get anything conclusive you'd need to do it in a closed environment with consistent power output. In other words, every other factor that is applied directly to the bike has to be equal in order for "time" to be an accurate and reliable measure.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

I first got into cycling in the late 80's, but stopped after a few years as my interests changed as I got out of high school. Now roughly 20 years (since last year) later I've started riding again. Honestly I was shocked at how much prices have skyrocketed on the high end bikes. I'm not one to drink the kool aid though, and I'm not gullible enough to think a 15lb multi-thousand dollar bike is going to turn me into a pro or even be the difference between winning and losing in the lower Cat levels when compared to a 20lb bike. 

What does disappoint me though is the young kid in middle school, high school, or even struggling college student who might not be able to afford to even get into the sport, and heaven help him/her if they stumble upon this website owning a Trek 1.1 or 1.2. Right off the bat they'll be told to get a new wheelset. Next they'll have to do something about those Sora shifters because we all know 105 is the bare minimum.

Unfortunately cycling gear has turned into a status symbol for some.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Brad the Bold said:


> Nah, not really bummed. I didn't actually pay $2500 for the bike, or $1200 for the wheelset.
> 
> I bought it all used for $1600 on eBay! :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Right on. It agree it is fun to try. Just don't live and die from the data you collect as it's not really accurate or conclusive.

I found it interesting using the same wheels/tires and testing out different bikes/fits. For example, at one time I was interesting in verifying (hoping) my TT frame actually put me in a position that would yield a faster speed than compared to my road frame. I've also tried to determine if a deep rim was faster than a shallow one while riding the same frame...The results were interesting for the TT v. road frame and the wheel test was a bummer.


----------



## roscoe (Mar 9, 2010)

now do it again and ride the new bike first... 

doing successive efforts will make you tired


----------



## Lou3000 (Aug 25, 2010)

Really, 5.7 miles is considered a decent test for bikes that are mainly built and tested for 100+ mile stage racing by pros. How about a 50 mile ride? How about 100? I don't think my brand new carbon bike is really faster than my old aluminum bike, but my fillings aren't loose after a ride over a patch of rough pavement.


----------



## heffergm (Jul 9, 2010)

My old bike weighed 28 pounds, compared with 17-ish for my new one. That's going from a bike that was 20% of my total body weight to one that's about 13%. Trust me, I'm faster on the new one.

But I bought it because it's cool, not because I'm faster


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

faster rider = faster


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

oroy38 said:


> Even with a powermeter, your data would have been inconclusive due to an uncontrolled environment. Little things like wind speed/direction, inconsistency in power output on your part, and such make "time" an unreliable measure.
> 
> To get anything conclusive you'd need to do it in a closed environment with consistent power output. In other words, every other factor that is applied directly to the bike has to be equal in order for "time" to be an accurate and reliable measure.


Instead, I choose to dare you to do it better. 

And you know as well as I do that we will never be able to control all the variables. That doesn't make the results less interesting. Try it. Use a powermeter and heart rate if you think it will help. Post it here!

But honestly if the "little things" you list are so much more of a factor than the variables I changed in my experiment, doesn't that support the overall conclusion that the bike doesn't make an *overwhelming *difference. 

I assumed it would be easy to prove my new areo bike was faster. It was not. Try it!

Here is the route I used, by the way.
http://www.mapmyride.com/route/us/wi/waunakee/391128433625832174

Weather was sunny and 74, steady breeze from the west at 5-10.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

ncsu said:


> I think you should repeat this experiment at least 100 times to verify the result. 2 tests is far from conclusive. In addition, you should use a heart rate monitor and peg your heartrate exactly the same each lap. Your body position should also be dialed in to be exactly the same. Also, it may make a (measurable) difference if you had a up/down hill on your loop.
> 
> It is a fair experiment, but I feel like you need to isolate you as the varible and repeat it many, many times.


That where I need your help. Get out there and do a few loops! 

And actually body position is a factor in these two bikes. The "old bike" has spacers on the steerer and the stem is angled up, so even in the drops, I am more upright than on the madone. That should have made me less areo. I think that should stay as a varaible between the two.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

heffergm said:


> I'm faster on the new one.


Awesome. Now prove it.

I thought I was too, *and *I thought it would be easy to prove. Turns out, not so much.

I was surprised.


Lou3000 said:


> Really, 5.7 miles is considered a decent test for bikes that are mainly built and tested for 100+ mile stage racing by pros. How about a 50 mile ride? How about 100?


Sure I'd love to but...


roscoe said:


> now do it again and ride the new bike first...
> 
> doing successive efforts will make you tired


If I did longer trial fatigue would play an even lager factor.

And if I did those trials on different days then wind and weather are even more uncontrolled.

And to Roscoe, since I assumed the new bike would be easily faster I rode the old one first. I will try again with the opposite rotation.


----------



## heffergm (Jul 9, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> Awesome. Now prove it.
> 
> I thought I was too, *and *I thought it would be easy to prove. Turns out, not so much.
> 
> I was surprised.


There was a 2 pound difference in your old and new bikes. There was an 11 pound difference in my case. 

And I did prove it over my usual route to myself. I don't need to convince anyone else. The gains are all in the climbs, of which there are a lot near me.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

RJP Diver said:


>


----------



## seeborough (Feb 3, 2004)

Brad the Bold said:


> Awesome. Now prove it.
> 
> I thought I was too, *and *I thought it would be easy to prove. Turns out, not so much.
> 
> *I was surprised*.


Brad, I am still a little baffled why. You are not taking an old rusty beach cruiser up against a brand new $10,000 TT machine. In terms of weight and components, the bikes you "compared" are pretty much in the same class. You rode each twice on the same short course and expected major differences? Really?


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

seeborough said:


> Brad, I am still a little baffled why. You are not taking an old rusty beach cruiser up against a brand new $10,000 TT machine. In terms of weight and components, the bikes you "compared" are pretty much in the same class. You rode each twice on the same short course and expected major differences? Really?


Not major difference, but I expected *some* difference. The bikes are geared differently with "upgrades" at all of the points usually recommended in this forum, and a noticeably different areo profile. A yet with my computer covered I couldn't put more than a few seconds between the two on several tries.

But your point is well taken, maybe someone with more dramatically different bikes can post their results.


heffergm said:


> And I did prove it over my usual route to myself. I don't need to convince anyone else.


Don't take my "prove it" challenge to you as doubt or insult, Hef.

As you can see, I need you to prove it, in the name of *SCIENCE*!


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

The differences do make a difference. Over a 120 mile road race under a human engine tuned to the nth degree, maybe a significant deal of difference. Powered by your engine, or mine, over a 5 mile loop? Much less significant (though still present, if unnoticed). Go here and play with the tools to get an idea of exactly what the differences in the 2lbs or aero wheel profile amount to: http://www.analyticcycling.com/


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

The expensive bike effect doesn't kick in until you buy an expensive bike. The threshold is $5000.

You compared an inexpensive bike to a mid-range bike. Of course you didn't see any difference.


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

seeborough said:


> Brad, I am still a little baffled why. You are not taking an old rusty beach cruiser up against a brand new $10,000 TT machine. In terms of weight and components, the bikes you "compared" are pretty much in the same class. You rode each twice on the same short course and expected major differences? Really?



Ditto on all that! 

I went from a 22.5 lbs bike to a 16.75 lbs bike and for the first ride or two I was probably faster on the old bike because I was used to it. Then I was faster on the new bike because I just got faster from riding more. My experience was the biggest difference was the way the bikes handled and how they handled the road, my new one soaks up the bumps much better then the old and to me that was most definitely worth it.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I bought the premise. My limited experience here is that most folks advise that the engine is the real key to getting faster, not the bike.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

All things being equal, rider, wind, road, aerodynamics, etc. a lighter bike _will_ make for a faster bike. Now if it's more expensive, but the same weight, than it's invalid. Then you are talking intangibles which are hard to measure, like comfort, reliability, etc.


----------



## Lou3000 (Aug 25, 2010)

Well what you said about fatigue is sort of the point. A big selling point of carbon is the fact that the vibration dampening results in less fatigue over longer rides. And though your 2003 bike probably had modern geometry, the people jumping from mid 90s frames to modern bikes are going to see some advances is comfortable geometry.

However, regardless, the reason a 5.7 mile loop is worthless to measure is because speed is about 90% a result of the engine, you. About the only place you can really create speed is with more aero tubing and positioning, and over 5 miles, at 25+ mph you may save seconds.


----------



## roscoe (Mar 9, 2010)

nOOky said:


> All things being equal, rider, wind, road, aerodynamics, etc. a lighter bike _will_ make for a faster bike. Now if it's more expensive, but the same weight, than it's invalid. Then you are talking intangibles which are hard to measure, like comfort, reliability, etc.


depending on where you're riding and how often you're starting/stopping this effect may be almost non existent, weight matters when you're getting up to cruising speed and when you're climbing, but if you're just rolling along steady speed.. then it doesn't matter much


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

Oh yea? No matter where you ride, you must start and stop at least once. Therefore a lighter bike being easier to get up to speed, it will be faster. It doesn't matter if it's 1 mile or 100 miles, all things being equal like I said, the lighter bike will get you there first. This is indisputable.


----------



## roscoe (Mar 9, 2010)

nOOky said:


> Oh yea? No matter where you ride, you must start and stop at least once. Therefore a lighter bike being easier to get up to speed, it will be faster. It doesn't matter if it's 1 mile or 100 miles, all things being equal like I said, the lighter bike will get you there first. This is indisputable.


while I agree that it's indisputable that lighter is faster, it's absolutely disputable if the amount faster is enough to matter to anyone.


----------



## J T (Aug 15, 2010)

Lou3000 said:


> Well what you said about fatigue is sort of the point. A big selling point of carbon is the fact that the vibration dampening results in less fatigue over longer rides. And though your 2003 bike probably had modern geometry, the people jumping from mid 90s frames to modern bikes are going to see some advances is comfortable geometry.


I'm about to go from a mid-80s bike (Scwhinn Traveler) to a 2011 bike (Synapse 5 alloy). Do you think I'll notice a difference?


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

Way too many variables to make this anywhere close to accurate. If you really wanted to test bike to bike, do a roll test. Multiple trials. Possibly test/re-test.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

Brad the Bold said:


> Instead, I choose to dare you to do it better.
> 
> And you know as well as I do that we will never be able to control all the variables. That doesn't make the results less interesting. Try it. Use a powermeter and heart rate if you think it will help. Post it here!
> 
> ...


Testing with no control over a major variable-YOU, the engine, then proclaiming a myth to be "busted" is just begging for criticism. 
At best-"plausible".


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

I have a 10 pound hot rod Scott Addict and a 33 pound steel bike from the 80s. Damn if I don't go the same speed on both.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> I have a 10 pound hot rod Scott Addict and a 33 pound steel bike from the 80s. Damn if I don't go the same speed on both.


pic of 10 lb bike or bs


----------



## kritiman (Jul 31, 2006)

To eliminate the variables, in Mythbuster style, you're going to have to build a robot to ride it.


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

If you're not climbing or accelerating a lot a 2lb lighter bike won't help much. If you're only riding at 21mph a more aero bike won't help much. Add some climbs, sprints out of corners, and sustained 30mph stretches and you should see a difference.


----------



## Pieter (Oct 17, 2005)

I regularly time a 15.5km commute section with 2 real nice climbs and a reasonable downhill part. 

2007 Schwinn Peloton carbon 10 speed, 8kg : 30min on a good day, wearing a light backpack.

1988 Cannondale R500 6 speed, 11kg plus, worn chain and big ring, no toe clips, using old worn out loafer shoes, wearing a so-so light backpack : 35min on a wet day with some tail wind.

I expected a bigger difference... maybe the wind helped a lot.
I rewarded the Cannondale with a near new chain and good vintage pre-Biopace 52 ring so will see next time !!

The biggest difference I felt with the older bike was when descending at maybe 40km/h. It felt scary in comparison. It subjectively climbed well - the lower gearing made it feel more relaxed, and absence of a speed readout contributed.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

Jesse D Smith said:


> Testing with no control over a major variable-YOU, the engine, then proclaiming a myth to be "busted" is just begging for criticism.
> At best-"plausible".


I think doing short rides on the same day with sufficient recovery time between rides helps to keep it consistent, but it is true that we don't have a machine we can hook the bike up to do more controlled testing.

What I do think it shows is how little gain per dollar, or more specifically weight and aero, is being made. I'm into computers as well and have two HD4870s in crossfire for my graphics. I can run synthetic and in game benchmarks and get a quantitative figure on how many frames per second my setup gets compared to other setups. The next step up on the AMD side would be two HD5850s or HD5870s in crossfire, a $600 to $1000 upgrade. I can justify this because I have hard data showing me how that setup is going to perform in games compared to what I have. Now spending $500 to $1000 on a set of wheels for a minuscule affect on my riding IS hard to justify. If I was making a living racing then I'm sure I'd be looking for every advantage, but on the other hand you can't buy performance either.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Jesse D Smith said:


> Testing with no control over a major variable-YOU, the engine, then proclaiming a myth to be "busted" is just begging for criticism.
> At best-"plausible".


Plus, with this experiment design, the only thing the OP can prove is that he is just as fast on bike 1 as he is on bike 2 on a short loop. There is nothing to say about more or less expensive bikes ....


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

kritiman said:


> To eliminate the variables, in Mythbuster style, you're going to have to build a robot to ride it.


Hell yeah! That's the spirit!

Maybe I need one of those tiny motors the pro's use!


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Lou3000 said:


> However, regardless, the reason a 5.7 mile loop is worthless to measure is because speed is about 90% a result of the engine, you.


Probably *more* than 90% in this case.

If there were a 10% difference in energy required to push the bikes at 21mph, then theoretically I would have seen a more significant difference in speed.

So do you think the data would be better if I continued to do short alternating loops on the same day? (better control for wind and weather changes and closer hydration, energy and form in the engine)

Or should I do longer test routes on different days? (more miles but many more variables changed)

i.e. would you trust the results of two 57 mile rides done on different days more or less than 10 x my 5.7 mile loop where every test of Bike 1 has a control for Bike-2 in the same conditions?


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

krisdrum said:


> Way too many variables to make this anywhere close to accurate. If you really wanted to test bike to bike, do a roll test. Multiple trials. Possibly test/re-test.


Not sure what you mean by a "roll test". Do you mean testing rolling resistance? How would you recommend I do that?

I plan to continue to do multiple trials.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Lelandjt said:


> If you're not climbing or accelerating a lot a 2lb lighter bike won't help much. If you're only riding at 21mph a more aero bike won't help much. Add some climbs, sprints out of corners, and sustained 30mph stretches and you should see a difference.


Your point is good, areodynamic drag increases exponentially with velocity. 

If you have a location and the ability to sustain 30mph on a long stretch maybe you can provide some data. Do you have a cheap heavy bike to test?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

expensive ? 

have you tried a $10,000 bike yet ?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Opus51569 said:


> Interesting post, but I'm not sure I bought the premise. My limited experience here is that most folks advise that the engine is the real key to getting faster, not the bike.


1. Completely true, it is the engine that makes the bike go faster

2. A better handling, better fitting, lighter and more aero bike would allow that same engine to be more efficient and as a result go faster.

3. A better bike would motivate you and help you to ride longer and train more and then be faster as a result.¨

4. you'd not be fast on the cheap nor on the expensive with that stem on your avatar.


----------



## T-Doc (Apr 4, 2002)

looks like a beta error to me...not enough data points. do the same study over 50 miles with climbs...I am sure you will see more of a difference.


----------



## sweeners (Jul 23, 2008)

*Maximum Speed?*

Brad, 

How about just seeing what maximum speed you can achieve? Looking at the time elapsed/avg speed over a set distance brings all the uncontrollable factors mentioned already by others in to play.

As long as the wind is the same, if you can hit 50kmph on one and 51kmph on the other, well there's your answer. Try it on a hill and a flat. Then you know which one you can make go faster.

And everyone else, don't take it so seriously - its Mythbusters, not a sports science lab.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ohvrolla said:


> I think doing short rides on the same day with sufficient recovery time between rides helps to keep it consistent, but it is true that we don't have a machine we can hook the bike up to do more controlled testing.


Actually, we do - it's called a power meter (coupled with some type of regression analysis).


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

sweeners said:


> Brad,
> 
> How about just seeing what maximum speed you can achieve? Looking at the time elapsed/avg speed over a set distance brings all the uncontrollable factors mentioned already by others in to play.
> 
> ...


Exactly, don't hang me, or yourself, based on this stuff. One of the Mythbusters' many motos is *"Failure is always an option!"* And I wouldn't be surprised if I fail to yeild any indisputable results.

Maximum top speed sounds like an excellent test. It might be easier to do multiple repetitions and given that drag is exponential the aero bike may produce a measure able difference.

I am also planning on bringing a third bike into the test. At some point soon I'm going to borrow my teen son's Trek 7.2 FX hybrid and take it for the test ride.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Brad, I did a similar test a couple of years ago - not on purpose but after the rides the results were very interesting. I did my benchmark 30 mile balls-out ride on two bikes - my old Masi '90s road racing bike converted to fixed gear (with its gear optimized for my regular average speed over this course) and my newer carbon fiber bike, a few pounds lighter and many more gears.

The results were as you found - reasonably equal times, in my case, within a minute. I've done the same ride with non aero wheels and 30mm deep more aero wheels on the carbon bike with the same results.

We both know the limitations of this kind of test but in the end there is only ONE result that really matters - did we go faster or not. Scientific? No. Interesting? Yes. Conclusive enough for us? Of course.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> expensive ?
> 
> have you tried a $10,000 bike yet ?


Are you offering me a loaner? I'll pm you my shipping address!  

The law of diminishing returns says there would be even less difference between the 4k bike and the 10k bike than between the 1k to 4k. And jumping from entry level to mid range seems to be the most common questions in the forum. I don't have the resources to test more expensive right now, but I'd love to see someone with a 10k bike do a similar TT, blinded to speed against a lesser bike. That would be awesome.

So I can't go more expensive, but I can do cheaper!

*I am going to test my teen son's Trek 7.2 fx hybrid on the same track. 

Testable hypothysis: The hybrid should be obviously slower, right?*


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I have tested my Bianchi 928SL and my Colnago Extreme C

I am faster on the Colnago.

Same wheels, same group ( Dura Ace ), same computer Sigma

both are high end expensive bikes ( which I got much cheaper, close to the price of your Trek )

I can only attribute it to a better fitting geometry. YMMV


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

this test isn't necessary since the benefits are already well-quantified: 

weight - matters only when climbing. Just go to analytic cycling and put in weight differences to get time saved - main flaw of your test was no sustained climb.

aero savings - small savings on an aero road frame vs a round tube frame. 

wheels - aero & weight. Well quantified and independent of frame.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> I have tested my Bianchi 928SL and my Colnago Extreme C
> 
> I am faster on the Colnago.
> 
> ...


My previous challenge of "Prove it!" to heffergm came off badly.

I'm switching to the more scientific, "Quantify it!" 

How much faster are we talking? 

1%? 

0.1%


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

More Expensive =/= faster. I thought everyone knew that...


----------



## Reynolds531 (Nov 8, 2002)

Brad the Bold said:


> Distance: 5.7 miles
> Time: 15:48
> Time: 15:46
> Time: 15:46


At best your test is meaningless. At worst you're trying to pull a fast one with fabricated data..

Three 5.7 mile time trials in a row at maximum effort and times within 1 second? The data looks questionable.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

5.7 miles is way too short to see any difference between bikes and weights. 

the more expensive "Sram Red/DA" bike will cost thousands more than a tiagra/apex bike, but they can both reach the same speeds and get the same times also. In the end people still buy DA, why?

People pay big money for a sub 17lb bike and we know at best thats minutes faster in completing a long ride. Why do people buy it? 

my bike was about $3200 and i like the comfort of it smoothing out the rough roads of NYC. i also paid the premium to have something that not everyone else has, which is a specialized, trek, or the occasional cannondale.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

Wouldn't a myth actually have to exist in order to bust it?
In the context of this being a site about road bikes I'm not sure what 'myth' you think we needed busted by comparing two similar bikes over such a short route.
In other words would anyone who posts here actually think (assuming same fit) the trek would be significantly faster over such a short route? I think you might have busted a myth that never existed in the first place......or you should have shared this with people know know absolutely nothing about bikes.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Reynolds531 said:


> At best your test is meaningless. At worst you're trying to pull a fast one with fabricated data..
> 
> Three 5.7 mile time trials in a row at maximum effort and times within 1 second? The data looks questionable.


All I can do is say this is the data I got. Would it help to say that I am a Boy Scout Leader? Scout's honor.

I was definately surprised that they were so close. I covered my computer for all the runs because I figured that knowing my time or average speed would almost certainly bias my effort.

I encourage everyone to try a similar test, or a better one.

I don't think the test is "meaningless". At my speed, a 5% advantage should be about 1MPH. My data suggest the advantage must be *much* lower than that between the two bikes. Probably less that 1%. 

It seems to be a concrete example to me that things that I thought were "big" upgrades (2pounds, aero rims, carbon frame) don't amount to an easily measured speed advantage in the real world for a non-pro.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Brad the Bold said:


> My previous challenge of "Prove it!" to heffergm came off badly.
> 
> I'm switching to the more scientific, "Quantify it!"
> 
> ...


well the Colnago has the bars lower by 1cm so a bit more aero.

It is easy to verify this.

ride on your hoods back at 45° on a flat area pedal a constant cadence. then go down on the drops, back at 0°. Instantly faster with same pedaling.

In my case I have seen to go from ~30kmh to ~35kmh that is some 16% difference.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Brad the Bold said:


> I encourage everyone to try a similar test, or a better one.


It's not like we don't know how to do this right.
http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/04/which-is-faster-cervelo-p2t-or-javelin.html

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf


----------



## oroy38 (Apr 27, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> Instead, I choose to dare you to do it better.
> 
> And you know as well as I do that we will never be able to control all the variables. That doesn't make the results less interesting. Try it. Use a powermeter and heart rate if you think it will help. Post it here!
> 
> But honestly if the "little things" you list are so much more of a factor than the variables I changed in my experiment, doesn't that support the overall conclusion that the bike doesn't make an *overwhelming *difference.


I'll address this in segments.



> you know as well as I do that we will never be able to control all the variables. That doesn't make the results less interesting.


Yes, actually, it DOES make the results less interesting, precisely because you couldn't control all of the variables, and that renders your data invalid because it's an uncontrolled test. You would need to perform the same test in a facility where such variables can be controled.





> Use a powermeter and heart rate if you think it will help.


The HRM would be completely useless, and the Power Meter would only be of use if a machine was pushing the pedals putting out EXACTLY the same power with every stroke for the distance. That means YOU or ME, as a HUMAN rider, are unreliable test subjects precisely because we cannot do that.





> But honestly if the "little things" you list are so much more of a factor than the variables I changed in my experiment, doesn't that support the overall conclusion that the bike doesn't make an *overwhelming *difference.


It doesn't matter if they're a little factor or a big one, they are factors that affect the outcome of the experiment. Little things make big differences in the overall data. It may only be by 1.0 x 10^-50, but it will still be faster. Put it into any physics calculator:

All else equal, a lighter and more aerodynamic object will be faster than a heavier and less aerodynamic one. It doesn't matter if it's by a fraction of a percent or if it's by 200%. Faster is faster.

And nobody ever said that the bike makes an overwhelming difference. My main ride is very expensive, and I know riders on bikes half the price of mine that can tear my legs off.

My point is that your test did not prove or disprove anything because of all the variables you can't control. Not that I could do it better. All else equal, your lighter more aero ride IS faster than your heavier less aero one, but due to uncontrolled variables, your results are inconclusive.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> 4. you'd not be fast on the cheap nor on the expensive with that stem on your avatar.





Salsa_Lover said:


> well the Colnago has the bars lower by 1cm so a bit more aero.
> 
> It is easy to verify this.
> 
> ...


You forgot to tell them to HTFU.
.


----------



## Hula Hoop (Feb 4, 2009)

I have done the same thing with a 24 lb 1987 speciallized sirrus and my
16 pound Jamis Xenith SL. I can only come up with minimul speed differences,
but I most notice the difference during standing climbs. The CF bike feels 
more rigid, is easier to throw side to side. I guess I reluctantly say I prefer it
in some ways on strenous rides. It seems to take a little less out of me.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> You forgot to tell them to HTFU.
> .


you already know that you have to rrr:


----------



## asciibaron (Aug 11, 2006)

i noticed the most speed gains when i switched to good tires.


----------



## apaterso (Aug 9, 2010)

result doesn't suprise me in the least. Given that you have not upgraded your legs and cardiovascular system.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

asgelle said:


> It's not like we don't know how to do this right.
> http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/04/which-is-faster-cervelo-p2t-or-javelin.html
> 
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf


Nice. 

And even in these tighly controlled tests they state, "It must be emphasized from the outset that the difference in CdA between the Javelin and Cervelo was so small that it could have been entirely due to chance alone."


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Brad the Bold said:


> And even in these tightly controlled tests they state, "It must be emphasized from the outset that the difference in CdA between the Javelin and Cervelo was so small that it could have been entirely due to chance alone."


But it's worth remembering that 1) the two frames are very similar, 2) they are able to estimate the experimental error so that the precision is known, and 3) if desired, further testing would reduce experimental error so that greater precision could be obtained.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

asgelle said:


> But it's worth remembering that 1) the two frames are very similar, 2) they are able to estimate the experimental error so that the precision is known, and 3) if desired, further testing would reduce experimental error so that greater precision could be obtained.


Right, and all that makes it clear I'm jousting windmills, doesn't it?


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> 4. you'd not be fast on the cheap nor on the expensive with that stem on your avatar.


True enough. If I can hold 20mph for any length of time, I feel pretty good. The stem, though, does make it more comfortable for me, which makes me want to ride the bike more often, for longer periods of time. 

So what is it about that stem, Salsa? Is it the height, the reach, or the overall shape that you seem to find so compelling? C'mon, you can tell us. We won't judge.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

apaterso said:


> result doesn't suprise me in the least. Given that you have not upgraded your legs and cardiovascular system.


No between the four test runs, heck no!

But my legs, cardio and body have undergone a major upgrade in the past 2 years. In 2009 I did "Race the Lake" a timed open entry race around Lake Winnebago. I was newly back to road biking and averaged 19 mph over the 90 mile course. This year I trained all spring for the charity Trek 100 century that I team captained for work. I averaged 19.8 mph. I signed up for the Centurion Wisconsin in August to keep motivated and finished that at 21.1 mph (on the new bike!:thumbsup. Steady gains.

I have also dropped 20+ pounds down from a high of 189#.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

Brad the Bold said:


> Not sure what you mean by a "roll test". Do you mean testing rolling resistance? How would you recommend I do that?
> 
> I plan to continue to do multiple trials.


Roll = gravity. Take the engine out of the equation. You want to see which bike is faster, mark a start and finish line on a hill, get a buddy to time you. Get each bike to the start line and simply lift your feet off the ground and get into a consistent body position. Let gravity take care of the rest. Takes alot of the variables out of the equation, like your fitness, wind, etc.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

krisdrum said:


> Roll = gravity. Take the engine out of the equation. You want to see which bike is faster, mark a start and finish line on a hill, get a buddy to time you. Get each bike to the start line and simply lift your feet off the ground and get into a consistent body position. Let gravity take care of the rest. Takes alot of the variables out of the equation, like your fitness, wind, etc.


That is a great experiment, kris! It removes many of the sticking points others have with my first experiment.

I have a half mile long hill nearby that I could test this on. I assume a long stretch of steady grade is best.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

Brad the Bold said:


> That is a great experiment, kris! It removes many of the sticking points others have with my first experiment.
> 
> I have a half mile long hill nearby that I could test this on. I assume a long stretch of steady grade is best.


Yes, consistent and gradual would be best. To your earlier point of doing this for the sake of science, using the scientific research method would help. Eliminate as many extraneous variables as possible, gather your data in a large enough quantity to show significance if it exists and then analyze. An N of 2 per bike is not enough data. You typically begin to see significant differences if they exist around an N of 30. 

Although really my proposed experiment will really determine if weight (assuming there is a difference) and "aero profile" (assuming there is a difference) are determining factors of how fast a bike is. It will be most significantly impacted by your wheel and tire selection. Ideally you'd use the same wheel/tire combo for both bikes. But since you seem to be looking at the bike as a distinct unit, you can keep them set-up as is, just be aware that your results will be muddied.

Cyclocross Magazine did a great piece on something similar. Testing psi differences. So they ran the same set-up with 25 psi and I think 40. And to account for the "track" getting faster as it wore in, they re-did the 25 psi again. 10 runs per condition. In this case, 25 was faster than 40.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

krisdrum said:


> Roll = gravity. Take the engine out of the equation. You want to see which bike is faster, mark a start and finish line on a hill, get a buddy to time you. Get each bike to the start line and simply lift your feet off the ground and get into a consistent body position. Let gravity take care of the rest. Takes alot of the variables out of the equation, like your fitness, wind, etc.


You realize the current regression methods were developed by people who were among the earliest to do roll down tests and found them lacking. Why regress 25 years?


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

This thread will be helpful for those who do buy into the $ = speed myth. 
Something that should be mentioned in the OP thread, is about how similar the fit is between bikes. A better fit will yield more effecient power output, and thus make you slightly faster. 
I'd venture to guess that if a bike had a more comfortable overall ride, you'd be faster over greater distances, due to less fatigue.
Now you gotta do the same with some $80 wheels and some $1800 wheels. I'd bet you'll get the same results.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

krisdrum said:


> Yes, consistent and gradual would be best. To your earlier point of doing this for the sake of science, using the scientific research method would help. Eliminate as many extraneous variables as possible, gather your data in a large enough quantity to show significance if it exists and then analyze. An N of 2 per bike is not enough data. You typically begin to see significant differences if they exist around an N of 30.
> 
> Although really my proposed experiment will really determine if weight (assuming there is a difference) and "aero profile" (assuming there is a difference) are determining factors of how fast a bike is. It will be most significantly impacted by your wheel and tire selection. Ideally you'd use the same wheel/tire combo for both bikes. But since you seem to be looking at the bike as a distinct unit, you can keep them set-up as is, just be aware that your results will be muddied.
> 
> Cyclocross Magazine did a great piece on something similar. Testing psi differences. So they ran the same set-up with 25 psi and I think 40. And to account for the "track" getting faster as it wore in, they re-did the 25 psi again. 10 runs per condition. In this case, 25 was faster than 40.


Well to stay consistent to the Mythbusters theme the science may take a backseat to entertaiment value and explosive destruction.  

Statistical significance requires lower n values the larger the magnitude of the measured change. We have established that the magnitude is pretty low here.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

well, science also requires a decent hypothesis to test and you have none. To the extent that a more expensive bike is lighter it will be faster ascending - you don't have to empircally re-test this thanks to Newton. To the extent that more expensive wheels are more aerodynamic (which isn't always true), they will also be faster. Already well-established. Same goes for aerodynamic frame. Not much else to test...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> To the extent that a more expensive bike is lighter it will be faster ascending - you don't have to empircally re-test this thanks to Newton.


This is not true. Increased aerodynamic drag could easily counteract any benefit from lighter weight. There's no way to be sure without testing.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

asgelle said:


> You realize the current regression methods were developed by people who were among the earliest to do roll down tests and found them lacking. Why regress 25 years?


Sorry, care to explain further? Provide more info? I'm not following. And yes, I do know what regression is.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

krisdrum said:


> Sorry, care to explain further? Provide more info? I'm not following. And yes, I do know what regression is.


First, uncertainty in the starting velocity and position in a roll down test introduces too much error to accurately resolve the types of differences of interest. More importantly, a roll down test can be though of as a particular regression test where rider input is 0 with no variation. As Robert Chung explains, better accuracy is obtained when there is a wider range of input power rather than narrower.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

The fact that Brad the Bold's results were so consistent was the surprising thing to me.
For a while I kept a log of my daily ride (often the same loop) on the same bike. Other than getting faster overall, I noticed that the results were never consistent. 

Any reality of faster machines is negated by the reality of more determined competition, proper fuel, water, good sleep, rate of fatigue, stress, relationship problems/money problems, (and the list goes on,) can all play a part in the function of the engine. 

Every day is a different day and the rider is the only variable that really matters.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

asgelle said:


> First, uncertainty in the starting velocity and position in a roll down test introduces too much error to accurately resolve the types of differences of interest. More importantly, a roll down test can be though of as a particular regression test where rider input is 0 with no variation. As Robert Chung explains, better accuracy is obtained when there is a wider range of input power rather than narrower.


Ok, I see where you are going, but aren't there even more extraneous variables and potential for error in the "I did X laps on each bike over the same course, and my computer told me Y results"? You have wind direction, fatigue, etc. etc. all involved. 

A roll down from a complete stop where all you do is left your planted leg and let gravity take care of the rest seems much simpler to me. Granted, I am not a regression expert. I haven't gone that in-depth into that approach to claim that. But I am very well versed in statistical analysis and research methodology.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

krisdrum said:


> Ok, I see where you are going, but aren't there even more extraneous variables and potential for error in the "I did X laps on each bike over the same course, and my computer told me Y results"? You have wind direction, fatigue, etc. etc. all involved.


I'm not sure you follow how the testing works. Whether the so-called Coggan or Chung method is used, power and instantaneous speed are measured and the data pairs fit to a polynomial relation of the type P= f(V) (this would be P=aV+bV^3 for a flat road where a represents frictional losses and b aero drag). In short, the values of the coefficients can then be compared to determine which system is faster. Since power isn't kept constant, fatigue is not an issue. To the extent wind changes during the duration of the tests, it will introduce some error. In the method preferred by Coggan, the road must be flat where data is taken. Chung doesn't require this, but does need a loop which can be ridden without braking or changing position.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

asgelle said:


> This is not true. Increased aerodynamic drag could easily counteract any benefit from lighter weight. There's no way to be sure without testing.


sure, but you would measure the drag in a wind tunnel, not by the sort of test the OP suggests.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> sure, but you would measure the drag in a wind tunnel, not by the sort of test the OP suggests.


First, see the two references I linked; it's no longer necessary to go to a wind tunnel to get these data. Second, you seem to have made my point; a scale is not sufficient to determine which bike would be faster.


----------



## early one (Jul 20, 2010)

I was told there would be no math in road biking.


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

I've heard lots of criticism by the pseudo scientific types. I would suspect it's more to justify owning high priced bikes than to further scientific research. 

Let's face it, the OP did an experiment that flew in the face of everything a hard core roadie stands for. Basically he proved that budget bikes were as good as high dollar rigs.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

cs1 said:


> I've heard lots of criticism by the pseudo scientific types. I would suspect it's more to justify owning high priced bikes than to further scientific research.


I wouldn't be so quick to put the pseudo before scientist for Andy Coggan (not that it matters. Data stands or falls on its own merits.) You also don't have a clue about the bikes Andy rides, do you?



cs1 said:


> Let's face it, the OP did an experiment that flew in the face of everything a hard core roadie stands for. Basically he proved that budget bikes were as good as high dollar rigs.


I'd say he proved no such thing.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Probably the elephant in the room is that the RIDER is about 80% of the aerodynamic drag and 85-90% of the weight that said rider is fighting against.

So the bike, unless it prevents you from getting into a good, reasonably powerful, reasonably aero position or beats you up unduly, does not really matter all that much in terms of 'go fast', unless you're a racer who needs to worry about fractions of a second. 

A fast rider is fast on virtually any decent bike, and a slow rider remains slow on any bike that doesn't have assist motors on it. 

But the bike industry is, of course, *heavily financially incentivized* to tell us exactly the OPPOSITE, every day and in every way. The marketing boys stay very busy on this stuff. So, it's no wonder that many buy into this, to a lesser or greater extent.

About the only thing more $$$ buys you, beyond a certain point, is a cooler-looking ride, and perhaps some added value if you go custom and are hard to fit. 

I say that as someone who's willing to spend some $$$ on cool-looking, and custom. 
.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

asgelle said:


> First, see the two references I linked; it's no longer necessary to go to a wind tunnel to get these data. Second, you seem to have made my point; a scale is not sufficient to determine which bike would be faster.


Since you appear to like statements with lots of qualifications, let me add this. It is only necessary to go to a wind tunnel if you want good data. Andy Froncioni's blog details how the models you mention break down in the field. Froncioni discusses adding wind but this is still a source of error that derails the models. Coggan indirectly says as much on the cyclingnews forums in the context of estimating power, alluding to Simmons's blog of wind-source error for power estimates (same source of error for whatever it was the OP was originally suggesting in this thread...


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

You're slow on both of them.....just sayin.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Probably the elephant in the room is that the RIDER is about 80% of the aerodynamic drag and 85-90% of the weight that said rider is fighting against.
> 
> So the bike, unless it prevents you from getting into a good, reasonably powerful, reasonably aero position or beats you up unduly, does not really matter all that much in terms of 'go fast', unless you're a racer who needs to worry about fractions of a second.
> 
> ...



see SystemShock we agree.

we can say that given the same rider and conditions, a bike would be faster 

1. on the flats, due to better aerodynamics/better rider positioning
2. on the climbs, due to better more balanced geometry/lower weight

it is not the price of the bike what makes it but those two factors. Both of them off course while keeping the rider comfortable enough to endure the effort.

what a more expensive bike gives at the current state of the technology is 

1. less weight per the same stiffness 
2. more comfort per the same stiffness

is it worth the $$$$ ? it depends on the goal.

if is for recreation or a competitive amateur maybe not so much, for high level competition where every little advantage counts, yes for sure.

there are also more subjective characteristics that would motivate the rider to become better and that is the beauty, prestige, exclusivity of the bike, that you pay a premium to it.

HTFU


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

mimason said:


> You're slow on both of them.....just sayin.


I know, right? More shocking than the lack of real world difference between my two bikes is that it took until page four for this piece of data to be made bluntly clear.  

*So the question is:*
So whats to stop a club riding 40 something, with more money than time, like me, from buying some speed?

*And the answer is:*
Apparently, the laws of physics. Who knew?



Hank Stamper said:


> Wouldn't a myth actually have to exist in order to bust it?


Almost every day, some one asks this forum a variant of *"How should I upgrade/replace my bike?"* We ask each other about frames and rims and tires and forks. And we talk about decreased rolling resistance and drag and friction because guys with wind tunnels and computer models can measure these things and prove that there are *measurable* differences.

*Implied* in all of these threads is that those measurable differences make a "real world" difference when placed on the bike of Joe Average Club Rider, which is what most of us are. That is the myth I don't think gets explicitly dispelled very often. 

For an extra $1000, my 30mm carbon aero rims are measurably lighter and have a measurably lower drag coefficient than the 32 spoke Mavics on my Giant. But measurable as they are, the reality is that skipping lunch or a light crosswind might have a more noticable affect on *my* speed cranking out a quick 20 miles after work.



SystemShock said:


> A fast rider is fast on virtually any decent bike, and a slow rider remains slow on any bike that doesn't have assist motors on it.
> 
> But the bike industry is, of course, heavily financially incentivized to tell us exactly the OPPOSITE, every day and in every way. The marketing boys stay very busy on this stuff. So, it's no wonder that many buy into this, to a lesser or greater extent.


I know I suffered from "carbon envy" on group rides this summer.



cs1 said:


> Let's face it, the OP did an experiment that flew in the face of everything a hard core roadie stands for. Basically he proved that budget bikes were as good as high dollar rigs.





asgelle said:


> I'd say he proved no such thing.


I'd have to go with asgelle here. 

At best, I've proven the difference is so small it is hard to prove!


----------



## oroy38 (Apr 27, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> I know, right? More shocking than the lack of real world difference between my two bikes is that it took until page four for this piece of data to be made bluntly clear.
> 
> *So the question is:*
> So whats to stop a club riding 40 something, with more money than time, like me, from buying a some speed?
> ...



This post is better than the entire experiment you performed.

Why couldn't you just say all that in the first place? It would have saved several pages of bickering and me being an a-hole.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

oroy38 said:


> This post is better than the entire experiment you performed.


Thanks. In retrospect, it was a low hurdle.  



oroy38 said:


> Why couldn't you just say all that in the first place?


Honestly, it wasn't clear to me until I *really tried* to go faster than my old bike on the new bike, and failed.



oroy38 said:


> It would have saved several pages of bickering and me being an a-hole.


Yeah but, where is the fun in that?!? This is the internet man! Flame on! :thumbsup:


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

seeborough said:


> Brad, I am still a little baffled why. You are not taking an old rusty beach cruiser up against a brand new $10,000 TT machine. In terms of weight and components, the bikes you "compared" are pretty much in the same class. You rode each twice on the same short course and expected major differences? Really?


Yeah, when I read the specs b/t the two bikes, I honestly wasn't too surprised with the end resutls. But, give Brad credit for even doing this comparo nevertheless.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Brad the Bold said:


> At best, I've proven the difference is so small it is hard to prove!


Brad, 

you haven't proved anything, because you were testing a cheap and a medium level bike on a short distance at medium speeds ride.

if you are just fresh and riding 5km and medium speed the differences are minimal.

The better charactertistics of your better bike ( lighter weight, aerodynamic wheels, road comfort etc ) make a big difference when you are close to your own limits, so for example when riding real fast or during long climbs or past the half of a century.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

next time start your test in Idaho Springs and finish it at the summit of Mt Evans 27 miles later with 7,000 feet of climbing. Get back to us on the times...


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> You haven't proved anything, because you were testing a cheap and a medium level bike on a short distance at medium speeds ride.


There has been a steady drum beat in this thread to declare my two bikes essentially *identical* in class, therefore invalidating comparison. And I think this is to try to dismiss the notion that there even could or should be a measurable advantage.

But a least here, there is a difference I can easily measure and quantify! With a checkbook!

Remember, the Trek and its upgrades cost nearly *three times* as much, on paper, as the Giant. The carbon wheels *alone* MSRP for more than what I actually paid for the TCR. And the Trek is half a decade newer to boot.



Salsa_Lover said:


> The better characteristics of your better bike ( lighter weight, aerodynamic wheels, road comfort etc ) make a *big difference* when you are close to your own limits, so for example when riding real fast or during long climbs or past the half of a century.


It seems that "big difference" is very open to interpretation.

I believe that those effects are there. I like my new bike. I really do believe it is better and faster.

However, a Joe Average like me has to wonder if a nearly $3000 price increase is really worth it. Especially since many of the benefits are only in play at the ragged edge of my performance. And even then they can never be separated from all the other variables of my body and mind on race day.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Brad the Bold said:


> ... And even then they can never be separated from all the other variables of my body and mind on race day.


Actually they can. The benefit from lighter weight or lower drag, for example, exist regardless of your mental state or how you perform.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> next time start your test in Idaho Springs and finish it at the summit of Mt Evans 27 miles later with 7,000 feet of climbing. Get back to us on the times...


Sick. I'd love to try that. Actually, I'm doing the southern Wisconsin mini version of that this Sunday.

*L'Alpe Bl'Huez - "Wisconsin's toughest time trial"*

http://www.mapmyride.com/ride/united-states/wi/blue-mounds/319123871126252885

10 miles, the last 3 miles climb 850 feet with grades up to 15%.

I'll tell you how it went. I'm riding the Trek!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Brad the Bold said:


> Sick. I'd love to try that. Actually, I'm doing the southern Wisconsin mini version of that this Sunday.
> 
> *L'Alpe Bl'Huez - "Wisconsin's toughest time trial"*
> 
> ...


Why are you riding the Trek? Don't tell us you actually believe the myth you set out to bust?


----------



## 151 (Apr 6, 2009)

ohvrolla said:


> To me what's even more interesting is the difference in wheels compared to the lack of difference in results. Notice I said interesting and not surprising.



Dude you must be freaking crazy.

My bike is so much faster with wheels it's not even funny. Of course, it isn't suprising.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> Why are you riding the Trek? Don't tell us you actually believe the myth you set out to bust?


Tell ya what. I'll ride them *both at the same time*, one foot clipped to each bike, and tell you which leg got tired first. No one could possibly argue with *that* as the *definitive *test!:smilewinkgrin: 

And I didn't set out to bust the myth! I hoped there would be a measurable advantage.


----------



## Cadent (May 16, 2010)

I agree with the previous poster who said there were too many variables to be meaningful. So we need to cut those down.

To compensate for body position and wind, run the test in a vacuum chamber which has a Teflon floor to compensate for friction losses.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I have an absolutely foolproof objective test to determine which bike is faster. Take the bikes in question and line them up against an outdoor wall. Your house or garage will do. Make sure the bikes are evenly lined up. The front wheels must be exactly even. You might want to draw a line or put a straight edge, e.g., a yardstick or similar & line up the wheels with that.

Once that’s done go in the house, eat lunch or read or complete a crossword puzzle. After an hour or so go back outside & look at the bikes. The one that’s ahead is the fastest.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

stevesbike said:


> Since you appear to like statements with lots of qualifications, let me add this. It is only necessary to go to a wind tunnel if you want good data.


No, you can get good data from field tests as long as you either test during a windless period or else can measure the wind. Under windless conditions I've seen CV's on a field estimated CdA under 0.5%. That's pretty good data.


> Andy Froncioni's blog details how the models you mention break down in the field. Froncioni discusses adding wind but this is still a source of error that derails the models.


Not exactly. When we know the wind is consistent in speed and direction, especially when the direction is at zero yaw, we can handle it properly. Andy was looking at a complicated case where his test course twists, turns, goes in and out of tree-sheltered segments, and climbs and descends. This was a case where assuming the wind is consistent in speed and direction doesn't work well -- but that's not a fault of the model. It's an argument for measuring wind speed and direction so they can be included in the model. That's the reason for "the stick." The model only gets "derailed" if it's misspecified -- and VE lets you diagnose whether that's happening.


----------



## Rhymenocerus (Jul 17, 2010)

So many butthurt comments from Riders who cant admit spending more money does not make you faster.


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

Rhymenocerus said:


> So many butthurt comments from riders who can't admit that spending more money does not make you faster.


A lighter, more aero bike can't make you slower (assuming it fits & handles well). It takes less effort to fight the wind, climb, or accelerate. There's just too many variables to quantify how much faster it is, but I think we all know that you have the potential to ride faster on a 4lb lighter bike with less aero drag.


----------



## superg (May 9, 2010)

After carefully considering and comparing the results of the test rides, given how close their are, there is only one logical explanation:
a) both bikes are red
b) neither bike is red,
because, as everybody knows, red bikes are faster.


----------



## aw2pp (Aug 19, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> Sick. I'd love to try that. Actually, I'm doing the southern Wisconsin mini version of that this Sunday.
> 
> *L'Alpe Bl'Huez - "Wisconsin's toughest time trial"*
> 
> ...


Well, how did it go?

I can't believe there isn't a popcorn icon to insert here. How hard would that be?


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

Lelandjt said:


> A lighter, more aero bike can't make you slower (assuming it fits & handles well). It takes less effort to fight the wind, climb, or accelerate. There's just too many variables to quantify how much faster it is, but I think we all know that you have the potential to ride faster on a 4lb lighter bike with less aero drag.


Absolutely, it doesn't hurt you. And if you look at the calculators online it can be measured. But is it cost effective? Probably not for most of us mortals.

My 30mm carbon aero rims absolutely do save seconds over the long haul. And the faster you can go the more difference it makes. But we are still talking a few seconds over an hour. Critical if you are contending in the TDF, trivial if you are getting dropped by the B group on Tuesday nights.

For, me, the 42 year old club rider, the bottom line is there are no huge gains to be made even jumping from low end, to mid range, or even high end. For that guy (me) spending thousands to gain tenths or hundreths of an mph is not very cost effective. Clearly the old legs and lungs are where the greatest gains can be made.

My average MPH over a ride has gone from 19 to 21 in the past year. It's mostly because I rode twice as many miles and lost 25 pounds. The new (used) bike is not much of those gains.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

aw2pp said:


> Well, how did it go?
> 
> I can't believe there isn't a popcorn icon to insert here. How hard would that be?


Not bad, I finished L'alpe D'Bluez in 31' 42" just under 19mph. The winner finished in 26' 27"

I was averaging 23.5 over the first 7 miles before the turn to start the big climb. I averaged 13 MPH on the last 3 miles up the Mound. If you stared at the computer you could watch the tenths drop off the average MPH. It's a pretty brutal hill. No mountain, but it's a big ass hill. One guy passed me and I passed two others on the climb.

I was surprised at how serious everyone was. There were a dozen people warming up on trainers in the parking lot 45 minutes before the start. It was a bit intimidating. I just rode laps around town for about 25 minutes.

Next year I'll go faster!


----------



## |3iker (Jan 12, 2010)

To me a more $$$ bike over a $ bike is has more to do with the riding experience than pure speed. The high-end bike should provide superior shifting, braking, maneuvrability, ergonomics, durability etc. Those are part of the improvements. 
With road bikes $$$ = lightness and that will come into play on climbs and acceleration. On flats, it would be hard pressed to net significant speed over a cheaper bike.


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

Cool test! At the speed you were riding, aero wheels have minimal effect and probably overcome by 1) better overall air resistance profile on you old bike, and 2) better fit on your old bike allowing more effective delivery of power.


----------



## Dereck (Jan 31, 2005)

This is fun!

Couple of years back, I convinced myself (aided by wife - long, complex story) to 'upgrade' from my custom geo Ultegra rigged Bob Jackson lugged steel to an all singing, all dancing Trek. 6.9 CF frame, that new-fangled SRAM shiftywagglers, trick looking Bontrager wheels and saddle, weight around negative three pounds. You had to put a bottle on it for it to weigh anything.

Didn't like the SRAM brakeywagglers, changed all the drivetrain to what I liked. Saddle - let's say changing it was a real serious necessity... 

Did I go any 'faster'? Well, to be honest. 

No.

When the first frame cracked, I nearly just EBay'd the replacement in the box it came in. Figured I'd give it another go. After a couple of weeks, it was back in the shipping box and onto dear old EBay with it.

Maybe if I got into that fiscal situation again (unlikely), I'd buy another slinky bike. But maybe if I wanted black round tubes, I'd get my new Waterford R33 sprayed black 

Have seen occasions where a serious upgrade made someone appreciably faster - but a jump from an aged welded steel frame of no great parentage allied to triple drivetrain and cheap clunky wheels to a full blown Campag rigged CF Cervelo with top end Mavic wheels is significantly better in many respects.

BUT. While we might not be able to go out and buy a Ferrarri (unless prepared to wait until its bike rack is designed and fitted  ), quite a few of us can go out and buy a full Record/DA/SRAM Red (Insert favourite frame maker name here). 

As long as you get out and ride it, the aim has been achieved and non but the small minded will bother.

Dereck


----------

