# upgrades?



## Tajue17 (Mar 31, 2011)

I have my 2010 Specialized Allez triple and its all Stock except for oversized (wide) tires and I was wondering about upgrades or replacements because ultimately I'd like a pretty nice bike that has a good rep will have an OKAY return if I sold or traded it and won't break. 

I guess this is like a vote but should I upgrade componets on the Allez as I ride it and then lastly upgrade to nicer maybe custom frame and fork (then put the allez back together and sell it) 

or should I just buy a complete new bike with all stock componets that based on the better model bike should be nice componets. 

people tell me the allez has a weak frame and crappy wheels? I found a nice hardly use spinergy wheel set forsale here locally for the same price I paid for the entire allez used so its come to that time where I'm wondering if I should ride this into the ground the way it is or put money into it using this frame as the platform. 

thanks for any advice or opinions.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Upgrades generally do very little for the resale value of a bike. Unless you pick 'em up used from some poor sucker who thought they would.

The performance of your bike is related to the performance of the engine most of all.

If you're already planning a new frame, do that first. It's not as bad with road bikes as with mountain bikes, but not every "upgrade" will be compatible. The crank can be a pretty high-dollar item that won't move over, for example. With the new frame in hand, you can figure out which parts you can't cannibalize, get those, and then strip the rest off your old bike. Given how closely stock frames are spaced, I question most people's need for a custom frame, unless they have unusual proportions, but whatever makes you happy.

If you put wide tires on your bike on purpose, you've already reversed the (very marginal) advantage you might gain from different wheels. People swap wheels either because they want to save weight or they want a more aerodynamic bike. The bike already loses much less power to air friction than the rider, so unless you're at the top of your age group doing triathlons and time trials and your nemesis beat you by a few seconds last year, there's not much point in trying to make the bike more aero. (Although making the rider more aero can make a big difference.)

Ultimately, I think most upgrades as such will be a disappointment if you expect them to do anything. If you don't, why do them in the first place? If you've worn something out in the last two years, though, then by all means replace it. And if you've been riding much or in any less-than-perfect weather, you're probably due for new cables and housings. That'll make your shifting feel a lot more expensive than it is, :wink5: and it's a very cheap maintenance item.

On any bike worth owning, I think it's worth getting the contact points and the fit right. Sometimes that requires replacing the stem, handlebars, saddle and pedals. I also think it's worth getting the gearing right. For example, if you struggle to finish the climbs in your area and you have a standard double crank or a close-range cassette, a compact or triple crank and a wider-range cassette can both help a lot. On the other hand, if you live someplace flat, have a compact crank, and find yourself shifting between the 34 and the 50 all the time, you might be happier with a larger ring in the inner position.


----------



## Tajue17 (Mar 31, 2011)

thats a cool post,, makes alot of sense now and my bike is still pretty much mint. the wide armdillos came with the bike, i put the bike in when i got it for a tune up and the guy there said they where huge and make sure they stayed at full pressure cause it was that tight to the forks. 

do you think getting smaller tires should be it? if so whats a decent tire for rec/touring type riding (700C)


----------



## easyridernyc (Jan 10, 2008)

from someone who upgraded a specialized aluminum frame

that allez frame is pretty nice, not the nicest spesh frame, but i think better much than the average aluminum frame. it will accomodate a decent upgrade, probably came with tiagra stock, you can go up to 105 and lighter wheels and be getting close to race caliber. 

the thing is the triple crankset will only take it so far, imo. personally, i have an older "e-5;" a triple, since the frame was nice, basically an older version of s works, i figured why not. wheels first. shifters, cables, it was moving smooth, but i was pretty tough on the inner rings, they were the first to go. and, basically, once the rings go, you gotta get not just the rings/crank, but the chain and cassette, too, it gets to be a real pain in the butt. sometimes if the frame is good enough, which mine actually is, its better to just go with a double. but once you have a triple, you're kinda stuck with it if you dont want to go through the expense of eventually having to replace the entire drivetrain....

but since i got great nine speed chain and cassette for next to nothing, i am putting off going for the double, at least for now. so i just gotta get the rings which shouldnt be too much of a problem. the e-5 is nice, though, i'm glad i spent a little extra to get the last of those models. in general, upgrading is great fun, great way to get to know bikes and cycling...


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I race with Tiagra and Deore several times a year. Granted the throws on Tiagra shifters are a little longer than on Ultegra, but that's the only difference I can feel. I feel a lot better about taking diggers with Tiagra pointing off the front of my handlebars. The Tiagra rear derailleur that was on that bike didn't last anywhere near as long as my 105 rear derailleur on my road-only bike, but I also didn't spray mud into the pivots of the 105 derailleur.

If you take care of your drivetrain and don't cross-chain, triples don't cause any more wear than any other crank.

As far as tires are concerned, I don't think there's anything wrong with Armadillos. They were the most reliable thing on my last commuter. You do get faster handling with smaller, lighter tires but you'll need to use higher air pressure to avoid pinch flats. For a bigger person, that can mean a harsh ride. At 165 lb, I do fine running 80 and 95 psi in my 23mm tires and enjoy the handling. A higher thread count casing and more flexible puncture belt feel better, but I don't know if they make a measurable difference in speed. You're mostly losing power to air drag when you get above 15 mph or so. Wider tires actually have measurably lower rolling resistance, according to Schwalbe.

I use Continental GP4000s on my "nice" bike. I don't know if I'd pay retail for them, though. I like the way they feel.

For laden touring, stick with what you've got. Or a similarly wide touring tire.


----------



## Soundtallica (Sep 24, 2011)

I don't know what the people you were talking to were smoking, but the Allez is a perfectly good entry level bike. In fact, it will feel more like a more expensive machine because its geometry and stiffness mimic that of Specialized's carbon bikes, as opposed to other entry level bikes which have upright geometries and are geared towards comfort. Plus, it's from Specialized, and they make quality stuff. It's a perfectly upgradeable frame.

You should upgrade wisely though, as some upgrades make more of a difference than others. The upgrade that will make the difference are the wheels and tires, so start there. Lighter wheels means better climbing and acceleration, and better tires means better puncture resistance and/or ride quality. Cockpit components are next, as fit is most important on a bike and you can change to another stem or saddle to suit your tastes. Crankset upgrades are good as well, as stiffer cranks make the bike more efficient.

On the other hand, upgrading other drivetrain components besides the cranks and cassette won't make much of a difference. There isn't a significant amount of weight savings or performance between Tiagra-level and Dura Ace-level components, although the shifting action is a bit better on expensive groupsets.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Quantitative vs. qualitative*



Soundtallica said:


> The upgrade that will make the difference are the wheels and tires, so start there. Lighter wheels means better climbing and acceleration, and better tires means better puncture resistance and/or ride quality.


Tires are a wear item so "upgrade" really should be phrased "buy better tires when yours wear out."

While lighter wheels do accelerate faster, they don't climb any faster than any equivalent weight loss. And the KEY point is that they don't accelerate or climb any significant amount faster. In almost all cases we're talking well under a tenth of a mile per hour.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> ...While lighter wheels do accelerate faster, they don't climb any faster than any equivalent weight loss. And the KEY point is that they don't accelerate or climb any significant amount faster. In almost all cases we're talking well under a tenth of a mile per hour.


My experience is that I find it much easier to climb with my lighter wheels. I suspect that lighter means not only less weight but also better weight distribution. Reduced weight at the edges means less rotational inertia. So it's easier to make the wheels spin.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Think you can quantify it?

Nobody's saying lighter wheels don't _feel_ faster. That's not the same thing as making a measurable difference in how fast you can get up a grade, let alone a significant one. Too bad, because I can go to a store and buy wheels, and I have some people I'd like to be able to out climb.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Think you can quantify it?
> 
> Nobody's saying lighter wheels don't _feel_ faster. That's not the same thing as making a measurable difference in how fast you can get up a grade, let alone a significant one. Too bad, because I can go to a store and buy wheels, and I have some people I'd like to be able to out climb.


Yeah about 0.2 MPH

On my daily ride there's a piece of a climb that's 0.9 miles long at 8.5%. Wheel upgrade made a ~30 second difference.

How much does that matter? When my partner upgraded her bike I went from comfortably pacing her up the climbs to struggling to keep pace. As chance would have it, a few months later it was time (past time really) to replace my wheels. Upgrading to the same wheels as she was riding made it so that once again I was comfortably pacing her up the hills.

About two years later she upgraded her wheels. This was back in Bontrager's dark days, remember when their hubs were splintering  She upgraded to Ksyrium SL. Once again I was struggling to keep pace with her. A few weeks later the rear hub on my Race Lites broke. I upgraded to Ksyrium Elites. And once again I was comfortably pacing her up the hills.

Each time we upgraded the change was about 30 seconds.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

slow.climber said:


> Yeah about 0.2 MPH
> 
> On my daily ride there's a piece of a climb that's 0.9 miles long at 8.5%. Wheel upgrade made a ~30 second difference.
> 
> ...


IMO there are a couple of reasons for this.

One, the placebo effect. If I _think_ I'll be faster, I'll be motivated to expend more energy to make it so.

Two, when we spend money on (name that product), most of us humans are compelled to rationalize how we made a good decision. Which is linked to the placebo effect. 

When I first got my 'upgraded' bike that weighs about 2 lbs. less than my other I was slightly faster for the first few rides (about *.*2 MPH/ hr, average). But in fairly short order, performance equalized. Lots of opinions on this, I'm sure, but I attribute it to that new bike syndrome - the excitement/ adrenalin rush/ bling factor of it all. 

Upgrades might make a bike more enjoyable, comfortable, even better performing (functionally), but the motor drives it, so IME unless you're talking ~5+ lb. difference, seldom are there noteworthy, sustained performance gains.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I'm the first to admit that my records aren't very good. I'd actually tried to get some times on specific pieces of rides in the past, and I never push the button on my stop watch at the right times.

Thanks to Strava.com, I actually have a richer data set now, at least for a few climbs. The 30-second improvement made me curious, so for the climbs for which I have a decent number of times recorded (5 on one, 17 on another) I threw everything into Excel and got a mean and standard deviation. Humans are notoriously bad test subjects and I'm no better - I get a standard deviation around +/- 10% on a lot of the segments Strava records. I'd have to be a very fast climber to knock out a stiff climb a mile long in a short enough amount of time for 30 seconds to be a significant change.

One of the problems with cycling is that the cyclist is responsible for a ton of statistical noise. Something that distinguishes good athletes is that they learn to control some of the things that are responsible for that. A big one is the ability to believe that today is their turn to be a winner.

TBH, I actually don't think 5 lb effects my times much either, although it's getting more significant. If I can get rid of my own extra 20 lb (and have time to compete this summer) I'll be happy.

FWIW, I stuck nicer wheels on my mountain bike last year. I hoped it would handle better, and it does.


----------



## easyridernyc (Jan 10, 2008)

upgrades definitely make a difference...

my last post i talked about my specialized triple upgrade...the main thing was the wheels, easton 70 for those awful alex's. the weight difference couldnt have been much more than a couple hundred grams, but the ride---it was like riding a completely different bike. really got me, and kept me motivated to keep riding. soon enough bought a second road bike. 

and upgraded the felt to even lighter wheels, easton 90. switched out the 105 shifters, chain and cassette to ultegra. added a fizik alliante in the same color scheme. when it was done, it looked scary.. and it was light a shade over sixteen lbs. at first i was like, wait, maybe i made a mistake here, how can something so light be better, i think i might prefer being, you know, anchored in closer to the ground, a lighter bike will be harder to control. duh. that was the bytch in me. little did i know, man, little did i know. 

now the spesh feels heavy, at least in comparison to the felt. lol its all good though. again, i would say, generally, upgrades are worth it, especially if you can find good deals on quality components. that's the key, adding value to the quality of the bike and the ride.....


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> IMO there are a couple of reasons for this.
> 
> One, the placebo effect. If I _think_ I'll be faster, I'll be motivated to expend more energy to make it so.
> 
> Two, when we spend money on (name that product), most of us humans are compelled to rationalize how we made a good decision. Which is linked to the placebo effect...


The reason for the upgrade was not performance. We were happy with the 'performance' of our previous wheels.

But as I alluded to in my previous post, those wheels were blowing up. The reason for the upgrade was to get better quality wheels. I ride at least 5000 miles per year. I climb over 500,000 feet per year. Me, plus bike, plus back pack weigh in at about 210 lbs. Other than the nylon bushing that wears out on the rear hub, these wheels have been 100% trouble free. They're checked once a year. They've never needed re-tensioning and they've remained true.

That is the justification for the new wheels. 

Some days it rains and some days we ride other places *BUT* we do this ride about 200 days per year. So yeah, we've been up this pitch a few thousand times. We know our times and relative speeds.

Imagine that you've been involved in competative sports since childhood. How much does is suck to ride every day with your partner FOR YEARS and to be 100% not capable of matching his pace?

Do you really think that the moment that she bought new wheels she developed the capability that a life time of training had failed to produce?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

slow.climber said:


> The reason for the upgrade was not performance. We were happy with the 'performance' of our previous wheels.
> 
> But as I alluded to in my previous post, those wheels were blowing up. The reason for the upgrade was to get better quality wheels. I ride at least 5000 miles per year. I climb over 500,000 feet per year. Me, plus bike, plus back pack weigh in at about 210 lbs. Other than the nylon bushing that wears out on the rear hub, these wheels have been 100% trouble free. They're checked once a year. They've never needed re-tensioning and they've remained true.
> 
> That is the justification for the new wheels.


You didn't include it above, but I'm confident you read the remainder of my post where I state that "upgrades might make a bike more enjoyable, comfortable, even better performing (functionally)..." 

Point being, I fully understand the need to upgrade components, so no rationalization needed on that front. It's your performance increases (in your opinion attributed solely to a new wheelset) that I have doubts about.



slow.climber said:


> Some days it rains and some days we ride other places *BUT* we do this ride about 200 days per year. So yeah, we've been up this pitch a few thousand times. We know our times and relative speeds.
> 
> Imagine that you've been involved in competative sports since childhood. How much does is suck to ride every day with your partner FOR YEARS and to be 100% not capable of matching his pace?
> 
> Do you really think that the moment that she bought new wheels she developed the capability that a life time of training had failed to produce?


I ride a few hundred miles more than you annually, and I've been around my routes thousands of times as well. I see no such variance in speeds that you note with my 18.5 lb. bike running Shimano RS-10's versus my 16.4 lb. bike running Easton EA-70's. _No difference._

I've already offered my reasoning for your perceived increases in performance, and it might be that (along with those two), you really haven't done a controlled study taking all factors into consideration. So yes, I remain skeptical. But if it makes you feel better 'knowing' you've improved your performance (along with your riding partners), I say go with whatever works for you! :thumbsup:


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> You didn't include it above, but I'm confident you read the remainder of my post where I state that "upgrades might make a bike more enjoyable, comfortable, even better performing (functionally)..."
> 
> Point being, I fully understand the need to upgrade components, so no rationalization needed on that front. It's your performance increases (in your opinion attributed solely to a new wheelset) that I have doubts about.
> 
> ...


You have two different systems (two bikes) and you're telling me that they behave the same. All that this tells you is that the two systems are equivalent. It does not tell you that if you changed a component of one of those sytems that they would remain equivalent.

In our case, we took one system, changed a single component, measured the results and then repeated that test several more times.

Imagine that you're the sort of person who really likes measuring her performance, and you're an engineer, he's a physicist. You know about distributions, about variations in measured data. You're familar with the concept of confirmational bias.

Also imagine that your knees are so badly torn up and they will literally swell up and make creaking sounds if you try to keep pace with your riding partner.

Imagine that you make a change to your bike and after years of doing your level best to keep pace (and feeling guilty because you think that you're 'holding him back') suddenly he's holding you back.

Do you think that maybe you ask, 'Is this for real, could I be fooling myself'?

Your bike computer tells you that your time up the hill decreased by an average of 20 seconds on a climb you know better than the back of your own hand.

And you see the same relative change in the 1/2 mile climb, and the one mile climb, and the 1.5 mile climb, and the 4 mile climb. And you see those changes day-after-day-after-day.

Then one day he changes the same component on his bike and that day your relative performances flip but your (personal) absolute performace doesn't.

And that pattern remains consistant until one magic day when you once again change that component on your bike and you get the same effect. Once again your relative performances are fliped and your personal absolute performace is improved.

And then the experiment is repeated YET AGAIN when he changes his wheels and the same effect happens.

That's not placebo, that's not confirmation bias.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Two of those are very easy for me to imagine.

Where do you suppose you were losing energy with the old wheels?


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Two of those are very easy for me to imagine.
> 
> Where do you suppose you were losing energy with the old wheels?


I don't think that one wheel set is losing more energy than the other. I see it in terms of torque and horsepower. Imagine two systems, both have the same losses but one has high inertia and one has low inertia. You have to fight harder against the high inertia system to maintain the same speed.

We climb as hard as we can but try not to push so hard that we blow up our knees. At any given point in the season I'm not aerobically limited on the climbs. I can push harder but then my knees ache. So I have to adjust my power output to match my current level of fitness. As I (re)build muscle strength that stabilizes the joints and then I can apply more torque.

Of course If I had a lower gear then I could generate more horsepower (torque times RPM) up to the limits set by my aerobic fittness and joint stability. More horsepower (at a fixed torque) would get me up the hill faster without my knees hurting. Same goes for lowering the inertia.

FWIW we both ride platform pedals. Some people claim that riding clipless allows you to maintain a more steady power level. That would lessen the problem with the wheels slowing down between each power stroke and needing to constantly fight that. Of course clipless is not going to eliminate the spikiness in the delivered power. We all know the whoosh-whoosh-whoosh sound that comes from your tires as you push hard on a climb. 

I like the idea of clipless but once or twice a year I'll think to myself, damn if I'd have been clipped in I would have fallen just now. I've gotten to the age where hitting the deck is something i really want to avoid


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

slow.climber said:


> You have two different systems (two bikes) and you're telling me that they behave the same.


No. I'm telling you that despite a 2.1 lb. weight difference, my performance is the same on both - on the same route, traversed a multitude of times. An average of averages tells me it is so.



slow.climber said:


> All that this tells you is that the two systems are equivalent.


Given the two lb. weight difference, if you believe that you just undermined your own argument.



slow.climber said:


> It does not tell you that if you changed a component of one of those sytems that they would remain equivalent.


I've already essentially changed components, and the resultant performance gain of the weight loss was... zero. My fundamental point.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

slow.climber said:


> I don't think that one wheel set is losing more energy than the other. I see it in terms of torque and horsepower. Imagine two systems, both have the same losses but one has high inertia and one has low inertia. You have to fight harder against the high inertia system to maintain the same speed.


You and I have fundamentally different understandings of the law of inertia.

My reading of it is that if something is in motion, it stays in motion unless some other force changes that. So I only have to fight harder against a high inertia system to change its motion. And I'm not disputing that - I do think light wheels have a little easier handling.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Physics 101*



slow.climber said:


> I don't think that one wheel set is losing more energy than the other. I see it in terms of torque and horsepower. Imagine two systems, both have the same losses but one has high inertia and one has low inertia. You have to fight harder against the high inertia system to maintain the same speed.


Simple answer: nope. Once you are up to speed it makes no difference what the inertia of the system is unless you encounter a change in resistance. With a change in resistance (grade, wind) a high intertia system will slow down more slowly (the stored energy is being returned).

You do NOT have to "fight harder" or put out more power with the high inertia system. Higher weight means a little more tire hysteresis loss but that is incrementally insignificant and it has NOTHING to do with inertia.



slow.climber said:


> If I had a lower gear then I could generate more horsepower (torque times RPM) up to the limits set by my aerobic fittness and joint stability. More horsepower (at a fixed torque) would get me up the hill faster without my knees hurting. Same goes for lowering the inertia.


Changing gears delivers more horsepower only if you were bogged down with a too-big gear or spun out in a too-low gear. Your aerobic system is already delivering your max power output over a reasonably wide range of cadence.

You're batting 000.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> You and I have fundamentally different understandings of the law of inertia.
> 
> My reading of it is that if something is in motion, it stays in motion unless some other force changes that. So I only have to fight harder against a high inertia system to change its motion. And I'm not disputing that - I do think light wheels have a little easier handling.


As I said, there are forces changing the acceleration of the wheel. I stated two explicitly and one implicitly,
1. Frictional losses
2. Gravity pulling your bike back down the hill
3. Your legs pushing you up the hill at a non-uniform rate

On yesterday's ride I'd have to add wind. 40 MPG gusts of cross wind absolutely do grab those flat 'aero' spokes 

If these forces were not acting on the system then you'd push the pedal once and then you'd ride to the top of the hill with no further input.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> Simple answer: nope. Once you are up to speed it makes no difference what the inertia of the system is unless you encounter a change in resistance. With a change in resistance (grade, wind) a high intertia system will slow down more slowly (the stored energy is being returned).
> 
> You do NOT have to "fight harder" or put out more power with the high inertia system. Higher weight means a little more tire hysteresis loss but that is incrementally insignificant and it has NOTHING to do with inertia.
> 
> ...





AndrwSwitch said:


> You and I have fundamentally different understandings of the law of inertia.
> 
> My reading of it is that if something is in motion, it stays in motion unless some other force changes that. So I only have to fight harder against a high inertia system to change its motion. And I'm not disputing that - I do think light wheels have a little easier handling.


Your wheel is undergoing frequent changes in acceleration. As I said, there are forces changing the acceleration of the wheel. I stated two explicitly and one implicitly,
1. Frictional losses
2. Gravity pulling your bike back down the hill
3. Your legs pushing you up the hill at a non-uniform rate

On yesterday's ride I'd have to add wind. 40 MPG gusts of cross wind absolutely do grab those flat 'aero' spokes 

If these forces were not acting on the system then you'd push the pedal once and then you'd ride to the top of the hill with no further input.

Unless you're riding your bike in a fictionless vaccum on an ideal plain then your wheels are constantly undergoing changes to their acceleration. That requires you to apply torque.

The comment about 'fighting harder' is just another way of saying that (on an instantaneous basis) you apply more torque to spin up a high inertia wheel than a low inertia wheel. That's the way a human rides a bike. You stomp a little harder in order to get the wheel spinning. Yes, you could build a machine that would apply lower torque over a longer period but that's not the point. We're talking about humans riding bikes.

The definition of rotating horsepower is,

ROTATING HORSEPOWER == TORQUE x RPM/5252

So, as I said, changing the RPM changes the horsepower.

The human body does not support maximum power at all RPMs. Your body simply doesn't work that way.

And more to the point, people do not ride at max power out under all conditions. Even professoinals riding in competition don't do that.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

slow.climber said:


> As I said, there are forces changing the acceleration of the wheel. I stated two explicitly and one implicitly,
> 1. Frictional losses
> 2. Gravity pulling your bike back down the hill
> 3. Your legs pushing you up the hill at a non-uniform rate
> ...


Yeah, I know about those losses.

The trick here is that a higher-inertia system resists those losses to exactly the same degree that it resists acceleration from the rider. It's pretty much agnostic about where forces are coming from.

The only losses that are increased by heavier wheels are those due to gravity as it gains height, and second-order effects like the coefficient of rolling resistance. Neither of those are effected by the wheel being heavier, as opposed to the extra water bottle in your jersey pocket. Which is heavier than the swing in weight between most wheels for 23mm (or any size) tires anyway.

I like energy methods because they really do make this kind of calculation a lot easier. In units I like, your hill has a 123 meter elevation gain. The change in energy gain from losing say, half a kilo is 603 J. (change in mass of the wheel*acceleration of gravity*elevation gain) For someone who develops 200 W, that's about a 3 second change in time to get to the top. Even 10 lb isn't that much - 4.5 kilos - but it would give you your thirty seconds. (That's making me want to be more disciplined about getting rid of the extra weight I've let grad. school add to me.  ) Your bike has a certain amount of kinetic energy when it goes into the climb at the bottom. It's probably got less at the top, unless you're really attacking. But that's true no matter which wheels you have. The effect is also somewhat reduced because as you climb faster, you fight air drag that increases non-linearly, while losing weight only lowered your power requirement proportionally to the weight lost.

It would be slightly facetious, but one can make an argument that for someone who pedals push-push at lowish cadences, a more massive wheel would actually be beneficial. The greater mass would reduce the frequency response of the wheel. Since power loss to drag is a cubic function, knocking off the peaks and filling in the valleys of the wheel's rate would mean that over time, there'd be less power lost. Actually, it looks like Kerry already mentioned that, although without bringing out as many 50-cent words. :wink5: Since the accelerations are very small relative to the average speed of the bike on a climb, I don't think it's a particularly important effect.

I don't see what's so bad about thinking you got stronger or more efficient. With conservative training, I came back from a knee injury; getting my knees healthy has made me faster. You mention your knees stopped bothering you - maybe that's what's going on. Training is a funny thing, that progresses in fits and starts. For me, at least, my efficiency on my bike seems to have a pretty non-linear relationship to my cadence, so when I clean up my form and select appropriate gears, I can develop more watts at the same effort. Perceived, at least, I haven't bolted a lot of testing apparatus to my bikes. But the computrainer I sometimes ride seems to show the same thing. Pacing is important. I knocked a ton of time off a time trial (and recorded higher average power) the other day by starting at a lower effort, that I could maintain, and kicking up at the end, instead of hunting around for the right effort. I've been riding for a long time too, but I like to think I'm always learning.

I'm not sure why I'm posting. Presumably you've had classic physics, dynamics, systems and thermodynamics. So you've seen this type of problem again and again, even if your professional specialty doesn't deal in things that move.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

slow.climber said:


> Your wheel is undergoing frequent changes in acceleration. As I said, there are forces changing the acceleration of the wheel. I stated two explicitly and one implicitly,
> 1. Frictional losses
> 2. Gravity pulling your bike back down the hill
> 3. Your legs pushing you up the hill at a non-uniform rate


I'll let Kerry respond in detail if he wants, but I'll say one thing. Of those 3 factors, only number 3 has anything to do with acceleration. If the bike is moving at a constant speed, frictional losses are constant. Similarly, if you are climbing a constant slope at a constant speed, the losses to gravity are steady. If you apply power at a constant rate, there will be no acceleration. BTW, you left out wind resistance, which is, of course, a smaller factor at climbing speeds, but still significant (and more than friction).

As for number 3, if the peaks and valleys in your power cycle have enough amplitude, so that you actually slow in between power strokes, then you are accelerating each time you push a pedal down. You are, in fact, but not much.



> If these forces were not acting on the system then you'd push the pedal once and then you'd ride to the top of the hill with no further input.
> 
> Unless you're riding your bike in a fictionless vaccum on an ideal plain then your wheels are constantly undergoing changes to their acceleration. That requires you to apply torque.


These statements suggest you may be confusing the concept of acceleration with force and/or work and/or power. Acceleration is change in velocity. If I'm riding up a hill, or riding at speed on the flat overcoming wind resistance, the forces of friction and wind resistance and gravity will slow the bike if they are not resisted. I have to push on the pedals to overcome the losses to those forces and keep the bike moving at a constant speed. But if I apply that input at a constant rate, there is no acceleration at all. If my power input is highly cyclic, I will slow slightly between power strokes, and there will be a small acceleration with each power stroke, but it's generally very small. And, perhaps ironically, a heavier wheel will reduce the amplitude of those cycles, because it will have greater momentum, so the rider will slow less when the power is off.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Yeah, I know about those losses.
> 
> The trick here is that a higher-inertia system resists those losses to exactly the same degree that it resists acceleration from the rider. It's pretty much agnostic about where forces are coming from.
> 
> The only losses that are increased by heavier wheels are those due to gravity as it gains height, and second-order effects like the coefficient of rolling resistance. Neither of those are effected by the wheel being heavier, as opposed to the extra water bottle in your jersey pocket. Which is heavier than the swing in weight between most wheels for 23mm (or any size) tires anyway.


I did not say that there were higher losses. In fact, I said the losses were not higher.



> I like energy methods because they really do make this kind of calculation a lot easier. In units I like, your hill has a 123 meter elevation gain. The change in energy gain from losing say, half a kilo is 603 J. (change in mass of the wheel*acceleration of gravity*elevation gain) For someone who develops 200 W, that's about a 3 second change in time to get to the top. Even 10 lb isn't that much - 4.5 kilos - but it would give you your thirty seconds. (That's making me want to be more disciplined about getting rid of the extra weight I've let grad. school add to me.  ) Your bike has a certain amount of kinetic energy when it goes into the climb at the bottom. It's probably got less at the top, unless you're really attacking. But that's true no matter which wheels you have. The effect is also somewhat reduced because as you climb faster, you fight air drag that increases non-linearly, while losing weight only lowered your power requirement proportionally to the weight lost.
> 
> It would be slightly facetious, but one can make an argument that for someone who pedals push-push at lowish cadences, a more massive wheel would actually be beneficial. The greater mass would reduce the frequency response of the wheel. Since power loss to drag is a cubic function, knocking off the peaks and filling in the valleys of the wheel's rate would mean that over time, there'd be less power lost. Actually, it looks like Kerry already mentioned that, although without bringing out as many 50-cent words. :wink5: Since the accelerations are very small relative to the average speed of the bike on a climb, I don't think it's a particularly important effect.


That's not what I'm talking about. I've never said that the amount of energy is a function of the wheel inertia. That would be a flat out stupid thing to say.

I keep describing how my body reacts to the higher inertia wheel. I do not climb at an absolutely steady pace. I've written in the theard that if I had a lower gear, then I'd be able to apply power at a more steady rate.

No matter what wheel I'm using, if the grade is 'low enough' then I can apply torque at a relatively steady rate. But the point is, the grade is not 'low enough' on a lot of my ride. That means that the wheel decelerates between pedal strokes. That means that when I pedal, I accelerate the wheel. For the same torque, the lower inertia wheel accelerates faster.




> I don't see what's so bad about thinking you got stronger or more efficient. With conservative training, I came back from a knee injury; getting my knees healthy has made me faster. You mention your knees stopped bothering you - maybe that's what's going on. Training is a funny thing, that progresses in fits and starts. For me, at least, my efficiency on my bike seems to have a pretty non-linear relationship to my cadence, so when I clean up my form and select appropriate gears, I can develop more watts at the same effort. Perceived, at least, I haven't bolted a lot of testing apparatus to my bikes. But the computrainer I sometimes ride seems to show the same thing. Pacing is important. I knocked a ton of time off a time trial (and recorded higher average power) the other day by starting at a lower effort, that I could maintain, and kicking up at the end, instead of hunting around for the right effort. I've been riding for a long time too, but I like to think I'm always learning.
> 
> I didn't say that my knees stopped botheing me. In fact, I keep saying that I must limit my power out due to knee problems.


And I didn't say that I got stronger in the sense of 'stronger overall'. I said that my strength changes over the course of the year. I'm sure that's typical. I only said that so as to be clear that I was accounting for this. This was all in the context of another poster suggesting that riding faster may be a placebo effect. 



> I'm not sure why I'm posting. Presumably you've had classic physics, dynamics, systems and thermodynamics. So you've seen this type of problem again and again, even if your professional specialty doesn't deal in things that move.


Yeah, been there, done that. Couldn't write the equations of state for this system from memory but I've retained the concepts.

The wheels do decelerate between power strokes when I'm climbing. So I go up the hill faster with lower inertia wheels because the wheels accelerate faster when I push the pedals when I'm climbing.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

slow.climber said:


> I keep describing how my body reacts to the higher inertia wheel. I do not climb at an absolutely steady pace. I've written in the theard that if I had a lower gear, then I'd be able to apply power at a more steady rate.
> 
> No matter what wheel I'm using, if the grade is 'low enough' then I can apply torque at a relatively steady rate. But the point is, the grade is not 'low enough' on a lot of my ride. That means that the wheel decelerates between pedal strokes. That means that when I pedal, I accelerate the wheel. For the same torque, the lower inertia wheel accelerates faster.


Now you're making me curious. Can you quantify any of this? Just how slow is your cadence on these climbs? If you don't know the cadence, tell me your gear and speed and I'll do the math. 

The drops in your power curve have to be really big for those cyclic accelerations to mean much, but maybe they are with your riding style.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

^^^
Me too.

Also, unless your lowest ratio is 22/36, you can have a lower gear. No judgement from me, I have triples on my two favorite bikes. One's even a road bike. And a mountain bike cassette on my cyclocross bike.

For me, getting the right gear selection on a bike makes a huge difference. Switching from a 52/40 to a 48/34 crank on my last commuter, for example. I can't quantify it, I don't bother to keep especially good records. But I certainly felt a lot better at the top of the big climb on the commute that pushed me to making the change.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

JCavilia said:


> I'll let Kerry respond in detail if he wants, but I'll say one thing. Of those 3 factors, only number 3 has anything to do with acceleration. If the bike is moving at a constant speed, frictional losses are constant. Similarly, if you are climbing a constant slope at a constant speed, the losses to gravity are steady. If you apply power at a constant rate, there will be no acceleration.


Only gravity is constant, but seeing as how the slope of the climb isn't constant, then it sould be really clear that the work isn't constant. I really didn't want to be that pedantic.

I don't know where you ride but everywhere I ride is nonuniform. Some times there's a 100 yards of relatively smooth steady climbing and sometimes there are murderous switchbacks. The road surface changes. Some places it's old and smooth, some places it's nasty chip-and-seal, some places it's all torn up. Climb a grotty old road for a few months and then compare that to the day after it gets resurfaced. Which was easier?



> BTW, you left out wind resistance, which is, of course, a smaller factor at climbing speeds, but still significant (and more than friction).


Yeah, but I included it a few minutes later in the other response. Too many forks in this thread for my little brain.



> As for number 3, if the peaks and valleys in your power cycle have enough amplitude, so that you actually slow in between power strokes, then you are accelerating each time you push a pedal down. You are, in fact, but not much.


Actually I keep making the point that this matters a lot -- to me and to my riding partner, and I suspect, to other folks.



> These statements suggest you may be confusing the concept of acceleration with force and/or work and/or power. Acceleration is change in velocity. If I'm riding up a hill, or riding at speed on the flat overcoming wind resistance, the forces of friction and wind resistance and gravity will slow the bike if they are not resisted. I have to push on the pedals to overcome the losses to those forces and keep the bike moving at a constant speed. But if I apply that input at a constant rate, there is no acceleration at all. If my power input is highly cyclic, I will slow slightly between power strokes, and there will be a small acceleration with each power stroke, but it's generally very small. And, perhaps ironically, a heavier wheel will reduce the amplitude of those cycles, because it will have greater momentum, so the rider will slow less when the power is off.


Nope, simply trying not to be too pedantic.

If I wanted to be a pedant I'd point out that a wheel rotating at a constant velocity is undergoing a constant acceleration . Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity is a vector. It's the product of speed and direction. You could of course change your frame of reference for the wheel to an inertial frame but then the rest of the universe is accelerating relative to the wheel. Trust me, this won't help support your analysis.

But the point remains, on most of my climbs, my wheels decelerate between power strokes. The steaper the climb, the worse the road surface, the stronger the wind, the greater the deceleration.

The lower the inertia of my wheel, the faster I'll be able to overcome that deceleration. That means a better average speed up the hill.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> ...I've already essentially changed components, and the resultant performance gain of the weight loss was... zero. My fundamental point.


My point has never been that the difference in weight is what matters.

I keep saying that it's the inertia of the wheels that matters.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

JCavilia said:


> Now you're making me curious. Can you quantify any of this? Just how slow is your cadence on these climbs? If you don't know the cadence, tell me your gear and speed and I'll do the math.
> 
> The drops in your power curve have to be really big for those cyclic accelerations to mean much, but maybe they are with your riding style.


This is a long thread, it's easy to lose track of what's been posted. Earlier I posted


> Yeah about 0.2 MPH
> 
> On my daily ride there's a piece of a climb that's 0.9 miles long at 8.5%. Wheel upgrade made a ~30 second difference.


and I also posted about my benchmark climbs being 0.5 miles, 1 mile, 1.5 miles, and 4 miles. And I posted that the relative delta-t was consistant over those distances.

I'm set up with 39/53 and 11/28.

Early in the year, I ride 39x28 when the grade gets to around 7%. Late in the year I'll drop that down to 39x21 (down two cogs).

I don't know my average cadence. I could calculate it from gear/inches, elapsed time, and distance, but I'm too lazy. I don't even use a bike computer. My partner does. She's borderline COD about this kind of stuff 

I've used one of these calculators when I want to know about power from speed or speed from power averaged over a longish distance.

So early in the year I got at about 40% of the really fast kids. My average power out is around 220 watts when I climb 0.9 miles at 8.5%.

I know that I could put out more power than that with different gearing. I know that because I just did a stress test. I'm an old guy and my doc wanted to get a good baseline for me.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

slow.climber said:


> And I didn't say that I got stronger in the sense of 'stronger overall'. I said that my strength changes over the course of the year. I'm sure that's typical.* I only said that so as to be clear that I was accounting for this. This was all in the context of another poster suggesting that riding faster may be a placebo effect. *


To clarify, I'm not suggesting that riding faster may be a placebo effect. A controlled study can easily document average speed over a course. What I questioned was the_ reason_ for the increased speed. You say wheelset. I say you expected to be faster, so you made it so by increasing your effort. The placebo was the wheelset upgrade.

BTW, while I agree that strength can change over the course of a year, I'd love to know just how you managed to measure, account for it, then segregate it of your 'findings'.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

slow.climber said:


> My point has never been that the difference in weight is what matters.
> 
> I keep saying that it's the inertia of the wheels that matters.


Let me refresh your memory. I've already posted....

_I ride a few hundred miles more than you annually, and I've been around my routes thousands of times as well. I see no such variance in speeds that you note with my 18.5 lb. bike running Shimano RS-10's versus my 16.4 lb. bike running Easton EA-70's. No difference._

For you to not see the point of that statement, you'd have to be of the mind that the RS-10's weigh the same or less than the Easton's, and I don't think that's the case.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> Let me refresh your memory. I've already posted....
> 
> _I ride a few hundred miles more than you annually, and I've been around my routes thousands of times as well. I see no such variance in speeds that you note with my 18.5 lb. bike running Shimano RS-10's versus my 16.4 lb. bike running Easton EA-70's. No difference._
> 
> For you to not see the point of that statement, you'd have to be of the mind that the RS-10's weigh the same or less than the Easton's, and I don't think that's the case.


I know that you keep telling me that weight is not the issue. What confuses me is that you're responding to a point that I never made. 

FWIW, I assumed that the Easton's were ligher than the RS-10s just because it would seem kind of silly to put the heavier wheels on the lighter frame.

PS, If I did say that I thought that it was weight (rather than inertia) some where then I'm sorry and honestly I don't see that I did.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

slow.climber said:


> I'm set up with 39/53 and 11/28.
> 
> Early in the year, I ride 39x28 when the grade gets to around 7%. Late in the year I'll drop that down to 39x21 (down two cogs).
> 
> ...


You mention having trouble with climbs, you mention having problems with your knees, you mention that you could develop more power with different gearing. You can afford a set of Ksyriums.

I don't understand why you would choose to keep pushing 39/28. A compact is a relatively inexpensive change that will lower your ratio about 15%. A triple would be more expensive, it needs new shifters, but it's still totally doable, and probably still cheaper than your wheels. That's close to a 25% change if you get a standard triple, which keeps all that top end. If you don't mind giving up your highest ratios, velo-orange.com has some really attractive cranks with 24t small rings, right out of the box.

That's without even getting into mountain bike cassettes, but I know I don't like shifts that big on the road. 39/34's lower than 34/28, FWIW.

I've ridden the Bay Area. I know there's some ridiculous grades. Let the people in flat states say what they want, they don't know your vert.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

slow.climber said:


> This is a long thread, it's easy to lose track of what's been posted. Earlier I posted
> 
> and I also posted about my benchmark climbs being 0.5 miles, 1 mile, 1.5 miles, and 4 miles. And I posted that the relative delta-t was consistant over those distances.
> 
> ...


Thanks, but you still didn't answer my quantitative question, unless I missed it. On the .9 mile climb, how long did it take you? I assume you know that, because you said it was 30 sec. faster with the new wheels. If you tell me that, I can tell your speed, and easily calculate your cadence in that 39x28 (36.6 inch) gear. I'm curious.

And you keep saying you're "old" but you haven't put a number on that, either ;-)


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> You mention having trouble with climbs, you mention having problems with your knees, you mention that you could develop more power with different gearing. You can afford a set of Ksyriums.
> 
> I don't understand why you would choose to keep pushing 39/28. A compact is a relatively inexpensive change that will lower your ratio about 15%. A triple would be more expensive, it needs new shifters, but it's still totally doable, and probably still cheaper than your wheels. That's close to a 25% change if you get a standard triple, which keeps all that top end. If you don't mind giving up your highest ratios, velo-orange.com has some really attractive cranks with 24t small rings, right out of the box.
> 
> ...


I ride Ksyriums because I broke three spokes and one hub on my previous wheels. And my partner broke thee spokes on her wheels. So we asked a guy we trust for a recommendation. He said that the Elite was what he and his friends rode in cyclocross.

I ride Elite because that's cool with me and she wound up with SC because I bought the first set used on eBay for the same price as new Elites. And the I bought the next set new because, well, because it's her bike and I couldn't think of any reason that I shouldn't 

My knees don't hurt as long as I respect their limits.

I'm not saying that my set up is optimal. It's OK.

I ride for my health, I ride to have fun, I ride to spend time with my partner. Her knees are worse than mine. We tried a lot of different configurations. In the end she wound up with a road triple and an 11-34 cassette. She can haul ass on long smooth descents and she can spin on the climbs. But she's slower than me. If I were to change my set up so that I could spin a bit more on the climbs then there would be no way that she could keep pace with me.

I kind of treat climbs like resistance training. Some times I ride solo and then I'll get out of the saddle and work a little harder. But mostly I mash along in a slightly higher gear and pace my friend.

Sadly by the end of the season I've built up enough strength that I can gear up to 39x21 and then there's just no way that she can keep pace. So I ride the first loop with her and on the second loop she'll tell me to take the last climb at my own speed. Some times I do and some times I don't. Some times I want to company and some times I want to fly.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

JCavilia said:


> Thanks, but you still didn't answer my quantitative question, unless I missed it. On the .9 mile climb, how long did it take you? I assume you know that, because you said it was 30 sec. faster with the new wheels. If you tell me that, I can tell your speed, and easily calculate your cadence in that 39x28 (36.6 inch) gear. I'm curious.
> 
> And you keep saying you're "old" but you haven't put a number on that, either ;-)


Worst case is at the begining of the season, 11 minutes decreased to 10.5 (187 lbs rider, 7 lbs of junk, 20lb bike, 8.5%, 0.9 miles, 39x28, 23mm clinchers).

On line calculator says about 200 watts. By the end of the season I can knock that down to just under 10 minutes but at that point I can be as much as 10 lbs lighter and delivering more like 220 watts.

53 isn't all that old but it's 30 years older than one of my friends -- and THAT seems kind of old


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> To clarify, I'm not suggesting that riding faster may be a placebo effect. A controlled study can easily document average speed over a course. What I questioned was the_ reason_ for the increased speed. You say wheelset. I say you expected to be faster, so you made it so by increasing your effort. The placebo was the wheelset upgrade.
> 
> BTW, while I agree that strength can change over the course of a year, I'd love to know just how you managed to measure, account for it, then segregate it of your 'findings'.


I use my friend's bike computer to confirm that the distance is the same as google maps distance.

I use my friends bike computer to confirm that elevations are the same as google maps elevations.

I use my cell phone and my friends bike computer to confirm elapsed time.

I use an online calculator to calculate average power.

Average time are very consistant. For example, my average time (riding solo) on McCullough Road in the Marin Headlands at the begining of the year was 11 minutes +/- 10 seconds. Toss on a new pair of wheels and that suddenly went to 10.5 minutes. An overnight 3-sigma change at the same time that you changed one component...

That number slowly drifted down as the season went on.

Seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

slow.climber said:


> I use my friend's bike computer to confirm that the distance is the same as google maps distance.
> 
> I use my friends bike computer to confirm that elevations are the same as google maps elevations.
> 
> ...


Points taken, but to introduce that changes in strength were 'accounted for' is a bit misleading. In reality, you swapped wheelsets, your times dropped and you decided the wheelset was the reason, which is where I entered this 'picture' .We've just come full circle.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

slow.climber said:


> I know that you keep telling me that weight is not the issue. What confuses me is that you're responding to a point that I never made.
> 
> FWIW, I assumed that the Easton's were ligher than the RS-10s just because it would seem kind of silly to put the heavier wheels on the lighter frame.
> 
> PS, If I did say that I thought that it was weight (rather than inertia) some where then I'm sorry and honestly I don't see that I did.





slow.climber said:


> *My experience is that I find it much easier to climb with my lighter wheels. I suspect that lighter means not only less weight but also better weight distribution.* Reduced weight at the edges means less rotational inertia. So it's easier to make the wheels spin.


The 'weight argument' is my contention, but as you can see from the bold statement, you initially made the link. In your defense, you do mention inertia as well, but since my experiences differ, I'm confident that there's another reason for your increased performance - or your 'study' was somehow flawed.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

slow.climber said:


> Worst case is at the begining of the season, 11 minutes decreased to 10.5 (187 lbs rider, 7 lbs of junk, 20lb bike, 8.5%, 0.9 miles, 39x28, 23mm clinchers).
> 
> On line calculator says about 200 watts. By the end of the season I can knock that down to just under 10 minutes but at that point I can be as much as 10 lbs lighter and delivering more like 220 watts.
> 
> 53 isn't all that old but it's 30 years older than one of my friends -- and THAT seems kind of old


.9 miles, 10.5 minutes, 5.14 mph, 47 rpm. That's grinding a bit, alright. Maybe you do pulse like a steam locomotive pulling out of the station. I still don't think your intermittent accelerations are that meaningful, but who knows. Are you doing all that seated? My knees would not like that very much. When I get to that kind of a pace I'm standing most of the time.

53 old, hah.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> Points taken, but to introduce that changes in strength were 'accounted for' is a bit misleading. In reality, you swapped wheelsets, your times dropped and you decided the wheelset was the reason, which is where I entered this 'picture' .We've just come full circle.


How is this 'misleading'?

How do you explain a three sigma change in time the same day that the wheels where changed? It takes me months to get that big a change from normal training.

How do you explain the other examples that I gave? How did my partner, who has spent her entire riding career lagging behind me suddenly become faster than me when she changed her wheels?

As I wrote before, depending on how you count it, this effect has happened either 3 or 4 times.

So let's say that I'm wrong. Fine, that's possible. How do you explain this?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

slow.climber said:


> How is this 'misleading'?
> 
> How do you explain a three sigma change in time the same day that the wheels where changed? It takes me months to get that big a change from normal training.
> 
> ...


Not trying to be snarky, but it's not my burden to decipher, then draw conclusions from your 'data'. However, including the bold statement, you're asking questions that have already been answered, so (if you're so inclined) please reread my posts.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> Not trying to be snarky, but it's not my burden to decipher, then draw conclusions from your 'data'.


If you're going to respond to some one's ideas then you do have a "*burden to decipher, then draw conclusions from your 'data'"*. To do otherwise is little more than offering opinions without regard to context.


> However, including the bold statement, you're asking questions that have already been answered, so (if you're so inclined) please reread my posts.


I have.

You've said that it's not weight and "*I'm confident that there's another reason for your increased performance - or your 'study' was somehow flawed.*

I don't that find that a particularly clear explanation. That's why I politely asked for clarification.

I think that perhaps we've exhausted this topic.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I can climb as fast or slow as I want to, whether or not I've run out of gears. Just like I can choose to ride at a low or high effort in the flats.

I don't think you need to handicap yourself with your bike to keep pace with your friend. Just don't push as hard on the pedals. It feels a little weird if you're not accustomed to decoupling your pedal force and rate, but you'll figure it out. I choose to ride with people whose desires from cycling and maybe genetics make them slower than me fairly frequently, they're my friends. I also choose to ride with people whose wheels I can barely hang onto. Same bikes, I just make different choices about which gears I'm using and how much force I'm exerting on the pedals. Maybe a slight difference in cadence too, but nothing as low as 47. My knees are a bit flaky, I'd be afraid I'd reinjure them!


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

I do almost all of my climbing in the saddle. It's a lot like doing resistance training. I get out of the saddle if I want to hammer, or things get too steep (~12%), or my knees start to bark at me. But's fairly rare.

I'm working with my doc to re-evaluate my knees. My PCP is trained in sports med and spends 2 days a week practicing orthopedics. We'll see what she has to say about all this.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

slow.climber said:


> I do almost all of my climbing in the saddle. It's a lot like doing resistance training. I get out of the saddle if I want to hammer, or things get too steep (~12%), or my knees start to bark at me. But's fairly rare.


So climbing an 8% grade for 10 minutes at 5 mph and <50 rpm, you're seated the whole time? Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but that would drive me nuts. I'm up and down repeatedly on a climb like that (I notice the pros do it that way, too). But if it works for you . . .


----------

