On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 11:45 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:29:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 9:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:01:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 4:04 PM, Duane wrote:

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something....

If your friends are dumping you on the hills, it probably has very
little to do with any bike equipment they have but you don't. It's
almost always just the ratio of power to bike+rider weight.

The only exception that comes to mind is if your bike lacks gears low
enough for a long climb.

With that said, the bike does matter. The question is how much and how long. It may just mean that you're dumped a little closer to the top, or it may mean that you get over the top with everyone. Or it may change nothing.

I ride with the same guys all the time, and the gaps between us change based on bikes, e.g. if some guy is on his rain bike and everyone else is on their fast bike -- or even rain bike versus rain bike. I have a really fast rain bike. It rolls way better than my best pal's rain bike, and I can narrow or close the gap between us on that bike. When we are on our fast bikes, I slaughter myself to keep the gap down, but I never close it. And I have a great fast bike. He's younger and faster, and its always been that way.

I just don't believe the people who say they are just as fast on their Surley moon units as the Pinarello F10. I can feel the difference between 10-15lb pressure added to my front tire on the commuter, but full disclaimer, the 32mm Zaffiro Pros cheap-o tires on my commuter become very sluggish when not pumped up pretty high for a fat-ish tire. It's kind of startling..

Well, one might say everything matters - but to what degree?

The weight factor is easy to quantify. Some here may remember when it
was shown, using some magazine's test data, that the difference in speed
between old steel bikes and new CF bikes during a long climb were
perfectly predicted by the change in weight. The article's claim about
the new frames' stiffness, aero drag or whatever were shot down by their
own data - not that they noticed.

Assuming the gearing is not badly inappropriate, weight is pretty much
all that matters. Tire rolling resistance is a small factor in a climb,
but tires have to be very dead to make as much difference as a couple
pounds. And unless you're climbing in a raging headwind, aero stuff
makes no difference.

The unquantifiable bit is the placebo effect. Athletic performance is
heavily psychological, so I guess if a person _believes_ their red bike
climbs faster, it may actually do so.

So obviously, every pro team should have a regular doctor plus a witch
doctor. ;-)
--
- Frank Krygowski

I remember two MIELE road bicycles I had at the same tie in the mid to late 1980's. One was the BETA with clincher rims and tires and Shimano New 600 groupset. The other was the Equipe Pro with Columbus SL frameset, Dura Ace groupset and tubular rims and tires. That Equipe Pro climbed like a homesick angel compared to the Beta and no, it was not a placebo effect.

Even today I see a noticeable difference in required effort when I ride my bicycle with the tubular tires instead of the usual clincher tires.

Nobody disputes that there are tires that roll faster and tires that
roll slower. The difference can be very noticeable on level ground where
other losses are small.

But on a climb (which is what I was talking about) the difference
between different but decent tires' rolling resistance is much smaller
than the effect of a few pounds of bike weight. IOW, if you put great
tubulars on a heavy bike, it's not going to fly up hills.

And BTW, how could one tell that something was not the placebo effect?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Simple Frank. #1 It took a LOT LESS ENERGY to make the same climb. #2. It took less time to make the same climb.

Cheers