Cycling UK Forum

A bit tongue in cheek this one. I rode an 80k sportive (actually 75k) around Hertfordshire yesterday and had a blast. I didn't see another tourer (and I kept the rack on and had Carradice bag etc) and saw only one other with mudguards. Anyhow I flew along and was told in all seriousness at the end that I "must do some serious training to go that fast on THAT bike (disparaging look and point)!"

So just how much faster would I have gone on a "proper" bike? Obviously if I had a really light bike I'd have to struggle on the big hill through lack or a low-enough gear (passed loads grunting and sweating out of the saddle whilst I twiddled up and wondered if I'd need the three lower gears) and be more uncomfortable on the awful Hertfordshire roads!

Weight doesn't mean much.

An A4 sheet of paper face on to the breeze has a higher Cd than a javelin.

A 'carbon' bike with terrible aerodynamics will be worse to ride than a slick tourer.

Mind you,, the part of the bike making the highest impact on aerodynamics is the bloke sat on it.

Ayesha wrote:Weight doesn't mean much.

An A4 sheet of paper face on to the breeze has a higher Cd than a javelin.

A 'carbon' bike with terrible aerodynamics will be worse to ride than a slick tourer.

I know this to be true it just amused me!

Surprisingly you may find not that much...

Some club mates were caught on a club run out to watch the Nat hill climb some years ago.... they had left Coventry and were caught in the Stratford area as they cycled out to the north cotswolds.
The cyclist was riding a fairly hefty bike with the old style metal framed kiddie seat on it.
7-8 months later he turned up at our evening club 10's and rode complete with metal kiddie seat and all were in awe of him and his speed. He then went got a decent racing bike (ok pre-carbon fibre days admittedly) and did not go much faster, he never really took on riding timetrials seriously after that and mainly completes audxes these days.

I have no intention of buying a road bike. If I ever were to go down the route of a "faster" bike it would be an Audax; I have to have mudguards!

What amuses me is that my spare tyre would be much more of an issue but I don't imagine hearing someone saying "you must train really hard to get THAT belly around so fast"!

Not going to rush back to Sportives though as I don't like standing out so much.

I have a touring bike and an aluminium frame racing bike. My average speed is 1mph higher on the racing bike.

I don't think the bike makes as big a difference as the rider.

I'm overweight and ride as steel bike. I often leave riders for dead on sportives. As a long distance commuter I do 100+ miles in all weathers. Most sportive riders tend to ride at the weekends between April and October. By the time they're getting fit, it's time to hang up the bike for winter.

I don't think the important difference between a tourer and a carbon fibre bike is due to it's weight, but rather to it's components and their bias towards speed. My commuter/tourer is steel framed, mudguards, rack, lights and puncture "proof" tyres. My lightweight biker is aluminium framed, it lacks all the tourers extras and has lighterweight tyres with less rolling resistance. I can also feel that it is stiffer and although not so comfortable, more of my power goes into propulsion.

As a guide, my normal hilly route home takes about 46 to 48 minutes on the commuter while on the road bike, it takes about 41 to 42 minutes. My riding style is undoubtedly different between them as the commuter doesn't respond so well to out of seat uphill sprints, while the road bike is invigorating.

If the OP was to ride both bikes exactly the same, there would be some speed advantage, but the biggest difference comes from the mental attitude and the fun of a lightweight bike. On the road bike, I'm smiling almost all the way home, even on the steep bits.

So I would think you would find a (big?) difference in times due to your having a different attitude to the ride and wanting to push yourself more.

From experience with a light aluminium/carbon bike and a rather heavier steel bike with a rack and whatnot (but still unladen) with virtually identical riding positions (but more relaxed geometry on the steel one) and virtually identical tyres (same model, 23mm on the alu/carbon bike and 25mm on the steel), I put the difference at about 10% - either as a saving in effort or a reduction in time.

YMMV, of course.

fatboy wrote:What amuses me is that my spare tyre would be much more of an issue but I don't imagine hearing someone saying "you must train really hard to get THAT belly around so fast"!

Sir why are you being so unkind about your aerodynamic device?

Just think how much slower you would be without that curve to deflect the airflow?

You don't need a carbon frame, you need really light tyres. That way you can spend half the ride fixing punctures and be 30 minutes slower.

Do you mean the Stevenage CTC audax from Fairlands?

To be honest you'll lose more time on junctions or braking on corners to make that much difference. Dodging potholes and avoiding gravel is also another good one. Having a gps of the route rather than reading directions on a Audax also saves significant time...

PhilWhitehurst wrote:Do you mean the Stevenage CTC audax from Fairlands?

To be honest you'll lose more time on junctions or braking on corners to make that much difference. Dodging potholes and avoiding gravel is also another good one. Having a gps of the route rather than reading directions on a Audax also saves significant time...

No it was the Nomads sportive from Hitchin. 200 yards from my house was why i chose this event

iandriver wrote:You don't need a carbon frame, you need really light tyres. That way you can spend half the ride fixing punctures and be 30 minutes slower.

Funny that but I went out for a quick spin on my day bike Friday eve which has a 25mm gatorskin f/32mm Spesh Pro r, within a 1.5miles got a puncture from a piece of double pronged metal that stuck straight in upwards into the 32 I haven't had a puncture on my road racing bikes since 1994 and though that has been split between many bikes I hadn't given it any thought until just now..
Thin(ish) tyres don't always go pop quicker than a wider tyre, it's just as much down to luck as anything else I reckon..

As for the faster on a CF bike, I went along my fave short blast route Sunday on my principia (7.5kg of aluminium gorgeousness ) and despite the recently laid chippings on the country lanes to slow me down I was noticeably faster up the hills and overall faster than when using my lower geared (& betting handling) day bike. I'd only taken the prinny that way once or twice as the previous gearing wasn't condusive to the terrain the oft windy conditions and my general ability. Sunday though was an absolute doddle up the hills with my new carbon compact chainset

Lance Armstrong: It's not about the bike.