Bike Advice

[MRC01]

... I had a recumbent. ... On flat terrain they were faster, more comfortable and good. People kept saying I'd manage to climb hills, but after a couple years I gave up. ... the higher position of a diamond frame felt more safe to me around traffic ...

Your words echo what I've heard from other recumbent owners. Which is why I haven't owned one myself.

... Repeat after me: "There is no derailleur like no derailleur." ...

Back in the 80s when I replaced those E2 rims with G40s, I kept those old E2 rims. 30+ years later I put them back into service. I converted an old Trek 330 into a "single speed" using a Sturmey Archer S2 kickback hub. No derailleurs, no shifters. But 2 speeds internally geared: high for most riding, then kick down into low for steep hills. A simple city bike for commuting, DIY resurrection style.

 

[Judas]

No I am equally snobbish n both.

 

[soundwave76]

I am a biker but decided to RENT a row machine for three months on December. It’s been a great choice I don’t regret it at all. 150€ for a used Concept2. Regarding bikes, don’t try to save too much and buy a used premium brand instead of a new average brand.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I am a biker but decided to RENT a row machine for three months on December. It’s been a great choice I don’t regret it at all. 150€ for a used Concept2. Regarding bikes, don’t try to save too much and buy a used premium brand instead of a new average brand.

I tried indoor bikes and just could not make myself do it. I tried my bike on trainers and rollers. Sorry, just too boring I could not do it. I tried a rowing machine one winter, and hey not bad. Don't ask me how that was okay with me and the other wasn't. Maybe because I don't have a boat to do real rowing. Rowing was useful, I could maintain discipline to do it, and it used different muscles which probably was actually good as a change up. I also live where winter is short lived. Indoor biking is a non-starter to me, while rowing for cold days is fine.

 

[dasdoing]

there is: a recumbent built for speed has half the drag of a time trial bike (also built for speed)

we are at AVS, I need meassurements lol
but seriously, this should be tested in a wind tunnel. it is not so obvious as you think. on a TT the main body volume is horizontal, on a recumbent it is not. on the other hand you have more drag from the legs on a TT and the overall higher profile. it is OBVIOUS that a recumbent has a lot of advantage over a normal bike; against a TT position it is not obvious imo

there is: a recumbent built for speed has half the drag of a time trial bike (also built for speed). On top of that you will be sitting in a comfy position similar to a lounge chair and you will not have any saddle pain or numb wrists. You will also sit in a position allowing you to see the surroundings and not the asphalt.

I actualy find TT position pretty comfortable. it's like leaning on a couch lol. those who find it uncomfortable have probably a problem in the back. saddle pain I solved with split nose saddle. And I am not racing, so I don't need to face the ground all the time

So if speed is your thing they are superior.

As I said, and others have, it's not realy an option inner-citty. I would love to ride one on lonly roads though...not going to happen unfortunatly

 

[Foxenfurter]

funnily enough I was reading about bike aerodynamics the other day. Clutching at straws having realised how bad I am at climbing...

https://www.cyclingabout.com/fascinating-aerodynamics-bikepacking-bicycle-touring/

 

[Willem]

Climbing is about fighting gravity, and reducing both your body weight and your luggage weight is the best option. At typical climbing speeds aerodynamics are pretty irrelevant.

 

[Foxenfurter]

Yes I know that. Clutching at straws is a British expression based upon a "drowning man trying to save himself by clutching at straws floating on the water" as they are not going to save you and it is totally futile. Hence looking at aerodynamics to improve my climbing is also clutching at straws.

I had been reading about exercises to do to help with climbing and this site had some interesting stuff on gear ratios and for the average cyclist how you should be aiming for a sustainable power output hence use (in some case much) lower gears on climbs. There was also a link to this page on aero which is interesting in the context of recumbents' being the only truly aero bikes. These guys who race across continents actually provide pretty good evidence based info for equipment choices, and some of them are counter-intuitive, which is always interesting.

 

[dasdoing]

Climbing is about fighting gravity, and reducing both your body weight and your luggage weight is the best option. At typical climbing speeds aerodynamics are pretty irrelevant.

yes, I always laugh when people are fighting over 100g more or less on bike weight when they could gain 10kg+ with a nutrition plan.

my city is flat, so I don't care at all. my frame is from the 90ies

 

[AHo]

we are at AVS, I need meassurements lol
but seriously, this should be tested in a wind tunnel. it is not so obvious as you think. on a TT the main body volume is horizontal, on a recumbent it is not. on the other hand you have more drag from the legs on a TT and the overall higher profile. it is OBVIOUS that a recumbent has a lot of advantage over a normal bike; against a TT position it is not obvious imo

let me see what I can get you. One source that is based on power measurements on cranks can be found here: http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

If you compare fast diamond frame bikes with a lowracer the difference between Cw*A is 1.8 for the low racer versus 3 for the fastest diamond frame bikes. Adding a streamlined tail to the lowracer lowers the Cw*A to 1.5

another table that can be found on the site of M5 (I'm not sure if I can copy paste here due to copyright) shows a similar picture. Rhey claim to have measured at 250W: A carbon high racer (recumbent) will go 48,3km/h, a thriathlon bike 37km/h, a racingbike in racing position 35km/h, and a racingbike in normal position 32km/h.


And I completely agree these bikes are not meant for cities.

 

[Willem]

It is true that losing weight helps with climbing. The mountain stages in the Tour de France are usually won by short and light riders.
At the same time lightweight luggage makes a real difference, and more so for older and weaker riders. My complete luggage weight for European three season camping tours is 12-15 kg and that includes a comfortable tent, warm and thick mattress and sleeping bag, stove etc to cook real meals from fresh ingredients, and clothing for a range of conditions. Unfortunately I see many inexperienced riders who were persuaded by the outdoor shop that they needed all kinds of kit that did not really need. Less is more.

 

[Sonny1]

Good advice on comfort - my newest bike a Cannondale CAADX had such an uncomfortable saddle I couldn't manage 10 miles without flinching. So I replaced it and the seatpost with a carbon fibre one really is comfy now. I was going to get a fitting, then Covid happened.
In London the roads are so bad with potholes and half-arsed repairs that I ride 35 mm tyres. All the trails are slimed up with mud and leaves so slicks are out of the question.
I just ride for pleasure and fitness, so whilst it is nice to be able to go a bit quicker the bike makes a lot less difference than the rider. I had an old kronk with only 5 gears and a cheap steel frame in my 20's but still averaged more than 5 mph faster than I do now.

Incidentally - Do you find some cyclists are worse equipment snobs than audiophiles?

Cycling and Audio (I’m talking 2 channel) are both hobbies dominated by men. They both have their share of snobbery but at least cycling is less subjective. I mean, someone can say his new tires or frame material improves his speed but it’s easy to tell because the stopwatch doesn’t lie. Comfort is subjective, I guess but not to the person dealing with soreness caused by an ill fitting saddle or improper fit. I’m a big fan of certain saddles (fizik aerion and selle SMP, etc) but I’m cheap so I try to make the stock saddles work until I realize it’s usually not worth it. Saddle fit is probably the most important thing because you don’t want numbness or injury to that part of your anatomy.

Most guys in my former cycling group use power meters. We’ve used them for years and they are a very helpful training tool. I’ve finished rides with personal records only to find out the great time was due to drafting or favorable wind assistance. Watts don’t lie! In the Midwest wind can make a huge difference in your ride time and overall speed.

I’m a big fan of the modern trend of bigger tires for road bikes. I’m using 28mm tires (Conti GP4000) but I plan to try 30mm tires next. It wont be any time soon because I got a good deal on the GP4k’s and bought several sets. These days, comfort trumps most other factors but I still want speed because I don’t like getting dropped by the group. I’ve learned a lot about cycling over the years but I’ve made so many mistakes and have taken way too much bad advice. The only advice I give people is to pay attention to their fit and do what works for you. Instill laugh when I think of my first “real” road bike. A still CF frame, super thin tires, zero float pedals, slammed stem and ass hatchet saddle. Torture machine that almost made me quit cycling. I can’t make fun of people for making mistakes because I’ve probably made more than anyone I know when it comes to cycling.

 

[BostonJack]

I haven't read the entire thread, but here goes:
I bought an Echelon spin bike, connected to a set of live and on-demand lessons with a spin instructor. The bike in no way simulates a road bike, as the pedals are *way* too widely set. The power output meter and the corresponding model for miles ridden seems accurate. I don't care about the instructors too much, as after setting my pace/load to a suitable level of suffering they just turn into background noise. The leader board is handy, as I can pick a couple of people to compete against which allows for a proper psychology to put out more effort.

My only beef with spin technique is they do too much standing out of saddle and they do it at ridiculously high cadences.

The echelon bike itself is velvet smooth, very solid, not a squeak or twitch in sight. I'm older (66 y.o.) and never was particularly fast, but my fitness levels are slowly creeping up.

Hope this helps.

 

[MRC01]

... Regarding bikes, don’t try to save too much and buy a used premium brand instead of a new average brand.

Good advice. And don't waste money on fancy components. Spend the money on a good frame and wheels. Shimano 105 with a great frame & wheels is much better than Dura-ace on a lesser frame or wheelset.

yes, I always laugh when people are fighting over 100g more or less on bike weight when they could gain 10kg+ with a nutrition plan. ...

Sure, and they forget the power/weight ratio is the entire mass of bike + rider. So a 1 lb. reduction is not 5%, it's 0.5%. All the power, and most of the weight, is with the rider.

 

[dasdoing]

let me see what I can get you. One source that is based on power measurements on cranks can be found here: http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

If you compare fast diamond frame bikes with a lowracer the difference between Cw*A is 1.8 for the low racer versus 3 for the fastest diamond frame bikes. Adding a streamlined tail to the lowracer lowers the Cw*A to 1.5

another table that can be found on the site of M5 (I'm not sure if I can copy paste here due to copyright) shows a similar picture. Rhey claim to have measured at 250W: A carbon high racer (recumbent) will go 48,3km/h, a thriathlon bike 37km/h, a racingbike in racing position 35km/h, and a racingbike in normal position 32km/h.


And I completely agree these bikes are not meant for cities.

I am not convinced by those sources/numbers, but thanks.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I am not convinced by those sources/numbers, but thanks.

My A**-o-meter having ridden recumbent and regular bikes finds the info quite convincing and just about what I'd expect.

I had a rather conservative moderate recumbent. Vs a racing triatholon bike doing coast down tests on a long hill it was no contest. We'd get both bikes at a steady 5 mph crossing a line as we started down the hill. The conventional bike no matter how tucked in your are has much more wind resistance. If you hang out at some bike forums, just like here on ASR, there are plenty of advanced curious types who do their own testing. I don't know why the data is unconvincing to you.

 

[Judas]

Climbing is about VO2max. That is why blood doping is so effective

 

[maxxevv]

If recumbents are on the radar, then Taiwanese make, Performer, is pretty hard to top in terms of value.

As for cycling indoors, most 'tadpole' recumbents will work well with the latest smart trainers. But there may be exceptions, best to confirm with manufacturer.
And in that bracket, the Tacx NEO T2 is probably the finest out on the market in almost all aspects that matter in a smart trainer.

So true. Yet there is nothing like the feeling of riding a smooth efficient bike on fast tires. My current road tires resemble what "we're no longer doing": Conti GP5000 700x23 with latex inner tubes. Just wow, so much better than the fragile racing slicks I used to run back in the 1980s, my last flat was over 500 miles ago even on crappy Seattle area pavement. It's not that I care about the seconds (though it does make a difference and it is faster), I just love the efficient responsive feel of these tires, so much better than fatter more comfortable tires.

You should move onto 25c tyres and even 28c tyres (if it will fit your bike frame) if you have bad roads where you ride. They make a far, far greater difference (at appropriate tyre pressures) than any other bike component in terms of riding comfort for bad surfaces. And yes, quality latex tubes make a difference in ride comfort too, just that they are a hassle as most don't hold pressure (+/- 10psi) for more than 12 hours.

 

[Linus]

Should we share pictures of what ride or not !?

 

[Blumlein 88]

I have seen tests where 28c tires have very slightly lower rolling resistance than thinner tires except on very, very smooth concrete. Rough concrete, asphalt and other common road surfaces the wider tire is actually also lower in rolling resistance. So why not also get the ride comfort at the same time.

Any of you guys ride tubeless tires and rims? I have them on one bike and they are very, very nice vs tubed tires of a similar type.