[Closed] Road riding - how much quicker is.........

https://images.app.goo.gl/2FEp6vKQpewmaGKb7

Depending on how you ride maybe 2-3kph average over shorter rides, probably evens out on a long ride (150-200km or more)?
I expect most of the difference is in the gears and gaps. Put modern drivetrain and wheels on that bike and for some riders it'd be equally quick. I have a relatively up to date groupset on a classic OS lugged frame and it feels as efficient as a modern bike, just doesn't have that stiff frame feel on the hills though not in any negative way. Maybe 1.5kg heavier overall but that's not going to make enough difference either. Some riders won't connect with the more flexible frame feel, others might prefer it.

How much would I gain by getting a more modern bike?

If it's one of these very modern bikes with a battery and a motor, you'll be fine. I've accepted that I'm not a racehorse, I'm a bit of a donkey. I might eventually be a very fit donkey, but I'll never be a racehorse - slow and (not very) steady is my pace

NBT - I actually fitted my ebike kit to it apart from the fact it felt awful, on anything other than a steep uphill I was going faster than 15.5 mph so it was overall slower on a flat ride 🙂

As a bike design, provided you are comfortable on it and not sat bolt upright I doubt it will make much difference until you ride with fitter club riders that are just faster on any bike.

Reading between the lines I suspect your limiting factor will still be gearing. Unless your rides are round a pan flat race circuit, more gears (on any bike) will give the riders much better more efficient riding than your 3.

You might think you can hold your own etc but, the extra efficiency through more suited cadence will surely allow others to fatigue less and slower so you'll drop back as a result.

In which case RoterStern makes a valid point. Welcome to the club 🙂

Your bike and a modern bike should be as fast as each other, they are after all driven by the same engine. Rolling resistance should be similar, seeing you've got modern tyres on the oldie. I don't suppose new_bike+you will be significantly more aero than old_bike+you either.
If you stick to pancake flat, windless, routes there'll be no difference. However, you're in the real world so the gear range and number of gears will be the real difference, plus the 'old and unfit' factor !

The stem being 1" below the seat suggests it's a bit big, and the position affects your aero.

A modern bike will feel stiffer and lighter, which help psychologically.

I suspect tho it's a fitness/road riding thing - it's so different to mountainbiking. Eg if you feel the 3 speed isn't holding you back then you're not bothered about finding/using your sweet spot of cadence, which is a thing for any roadie.

I`m going to go against the grain here and say that the modern bike will be significantly faster.

Lighter overall, better materials, more efficient drivetrain, bearings, rims, tyres, more aero, stiffer... it`ll be night and day.

The stem being 1″ below the seat suggests it’s a bit big,

Nope - thats just how bikes were 60 years ago. Its perfectly sized for me

and the position affects your aero.

that will be true

Eg if you feel the 3 speed isn’t holding you back

that really is a part of the question. How much does having 3 fairly widely spaced gears affect overall speed ( 200% range) and how much effect does the less aero have in the real world?

riding it SS I was actually a bit quicker on climbs and still am forced to climb faster as i do not have a realy low gear - so its hammer uphill and coast downhill

Edit - trailwagger - its got modern wheels and tyres and the SA hub is efficient especially in second which is direct drive

I'm usually a bit quicker on my Mason than on my 531 lugged Thorn. Not a huge difference though.

How much does having 3 fairly widely spaced gears affect overall speed ( 200% range) and how much effect does the less aero have in the real world?

Indeed, you can easily find the watts of difference Tri bars etc make (which is significant), extrapolate that to an upright Vs low position (the latter would take you some time to become accustomed to). The gear thing is impossible to answer, but think about how close the ratios are on any racers bike.

riding it SS I was actually a bit quicker on climbs

This is from data or feel?

How much does having 3 fairly widely spaced gears affect overall speed ( 200% range)

Always being in the wrong gear/cadence will have a bigger effect than the aero/frame shape/geometry in this case.

I had an old retro Alan Bike from the 70s. It had 6 speed Campag Chorus. I tried it on a number of group rides, but it was horrendous. The gearing was a killer. The position was fairly upright as well.
Probably about 2mph slower than my modern aero bike. It was fine for short rides, but fast group rides over 50 or 60 miles was very tough. Our group has a policy of you get dropped you make your own way back. As such I just remember having to really dig in to stay with them.

I was tempted to make the frame into a mix of modern and old but decided I’ll wait for me to stop doing fast group rides before I do that.

This is from data or feel?

feel but it was pretty obvious

Its only idle speculation really and i am interested in folks thoughts. I am just trying to make myself feel better or hope to by blaming the bike for me being slow 🙂

Whilst old bike will be relatively comfortable, its surprising how flexible and old skinny tube frame is in comparison to a modern frame. Until recently, I had a 1980s Gios which was a professional quality frame - I rode L’Eroica and RetroRonde on it a few times - including some crit racing. One of the big changes is position and contact points - bars were higher because we rode on the drops - hoods weren’t as comfortable a place to be for long periods and bar shapes are different. Modern pedals and shoes are so much more efficient too - soft leather shoes, toeclips and straps are purgatory.

It’s not painted red is it? There’s gains to be had right there.

feel but it was pretty obvious

One bike/setup may have "made" you go faster, but climbing speed really is just about weight, so the difference between SA 3 speed and single speed really can't have made a significant difference.

I am using spds and fairly stiff mtb shoes

Its got bullhorns on it which is effectively the same position as being on the hoods but does allow you to bend your elbows and rest your forearms on the bend and get down to an equivalent position to drops

I used to run it with tribars and thinking about it that did make a noticeable difference

so the consensus would be that the aero disadvantage will be a noticeable amount and the wide gearing also? Perhaps a mph or so difference for each factor over a 40 mile ride?

so i can blame the bike and therefore when riding with the young women console myself its the bikes fault not mine? 😉

It’s not painted red is it? There’s gains to be had right there.

It used to be red but is now black. maybe thats my mistake

I would have thought a modern bike, especially one with 28/32 my tyres will be more comfortable and more efficient so you’ll probably go faster relatively easily.
You could try picking up a modern bike with rim brakes second hand and see how it goes, pick a nice one which doesn’t have a really stiff frame and you’ll probably love it.

Just don't get noticed staring at their arses, seems they don't like that.

its running 28mm gp 4000 tyres

“ Whilst old bike will be relatively comfortable, its surprising how flexible and old skinny tube frame is in comparison to a modern frame”

But does that make any difference to average power delivery? Steel is great for making springs, not dampers, so any power going to flex it one way will be returned the other way, won’t it?

Yes but the energy isn't transferred to forward motion, so it's lost.

But I don't expect it's significant if even measurable.

But I don’t expect it’s significant if even measurable.

It might be significant out of the saddle, but for steady cruising 100% agree.

I`m going to go against the grain here and say that the modern bike will be significantly faster.

Lighter overall, better materials, more efficient drivetrain, bearings, rims, tyres, more aero, stiffer… it`ll be night and day.

Agreed ^^.

Most modern frames have a degree of aero built in, it'll almost certainly be lighter overall, definitely a lot stiffer but quite probably more comfy too if it's a half-decent carbon frame with more seatpost extension.

Meg did a 20:15 10TT on this

View this post on Instagram

and came 16th in the National TT championships on it

View this post on Instagram

.

I'd say it mostly depends on what position you can get into.

I’m usually a bit quicker on my Mason than on my 531 lugged Thorn.

Try cutting the extra kilo of steerer off.

Veloviewer tells me that over many hundreds of rides, and with an average ride time within 8 mins of each other that my 1987 Vitus 787 Futural (8-spd, downtube shifters & alu box-section wheels) is 0.2kmph slower than my 'best' carbon road bike

I've got a few climb Strava PBs that I set on my old Raleigh record sprint before it was nicked. Done them dozens of times since on my lighter, stiffer alloy Canyon since, but can't break my PB. I put it down to having 39x25 lowest gear on the Raleigh whereas my Canyon had 34x28 and now 34x34 - if there is a lower gear I'll usually use it. This is for 5-10 minute climbs where mashing up in a big gear is feasible.

Other explanations involve aging.

Bikes are funny. I rode my commuter bike with drop bars in the Netherlands for many hundreds of Kms. Somehow, despite the position being only a little higher, the bike was markedly slower. It was a significant effort to maintain over 32kph. So I'm estimating it was 3-4kph slower for the same effort, and I'm not sure why. It had a rack and mudguards, but I'd be surprised if that were the only reason. Obviously a lot heavier but not an issue on flat ground. It had decent tyres.

I've just replaced a 15 year old racy carbon road bike with a new 'endurance road' bike which is much 'better' overall:

- It is a lot stiffer, the tubes and stays are huge. This gives it a good snap despite having heavy wheels.
- The big (tubeless) tyres are great, really transformative.
- It fits
- It's got discs
- It's far more comfortable because if the above and things like the handlebars are a nice shape, and the hoods are sooo much nicer to hold than my old ones

It appears to be a bit faster than my old one but it's hard to compare like for like. The tyres (28c Vs 23c) clearly make a big difference on lanes and rough roads, but the overall comfort via all the little differences makes me fresher at the end of longer rides and hence I'm going faster. I'm descending way faster because I'm more stable and I have bigger better tyres and discs of course.

Also, this new bike has slightly higher bars, which means les Aero BUT I'm happier on the drops for long periods which means more aero.

So is the consensus that the aero difference is significant thus giving me the excuse to wheelsuck all the way with a view of the ladies backsides ahead of me as a perk? ( or a perv 😉 )

Just to point out that is a joke and not that I would do it but if I did I would get my head kicked in as one of them does martial arts

Lot's of variables, my thoughts:

1. A newer bike will be more efficient and therefore faster - stiffer, lighter frame etc makes for more efficient power delivery
2. Aero - depends how fast you are riding. I don't think you'll see much aerodynamic benefit unless you are riding over 20mph. This isn't based on data, just my own perception/feel.
3. Gearing. As mentioned already, more gears gives you more range which means you can find that cadence sweet spot more easily and tire less / pedal more efficiently
4. Fitness and weight are always the biggest differentiators in my opinion. Lose 5kg in body weight and you get faster without having to work any harder or spend any money on new stuff.

Most importantly, is the bike fun to ride in its current form? If it is, accept the fact that you are older/fatter/slower than you'd like to be and enjoy the ride at your own pace. I'm starting to come to terms with these realities myself and while unpleasant at first, it can be quite liberating!

I used to have one fairly light and fast—although not super aero—bike (a CAAD9) and one a few kilos heavier, flexy narrow steel tubes, dynamo lights always running, bigger tyres, mudguards etc (Surly Pacer) and used to be able to hammer them both regularly over the same 48km route from home to work. The fastest time I managed with each pegged the difference at about 2 minutes across just over 90 minutes of riding. So personally I’d guess you’d be looking at 5% tops for an old steel racer versus a modern equivalent.

The main difference I found was psychological: the lighter, stiffer bike constantly persuaded me to shift up the gears until I was smashing it; the heavier, flexier one was quite content to cruise along at lower speeds. So although my fastest times on each were quite similar, I got close to that time much more often with the Cannondale, whereas I had to really be in the zone to work the Surly that hard for the whole distance.

So most of the time the difference would have seemed larger than would be truly attributable to the actual mechanical limitations.

Sample of one, YMMV, all that jazz.

The simple answer is you won't be riding fast enough for any differences to be big enough to notice or matter (no offence!)

I'm wary of getting into the complex topic of frame stiffness but I think the 'stiffer = faster' thing only applies to some riders and riding situations, it's not a direct relationship for all riders over all time periods.
Pro road? Sure, you need everything to look, feel and be as fast as possible and you train yourself to cope.
Fast-enough rider on social/group/solo rides? Less clear maybe. Some riders suit or engage with a stiffer bike better than others. Certainly a stiff, light bike reacts to initial pedal input more instantly and that feels different but is it faster overall? - I'm not convinced. Could help give you the reaction to make a break or drop a rider in the short term though. If you're a sprinty rider who rarely rides more than a few hours I expect it's to your advantage to have a stiffer frame. For a rider who has a steadier smoother output esp over a longer period I think there's either something beneficial in a frame that has a bit of flex, or perhaps if the stiffness isn't producing a reaction speed advantage it only feels harsher and tires a rider faster. Plus, smooth (eg a bit of frame flex/sway when climbing) never feels fast and reliable timing to check efficiency to this level of accuracy or small difference is difficult.
I'm not going as far as the skinny tube planing that BQ talk about but I don't think our bodies interact with very rigid structures as well as those with a bit of spring/flex/give. Frames are pretty efficient springs, not losing power only changing how it's applied. Our body doesn't produce square wave power either. If I could take a really flexy frame and a 100% stiff one and do hill repeat comparisons I'm sure I'd be faster on the stiffer bike but that's not the same as proof that stiffest is best. I think the optimum balance of stiffness to flex is personal - it's thf easier for a mass-production bike brand to sell us an absolute as the best solution.

Try cutting the extra kilo of steerer off.

How do you suggest I attach the quill stem?

It’s not (all) about the bike.
Aero matters, but not at low speeds, one bike might well be 15% moar aero than another, but the biggest aero improvement is to be had from body position.
Weight matters, but the bike weight is only a small proportion of total weight, so losing weight from the bike won’t really make much difference.
Gearing matters, but only really when it’s wrong, if you’re sticking with the 3 speed, gear it so that your average speed is in the sweet spot in 2nd gear, as it’s the most efficient.
It’s mostly about the engine, if you jumped onto the latest super duper carbon road bike, assuming it’s the correct size/setup for you it will be quicker, but not by that much.
Marginal gains.

The simple answer is you won’t be riding fast enough for any differences to be big enough to notice or matter (no offence!)

None taken as its probably true

if you’re sticking with the 3 speed, gear it so that your average speed is in the sweet spot in 2nd gear, as it’s the most efficient.

that is how its set up

Ta for the thoughts chaps. Its interesting that those with hard data found little difference ( but some) but the "feel" and perception is that it would make a fair bit of difference

I enjoy riding the bike and I enjoy riding with these two. They just have to accept its a social ride if I'm with them and they do so quite happily. I just have to accept being old fat and slow

What points on the training ride are you slower/getting dropped/struggling. If it’s on the climbs it’s a power to weight ratio issue. If it’s on the flat it may be a gearing or fitness issue.

If it’s a power to weight thing then you should do some extra training to improve your power output on the climbs or stop eating biscuits or both.

On the flat it should be quite easy to wheel suck and let the others do most of the work. That is unless your spinning out.

The good thing about being the nail and getting hammered on every ride is as long as you keep doing it and don’t give up you should get stronger/fitter and be able to keep up once your fitness improves.

I’m wary of getting into the complex topic of frame stiffness but I think the ‘stiffer = faster’ thing only applies to some riders and riding situations,

I`m not so sure. They way i look at it is if a rider on a stiffer frame saves 10 watts to travel the same speed as his mate on a flexy 531 frame, then at the end of a 4 hour ride he is going to be significantly fresher than the guy putting out an extra 10-15 watts for the entire ride.
I dont know how much power output gets soaked up in a flexy frame, but add it all up, flex, weight while climbing, rolling resistance, drivetrain loses, aero and the new bike could easily save you what? 20 watts? 30 watts? thats significant over four hours.