Author Topic: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?  (Read 15603 times)

GillP

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #100 on: July 16, 2009, 09:55:42 pm »
I don't understand all the technical stuff, but have been out on steely Stan tonight 2kg lighter and wow what a difference. Don't think I need a lightweight road bike yet!  :)

toekneep

  • Its got my name on it.
    • Blog
Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #101 on: July 16, 2009, 09:56:32 pm »
Been out in the rain with the gang tonight and apart from obviously getting very wet and muddy (no mudguards), we were at least 1mph faster and more to the point, keeping up that speed was relatively easy. Instead of bringing up the rear we were mostly out in front. Thanks for all the advice, it worked.

/edit
Cross posted with Mrs. TKP
/edit

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #102 on: July 16, 2009, 10:25:32 pm »
Sounds like you both enjoyed it.  The wheel swap was a very good idea :thumbsup:
Getting there...

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #103 on: July 17, 2009, 10:54:08 am »
I don't understand all the technical stuff, but have been out on steely Stan tonight 2kg lighter and wow what a difference. Don't think I need a lightweight road bike yet!  :)

Give it time, you will ;)

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #104 on: July 17, 2009, 10:56:15 am »
p.s. you do realise that Biggsy's comments relate to Lee's posts, right?

That's what confused me... How did I get involved in the difference between proof and "almost certainly the case"?

Because you were questioning Biggsy's post about proof, when he was actually correct.  His position, after all, is probably not different to yours, but his cut-off for real proof is probably higher.

+1 to Mal Volio's no absolute.
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

gonzo

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #105 on: July 17, 2009, 10:58:21 am »
Because you were questioning Biggsy's post about proof, when he was actually correct.  His position, after all, is probably not different to yours, but his cut-off for real proof is probably higher.

I haven't commented on Biggsy's posts at all!

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #106 on: July 17, 2009, 11:37:40 am »
Doh!  I got mixed up between TimC and you, sorry.
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

TimC

  • Bike pilot
Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #107 on: July 17, 2009, 01:10:22 pm »
What? What did I do???

gonzo

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #108 on: July 17, 2009, 02:03:02 pm »
What? What did I do???

I've got no idea. Just nod, smile and back away slowly ;)

toekneep

  • Its got my name on it.
    • Blog
Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #109 on: July 18, 2009, 09:19:59 pm »
Well I think that was pretty conclusive. Twenty six miles in a blustery wind and we managed 16.7mph average on the stripped down bikes with skinny wheels/tyres.

robbo6

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #110 on: July 18, 2009, 09:33:41 pm »
Here's a thought for you: the average speed of the Paris Roubaix has been about 42kph recently ...
What interested me from that link is the fastest ever Paris-Roubaix was ridden on  a 'sixties era steelie. It would be interesting to see the relevant weather records.

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #111 on: July 19, 2009, 01:55:11 pm »
I think the most important record would be the route.  At one stage, the organisers started to make it faster by changing the route and using better roads (one of the issues was the safety of the sometimes badly maintained narrow cobbled sections).  So the character of the race started to change towards being less of a tough mans race. Then the paris roubaix society started refurbing the cobbled sections and pushing for the race to include them, and the character of the race started to go back towards what it is now.

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #112 on: July 19, 2009, 01:58:07 pm »
There is some epic thread drift here. Has Lance Armstrong ever ridden Paris - Roubaix ? Has toekneep ? Some novel bikes were tried on Paris-Roubaix in the 80s and 90s too.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #113 on: July 20, 2009, 11:26:03 am »
In my own poorly-conducted trial, Pearsons' incompetence has put me on the fixed today.  I tend to regard it as my slowest bike, being the best part of thirty years old, and made of basic 531.

As the computer is out of sight, I can't pace myself at any point, and I don't wear a watch. 

The outcome was that the average speed was comparable to the other two bikes I use to commute, which is rather a surprise.

It may be that the limiting factor on all of them is my lack of fitness following the lay off, but I would have thought the difference would be applicable for any value of fitness.
Getting there...

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #114 on: July 20, 2009, 11:38:19 am »
In my own poorly-conducted trial, Pearsons' incompetence has put me on the fixed today.  I tend to regard it as my slowest bike, being the best part of thirty years old, and made of basic 531.

As the computer is out of sight, I can't pace myself at any point, and I don't wear a watch. 

The outcome was that the average speed was comparable to the other two bikes I use to commute, which is rather a surprise.

It may be that the limiting factor on all of them is my lack of fitness following the lay off, but I would have thought the difference would be applicable for any value of fitness.
I did my fasted ever 200 on my 20 year old battered Fixed. Reynolds 531, The Black Witch. Time included stops. 8h40. My fastest average speed on a randonee was on a 300 on my Merckx, Columbus SLX New, which was 8 years old at the time and also included stops, 12h50. I don't worry about moving speeds. Different routes, different days, different wheels to follow. (Actually on the fast 200 I wasn't following any wheels, I was dropping people and we nearly won the event, had we not stopped for a cuppa we would have done)

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #115 on: August 05, 2009, 09:52:06 am »
Weight must be important.  I note that when I ride in carrying clothes (and, this morning, a stack of old mags to go in the waiting room), often in a pannier I don't normally carry, I post faster times.  My commute, while very very slightly downhill, is, to all intents and purposes, pretty much flat.
Getting there...

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #116 on: August 09, 2009, 08:48:36 pm »
Completely non-scientific but of my current fleet the rigid 853 Saracen mtb with x2.1 tractor tyres is the fastest UPHILL simply by virtue of being at 22 lbs the LIGHTEST. Second fastest is the hard tail at c. 25 lbs. The others are all heavier and surprise surprise slower.

Let right or wrong alone decide
God was never on your side.

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #117 on: August 10, 2009, 08:37:43 am »
I am going to reread this thread repeatedly to remind myself that I don't need shiny bling bike that I can neither afford nor have room to store :)

I am now toying with the idea of getting lighter wheels & tyres to put on Cepheus-the-tourer for the spring. And maybe a decent saddlebag instead of using rack+pannier: when I borrowed Charlotte's saddlebag & removed the rack for the BCM a couple of years ago it did seem to make a difference

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #118 on: August 10, 2009, 08:54:56 am »
I think rack+rackpack ~= saddlebag of similiar capacity

(Somoone here actually did the comparison, not me.)

There are some very heavy racks around.

A pannier creates a lot of drag, which will add up on a ride like BCM.

Horses for courses!
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #119 on: August 10, 2009, 08:58:13 am »
I believe my Hewitt feels better when I use my large Carradice saddle pack instead of my rack and rackpack. Maybe it's because it's lighter maybe it's because the weight is further forward and the bike CoG is where is should be.

eck

  • Gonna ride my bike until I get home...
    • Angus Bike Chain CC
Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #120 on: August 10, 2009, 09:01:20 am »
I think rack+rackpack ~= saddlebag of similiar capacity

(Somoone here actually did the comparison, not me.)
:-\
Maybe it was me?
I remarked a while ago that I was surprised that my Carradice SQR Trax + fitting block was heavier than my Blackburn Expedition rack + Altura Skye rackpack.
But (similar to what MSeries says) the SQR set-up looks lighter.  ???
It's a bit weird, but actually quite wonderful.

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #121 on: August 10, 2009, 09:11:02 am »
It may have been the pannier that made the difference rather than removing the rack (my rack is fairly light - 400g or so IIRC).  Having less space may also have been beneficial :) 

I will consider the rackpack alternative as well, then! 

Re: Was Lance wrong? Is it really about the bike?
« Reply #122 on: August 10, 2009, 09:30:24 am »

I remarked a while ago that I was surprised that my Carradice SQR Trax + fitting block was heavier than my Blackburn Expedition rack + Altura Skye rackpack.
But (similar to what MSeries says) the SQR set-up looks lighter.  ???


Basic engineering - think how much lighter it could be made if it was supported by a couple of slender struts instead of being cantilevered. Except for suspended bikes they're a silly idea.