Is it worth it?

[mcr]

I'm the happy owner of a Thorn xTc tourer that's done sterling service for the past six years as an all-purpose bike for both tours and day rides. However, even when faced with benign terrain and reasonable fitness levels, I've always been disappointed by my lack of both stamina and speed when unencumbered by luggage. It was brought home to me yesterday, when I was gaily sailing along at 30kmh on the flat with a tail wind and was overtaken by a roadie a good generation older than me (I'm 48), who must have been going closer to 45.

So I'm trying to decide: is it me or the bike? If I were to invest in a sleaker, lighter road machine for day rides, would I see an appreciable increase in both average speed (currently c22kmh over the year as a whole) and stamina over distance (max c80km) and up hills? And if so, is that achievable on a budget of, say, £600-700? Or do I have to accept my lot and that I am by nature a plodder?

Any thoughts gratefully received.

Matthew

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

If you are reasonably fit and the terrain is reasonably flat and benign, assuming the bike is properly maintained, the main reasons why you are slower than you can be might include: i) your bike has high rolling resistance, ii) aerodynamic drag is high, and iii) bike fit is not optimal.

Two big determinants of rolling resistance are tyre pressure and tyre profile. Do you have slick tyres (or at least tyres with a slick centre band)? and do you run them at close to 80 psi or more? If you don't they can make a big difference.

The principal wind drag is caused by your posture and your clothes/luggage etc. Sitting upright, loose baggy clothes, big panniers etc. all act like a sail working against you at speed (unless a tail wind is blowing faster than you can ride!).

There can be many other reasons of course. Many riders set their saddles too low. If one's leg at the bottom of the pedal stroke is not nearly straight, the amount of power one can efficiently and effortlessly transfer into forward motion is significantly reduced.

 

[- Baz -]

Well, my brain can only work in old money (inches/lbs/mph etc)...

To answer your question, I'd say yes. BUT, is it really worth shelling out some serious dosh for a few extra MPH?

Sounds to me like you're just trying to talk yourself into getting a new bike. So - get down to your LBS pronto!

 

[psmiffy]

I am pretty similar – maybe a little older – I own a relatively heavy 26” tourer 17.5kg – but I did invest in a light-ish 700c hybrid 11kg – narrow tires, light wheels etc for day rides – compared to the tourer it feels like a veritable greyhound – however when I compared my average speeds over the same routes there was little or no difference and stamina wise over 80k I am less tired than when I use the tourer – my explanation is that I am just slow.

I suspect a goodish “racer” will enable you to go faster – simply being on it will encourage you to ride it harder and more often and with that the fitness – and speed will come – myself I am pretty happy being slow compared to the odd one or two geezers that come hurtling past me (not that many cyclists around here so it does not happen that often it mortifies me) – a quick look down and a comparison of the size of their thighs and calves with what’s propelling me pretty soon indicates why they are faster.

I ride for fun and fitness and my rides generally are by time than distance – so whatever bike I am riding I still get the same amount of benefit.

Anyway It sound like you need at least one other good bike to protect the XTC from wearing out

 

[mcr]

If you are reasonably fit and the terrain is reasonably flat and benign, assuming the bike is properly maintained, the main reasons why you are slower than you can be might include: i) your bike has high rolling resistance, ii) aerodynamic drag is high, and iii) bike fit is not optimal.

Two big determinants of rolling resistance are tyre pressure and tyre profile. Do you have slick tyres (or at least tyres with a slick centre band)? and do you run them at close to 80 psi or more? If you don't they can make a big difference.

The principal wind drag is caused by your posture and your clothes/luggage etc. Sitting upright, loose baggy clothes, big panniers etc. all act like a sail working against you at speed (unless a tail wind is blowing faster than you can ride!).

There can be many other reasons of course. Many riders set their saddles too low. If one's leg at the bottom of the pedal stroke is not nearly straight, the amount of power one can efficiently and effortlessly transfer into forward motion is significantly reduced.

I can accept 1), since it's set up to cope with the odd stretch of track, though last year I switched from 26"x1.75" to 26"x1.25" tyres, which I pump up to c60 psi (I find too much of Buckinghamshire's road surfaces' multiple imperfections get transmitted to my hands with much more than this). It effectively gained me an extra gear (ie, my main, comfortable cruising gear on the level is one higher than previously) but not noticeably more speed. I wear normal tight-fitting cycling tops and lycra shorts, so don't feel I am subject to wind drag there, and the posture was set up at time of purchase for a sportyish ride. Maybe the saddle could be a tad higher, though I've measured it against the standard, recommended inside-leg-based formula.

I suppose I mean will a bike with some 700c slicks etc show a marked difference over what I've already got?

 

[mcr]

Anyway It sound like you need at least one other good bike to protect the XTC from wearing out

Now that's an excuse I hadn't though of!

 

[psmiffy]

Now that's an excuse I hadn't though of!

That was mine - the Thorn is 10 years old and still going strong

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

I can accept 1), since it's set up to cope with the odd stretch of track, though last year I switched from 26"x1.75" to 26"x1.25" tyres, which I pump up to c60 psi (I find too much of Buckinghamshire's road surfaces' multiple imperfections get transmitted to my hands with much more than this). It effectively gained me an extra gear (ie, my main, comfortable cruising gear on the level is one higher than previously) but not noticeably more speed. I wear normal tight-fitting cycling tops and lycra shorts, so don't feel I am subject to wind drag there, and the posture was set up at time of purchase for a sportyish ride. Maybe the saddle could be a tad higher, though I've measured it against the standard, recommended inside-leg-based formula.

I suppose I mean will a bike with some 700c slicks etc show a marked difference over what I've already got?

I have Continental Sport Contact 26x1.3" on an alu bike at 80psi, and Rubino Pro 700x20c at 120psi on a steel "sports-tourer". But because of their differences (in frame material and fork geometry etc.), the latter is actually more comfortable. But I found Ergon grips on the alu bike helps.

But to answer your question, in the case above, my 26" wheels, tyres and tubes are reasonably light models of their kind, yet they are much heavier than the 700c wheels, tyres and tubes I have; and I believe as a result the 26" wheel bike feels much less lively in acceleration and not half as much fun to ride. In fact the relative rotational mass of those 26" components is close to double that of the 700c. For example, the 26x1.3" Conti Sport Contact's are supposed to be amongst the fastest 26"road tyres on the market, but they are 470g each on my digital scale, while the Rubino Pro's are only 220g a piece. Similar differences apply to tubes and wheels (though less so for rims).

Therefore IMHO the difference in rolling inertia of 26" vs 700c wheels is a big deal in relation to the feel, in acceleration, and in climbs of a lightish bike; but less so in terms of rolling resistance so one should expect the difference to be less dramatic in terms of rolling steadily along on the flat.

 

[Fab Foodie]

£700 will buy a reasonable road-bike that'll make you feel like Lance compared to your current set-up. Road-bikes are designed for efficient speed, that's why they're the way they are, why the riding position is different, why componants are different and the frame engineering values stiffness in place of comfort and longevity.

Go and try one, you'll be amazed at the difference.

 

[Piemaster]

I've got a Giant Escape (mudguards, rack, 1.75 M+ tyres) and an On-One Pompino (700c x 25). Speed difference on same route is around 5mph for me.
The Escape now gets used for rain, and anything that requires load carrying, mu 'utility' bike. Pompino for rides and getting somewhere quick, 'the fast one'.
Both bikes have their plus point, I enjoy both of them and their differences.


Sooo...in answer to the OP. n+1

 

[craigwend]

So I'm trying to decide: is it me or the bike? If I were to invest in a sleaker, lighter road machine for day rides, would I see an appreciable increase in both average speed (currently c22kmh over the year as a whole) and stamina over distance (max c80km) and up hills? And if so, is that achievable on a budget of, say, £600-700? Or do I have to accept my lot and that I am by nature a plodder?

Any thoughts gratefully received.

Matthew

It will make a difference - I am / have a plodder aka a galaxy - the geometry of tourers, lower tyre pressures, thicker tyres - though mine are only 32mm, lower gears all slow it down, but make it more comfortable, I remember going from a raleigh record ace to the galaxy felt like i'd left my brakes on!

if you go to something more 'sporty' it may feel a little less like riding your favourite 'slippers' , the gearing will probably be higher, tyres thinner and considerably 'harder' - though the ease of the ride may compensate it by a few mph?

At the price you quoute though you'll probably end up if buying new, with an aluminum frame, even though there are some clever designs to aid comfort & carbon forks & stays, you may find the ride harsher.

I made a similar choice a few years ago, as much as I love the galaxy I wanted something a bit more sporty, fun & a few mph faster. Luckily combined with my 40th managed to get a (ti) van nich euros.

YES it is worth it - on smile factor alone. When riding it does add a few mph, can tackle hills 'easier' I can usually use much high gears ie using outer 52 as opposed to 46 on galaxy. Tackled my hilly sportive (100 miles)in a good time - though my other big rides a 100 & 120 were on the galaxy due to terrain, weather & other factors.


Lots of good baragins around this time of year & your price range, cycling plus recomends trek 1.2 & pinnacle sentinal in your price range, though if you could squeeze up another 200 I'd be more than tempted by the boardman team carbon.

Good hunting

 

[youngoldbloke]

Try a nice light road bike with a taught frame, light wheels and tyres at 110psi - bit like driving a Porsche compared with a tractor (I imagine.......)

 

[mcr]

Thanks, folks - it looks like I'll just have to get a new bike... (so who gets the bung from the bike manufacturing industry?)

 

[Fiona N]

26"x1.75" to 26"x1.25" tyres, which I pump up to c60 psi (I find too much of Buckinghamshire's road surfaces' multiple imperfections get transmitted to my hands with much more than this).

This could well be a part of the answer since a real roadie would probably be on 100 or 110psi <28mm tyres.