Are you sure it's not the bike??

Not too surprising
the felts probably 15 Lbs lighter at least has better bearings all around so a lot less friction , newer smoother Drive line and such..

When I switched from my classic 20 year old + crom/ally roady to my Giant Carbon TCR I gained a couple of MPH right off the top.

Edited by RRH_88 2014-10-10 10:44 AM

I love my B16 as well. Glad you're enjoying it. 22.2 mph over 26 miles is cruising. Having your previous fastest race being what it was, your old bike must have been a rock. Without power though don't get too caught up in speed. 22.2 might have felt easy because you just spent a decent amount of money on the bike and you wanted it to be easy.

It's actually not that complex

Take this calculator
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

Try 180watts in the drops = 20.46mph
Try 180watts in aero = 22.10mph

sound about right ? :-)

Now, there are a bunch of factors....but it's more the position than the bike.

it's all physics

I was using aero bars on the road bike though. I'm still in a different position now however.

I think it's a combination of a couple of factors:
1. Weight. my old bike was 34 pounds loaded (minus water) my new one is around 20
2. Aero: my old bike had all exposes cables, no real aero design etc
3. Impact Absorption: on the aluminum bike I could feel my teeth chattering from every little bump or pebble. Also, I would get flats constantly even with Gator Skins AND liners. On the same roads with the new bike it is smooth sailing...that's a big energy shift
4. Rolling resistance: as noted above, I needed super thick tires with liners just too make it 100 miles without a flat, and even then I was constantly side lined. With the carbon frame I'm now able to ride much better tires with not a flat yet (knock on wood).
5. Shifting: my old bike was so unreliable that would always hesitate to shift knowing that I may not be able to shift back or could derail the chain, or break it (all of which happened). Now I can shift at will and it helps enormously
6. Bearings: the bearings and wheels are way better on the new bike
7. Pedal Location: with the tri design the pedals are now farther back allowing me to apply a ton more power (this has been the most significant item for me)

I would say that number 8 could be my subconscious effects of feeling faster, but I can tell you with the wind today, I went out EASY. I did not push at all and thought my Garmin had finally went when I saw 20+ mph upwind against a 15 mph head wind with much higher gusts. Then I turned around and forget it...I seriously was getting nervous because of how fast I was going.

As much as people want to say that it's the engine & not the bike, the truth is that there are exponential gains to be made with the right bike. If you are coming off an old aluminum/steel roadie to an all carbon tri bike, you are going to see great gains. The marginal gains come from wanting to upgrade your 4 year old all carbon bike to a brand new one.

People love blanket statements, but the truth is that every question or answer is subjective.

You are right, it's all of those things. All with different weighting of course.
And maybe the engine has improved :-)

Actually, I did pretty dramatically change my training about two weeks ago based upon your and JohnnyKay's recommendations. I don't know that two weeks of workouts can have that much effect, but maybe the intervals are triggering some faster muscles. I hadn't done any previous to that.

For me, and we are all very different, short, very hard intervals kick my system very quickly into shape. But it doesn't give me the ability to hold power for very long periods of time.

If I do this over too a long period of time that effect becomes less. But this is just normal. This is why I move to longer intervals at less intensity but still do the occasional very hard/short intervals.

Again, this is how *I* react.

Of course a new bike/nicer equipment makes you faster, nobody ever denies that. It's called buying speed. However it is the engine that counts, because you can't buy it you have to work for it.

Although I am faster on my tri bike, I can still jump on my old aluminum road bike and ride almost as fast. You can get to the FOP on the old bike, but probably not on the podium.

A bike being lighter and more aerodynamic is certainly going to help, but as pointed out, I think the biggest gains come from proper fit/position.

I've got a similar experience to OP - just acquired a Cervelo P2 which was Retul fitted to me after riding an aluminum road bike with aero bars. My first ride on it was my go-to 40km loop - just taking it easy and getting used to things, I shaved 7 minutes off my PB for that route. My previous top speed on that route was about 45km/h, and I actually broke 60 km/h on the cervelo. I can feel, and the results back it up, that I generate more power on a proper fitting bike, and the lighter weight let's me go faster up the hills without really burning any matches (which in turn lets me push it down the hills, hence the 60 km/h).

You did'nt mention if you had bike fit from a reputable bike fitter, if not you its highly advised might surprise yourself more just saying



Edited by strykergt 2014-10-10 1:34 PM

I get #3 being hard on the body and feeling every bump. But is frame material really tied to the likely hood of getting a flat? I have never heard this?

My brother (who went from a steel to a carbon bike) had the same thing happen. I do believe that it is a huge difference and have maintained records of all my flats, so once I get enough data, I'll report back. Already, I have almost went 200 miles with no flats and that is a record. Without the energy dissipation in the frame, whenever I would run into any potential "shrapnel" the force would drive it right into the tire. Now, I don't believe that is the case. The energy is dissipated elsewhere. However, it's theory at this point, but I'll report back when I have enough data.

I think you need to put the old wheels and tires on the new bike and report back.

I can feel a huge difference in impacts so it would go to reason that the rubber on the tire is experiencing the same. I'm rolling with it. If you don't think I'll run tests to make sure and differences are truly statistically significant, then you haven't met an engineer. Now, that being said, there are other external factors such as rider ability changing etc. But frankly, since I've had the new bike I have been doing a lot less bobbing and weaving than before. I'm actually plowing through a lot of debris just to see what happens.

Where they pinch flats? That is the only type of flat that I could see being caused by impact. Now pinch flats are often caused from under inflating. A lower inflated tire is going to be cushier than an over inflated tire. So I could see that if the frame material lead to a hash ride a solution would to be run under inflated tires the under inflated tires could lead to pinch flats.

So the root cause would be under inflation. But the under inflation was needed because of the harsh frame material. Changing fram material leads to being able to run at a higher pressure.

The gator skins you mentioned would not be any better at pinch flats than any other tires. But should prevent punctures. I don't see frame material impacting running over glass, thorns or wire.

The other option would be due to 20 year old rims and 20 year old rim tape.

I'm curious as to how exactly you are going to test this to ensure significance.

Shane

So I don't want to belabor the point on the flats, but follow me on a little mental experiment. Picture two small (about 2" diameter) balls in your head. One is made of a very hard material, such as steel, or even marble. The second is made of rubber. Now, these two balls are both the same size and mass (remember it's a mental experiment...but if you're having trouble with assuming they are the same mass, then assume the rubber ball has a lead core or something). So each ball will have the same mass, size and shape (and therefore density and acceleration when dropped). We take each one and wrap it in the rubber of a bike tire then drop it from a distance of a foot unto a sharpened point. The force of each impact would be the same (f=ma, and since the mass is the same and the size/shape is identical, the acceleration would also be the same). So at the moment of impact, which rubber coating would you assume would bear more damage? I would say the one wrapped in the harder material. Why? Because the force (f) will have to go somewhere...all of it. For the rubber ball, a lot of the force will dissipate in the ball itself and where the rubber and the sharp object meet will have less force to cause the damage than the ball where almost all the force is in that interaction as little to none will be dissipated on the hardened ball material.

Regarding what I will use for statistical significance....probably a Student's T test. I'll look at the average number of flats per tire, or mile, or both with and without the new bike and see if there is a statistically significant difference. I realize by having different tires there isn't a true control group, however, I'm playing Devil's advocate against my theory by using the less puncture resistant tires on the side I feel there will be less flats...i.e. I'm stacking the cards against myself.

Remember, energy, water, heat, whatever, always take the path of least resistance. Also there is a conservation of mass and energy that a closed system will have to deal with the same amount of energy released. If some of that energy is taken away from the impact point between the debris and the tire, then that will make a tear less likely....just a theory.

Is one data point statistically significant??