login
bike quality vs. motor quality
-
No new posts
 2007-05-21 8:26 PM |
Regular 80  Tampa |  Subject: bike quality vs. motor qualityAs a tri newb, I have absolitely learned a lot form this forum. Thanks. One of the things that has encouraged me is the consistent train of thought that the motor is more important than the bike. As stoked about my new found hobby...er...lifestyle as I am. I decided to hold off buying my first road/tri bike until the end of the season. My first tri was this years St Anthonys and I have 5 or 6 I plan on doing this season. So, I have been doing my cycling on my MTB and borrowed trek 1200 with aerobars. While I have years on the MTB, I first got on the road bike, any road bike mind you, a month or so before SA so my experience is very limited... All that being said, I have been happy with my progress on the trek (although it is 2 frames sizes small). I was able to build up my speed and endurance and averaged 18.4mph for the SA 40k. Seeing others who average 20, 21 even 24 have only motivated me. Now to the question. How much REALLY is the motor and how much is the bike? What prompted this question is this... My good friend, who got me into tris rides a Cervelo Dual (also 2 sizes small) and offered it for my sprint this weekend. Today was my first time on any road bike, let alone a tri specific, other than the trek and I havent done anything in the few weeks since SA to drastically improve my skills/speed/endurance. Yet, over my 21 mile ride I averaged 21.9mph...and felt better afterwards for my 2 mile run. I can only attribute this to the quality of the bike and the tri geometry. So, can the bike really make that much of a difference? Do the bike AND the motor play a more equal role than i previously thought? Or, was it a fluke? Discuss... regardless, I still have a long way to go.... |
| 2007-05-21 8:36 PM in reply to: #810890 |
Veteran 179 | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality i personally think the motor is more valuable. now dont get me wrong upgrading to a better bike will help you but not as much as training the motor. i used to ride a mtb i could avrg about 18-19 mph on it. now with out adding more training but then again not stoping i can now avrg about 20-21 so yes the bike will help but not as much as the motor training. now if you were just beginning and you could only avrg like 15-16 mph on the mtb upgrading bikes could have jumped you to 18-19 which is a bunch but if you have been training a new bike wont help that much. so good luck |
| 2007-05-21 9:15 PM in reply to: #810890 |
Coach 9167  Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality Motor is still more important. You may have gained some speed on a better bike, but that speed gain is fixed. In otherwords, you won't gain 2-3mph every time you buy a new bike, but you can continue to work on your motor as long as you are a cyclist. No one ever said that a well fitting, tri-specific bike with aero positioning, etc would not improve your speed. But it's not the most important part of biking. BTW, 20+mph is nothing to sneeze about. Great job. |
| 2007-05-21 9:21 PM in reply to: #810890 |
Pro 4827 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality I recently upgraded from a 35 pound, toe-clip Raleigh to a 22 pound, clipless Cannondale. On my first long ride with the Cannondale, (on the same route I would take on the Raleigh) my top speed went from 26 mph to 34 mph and my average speed went from 14.6 mph to 18.1 mph. That increase was all bike. I do not expect the same increase with each new bike (as AdventureBear said). |
| 2007-05-21 9:26 PM in reply to: #810890 |
Champion 5575 Butler | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality Dang, you are all making me want to buy a new bike. I have a $300 motobecane with aerobars. On a 28 mile ride I averaged 20.0 mph today. Definately not the bike making me go fast. I can only image what I could do on a nice tri bike. |
| 2007-05-21 9:42 PM in reply to: #810985 |
| Regular 80 Tampa | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality I dont mean to discount the importance of the motor. It is, clearly, the most important factor. My inquiry is stemming from a surprising 3+mph improvement over a decent road bike (trek 1200) by a quality Tri-bike. I was caught off guard considering the motor...as I would be pleased if the fastest I ever got was 21.9. So, does the bike, either its style or its relative quality, play a more important role in overall performance than I may have previously thought? Just trying to align my perceptions and expectations... Given my new assumption is correct, where are the lines drawn? Where are the largest equipment-induced performance gains realized? When does the law of diminishing return kick in? |
| 2007-05-21 9:54 PM in reply to: #811004 |
Champion 10471 Dallas, TX | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality coweng - 2007-05-21 9:42 PM I dont mean to discount the importance of the motor. It is, clearly, the most important factor. My inquiry is stemming from a surprising 3+mph improvement over a decent road bike (trek 1200) by a quality Tri-bike. I was caught off guard considering the motor...as I would be pleased if the fastest I ever got was 21.9. So, does the bike, either its style or its relative quality, play a more important role in overall performance than I may have previously thought? Just trying to align my perceptions and expectations... Given my new assumption is correct, where are the lines drawn? Where are the largest equipment-induced performance gains realized? When does the law of diminishing return kick in? Well, I think what strikes me the most about your original post is that you riding a road bike that is too small... and then you rode a tri bike that is too small. I think the discussion of the motor can come into play, when the motor is on a bike that fits. Obviously, you went faster on a better bike. So, a better bike will mean that you are faster. Now, do you need to go out and break the bank? No. But I don't think it's completely out of the question for you to buy an entry level road bike that fits. Honestly, you aren't going to do your motor any favors in the long run by making it run on too small of a bike. Eventually it will start to have some pains from it. I think you need to find a nice road bike that fits. Start small, entry level, and then start talking about upgrading. Good luck! |
| 2007-05-21 10:09 PM in reply to: #810890 |
| Houston, TX | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality you're doing 6 races this year, do yourself a favor and get yourself a tri-bike that fits. get the best bike you can afford and make fit the most important factor. most people don't have the opportunity to ride three different bikes so close in time together and be able to compare the results. from doing that it sounds like you already learned what you needed to learn, you rode faster and ran better off the bike after riding the tri-bike. what more do you need to make your decision? almost 22 mph over 20 miles in your first year of racing and you made it into a brick workout by running afterward? dude, you have the motor, go get the bike. |
| 2007-05-21 10:24 PM in reply to: #811038 |
| Regular 80 Tampa | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality And that is my real motive behind the questions, the upcoming purchase of MY bike. When I began this tri-thing, I tentatively set my end of season bike budget at $1500 with the goal of buying the best bike for the money that fit me best, whether it be a road bike or tri specific. The dual and several felts have been in my sights... I have a habit of going "all-in" when I find myself in a new hobby and often have to "re-tool" my initial investments due to situations such as this and I am woefully tired of selling stuff on ebay and explaining to my wife why I need a different widget. I would like to avoid that process, and make this purchase once. I want to avoid the situation when the motor outgrows the bike, while maintaining value. I am a self professed Cheap SOB... Edited by coweng 2007-05-21 10:31 PM |
| 2007-05-21 10:37 PM in reply to: #810890 |
Pro 4206 Los Angeles, CA | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality Though the cervelo dual is the bottom of cervelo's line, it is not an entry bike. "The 2004 Dual with Ultegra 9 was good enough for Tamara Kozulina to win the 2004 World Long Distance Championships" as stated on Cervelo's website. Also, here's a review on ST. http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/06CerveloDual.shtml I would say it's one of the best bang for the buck tri bike. If you are cheap but want a great bike, I think a dual is a good choice. Then go buy yourself some nice race wheels and aero helmet with the money you would have spent on a better bike. It is in your budget too of close to $1500. Edited by auto208562 2007-05-21 10:38 PM |
| 2007-05-22 7:27 AM in reply to: #810890 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: bike quality vs. motor quality The motor is significantly more important than anything else; granted better equipment can make you faster to a point, however as AdventureBear mentioned, that is a fixed improvement. The other thing that I would question is how comparable the courses are. If one course was extremely hilly and/or windy and the other was completely flat, that would make a huge difference in average speed - especially if it was the 40km that was a harder course. Also, many tris have bike courses that are either a little long or a little short and if the results are reported based on a standard distance (20km or 40km) that will affect the average speed as well. Having said all that, I would definitely look at getting a decent road or tri bike that fits you - you have lots of races planned and if road riding is something that you like, having a bike that works well for that will make training that much more enjoyable. Shane |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK