[HN Gopher] Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
___________________________________________________________________
Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
Author : vinceroni
Score : 139 points
Date : 2022-09-20 09:36 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.renehersecycles.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.renehersecycles.com)
| alleycat5000 wrote:
| Bicycle Quarterly (magazine by the same folks) is a great read,
| always such a joy when it arrives in the mail!
|
| https://www.bikequarterly.com/
| cdot2 wrote:
| "Some readers have suggested that the boxy shape of the bag could
| be improved. However, since the bag sits between the handlebars,
| a rounded shape was actually less aero when we tested it in the
| wind tunnel."
|
| I would not have guessed that. Could a more efficient shape be
| made?
| brandmeyer wrote:
| The round-bottom shape that sits under clip-on aero bars is
| very good.
|
| https://cyclite.cc/en/products/handle-bar-aero-bag-01
|
| https://torstenfrank.wordpress.com/2021/12/07/aerodynamik-vo...
| matsemann wrote:
| Yeah, the round shape is actually not very good. But it's the
| traditional one, from bicycle frames being welded steel tubes.
| The circle is still as wide as a square would be, and
| additionally it creates lots of turbulence. An aero frame is
| much more tear-shaped.
| usrusr wrote:
| The boxy shape would likely still be less aero in isolation,
| but certain parts that in its slipstream might be so un-
| aerodynamic that the see less drag through more turbulent air
| than through clean air, and the boxy one provides more
| turbulence. Or it's the reverse, total drag benefits from the
| boxy rear and the rounded one was round on the rear as well (or
| not round at all, just some knotty wrap that approximates
| "round" very roughly, contrasting with a clean box)
| digdugdirk wrote:
| This is a great overview of the current state of aerodynamics in
| cycling. I especially loved the comparisons to what's legal in
| road cycling and to what the current state of the art is in
| MotoGP.
|
| Also, MotoGP is absolutely worth a deeper look for anyone who
| found this article interesting. They've recently started taking
| aerodynamics to another level with front and rear winglets in a
| way that wasn't done before.
| WA wrote:
| Related, this fascinating video, which covers different bag
| positions, clothings etc.:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue_Tz7e0DmE
| Lio wrote:
| I'd also suggest this Francis Cade video1[1] where they tested
| various bike packing bags in a wind tunnel.
|
| Bar bags of any size or shape are really slow.
|
| A much better solution is something like a Tailfin aeropack[2].
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXh_oqs_Bs
|
| 2. https://www.tailfin.cc/
| pharmakom wrote:
| I'm sorry but Jan Heine has unscientific methods and his products
| are of questionable reliability. You can drop 200usd on his
| tyres. It's like hifi nerdy but for rubber.
| 762236 wrote:
| Where are the supposed alternative people with scientific
| methods?
| wmorein wrote:
| Two of the best people who are not selling anything are Tom
| Anhalt (http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/) and Robert Chung.
| They both post a lot in various forums like Weight Weenies
| (which is more about rolling resistance and aerodynamics now
| that we know that they are more important) and Slowtwitch
| (more triathlon focused but has a lot about general bike
| tech).
|
| Josh Poertner from Silca is also good but has things to sell.
|
| Of course what everyone is saying above is right -- fitness
| and rider weight matters the most. But it is fun to look at
| this stuff especially once you have achieved some level of
| fitness.
| Dave_Rosenthal wrote:
| bicyclerollingresistance.com
| pharmakom wrote:
| I don't know but I'm also not trying to market very expensive
| tyres.
| bigfudge wrote:
| I agree the tyres are expensive, but their findings on tyre
| width and pressure are largely bourne out by more controlled
| tests.
|
| In addition, their rolling distance tests include one factor
| which most standardised rigs didn't: the losses from hysteresis
| when uneven surfaces have to lift/return your mass over a bump.
| I think soft wide tyres would be even more advantageous than
| most people realise once real losses on real roads are factored
| in, and compared at speeds most cyclists go at (i.e most people
| don't average 30kph). In fact, even using average trip speeds
| as the comparator would be daft because that would include
| downhill sections where riders are actually braking, or don't
| really care about rolling resistance because the difference
| between 50 and 55kph downhill makes no practical difference.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| The tire width definitely has a break even point where wider
| tires are significantly less efficient than narrower ones
| unless you run them at unsafe pressures. More volume in the
| tire means that at the same pressure, there is more
| deflection, and deflection hysteresis in the tread, notably
| the rebounding of the tread behind the contact patch is what
| causes the rolling resistance in the first place.
| wiredfool wrote:
| RH 48mm tires at 25psi are pretty damn good on a single.
| Likewise my tandem uses 44's at 45psi (front, heavy
| captain) and the rear 53mm at 40 (light stoker).
| bigfudge wrote:
| Totally agree. I do think that people underestimate the
| width of that point tho. For most people who are not racing
| the suspension benefits probably outweighs the minimal aero
| loss, but it's really hard to measure. I have been on fast
| group rides on 48mm slicks and although I get funny looks
| (and am not going to win many races because I'm old and
| lazy) I genuinely L find it easier to keep up than on 28mm
| tyres i had previously. Part of that is confidence
| maneuvering at speed on fairly crappy roads though.
| bbarn wrote:
| I am an out of shape former racer who has ridden his bike 10
| times in the last two years. I have a dad belly and rarely work
| out at all. I recently did The Rift this summer - a 200km gravel
| race here in Iceland that people come from all over the world to
| race. I did it on a carbon cyclocross bike from my racing days
| with file treads. I felt like the light weight of my bike
| outweighed just about every gravel fad that's out there right
| now. I was flying past people on the hills, and while the ride
| felt very rough on the high speed flats, I was still going fast.
| If I were in my racing shape of a few years ago I think I would
| have been in the top 5-10% of racers, largely because nearly
| everyone was on giant heavy gravel bikes with massive tires
| loaded for friggin bikepacking from the look of it. My wife has a
| purpose-built gravel bike, and she commented on just how slow it
| felt going uphill (she is a former state cyclocross champion).
|
| With the exception of the absolute professionals, most people
| "Racing" these events are just there to finish them, and the
| pros? It's basically just a road race. Gravel offers no
| significant challenge in handling your bike, and any reasonable
| set-up can win if it's light enough and the rider is fit enough.
| The Aero arms race certainly matters in time trials, but I remain
| unconvinced there's enough benefit for the actual racing. I know
| US Midwest gravel races are effectively flat, but acceleration is
| greatly improved with a light bike too.
| scott_w wrote:
| I think you're overestimating the ability of most of your
| competition. As a former racer, you probably have leftover
| power and you know how to race. It was less about your bike
| being "light" and more about your personal ability.
| prmoustache wrote:
| There is actually very little difference between a cyclocross
| bike and a lightweight gravel bike. Slightly lower BB, slightly
| longer wheelbase, sometimes slightly different headtube angle,
| flared handlebars. Actually the first gravel bikes were
| rebadged cx bikes. You can race cx with a gravel bike and race
| gravel with a cx bike. The rider makes most of the difference.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| Cyclocross bikes also have higher bottom brackets
| prmoustache wrote:
| That is what I mentionned by "Slightly lower BB" for the
| gravel bike, just stated in the opposite direction.
|
| It doesn't matter much anyway and CX bikes from US brands
| had already started lowering the BB of the CX bikes because
| US courses designers are usually less keen on putting off
| cambers section than euro courses designers.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| Sorry somehow missed that.
|
| The explanation I heard for the traditionally higher
| brackets is that it facilitates quicker turning. Is there
| truth to this or is this more of a marketing thing?
| prmoustache wrote:
| I think it is a mix of many parameters and the main one
| was that when cx was invented people were using toe clips
| with straps, albeit looser than on the road and they
| would hit the ground until the rider has put his foot
| inside when the bottom bracket was too low.
|
| The rest is mostly the ability to pedal in the corners
| without clipping a wheel, which help maintain and feel
| grip, tradition and also to help on the many off camber
| sections the courses used to have.
|
| I think quicker turning has never been the true reason
| imo.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Larger road frames are designed to accommodate longer
| cranks and their BB drop approaches that of traditional CX
| which is itself dropping to lower heights as fashion
| changes.
| metadat wrote:
| So much bicycle acronyms and initialisms makes for a
| challenging read for the uninitiated (like myself)! I've
| researched the terminology and happily share in hopes you too
| will find it useful:
|
| 1. _" lower BB"_ references a _lower bottom-bracket_ , the
| part that holds the axle to which the cranks attach.
|
| 2. _" CX"_, or _cyclo-X_ is short for _cyclocross_ , which is
| a style of bicycle race which takes place over varied terrain
| conditions such as pavement, wooded trails, grass, steep
| hills and obstacles requiring the rider to quickly dismount,
| carry the bike while navigating the obstruction and remount.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclo-cross
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclo-cross_bicycle
|
| The cyclocross bikes appear similar to road racing cycles,
| the major differences between them being frame geometry, and
| wider clearances for cx bikes to fit larger tires and
| generally still function after accumulating large amounts of
| mud and other debris.
|
| edit: Thank you @jerrycrunch! I've incorporated your bb info.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Sorry for that. I am a hardcore cyclist, I don't always
| realize that people are not as accustomed to the
| terminology.
| jerrycruncher wrote:
| Bottom bracket, the part that holds the axle to which the
| cranks attach.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| And you can do fine in a road race with a gravel or
| cyclocross bike! Just gotta put appropriate tires on.
| gergely wrote:
| You have just proved you haven't rode a cyclocross bike.
| Since those bikes' center of mass is higher than the road
| bikes it is really "nervous" on high speeds for example
| long descents.
| Melatonic wrote:
| not true - the "nervous" feel is because people also tend
| to ride cyclocross bikes that are shorter (top tube
| length). There is no reason a cyclocross bike cannot be
| designed with the higher bottom bracket AND a longer top
| tube - I never understood why the frames were designed
| like this in the first place (maybe for weight savings?)
|
| edit: Realized it is for turning radius
| prmoustache wrote:
| I always raced CX bikes that had the same top tube length
| as my road bike but usually with a 1cm shorter stem for a
| slightly more upright position.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I won a criterium once on a cyclocross bike while waiting
| for my team supplied road race bike.
|
| That so called nervousness is greatly overstated. I think
| this is a US thing actually.
| gergely wrote:
| But crit races are not like coming down from Stelvio kind
| of speed where nervousness counts. Crit races are exactly
| like cx races but on asphalt or at least where I'm in
| Europe ;)
| prmoustache wrote:
| I rode my cyclocross bike in the Swiss alps for months
| while waiting for my custom road bike. It was perfectly
| fine descending mountain passes.
|
| As I said, that so called nervousness is overstated
| because people overthink it. BB height matter but for the
| most part we intuitively and inconsciously accounts for
| it and adapt. Also the difference is minute, from a 5 mm
| to 15mm. It is not like we switch from a road to a tall
| bike either. And guess what? A tall bike is pretty easily
| rideable, there are even people doing offroad on them.
| Melatonic wrote:
| A lot of people do not size their cross bike right - they
| ride a top tube length that is too short. Maybe this also
| helps with tight turning radius (which could be an
| advantage during a cross race).
| brandmeyer wrote:
| > You can race cx with a gravel bike and race gravel with a
| cx bike.
|
| Sortof. The key defining difference is that a cyclocross bike
| meets the UCI rules for cyclocross, while a gravel bike
| doesn't. In a sense, the gravel bike trend is the result of
| consumers rejecting the UCI's definition of what an off-road-
| capable drop-bar bike should be.
| prmoustache wrote:
| A gravel bike is perfectly allowed by the UCI. You just
| have to mount CX tires (width 33mm) on it.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Geometry is actually probably the big difference - cyclocross
| bikes are designed for small repeatable courses often with
| tight turns and the need to carry the bike on your shoulder.
| A slightly lower or higher BB height would probably work well
| for either - it is the ratio of total height vs top tube (so
| height vs length of the frame) that really defines cross vs
| gravel. Cross bikes will be taller and shorter (length wise)
| to have shorter turning radiuses and slightly lower weight at
| the expense of long term rider comfort and stability at
| speed. Gravel bikes will be longer and have worse turning
| radiuses but slightly better stability at speed. You can see
| the same thing with cars. A shorter bike (just like a short
| wheelbase vehicle) will also have better approach angles
| relative to its height.
|
| That being said depending on your leg length to upper body
| torso length you can of course size a cyclocross bike up or a
| gravel bike down and achieve sort of the same effect. In my
| opinion these types of geometry questions do not come up
| nearly enough in relation to the rider, however, as someone
| with a very long torso is going to be quite uncomfortable
| with a bike with a short top tube even if the "size" of the
| bike is correct for their leg length / height. And of course
| the opposite can also be true. Ideally we should be sizing
| and matching frame geometry to the persons geometry
| regardless of the intended use case of the bike.
| 762236 wrote:
| Their "giant heavy gravel bikes" were probably a few pounds
| heavier than your CX bike, but your dad belly made you like 10
| or 15 pounds heavier. Heavier people go faster down hills. I'm
| unconvinced that their bikes slowed them down, unless they were
| also super un-aerodynamic (wide handlebars, attaching water
| bottles to the forks, upright positions, flappy wind jackets)
| mauvehaus wrote:
| To quote someone I met thru-hiking: "Food is lighter once you
| eat it."
|
| Or in other words, subjectively, weight on your body doesn't
| cost as much as weight you're hauling whether on your back or
| on your bike.
|
| Nope, I can't explain it either, but I've got over 3000 miles
| hiking/backpacking and it holds true. Can't measure it,
| didn't try, but I can assure you that feeling worn down is
| roughly equivalent to being worn down. Getting a pound of
| weight off your back and into your belly (or the reverse when
| you fill up with water) is noticeable.
| smadge wrote:
| Could this be true for walking but not for biking? The
| human body is adapted to carrying its own weight while
| walking, but not adapted to carrying significant weight on
| the back. But while biking the body is supported by the
| bike, and largely only the legs move.
| frenchy wrote:
| It probably is functionally lighter, too. When you walk,
| your body doesn't slide smoothly along the ground - it
| wobbles up and down and back and forth. The way most people
| walk is optimised so that the torso does the least amount
| of wobbling, but if you add a heavy backpack on that
| person, it will be moving back-and-forth. Technically, that
| backpack isn't heavier than it it was in a person's belly,
| but it does move around more and cost more energy.
| scott_w wrote:
| That's been tested and it's objectively not true from a
| physics perspective.
|
| That said, weight isn't as big a factor until you go
| uphill, which is why you're seeing the trend to more aero
| instead of lighter weight bikes.
|
| What you're describing, however, is the simple effect of
| eating food replenishing your energy.
| jrussino wrote:
| The parent did say "subjectively", but I think there's a
| case to be made that this is even objectively true:
|
| A pound of food carried inside your stomach is located
| very close to your body's unloaded center of mass. That
| same pound of food carried in a backpack is placed
| further away, creating a torque that your muscles need to
| work to counteract. So it very well may be the case that
| carrying the food on your back has a slightly higher
| energy cost.
|
| It's possible that the additional energy is negligible,
| or at least low compared to the "subjective" increase in
| perceived exertion. But I don't think the idea is
| entirely unfounded.
| scott_w wrote:
| This has been tested and, no, the location doesn't make a
| difference to the necessary power output on a bike.
| Weight is weight as far as the system is concerned.
|
| Another thing that might come into play is simply holding
| the backpack on your back. If you put that same weight on
| a saddle bag or frame bag, your power output won't need
| to change but you're not constantly carrying it
| physically on your back.
| sorenjan wrote:
| If most people are there just to finish then comfort should be
| more important than speed. In that case big tires and more
| relaxed geometry makes perfect sense.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Are gravel bikes heavy now? From what I remember (admittedly 10
| years ago) "gravel" bikes were pretty much cyclocross bikes to
| begin with just with slick tires.
|
| I sold my fancy lightweight cyclocross bike around this time
| and built myself a fully custom bike with a hodgepodge of parts
| - I wanted something that looked a bit vintage cool and also
| not as stealable so I went with the pinnacle of late 1980s
| touring frames (steel) which is obviously not light but not all
| that heavy either. Bought lightweight 29er rims + 35C quality
| touring tires, wide flared dirt drop bars, nice 9sp bar end
| shifters with a triple crank up front (9sp being my favourite
| in that you can still friction shift it easily if needed and
| the bar ends can easily switch from indexed to friction at the
| flick of a switch). The thing absolutely flys on gravel,
| pavement, dirt roads, shitty sidewalks - basically is my do
| everything bike for general use from groceries to exercise.
| guywithahat wrote:
| I think he's including fat bikes in that ranking, actually
| competitive gravel bikes are not heavy at all. I know the
| Allied Able and Echo have won some races and although it
| comes with slightly heavier tires it's not too far off from a
| road bike https://alliedcycleworks.com/collections/able
| https://alliedcycleworks.com/collections/echo
|
| Anything that's made of metal symply was never competitive to
| begin with
| Melatonic wrote:
| Yeah that sounds about right. Probably people are doing
| these races on what they already have (fat bikes and
| mountain bikes) which are obviously not ideal at all. A
| gravel race shouldnt have any drops or major obstructions
| so why would you ever want shocks and whatnot?
|
| My opinion is that general use "road" bicycles peaked in
| the late 1980s and everything we have now are just modern
| re-inventions of that. A touring bicycle is basically just
| a gravel bike and also the ideal commuter, grocery getter,
| and fire road bike. With some "sport touring" bikes being
| criminally underrated (and also some being more just
| cheaper road bikes)
|
| Mountain bikes on the other hand have improved tremendously
| and of course any bike designed for racing (road,
| cyclocross, etc) has as well.
| shagie wrote:
| > I know US Midwest gravel races are effectively flat, but
| acceleration is greatly improved with a light bike too.
|
| While this is a "on the paved road" race... you should check
| out Horribly Hilly Hundreds in Wisconsin -
| https://www.horriblyhilly.com
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Why don't you actually do some math, or experiments, rather
| than just telling us you have doubts?
|
| This is all really easy stuff to answer. For instance. 75kg
| rider + bike. Make the bike 1kg lighter. Go up a 8% grade for 1
| kilometers at 300 watts Time saved by 1kg weight reduction? 30
| seconds out of 40 minutes.
|
| Or suppose we add 300grams to the frame to make it aero, which
| is typical. If that reduces the CdA by .02 out of .25, you are
| at about a breakeven point. JUST during the 1km climb. Then you
| save time on all the flats and non technical downhills.
|
| Acceleration is even less affected by bike mass. People forget
| that bike mass is a tiny % of total system mass (our fat
| asses). And mass is only one of 4 major components that affect
| acceleration. I'm happy to run through some acceleration
| scenarios if you like.
| ben7799 wrote:
| I'm a former racer too and this constant equipment arms race
| and arguing is just so fatiguing.
|
| People can argue about analytics around equipment till pigs
| fly. It's all still just an order of magnitude smaller than
| the differences between being fit and not fit and a stronger
| rider versus a weaker rider or a coached rider versus un-
| coached rider.
|
| The sport has separated into riding enthusiasts and equipment
| enthusiasts and the bike companies have completely
| brainwashed equipment enthusiasts.
|
| Your times don't make any sense either... 8% for 1km takes
| vastly less time than you're talking about at the power
| levels you're talking about. You're probably off an order of
| magnitude there. A rider with an FTP of around 300 will
| probably climb closer to 10km @ 8% in 40 minutes.
|
| Nothing is more tiring than being at the start of a race and
| there's someone with a $10k+ bike and a gut talking smack
| about bikes to someone everyone else knows is going to win
| the race and the guy with the $10k bike is getting dropped &
| pulled from the race. One person spent all their time on
| training and the other spent all their time researching &
| buying equipment.
| [deleted]
| Melatonic wrote:
| Its always easier to try to buy your way up the chain than
| putting in the work. And when you are not actually a pro it
| often becomes a social novelty of its own (and within
| reason one I often enjoy myself). The end game for me in
| all things like this is that when I actually become a sort
| of expert in the gear choices I realize that often the
| middle ground items are sometimes the best - pricier things
| are often better but there are huge diminishing returns and
| sometimes the simplest item of decent quality is actually
| the most functional.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > The sport has separated into riding enthusiasts and
| equipment enthusiasts and the bike companies have
| completely brainwashed equipment enthusiasts.
|
| I'm NOT a former racer but I've cycled recreationally
| (probably an average of about 30 miles a week, give or
| take) for over 20 years.
|
| When I first got into road cycling I nerded out on gear.
| Back then that meant skinny tires, carbon fiber, big bucks.
| I felt reallllly cool.
|
| As I've gotten older I stopped caring about what's cool.
| Like, in cycling, but in pretty much everything else too.
|
| I had to move recently, and ditched my road bike but kept
| my "cyclocross" (as it was called at the time I bought it)
| bike, since I wanted something more flexible and
| comfortable. It ways weigh more, and I ride on big honking
| tires with hefty tread.
|
| I tracked my (solo, non-drafting) rides and I'm slower...
| by like, .5 mph.
|
| I have no doubt that all the gear nerds out there know what
| they're talking about, and these data driven fads are real
| improvements, but the margins have gotta be smaller than
| most of us weekend warriors should realistically ever care
| about.
|
| At a certain point you gotta ask yourself why you're even
| into the sport - either you think you're gonna win
| something, and then this is your _life_ (and every
| advantage is worth it), or you 're in it to ride with
| buddies and enjoy the feeling of moving through space. If
| you're in the latter category, and you aren't getting
| dropped, obsessively optimizing gear isn't actually gonna
| make your experience any more fulfilling.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| You are right I had the gradient off by 10x, sorry that
| should have been obvious, it has been a while
|
| Actual time savings of 1kg of weight reduction: 1 second
|
| And personally I've used aeroweenieing to podium in a cat 3
| road race, and my wife has set state records and won pro
| races. You can make fun of fat guys doing a professional
| job if you like but it isn't just them.
| ben7799 wrote:
| If spending lots of money to win a Cat 3 race and knowing
| you did it with money and equipment instead of fitness
| and smarts is OK with you more power to you. But if it
| means thousands of dollars spent on a race that likely
| paid < $50 to the winner the whole thing can also look
| ridiculous too depending on perspective.
|
| This isn't really funny, it's a fundamental problem with
| cycling as a sport that limits who participates in the
| sport and hurts the sports ability to find and develop
| the best riders. It seems particularly bad in the US.
| Rules which helped control the equipment arms race would
| be good for the sport at the competitive level. Many
| promising athletes never try the sport because the costs
| are so prohibitive. On top of that in road racing if
| expensive equipment raises the speed of everyone in the
| field it accomplishes nothing other than increasing the
| risk of severe injury as speeds go up.
|
| If someone made $10k shoes that gave a competitive
| advantage in soccer or basketball, or a $10k baseball bat
| that offered significant advantages, etc.. that equipment
| would very likely be outlawed right away. Cycling has let
| everything get very out of control. Baseball obviously
| has already banned lots of bats that offer competitive
| advantage, whether it's banning metal bats after a
| certain level or limiting the power of metal bats below
| that level.
| metadat wrote:
| > I'm happy to run through some acceleration scenarios if you
| like.
|
| Yes, please continue! I'm digging your analysis.
| bbarn wrote:
| You're forgetting the effect of exertion on the rider under
| heavy loads like climbing.
|
| I've ridden heavy bikes, and I've ridden light bikes. Light
| bikes feel better, rotational weight mattering more than
| anything else.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Rotational inertia matters extremely little for bike feel
| compared to the overall weight of rider+bike. The torque
| required to accelerate a wheel by itself without any
| resistance is minimal.
| Melatonic wrote:
| You have any sources for this? Not trying to call you out
| but I am generally curious. We know on a car that
| rotational mass makes a huge difference but a car is
| continually accelerating and has a constant type of
| locomotion that is very different than a person riding a
| bike. In addition the rotational mass of a bicycle wheel
| is much, much larger diameter comparatively to the total
| weight of the vehicle (compared to a car) and provides a
| gyroscopic effect that is critical to the way a bicycle
| rides and stays upright. I would expect if we could make
| impossible light bicycle rims and tires the bike would
| have trouble balancing and feel like shit and also
| decelerate much faster. But surely there is some middle
| ground that is ideal?
| Melatonic wrote:
| I am not sure this is true - I actually prefer a heavier
| bike for general use. If I was racing up hills or still
| doing cyclocross then light as possible would be best (and
| of course also me being light as possible being the biggest
| factor). I have ridden a lot of bikes and the ones that
| "feel" the best have a moderately "heavy" frame designed to
| be fairly stiff but not crazy stiff (heavy meaning at most
| the light end of a steel framed road bike) with extra
| sturdy rims that are also as light as possible. By far the
| biggest effects on "feel" however tend to be tires (skinny
| tires suck) as you can fine tune the pressure to the
| surface. And of course quality bearings in the BB and hubs
| can make a huge difference but once you get to a certain
| middle level they are all good enough.
|
| When the bike gets too light you feel the effect of bumps
| and terrain much more and it throws the bike around more
| (especially if you are "getting light" over said bumps).
| The lightest bikes also tend to be made for racing and can
| sometimes be on the ultra super stiff end of the spectrum.
| fnbr wrote:
| They're not- 300W of effort is 300W of effort, it doesn't
| have a bigger impact if the bike is heavier or not.
| [deleted]
| darkerside wrote:
| I wonder if that's really true on hills. Most people ride
| hills with more effort, pushing down on one pedal at a
| time. The bike speeds up and slows down much more with
| each pedal stroke. Compare to the flats where you have a
| smooth stroke and very consistent output.
|
| I could see all the mini accelerations adding up to a
| much larger energy expenditure than would be indicated by
| a spherical cow in a vacuum.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Eh, it's really quite small, unless you have stupid heavy
| wheels (meaning, that the wheels are a significant
| percentage of the mass of the entire system).
|
| If the mass of the wheel is 100% located at the rim, the
| energy goes 1/2 into straight line energy and half into
| rotational. But -- if you slow down, you don't lose that
| energy, it just redistributes to gravitational potential.
| The flywheel effect from heavy wheels may actually help,
| as it tends to smooth out pedal strokes.
|
| The energy to go up a hill is just mgh - friction. Some
| cadences are less efficient than others (e.g. for me,
| standing is more power but lower efficiency), and bikes
| that are too stiff may not help you get the best rhythm.
|
| In a totally unscientific test -- I've got a 12kg
| Aluminum gravel bike, wide tires, rack, fenders. I've
| also got an 8kg carbon racing bike, skinny tires, aero
| rims, etc. They have similar riding positions
| (reach/drop), though the gravel bike has a wider seat,
| which is better for one climbing cadence. I usually ride
| the gravel bike these days, because comfort.
|
| Two weekends in a row, I did a 12x rep climbing workout
| (2.5 hours), one on each bike. First weekend, Road bike.
| It felt _fast_. Quick, lively, accelerated from the
| stoplights on the way to the hill. Second week, back on
| the gravel bike, grinding up the hill. Total ET
| difference: 5 seconds.
|
| Sure there are differences.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| You are assuming that rider can output X watts continuously.
| This is not how humans work. Riders have different profiles
| in terms of torque vs rpm from their legs. A lighter bike
| means that a rider is outputing less torque, which he/she can
| sustain without downshifting to a lower gear, leading to
| overall increase in time not only during the climb, but also
| how much energy the rider has left in the tank after the
| climb for the rest of the course.
| vikingerik wrote:
| I know nothing about typical bike timings, but I was struck
| by that. Does it really take 40 minutes to go 1 km at an 8%
| grade? Would it be faster to get off the bike and walk? When
| you're not rolling, you don't have to output power to fight
| your own weight trying to roll back - the friction between
| your shoes and the ground counteracts that. (I assume a real
| race doesn't allow you to walk, just batting around thoughts
| hypothetically here.)
| toss1 wrote:
| One racecourse I know about that has both running and
| bicycle races is the Mt Washington Auto Road in New
| Hampshire USA. It is the tallest mountain east of the
| continent. The top is at 6288ft/1917m above sea level. The
| road is 7.6 miles / 12.2 km long and the climb is 4650
| vertical feet / 1420m.
|
| The footrace has been run since 1936 and the bicycle race
| since 1973. The road used to be paved only half way and
| gravel the rest, but it is now largely paved.
|
| Now, the Men's bicycle record is 0:50:38 (2022) and the
| women's record is 58:14 (2000). The running race records
| are 0:56:41 (2004) and 1:09:25 (2012).
|
| So, pretty clearly, even at a 12% grade, the bicycle still
| has an advantage. I'd say this is still true even though
| the bicycle race consistently attracts US Cycling Team and
| other international class competitors, and the running race
| seems to less frequently attract that caliber.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Road_Race
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Auto_Roa
| d_Bic...
| vikingerik wrote:
| Very interesting information, thanks. The sibling comment
| pointed out that the parent probably meant 40 minutes for
| 1km of elevation gain, not linear distance, which makes
| sense too.
|
| Maybe I'm just trying to justify my own struggles where
| it's faster to walk the bike up any significant grade :)
| toss1 wrote:
| YW. You might be using too high a gear, so pushing too
| hard, which will _definitely_ slow you down going
| uphills.
|
| In general for reasonably flat riding, you want to be
| spinning at 80-90RPM. Most cyclists I see are spinning
| much slower, so pushing much harder. Think in terms of
| lifting a weight. You might be able to lift 10kg only six
| times on some motion, but you can likely lift 1kg far
| more than 60 times with the same motion.
|
| I also have a lesson from Mt Washington. I was an
| unranked teenage amateur bicycle racer doing ok, but only
| using bicycle racing as training for ski racing. I'd won
| a couple regional-level hillclimbs and was looking for
| another race and someone said "call this guy". I did, and
| got told about the first Mt Washington bike race. I had
| no idea what gearing to use, so got the lowest granny-
| geal cluster I could find in a day. I got to the race and
| among the small crowd were four guys from the US Cycling
| Team. I wound up finishing 3rd, only 4min behind John
| Allis (3-time Olympian) 1h:15m time and 4sec behind 2nd
| place. I had by mostly dumb luck out-guessed everyone on
| the gears (neither my conditioning nor my bike was close
| to their class). The next year Allis came back and won
| again knocking 14min off his time, presumably with a
| lower gear cluster.
|
| So, I'd definitely take a look and see about using lower
| gears...
| elektronaut wrote:
| I suspect the parent is referring to elevation, not
| distance. 1km in distance would only take a few minutes.
| gergely wrote:
| You are correct on the watt, weight computes but I think the
| aerodynamic saving is worthless on a gravel race. People are
| not going that fast on gravel to gain anything from
| aerodynamical optimisations. You need to keep going at least
| 40 km/h to have any advancement without up-down movement
| which is obviously not something that you can achieve on
| gravel.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Aero also helps at 25 or 30kph.
|
| It is quite easy to check out actually on a road bike. Ride
| at a steady pace without pushing hard, hands on top, then
| put your hands in the hoods of the brake lever, elbows at
| 90deg without pushing more, you will gain easily 1kph just
| by changing position. More if it is windy.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I assume the poster meant aerodynamic optimisation of the
| bike itself (eg. aero wheels, aero saddle post, etc).
|
| Riding position obviously makes a huge difference.
| cycomanic wrote:
| The issue is that a lot of the aerodynamic frame advances
| only work in ideal laminar conditions. However wind is gusty,
| there are trees and other obstacles next to the course etc.
| In those cases the advantages largely disappear as Hambini
| has shown.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| I'm not sure what testing Hambini has been up to, last I
| saw him he was calling for the death of Damon Rinard (who
| is a really nice guy, by the way! and great cycling
| engineer)
|
| However I have plenty of first hand field testing data
| showing that this is very obviously not true, as do
| hundreds of other people. We ride in the real world with
| power meters and timers and we can detect these things even
| in gusty real world conditions.
|
| Just two examples:
|
| http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/10/cha
| l...
|
| and
|
| https://betterbicycles.org/science/speed/validation-of-
| bicyc...
| Melatonic wrote:
| Back in the day I found some vintage "aero" bars that were
| designed to bolt on to any bicycle made before larger diameter
| drop bars became the norm. I did not want them, however,
| specifically for the "aero tuck" - I wanted them to give me more
| hand positions for long term comfort. While I eventually got rid
| of them because they took too much space on the flats of the bars
| due to the way they clamped I always wondered if we could design
| something like an aero bar but specifically for comfort. It could
| bolt on to the stem or in a way that still allowed multiple hand
| positions on the flats. The elbow pads were also a very nice way
| to get some lower back stretches in and I even ended up mounting
| a small cyclocross brake at the end of one of the aero handles so
| I could comfortable adjust speed (rear brake only - front brake
| in this position might be suicide) while going downhill and
| tucked. Or hell - maybe even something that had a small fold
| mechanism so that you could fold away the forearm / elbow pads
| when not in use!
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| The aerodynamics of upright bikes compared to recumbents remind
| me very much of stock car racing compared to f1. Where one is
| actively pushing forward in terms of speed and performance and
| the other is stuck with one type because of how it "should"
| conform to previous ideas of what a bike looks like.
| matsemann wrote:
| A gravel bike is the perfect commuter bike! At least if you're
| not going electric.
|
| Almost as light and fast as a road bike. But a bit more upright
| riding so it's more comfortable. Wider and more treaded tires
| means tram lines, pot holes, curbs etc. are less of a problem and
| can handle rough surfaces and not just asphalt. Mounting points
| and wider forks allow for mudguards / fenders so rain is no
| problem. The wider space allows for studded tires during winter.
| Also easier to mount panniers / luggage carriers to carry stuff
| home from the stores.
|
| While I love my road bike for long rides on the weekend, I use my
| gravel bike daily. And it also allows me to go places I cannot go
| with the road bike, without having to go all mountain-bikey.
|
| Btw, for road biking we often compare aerodynamics using "wattage
| per dollar". It can be surprising what then should be the first
| things to improve.
| Fradow wrote:
| I'm in agreement with almost everything except the tires.
| Unless your commute has a significant portion of rough
| surfaces, you definitely want to use some road tires. Not the
| super skinny ones used on road bikes, so you don't have an
| issue with tram lines/pot holes/curbs, but good reinforced road
| tires (so you don't have flats when going over
| glass/nails/whatever).
|
| I've been commuting daily on a mountain-bike (chosen for the
| comfort of a full suspension and the braking power of disk
| brakes), and switching from the factory all-terrain tires to
| road tires about 2/3 the width has been a huge improvement: a
| lot less rolling resistance, and a lot more grip, especially
| when it's raining (despite less width).
| prmoustache wrote:
| There are slick gravel tires. The author of the article sell
| some of his own brand Rene Herse. They are made by japanese
| brand Panaracer who also produce slick and treaded gravel
| tires under its own name and for other companies.
|
| Slick large volume gravel tires are also sold by most bicycle
| tire brands. Most of them are tubeless compatible which
| remove the need for reinforced heavy tires as any puncture
| usually seal itself thanks to sealant.
|
| I've also commuted for years on thin cotton road tubulars so
| it really depends on the kind of roads your are riding on.
| But having high volume will certainly improve comfort and
| also allow for better grip in the wet and better ride when
| the bike is loaded which is often the case if you are
| commuting.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| Panaracer Pacenti's have been my goto everything tires for
| a few years now. Excellent hybrid tire.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Quality "touring" tires are amazing for this. They have a
| little bit of tread in case you need to do some dirt but very
| minimal. They are extra thick rubber because nobody wants to
| replace a tire if they are trying to bike 3000 miles over
| multiple months and they have low rolling resistance. They
| fit most bikes and come in very useful sizes like 35 or 38C.
| Schwabe Marathon is the classic choice but there are tons out
| there!
| ehnto wrote:
| I've commuted on a roady, a steel big tire bikepacking bike
| (basically a hardtail MTB) and now a gravel bike. I'd say the
| tires on gravel bikes tend to be the best compromise between
| comfort you get from a big volume tire, and the speed of a
| road or commute tire. They can run pretty high pressures,
| which is the biggest factor for rolling resistance, and
| they're pretty skinny relative to MTB tires.
|
| For me, the minute rolling resistance tradeoff between the
| gravel tire and a commute tire is worth it. The road and bike
| network here kinda suck for smoothness, I'd rattle apart if I
| ran a road tire.
| r00fus wrote:
| Have you considered tubeless? I hear that gives the RR
| benefits of high pressure but at lower pressures.
| Fradow wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback! I've not had the occasion to try
| gravel tires.
|
| For me, the main reason to use road tires is grip on
| asphalt, not rolling resistance improvment. On your
| commute, you may need to stop in an instant, and more grip
| = quicker stop = safer (I've had a few close calls,
| especially downhill under rain).
|
| Obviously, that's also dependent on your regular commute
| road condition.
| bckygldstn wrote:
| Braking is the main reason I love gravel tyres for
| commuting: their increased size means a larger contact
| patch which directly translates into a shorter stop (as
| stopping on skinny tyres with disc brakes is typically
| traction-limited).
|
| The tyres on my gravel bike look just like fat road
| tyres: no knobs.
| ehnto wrote:
| I agree, except on the electric part. Where I live e-bikes
| don't assist over 25/kmph, and I'm always above that... until,
| my ride home. Which is steep hill, and I'm tired, and I just
| want to go home. As an all-rounder it's been the best bike I've
| had yet, I can do just about anything with it. Very
| utilitarian.
|
| I ride a heap, I ride MTB, commute and also a gravel bike for
| fun, so I feel no shame getting that e-assist on the commute. I
| don't need it for the fitness, I'm just getting to work!
|
| One of the big benefits of a gravel bike is indeed the tires,
| they can be tubeless so no more annoying pinch flats, and they
| can be run at really comfy pressures depending on your personal
| preference.
| glenngillen wrote:
| Depending on the bike/motor you've got, something like this
| can be very inconspicuously added to your bike to get past
| the 25/kmph limit: https://planet3.bike
|
| I've one on a Specialized Levo and it works great.
| ehnto wrote:
| That's a great solution, I knew about the method for
| circumvention being the magnet pickup but I've never seen a
| specific defeat device like this. That's really clever.
| matsemann wrote:
| Sounds like you also live in Oslo? At least the nice thing is
| that I don't get that sweaty on the way to work..
|
| Not sure if you misunderstood my comment? I'm all for
| electric bikes (my GF is getting one today actually) and how
| they enable many more people to bike. I love seeing parents
| bike their kids to school on this big ebikes, zooming past
| hundred cars in a gridlock. But _if_ you're not going
| electric, a gravel is a great bike. If you're going electric,
| most of the problems a gravel solve aren't really a problem.
| ehnto wrote:
| Oh I didn't think you were detracting from e-bikes, I just
| think that an electric gravel bike is worthwhile as it's
| still a fantastic formfactor for commuting, especially if
| you still want to use it non-electrically and out on
| rougher terrain (where rougher can be little bits of dirt
| or rough road on your commute).
|
| I am actually in Australia, which has some surprisingly
| hilly places!
| matsemann wrote:
| Ah, I see. I've never tried commuting on an electric, so
| I just tried to say that my advice from my knowledge only
| applied to "acoustic" bikes. But great to hear that
| gravel e-bikes rock as well!
| CobaltFire wrote:
| I agree. I ride a Niner RLT Steel with drop bars, 1x10 gearset,
| 650b wheels, and Panaracer Pacenti tires.
|
| I specify those things because my Bike of Theseus went through
| MANY variations before I got it to where I was happy!
| ActorNightly wrote:
| From a money perspective, there is no reason to buy an analog
| bike for commuting anymore given the current selection of
| ebikes, and even more so, aftermarket ebike kits like Bafang.
| You can buy a single speed beach cruiser for $200, add $1000
| BBSHD kit that comes with a battery, and basically get
| everywhere faster than a top of the line aero road bike.
| criddell wrote:
| I bought a steel frame touring bike for commuting and I think
| it's pretty much perfect mostly because the steel is springy,
| giving a pretty comfy ride.
|
| Cutting the bike weight or tuning for aerodynamics seems kind
| of pointless because I have one or two panniers on board to
| carry the stuff I need for work (towel and dopp kit, change of
| clothes, lunch, laptop, etc...). Also, exercise is one of the
| reasons I'm choosing to commute by bike so having to work a
| tiny bit harder isn't necessarily bad.
| Melatonic wrote:
| "Touring" bike is basically just a gravel bike from the
| 1980s. There are also 1980s "sport touring" bikes that are
| similar (less specifically designed for long term touring
| with tons of rack mounts). Some of these are more just like
| affordable general use road bikes but the better "sport
| touring" bikes are the most underrated bicycles out there
| IMHO.
| [deleted]
| pjc50 wrote:
| The Dutch style bike is _almost_ perfect for commuting, but for
| badly maintained roads I would occasionally want one with MTB
| suspension and tyres.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Dutch style bikes are perfect for casual city riding, sight
| seeing and well, riding slowly. Usually when you are
| commuting and you have more than a couple kilometers to ride
| you want to do it faster. Dutch omafiets are really bad in
| term of aero.
| wrycoder wrote:
| Would you happen to know the age at which Dutch commuters
| (shopping) start to give up cycling? Do people regularly
| cycle past 90?
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| I don't have that exact figure, but the 65+ age group has
| a higher bicycle mode share than 26-45 and 46-64:
| https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bicycling-share-of-
| trips...
| FastEatSlow wrote:
| The oldest age I've found is 75, and they still rode 2x
| per week in 2011.
| http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/who-cycles-
| in-n...
| wink wrote:
| I think it's pointless to lump everything together as
| "commute" - sure, if you're lucky and need to go only like
| 4km without hills then basically every bike will do - but no,
| I don't want to do 12-15km one way with that, just because I
| can probably save 1/3 of the time (also gravel vs road)
| orthoxerox wrote:
| Yes, I've always wanted a "rural bike" to match Dutch urban
| bikes: upright posture with a comfy seat, fenders, baskets, a
| kickstand, IGH/belt, but wide tires and maybe even
| suspension.
|
| Marin Muirwoods RC came close, but was overpriced for a
| banger bike.
| akgerber wrote:
| A Dutch-style bike is perfect for Dutch-style commuting:
| riding maybe three miles max to the shops or public transit
| on a high-quality network of bike infrastructure where you
| won't be bullied by drivers for riding at 8-12mph.
|
| Atrocious US land use & infrastructure makes this less
| practical for many trips in the US, where destinations are
| widely spaced to allow for free/easy car parking and evasive
| maneuvers are often required for safety, and steep/off-road
| shortcuts are often useful to avoid traveling miles out of
| one's way on a network of arterial roads designed for fast &
| easy car travel at the expense of everything else, including
| human life. A gravel or hybrid bike is better suited for this
| sort of riding.
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| umm, hate to break it out to You, but... there's no such thing
| as a "perfect bike". This is why we have Rule #12 amongst the
| Velominati, the Keepers of the Cog. "The ideal number of bikes
| is always n+1, where n is the current number of bikes"
|
| Everyone's commute is slightly different and while I use my
| gravel as a commuter just like You do, there's always the
| matter of personal preference.
|
| What if You prefer to ride in regular clothes and "style" is a
| thing? Those dutch bikes someone mentioned a few comments ago
| are great for that.
|
| What if You're riding through dense traffic / cityscape half of
| the time? A narrow bar fixie perhaps?
|
| I like being able to get some exercise while commuting as well,
| but that's not necessarily true for everyone.
| matsemann wrote:
| Of course! But I just wanted to give gravel some love! And
| spread some awareness of their existence.
|
| I think most casual bike riders don't recognize them as a
| separate bike from road bikes. So they think it's either a
| dutch styled bike or a road bike, and if neither fit they end
| up commuting by car or so instead.
| Steltek wrote:
| Gravel bikes are good commuters, if you like drop bars. Many
| commuters prefer flat bars for the more upright riding
| position, which allows for a better field of view for
| misbehaving drivers.
|
| You still also have the classic problem that higher end bikes
| lose all the commuter friendly features. Carbon forks and
| frames often lose mounting points for fenders+rack. The
| marketing vision of a gravel bike is someone expecting to get
| muddy and who isn't trying to stuff a laptop into a saddle bag.
| Durable, maintenance friendly choices like threaded BBs and
| easy cable routing go away. You're stuck with heavy bikes with
| poor gear ranges, super low end components, cable brakes, etc.
| bluecalm wrote:
| I agree but there are exceptions. My carbon bike (from GT)
| has bikepacking mounts on both the frame and the fork.
| Mounting fenders wasn't a problem either. It also has outside
| cable routing but not a threaded BB.
|
| I think Canyon is selling bikepacking gravel bike as well
| (Grizl). There are choices, you just need to look for them.
| It's true that these days availability is a problem but it's
| a problem with everything cycling related.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Drop bars can be set as high as you want. There are even off
| road drop bar bikes built with stems looking like goose necks
| to put the bar high enough (see example in the link). It is
| more about the position in which you want to put your
| hands/wrist that matters.
|
| Gravel bikes are sold in many different kinds, and different
| materials. Steel, alu, titanium, carbon, you name it. They
| are also build with different use in mind. Some are "racing"
| gravel with many lightweight high end components, other are
| made for bikepacking with provision for fenders, front and
| rear racks and usually more common standards. Those are
| commuters friendly.
|
| Link: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hVZNsMpWmxk/V9rqVdtLBHI/AAAA
| AAAAQ...
| CobaltFire wrote:
| I cut my stem long and run my bars high due to a back
| injury.
|
| It does mean that I essentially had to learn how to build
| my entire bike from scratch since noone builds a bike that
| way, but I'm happy I did.
| prmoustache wrote:
| For what its worth there are custom builders that do
| bikes in any geometry. There are also a number of small
| bicycles companies that may not have a shop in every city
| but that provide bikes with various kind of geometries.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| Eventually I may do that, but for now keeping the stem
| long has been a good fit for me.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| My steel gravel bike was built with bikepacking in mind, so
| it's carbon fork was revised after the first year to have
| those mounts for exactly that reason (Niner RLT Steel).
| antihero wrote:
| Modern drop bar shifters have an upright position though?
| Melatonic wrote:
| Extra wide dirt drops with the flare are best in my opinion
| for everything. They are not like the oldschool flared bars
| where they flare up and then out - they are totally flat at
| the center (and wide at the center) and then the drops flare
| outwards (the drops are not purely vertical). You combine
| this with an extra long stem (for more upright riding) and
| you get the best of all worlds. You can ride them like flat
| top bars with multiple hand positions in the center and there
| is tons of room for mounting lights or a beverage holder. You
| can install nice big fat shifters with comfy rubber hoods so
| you can hold via the hood itself or place your hand around
| the top of the drop and still brake. And then of course you
| can place your hands deep in the drops or at the very bottom
| of the drops.
| matsemann wrote:
| > _You 're stuck with heavy bikes with poor gear ranges,
| super low end components, cable brakes, etc._
|
| Hmm, not my experience at all. At least the market here there
| are no "cheap" gravels. For around $1k-$1.5k (which is the
| cheapest gravels available here) I've gotten hydraulic
| breaks, Shimano GRX groupset, an OK weight etc.
| r00fus wrote:
| Those prices seem low these days if you want any
| availability. All I'm seeing around me is $2-2.5k minimum
| for the same specs (higher end = carbon frame).
| nedludd wrote:
| These in-depth scientific studies always seem to neglect the
| weight and aerodynamics of the RIDER. That is surely the biggest
| factor when it comes to speed and efficiency.
| prmoustache wrote:
| You should read the article, rider positionning and clothing is
| mentionned.
| wffurr wrote:
| Harder to spend money to improve the rider. Fancy clothing, I
| guess.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| Weight reduction is much cheaper on the rider than the bike
| in many cases though.
| Lio wrote:
| A skinsuit or roadsuit will definitely make you faster on the
| bike. It's pretty easy to measure the effect with a power
| meter.
|
| Weirdly "aero socks" are both a thing and make a big
| difference to the point that they are heavily regulated by
| the UCI.
|
| Any cylindrical part of the bike or rider is going to perform
| badly so if you can encourage the airflow to stay attached
| around it you reduce the amount of effort required to move
| you forward, hence aero clothing being a big deal.
|
| If you're a serious cyclist then it's pretty easy to spend
| money on good quality clothing.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Always made me wonder if taking the swimmers route instead
| would provide all the same benefits without the cost and
| look. Shave your whole upper body and go shirtless and you
| would be pretty damn aero no? Would a skinsuit really
| improve upon that?
|
| In addition after switching to a Brooks saddle (I tried
| literally 10s of saddles using the "saddle swap" forum
| feature on some forums) I now no longer ever want to use
| padded bike shorts again. Of all the short types the simple
| padded chamois was my favorite (simple foam - no gel or any
| other BS) and now I just prefer wearing a pair of synthetic
| lightweight boxer briefs (no fly) that were designed for
| hiking originally. There is no padding at all and from day
| one the brooks was extremely comfortable. It only got more
| comfortable with time and applies all pressure directly to
| my sit bones. Every other saddle + padded short (even ones
| that mostly were on my sit bones) ended up forcing padding
| into the areas between my sit bones and outside them as my
| weight compressed the padding. I havent tried their new non
| leather seats but they seem to operate by a similar tension
| (a tensioned pliable surface vs a hard plastic shape with
| padding on top) which results in your weight creating
| additional space below the sit bones vs filling it with
| padding.
| jrf6 wrote:
| The rider is a much bigger factor, of course. But that's not
| the problem being addressed here. You're not suggesting the
| bike should _not_ be optimized are you?
| nradov wrote:
| It makes no sense to optimize the bike in isolation. There is
| complex airflow interaction between the bike and rider. There
| are changes that aerodynamicists could do to reduce bike drag
| that would actually _increase_ drag on the complete bike plus
| rider system.
|
| The problem is that there are so many variables with riders.
| For example, just a slight change in head position can
| increase drag more than any improvement in frame tube shape
| could save.
| ben7799 wrote:
| For sure, and the bike industry tricks huge numbers of slow
| people into vastly overspending on their bikes with no real
| benefit.
|
| They basically never test these aero bike gadgets on a
| rider.
|
| Aero helmets and clothes are probably the only ones that
| get tested on riders in a valid way.
| nradov wrote:
| Just be careful not to use "illegal" aero socks.
|
| https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/check-illegal-
| sock...
| matsemann wrote:
| It's always funny with people having paid $10k extra to save a
| kilogram on their bike, and then show up on the Sunday group
| ride with a beer belly. But I think these articles and study
| are mostly written for / paid by professionals, and they don't
| have that much more weight to lose.
|
| But reading "The secret race" by Hamilton (one of Armstrong's
| team mates), they do focus obsessively on it. They would often
| ride for hours, then take sleeping medication and go to bed
| without eating.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| They are climbing mountains though. In a flat area this
| advantage nearly disappears. I have that typical cyclist
| underweight build and it barely helps me on gravel rides,
| really only when there's a direct headwind. And it's balanced
| by how much more I get pushed around by crosswinds.
|
| It's definitely very significant for european-style touring
| races, but people overstate it for even high-level amateur
| rides especially in flatter areas. Which is most gravel
| riding.
| brandmeyer wrote:
| > It's always funny with people having paid $10k extra to
| save a kilogram on their bike, and then show up on the Sunday
| group ride with a beer belly.
|
| Ah, the smell of fresh gatekeeping in the morning. You don't
| know what road these people are on, just their current state.
| For all you know, they've already dropped dozens of pounds
| and are happy with their own improvements. Never look down on
| a fat person on a bike.
| matsemann wrote:
| I didn't gatekeep or look down on anyone, those I'm talking
| about is me and my friends. It's just a funny jab at
| ourselves, spending way too much money and effort on things
| that ultimately wont matter. At least we have fun doing it
| :)
|
| I'm a cycle advocate and spend hours a week fighting for
| infrastructure etc where I live, that I hope helps all
| kinds of cyclists.
| jamincan wrote:
| When framed that way, it seems odd, but is it so strange that
| someone with means spends $10k on their hobby? That's really
| what it comes down to, more so than the weight-savings. If
| you like riding bikes, and have the money to spend on it, why
| not spend $10k on a fancy bike?
| brazzy wrote:
| This article addresses the rider in detail.
| SavageBeast wrote:
| I ride a Trek Domane 5 AL which allows spacing for a 48mm tire (
| odd for a roadie ) - so I put a 48mm gravel tire on it and
| started riding it on light gravel. Works very very well. Carbon
| would be even better but Id still be waiting on it to arrive from
| the factory alas the aluminum version will have to do. The best
| bike in the world is the one you have in the garage to ride
| today.
| benjaminwootton wrote:
| I bought a cool book yesterday which is all about gravel trails
| in the UK. I had never heard the term gravel bike until reading
| it.
|
| Silly question but can I do these trails on my full suspension
| mountain bike, or will I be mercilessly mocked and possibly
| chased out of town?
|
| I already have a mountain bike and a road bike so not keen to add
| a third!
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| "gravel" is more of a mindset. Yeah, granted, it's been taken
| over by most marketing departments trying to push people into
| buying new gear, but ultimately, it's about being able to ride
| both paved roads and whatever tracks are there in the outdoors
| nearby.
|
| There's always the debate / meme of "are gravel bikes just
| 1990's hardtail mountain bikes with drop bars?" and ... the
| jury's still out on that one ;-)
|
| AFAIK a full suspension is an overkill, but if it's what You
| got, go for it. You'll just be a bit slower.
|
| If You're looking for some testing, perhaps try to just get
| yourself a new pair of gravel tyres that fit Your wheels.
| That's by far the biggest source of resistance. If it's fun,
| pick up from there. There are plenty of videos on youtube on
| how to hack into a gravel bike a cheap old frame (either
| hardtail MTB, or some CX / touring frames). Doesn't have to
| more than 100-200EUR / USD in the end.
| intrasight wrote:
| Any bike you ride on gravel is a gravel bike. All my bikes have
| been on gravel so they are all gravel bikes.
| protonbob wrote:
| You will certainly not be. At least in the US, mountain bikes
| for trails are still the norm.
| namdnay wrote:
| A mountain bike is fine on a gravel trail, if you can lock the
| shocks
| unklefolk wrote:
| > ... can I do these trails on my full suspension mountain
| bike...?
|
| Yes. It will be a bit more work on the pedalling front vs a
| dedicated gravel bike, but I doubt you will encounter any bike
| snobbery. I have gravel trails near where I live, and you see
| all kinds of bikes tackling them.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Yes! First, if you haven't spent much time on gravel, you will
| be more confident and sure-footed on the MTB. Second, you will
| have a much more comfortable ride. As others have said, it will
| be a bit more effort, but the improved confidence will probably
| do more for your overall speed than a skinny tire.
|
| I would however lock out the rear suspension, and probably the
| front too. The high volume tires at the right pressure will
| likely provide all the suspension you need for gravel and your
| pedaling will be more efficient.
|
| As far as being mercilessly mocked, that reminds me of an old
| adage. We spend our youth worrying about what other people
| think. In middle age we decide we don't care what other people
| think. As we get older, we finally realize no one was thinking
| about us.
| lukah wrote:
| If anything, you might be thankful of a full suspension
| mountain bike on some of our "gravel" trails in the UK. There's
| such a wide range from US-style back county roads all the way
| to bridleways with baby-head sized rocks that you probably
| wouldn't want to be riding on something typically sold as a
| gravel bike.
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| Yes, this. There's actually not that much US-style "gravel"
| in England and Wales: basically a few Forestry Commission
| tracks in mid-Wales, Northumberland and places like that.
| Elsewhere it's single-track bridleways that dominate. Routes
| like King Alfred's Way, the Pennine Bridleway, the Great
| North Trail and West Kernow Way are sometimes marketed as
| gravel routes but they're probably more MTB than anything.
| TrueGeek wrote:
| I spent a month in the UK and was glad to have brought my
| CX bike instead of my road bike. Several of the routes (in
| Kent) that I had thought were going to be road routes
| suddenly turned into paths that we would classify as gravel
| here in the states. It was wonderful! So little traffic and
| not one F350.
| wink wrote:
| It will certainly be more of an effort with the fully, but I
| don't see anything wrong there. I'm not even sure we have a lot
| of so-called gravel trails here (not the UK) but the norm is
| more: people ride on MTBs and sometimes there's a rider on a
| gravel bike or cyclocross.
|
| > I already have a mountain bike and a road bike so not keen to
| add a third!
|
| Why would you say that? :)
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| > The biggest part of a bike's wind resistance is caused by the
| rider. Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do with respect to
| the airflow around bike and rider
|
| There's lots of things you can do - apart from losing a lot of
| weight, clothing and helmet design is probably the simplest,
| there's some good references to things that can be done here:
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12283-017-0234-1#...
|
| >I don't always use the aero tuck. I find that it's not very
| comfortable for more than a few minutes at a time
|
| I cycle on a time trial bike (not on gravel) - which has a higher
| saddle and longer frame so back and arms can get straight and
| horizontal. It took a lot of effort to get comfortable physically
| and mentally in that position (you hands feel a very long way
| from the brakes) and you do loose quite a bit of control in that
| position, but I don't see why a slightly higher saddle and arms
| horizontal but wider with hands at the edge handlebars in line
| with legs wouldn't be possible.
| prmoustache wrote:
| The most aero time trial like position need training,
| especially the muscles in the neck area. Even in the pro racing
| world some racers do not train enough in that position and lose
| precious time in time trial because they are unable to keep it
| straight looking at the road constantly and move the head up
| and down constantly. The helmets manufacturers actually
| accounted for that and moved to time trial helmets with a much
| smaller tail as it spent to much pointing in the air.
| seadan83 wrote:
| Gravel has washboards, pot holes, trenches, lips, fallen trees,
| overhanging trees/brush, large rocks. I'm thinking a lot about
| downhill riding too with respect to your comment. For a
| downhill section on gravel, for a 8% grade descent - safety is
| perhaps the biggest limiting factor. In some gravel races, it
| is really debatable whether a hardtail or a gravel bike is
| better. That is all to say is that stability demands can
| greatly vary from one section to another on a gravel/mountain
| race course.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| > The biggest part of a bike's wind resistance is caused by the
| rider. Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do with respect to
| the airflow around bike and rider.
|
| I have an idea about that, and I would like to explore it. Not
| having a mechanical engineering background, what do you think
| would be the best way to build a prototype, patent it, etc? Is
| there any engineering firm that would provide such service, let's
| say in Europe?
| hi wrote:
| > the fastest riders in the 200-mile Unbound average 20 mph (32
| km/h) across the Flint Hills of Kansas.
|
| Let's not forget that the most important aspect of averaging
| 20mph on grave roads: drafting, low body weight and high fitness.
|
| If you watch footage of the unbound gravel race they mention, the
| winners are with a group of riders until the very end.
|
| The fastest riders are professionals sponsored by the companies
| trying to sell you this aero gear.
|
| If you want to ride faster ride in a group, find your ideal body
| weight and spend money on a coach. Only then spend money on bike
| parts beyond the basic lubricated chain, correct tire psi, etc.
| jamesbfb wrote:
| Unless we're talking about climbing, weight isn't _everything_.
| I would argue that being able to stay in an aero position (go
| on YouTube, but essentially, get on the drops, elbows in, etc)
| for longer periods is far more important, these aero gains
| similarly applies to deep dish rims.
|
| All that said, I do agree with your sentiment that shedding a
| few bricks is going to be more beneficial than shedding a few
| thousand on a new bike (or rims!). Hell, you might save
| yourself a divorce in the process!
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| Personally, I'd change the order. Coach first, body weight
| second.
|
| If there's one piece of equipment to buy first & ASAP, it'd be
| a powermeter and something to display the readout on.
|
| Riding in a group is of course great, but first You got to have
| the legs to catch up and then the body weight / metabolism to
| keep up. Having the core / flexibility to be able to spend
| hours in somewhat aero position doesn't hurt either.
|
| It always makes me laugh to see slightly overweight people on
| carbon frames. Having a few kilos over myself, I always thought
| I'd rather spend money / time / effort losing 3-4kg of fat,
| rather than mulling over how to shave 100g off of the groupset
| or 300g of wheels weight...
| noir_lord wrote:
| > but first You got to have the legs to catch up and then the
| body weight / metabolism to keep up.
|
| Not just keep up, if you are riding in a group you need to be
| fit enough to take your turn on the front where you _aren 't_
| draughting (at least if the group you are riding with is your
| _team_ ).
|
| The actual team dynamics of professional road racing are
| fascinating, much like F1 they'll often pick the strongest
| and expect everyone else to support them.
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| yeah, I've never really been into group riding / drafting
| on a competitive level. I'm mostly trying to avoid it,
| actually (more of a self-supported racing kind of guy).
|
| Where I train (Paris, polygone de Vincennes) there are
| quite a few groups riding together, but not sure they'd
| switch places. I guess it depends on why You do what You
| do.
|
| In my case, if someone wants to ride behind me, I don't
| mind (other than that it makes me a bit more careful when
| passing someone / turning corners). I'm there to work on my
| power output or cadence, not to get KOMs on Strava segments
| ;-)
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Yeah but carbon gives you cred, and basically _buys_ you
| speed. Losing weight is effort.
|
| Sarcasm over, one of the funniest cycling stories i ever
| encountered. My work had a little low-key "bike club", a few
| guys cycling on warm evenings. One of the partners was a key
| member so over time non-bike guys started wiggling in for
| networking purposes.
|
| One guy, with no clue how to ride, drops 2k++ on a full
| carbon bike, high end components etc. Cometh the first hill,
| and we find ourselves waiting at the top. 2 mins, 5 mins,
| finally 10-15 mins in one guy turns around to check up.
|
| The carbon bike cyclist figured how to shift up, but didn't
| know how to shift down, and was trying desperately to climb
| in a downhill gear.
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| oh, that's a good one. Explaining how brifters work never
| gets old :-D
|
| On a more serious note, I don't really see the appeal of
| biking as a social / networking sport. Yeah, we do have a
| sort of a bike cabal at work too, but if I'd like to
| network, I guess there are much more efficient ways to do
| that. Biking as a sport has quite high barriers for entry
| both in material and in getting fit enough to be able to at
| least reasonably keep up.
| pmontra wrote:
| I quote your sarcasm.
|
| > Losing weight is effort.
|
| I knew a guy that was training to run an amateur marathon
| in under I don't remember which time. He went asking to a
| coach and came back with a long list of training exercises
| and runs or, the coach told him, lose 3 kg. He lost those 3
| kg.
| sorenjan wrote:
| The sad thing is that $2k barely gets you a carbon frame
| with low end components now. A mid tier bike is maybe $5k,
| and high end can easily be more than $10k.
|
| Personally I really don't get why anyone would pay $10k for
| a bike. Amateurs won't benefit nearly enough to make it
| worth it, and pros are of course sponsored.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| It was 2k GBP so more like 3k USD but point stands. It
| wasn't a good bike.
|
| I think semi pros are possibly the main audience. A
| friend is into endurance events and he just dropped
| something like 2k on a titanium frame.
| wl wrote:
| There's a difference between weight weenie carbon and using
| carbon to improve ride feel and aerodynamics. I've got an old
| bike made out of Reynolds 853 steel that's lighter than my
| recent vintage full carbon bike.
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| The "ride feel" argument is something I quite frankly never
| understood.
|
| I guess it's because I don't do competitive road racing
| (more of an ultra / bikepacking sort of guy). When I was
| shopping for my current frame (Kona Rove), I picked up the
| steel version mostly for maintenance / mechanical reasons
| more than anything else. Don't see much of a difference in
| "feel" from my old aluminium road to be honest (other than
| what's caused by the different geometry / fit).
|
| I'd like to build up some chinese carbon frame next year
| just for fun, so we'll see. Maybe I'll change opinion then.
|
| But yeah, I 100% agree that the aerodynamics on modern
| frames is significantly better. Just not really at the
| speeds at which I end up riding and with the amount of gear
| / packs I end up putting on the frame / handlebars.
| wl wrote:
| While the Trek Emonda is as weight weenie as Trek gets,
| it can provide an apples-to-apples comparison between
| aluminum and carbon with basically the same geometry,
| wheels, bars, tires etc. My experience is that the carbon
| version feels significantly nicer.
|
| For bikepacking, I'm with you: A traditional steel frame
| (albeit one with discs), nice wide tires to eat up road
| chatter, and plenty of places to mount gear.
| qqqwerty wrote:
| It is subtle, but you will know it when you feel it.
| Aluminium frames can be engineered to have more flex, and
| some steel frames can be overbuilt to a point where the
| "steel feel" is diminished. So comparing any two random
| frames may not be sufficient to capture the feel.
|
| Also the feeling is subtle enough that the components on
| your bike can be the larger factor. Tires, crank arms,
| handlebars, tire pressure, etc.. will all play a factor.
| Swapping all of your components from one bike to the
| other would be the best test, but unless your components
| in aggregate provide a "neutral" feel, it is possible
| that they could overwhelm the feeling that a different
| frame will provide.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Carbon frames don't really cost especially more money than a
| nice aluminum bike any more.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Lubricated chains and aerodynamics save you energy in a group
| too.
| hengheng wrote:
| That's it. Same as in road cycling, the biggest air resistance
| is not due to the bike frame but due to the rider that will
| have to sit on it. The larger cross section is hard to ignore.
|
| To improve speed, make the bike more comfortable so muscles can
| be more relaxed. To improve speed further, reduce cross section
| while maintaining a comfortable ride. For the last few percent,
| get a suit that sits tight.
|
| All the rest is for those that want to save five seconds over
| an ironman ride, where group riding is not allowed. But hey,
| tri bikes do look cool, have fun.
| wyre wrote:
| This post feels very dismissive of pro cycling, aerodynamics
| engineering, and what TFA is about. Any pro cyclist is going to
| use drafting, a low body weight, and have high fitness
| regardless if they are racing on gravel or not. An upgrade of
| only 3% for a pro cyclist could be the difference in making
| podium or not.
|
| Long distance gravel cycling is a relatively new sport and
| technology and engineering is still in its infancy. There is
| only minimal design crossover between a fully aero triathlon
| bike designed for going 112 miles as fast as possible, and a
| bike ridden for 350 miles by a top finisher at a race like
| Umbound XL.
|
| Jan Heine isn't even trying to sell you aero parts. Maybe
| tires, a journal subscription, or some nice looking parts, but
| his brand doesn't sell aero parts. His website doesn't even
| offer the aero fairings he used, nor HS r contact info for the
| framebuilder that built the bike he raced.
| ben7799 wrote:
| He is most definitely trying to sell you parts. Just not aero
| parts, and this whole article is partially marketing to tell
| you a bunch of the aero parts don't really matter, so you
| should buy his parts instead, and use his tires, etc, etc..
|
| And he of course conveniently ignores all this stuff makes
| about 1/10th the difference rider fitness makes. He is a very
| fit/accomplished racer, at least he controls that variable,
| he does most of the test riding himself.
| prmoustache wrote:
| In fact there are already some changes in the way gravel is
| raced and there have been some waves in recent races. When
| reaching an optionnal resupply/refill point it used to be the
| case that if the leading 4-5 riders were calling for a
| pitstop the whole group would stop and wait for anyone to
| take food and drinks. Now some riders will decide they carry
| enough and not wait for those that decided on carrying less
| and stop more often and some additionnal strategy is being
| put in place. Also some elite riders are calling for a ban of
| aero handlebars, at least for the fastest ones who fight for
| the win, in the ground of safety reason. Many stopped using
| aero bars to set an example but others despite agreeing on
| the safety issue will continue to use them until a rule is
| set in place to ban them because they don't want to give up
| any possible advantage.
| qwertox wrote:
| I started biking around three years ago. Lots of biking, like
| 5000-8000+ km a year.
|
| As long as I don't weigh my ideal weight and aren't planning on
| becoming a machine myself, I have zero interest in spending
| anything in optimizations which will make my bike a better one. I
| don't care if it could go faster or be more lightweight, spending
| 600EUR for the bike was enough. The cheapest 30EUR Schwalbe tires
| are good enough; I didn't even have a single flat tire this
| summer after I learned to avoid driving over blackberry branches.
|
| And I really enjoy it. During this summer, with the extreme heat,
| where I loved the 28degC in the shade of the woods I was thinking
| about how much I'm going to hate this fall, and now that it's
| here, I love breathing that cold, fresh air and smelling the
| humid forest. The only thing I hate is when there's frozen snow
| on pavement in the winter.
|
| The only thing I spend money on for biking is quality clothing
| appropriate for the seasons and accessories like good smartphone
| holders or bags.
| chitowneats wrote:
| I appreciate your approach but the reason people like
| optimizations is for speed. The thrill of riding fast is what
| keeps a lot of us coming back.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Lots of people optimise because they fell in the rabbit hole
| of optimisation and it became an addiction. Like in every
| hobbies some people completely lose touch with reality. I've
| seen videos of people comparing weight of bicycle seats and
| how to shave like 13 grams of weight of the bike, meanwhile
| the dude had a dad bod and shaving his torso would have
| shaved more weight than his $$$ seat
| qwertox wrote:
| Don't get me wrong, I also love to go down a forest path at
| 45 kph to the point where I get scared, but I know that I
| also have to go up again. But going as fast as possible on a
| horizontal path is not attractive to me at all. If I want to
| expend energy, I prefer to ride up a hill where I then can
| have the fun of riding down, even if I have to pedal 20
| minutes up to then go down within a minute or two.
|
| But I also recognize that there are those who are already
| super efficient and want to get the absolutely most out of
| their gear, even improving it as much as possible, which is
| really ok by me. I wish I were at that point, but I think I'd
| first have to go to the gym for that.
| prmoustache wrote:
| There is riding fast and there is riding fast but just a tiny
| bit slower.
|
| I have a modern race bike, less than 3y old with some but not
| all of the latest aero features. I also still own my 30y old
| racing bike that I used to race until 20years ago (it was
| already old bike then). It stays at my parents place and I
| ride it maybe twice a year. If you ask any bike reviewer he
| will tell that old bike is obsolete, feel much slower and
| make me lose 45s over the course of a 50km ride according to
| the data given by the manufacturer. If you ask me, sure I
| feel a difference, mostly in feeling, when I start riding the
| bike. But after 5 minutes all this is forgotten and I enjoy
| the ride as much as on my more modern bike. And that bike is
| perfectly fine surrounded by superbikes in a group ride.
| Actually I did one this summer with a group that tend to stay
| together but ride at a fast steady pace until the last 20k
| where the wait "policy" disappear and people start to attack
| the climbs at max pace. I ended up in the 5 rider leading
| group out of maybe 40 and I was totally out of shape.
|
| That old bike would sell for 300-400EUR in the second hand
| market right now. The difference with a 2k and 8k modern bike
| is much lower.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Reminds me of this bicycle subreddit where they spend thousands
| on bikes and cosplay attires to get smoked by 60+ years old
| dudes on 40 years old bikes
|
| As a casual rider you'll be the bottleneck for years before
| your gear matters even the slightest
| mariusor wrote:
| > As a casual rider you'll be the bottleneck for years before
| your gear matters even the slightest
|
| For absolute performance, maybe, but for enjoyment of riding
| the gear definitely matters. For a beginner it's important
| that the ride is enjoyable so they don't get discouraged and
| call it quits.
|
| For relative performance against yourself, and in all honesty
| that's most of us really get out of it in the end, it's good
| to see times drop and speed increase just because you bought
| a better bike.
|
| For me it was the other way around, I moved from a very aero
| cheap fixed gear to a boxy (but with a plentiful cassette)
| midlevel gravel bike. I was expecting that the gears I had
| extra would make me have faster times, however the fat tires
| and less aero profile makes me about half a minute slower for
| a 6km round. The power I'm pushing however, has increased,
| maybe because I can keep it more uniform by shifting to lower
| gears when I get into windier sections. Shrug.
|
| All I want to say is that good gear is beneficial, maybe not
| for performance, but definitely for enjoyment of a ride. And
| at the beginning that's pretty important for someone to build
| a habit out of riding.
| cheeze wrote:
| The bike subreddits are super painful. Mainly full of "Freds"
|
| IMO there is not actually a ton of what you talk about. If
| anything, it's the opposite, a ton of really inexperienced
| folks posting about their first 20 mile ride. Note that this
| isn't a bad thing, just that serious cyclists aren't really
| hanging out there.
|
| Calling a kit cosplay attire is silly though. There are huge
| benefits to a bib and a jersey.
|
| I'm not wearing spandex because I need to be the fastest guy.
| I'm wearing it because it has a chamois, convenient pockets,
| and is a bit more aero (which means that days with a killer
| headwind are slightly less bad)
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| There's also a saying in bike communities, along the lines
| of, it doesn't get easier you'll only ride faster. Riding a
| heavy bike with no aerodynamics will lead to building
| strength faster. While it can be a bit frustrating if you're
| new and riding in a group, joining more beginner friendly
| groups and upgrading the bike later is much better overall.
|
| It is however really important to get the posture and
| pedaling technique right. Way too many people in expensive
| gear do push-only instead of a push-pull. That's like biking
| 101. It's much better to get that smooth pedaling and core
| support. It'll prevent injuries and fatigue.
| adolph wrote:
| > push-only instead of a push-pull
|
| My body never got this until using fixed gear. The whole
| circle is important.
| elliottkember wrote:
| I've been circling the fountain pen reddit for a little while
| now and it's a similar thing. They spend thousands on pens,
| import ink from Italy, buy fancy paper, but their handwriting
| looks like a doctor's scrawl.
| evandale wrote:
| I almost went down that route! I settled for a $5 Platinum
| Preppy instead for a few years and picked up a Procyon
| recently. Don't think I'd spend anything more than that
| though. I tested out some $250-500 pens and didn't notice a
| difference but from Preppy -> Procyon is huge with how much
| smoother the Procyon is.
| wink wrote:
| I'm not here to advocate for expensive equipment but my cross
| country hardtail MTB (even with the wide tires on the roads,
| non-carbon) feels like half the effort to pedal than my old
| crummy commuter trekking bike with narrower tires, so I guess
| your 600EUR bike might already have one of the biggest
| optimizations packed in ;)
| [deleted]
| Melatonic wrote:
| The thing is that expensive isnt always better - those "cheap"
| Schwabe tires are actually superior than most specifically
| because of the way they are designed - not because they are
| cheap or expensive (touring style tires). You could also buy
| more expensive touring tires and they would be better than
| those cheap ones - but expensive tiny skinny tires would not
| (nor would big expensive nobby tires). As someone who did a lot
| of different bike riding and has built many bikes there are
| also many benefits to going pricier other than just being a
| wannabe racer - but in the end it is more about choosing the
| right style of component for the job vs just buying what is
| priciest or trendy.
| scott_w wrote:
| That's absolutely fine. This article is aimed at people who
| race bikes for fun and for a living.
| grzes wrote:
| wondering if i should switch handlebars to narrower one. so
| currently i have 56 frame with 42 handlebars - thats "factory"
| setup. i noticed that also 54 frame has this handlebars, only 52
| size frame comes with 40. anyone has any experiences how it will
| affect bike handling? i noticed that there is a trend rising to
| go with narrower handlebars on gravel bikes
| Melatonic wrote:
| I personally go with the widest handlebars I can. You might
| gain some aero from skinny ones which would be worth it if you
| are racing at a high level but you will lose a significant
| amount of comfort. Wider bars allow more hand positions and are
| significantly more comfortable for me especially on long rides.
| Being able to really get a wide grip occasionally feels great
| on the shoulders. And on top of that you feel much, much more
| secure with a nice wide grip on difficult terrain like shitty
| pothole laden roads.
| ehnto wrote:
| If you want an astonishgly well put together deep dive on gravel
| and bikepacking aerodynamics, check out:
| https://www.cyclingabout.com/fascinating-aerodynamics-bikepa...
|
| I cannot recommend him, his videos or articles enough. He lives
| on the bike, literally, and he applies an unrivaled dedication
| and passion to thinking and writing about this stuff while on the
| road. He has tests, science and real world experience to back him
| up too.
| Zigurd wrote:
| They milk the topic. This could have been 2 pages at most: Aero
| bars are dorky, doubly on gravel, but they will make the most
| difference. Heck, clip a fairing to those aero bars. But nobody
| uses them because you look like a dork. If you can't get over
| looking like a dork, and you are susceptible to bike marketing
| <cough>GCN</cough> you'll spend thousands on an aero frame. And
| then you'll put a hipster handlebar bag on it.
| phlipski wrote:
| The article mentions the upper back fairing of a motoGP racer but
| then blows off the idea for a cyclist because they might get too
| hot? I've always wondered why road cyclists don't ditch their
| frame mounted (and drag inducing) water bottles for a camelback.
| The original camelback was slim and I can't imagine it added any
| drag seeing as it sits on the back of the cyclist. Plus it has
| the advantage of allowing the cyclist to maintain a better
| cylcing position without having to reach down for a bottle.
|
| But then again if roadies were really all that concerned about
| aero and efficiency they'd switch to recumbent bikes...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-20 23:01 UTC)