4 ms·

That seems like a very reasonable observation, and I would accept that as an answer if this were a discussion about road racing. However, the completely unqual

That seems like a very reasonable observation, and I would accept that as an answer if this were a discussion about road racing. However, the completely unqualified title (including the word "prove") implies something deeper. Road racing is never mentioned.

mikekchar 10y ago
It's very common for bicycle enthusiasts to equate "better" with road racing. It's not just acceleration away from the group either. Almost all the effort you put into cycling at high speeds (say over 30 km/h) is overcoming wind resistance. You can save a huge portion of that effort by drafting behind someone. So in terms of saving effort (or making other people hurt) making and closing gaps is crucial. But of course most people riding a bike are not racing. Even still acceleration is quite important. When you are on a relatively uniform gradient you can judge your power easily and make sure you don't go anaerobic. It's when you have to push hard to get over a small bump, or sprint ahead to get out of traffic, etc that you get into the red zone. Making those situations easier will make your whole ride easier. But it is fair to point out that "good" bikes are really only "better" for certain situations. For example, my wife almost never travels faster than 20 km/h. Many of the things that are absolutely necessary on a "good" bike that is travelling at 40+ km/h make absolutely no difference for her. Lot's of people tootle around at 10-15 km/h. Any well maintained bicycle will be completely fine. In fact a "good" bicycle will be unsatisfactory because it will be hard to handle. It's all about context. And in the context of talking about which bicycle is "better", the convention is to assume you are talking about road racing unless otherwise stated.
- Thlom 10y ago
  Yes. For most people a good bike is a well maintained, comfortable bike with racks, fenders, chain guard and so on. For someone training for a triathlon a good bike is light, aggressive, a trillion gears etc.
- eru 10y ago
  If you are not racing (and thus not subject to racing conditions) and you want to go fast, you should be riding a fully covered recumbent. There's only so much that toying around with slightly better uprights can do.
  - mikekchar 10y ago
    I have never ridden one (and I really want to ;-) ), but I've heard mixed reports on hills. You can push against the back of the seat, but you lose the advantage of using your weight on the pedals. Can anyone comment on what it's like for difficult hills? I have lots of gradients over 20% here and one of the hills I ride has a 30% section!
    - BenFrantzDale 10y ago
      I have never ridden one either but weight on the pedals shouldn't matter. If you push down on a pedal as you extend your leg leaving your body at a constant height, that should be the same work as pushing just as hard over just as far against a seat. I'm sure there are subtleties – you can push more than your weight against a seat but a seat absorbs energy – but to first order it should be a wash.
      - davidw 10y ago
        I'm skeptical. When you're up out of the pedals and sprinting on a bike, you are transmitting an awful lot of energy. I don't quite see being able to push quite so hard when sat down.
        BenFrantzDale 10y ago
        One way of thinking about it is that work is force times distance, so if you aren't moving WRT the bike, and push just as far work goes by force. Assuming you don't have toe clips and so aren't pulling up with one foot while you push down with the other, then at most you can push down with your body weight. (You could push harder but that would leave your body accelerating up at the end of the stroke.)

mikekchar 10y ago

It's very common for bicycle enthusiasts to equate "better" with road racing. It's not just acceleration away from the group either. Almost all the effort you put into cycling at high speeds (say over 30 km/h) is overcoming wind resistance. You can save a huge portion of that effort by drafting behind someone. So in terms of saving effort (or making other people hurt) making and closing gaps is crucial. But of course most people riding a bike are not racing. Even still acceleration is quite important. When you are on a relatively uniform gradient you can judge your power easily and make sure you don't go anaerobic. It's when you have to push hard to get over a small bump, or sprint ahead to get out of traffic, etc that you get into the red zone. Making those situations easier will make your whole ride easier. But it is fair to point out that "good" bikes are really only "better" for certain situations. For example, my wife almost never travels faster than 20 km/h. Many of the things that are absolutely necessary on a "good" bike that is travelling at 40+ km/h make absolutely no difference for her. Lot's of people tootle around at 10-15 km/h. Any well maintained bicycle will be completely fine. In fact a "good" bicycle will be unsatisfactory because it will be hard to handle. It's all about context. And in the context of talking about which bicycle is "better", the convention is to assume you are talking about road racing unless otherwise stated.

Thlom 10y ago
Yes. For most people a good bike is a well maintained, comfortable bike with racks, fenders, chain guard and so on. For someone training for a triathlon a good bike is light, aggressive, a trillion gears etc.
eru 10y ago
If you are not racing (and thus not subject to racing conditions) and you want to go fast, you should be riding a fully covered recumbent. There's only so much that toying around with slightly better uprights can do.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  I have never ridden one (and I really want to ;-) ), but I've heard mixed reports on hills. You can push against the back of the seat, but you lose the advantage of using your weight on the pedals. Can anyone comment on what it's like for difficult hills? I have lots of gradients over 20% here and one of the hills I ride has a 30% section!
  - BenFrantzDale 10y ago
    I have never ridden one either but weight on the pedals shouldn't matter. If you push down on a pedal as you extend your leg leaving your body at a constant height, that should be the same work as pushing just as hard over just as far against a seat. I'm sure there are subtleties – you can push more than your weight against a seat but a seat absorbs energy – but to first order it should be a wash.
    - davidw 10y ago
      I'm skeptical. When you're up out of the pedals and sprinting on a bike, you are transmitting an awful lot of energy. I don't quite see being able to push quite so hard when sat down.
      - BenFrantzDale 10y ago
        One way of thinking about it is that work is force times distance, so if you aren't moving WRT the bike, and push just as far work goes by force. Assuming you don't have toe clips and so aren't pulling up with one foot while you push down with the other, then at most you can push down with your body weight. (You could push harder but that would leave your body accelerating up at the end of the stroke.)