9 ms·

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 Ri

by bbarn 4y ago

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.

shagie 4y ago
> 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 https://www.horriblyhilly.com
- gammarator 4y ago
  Yeah, rolling hills are tough…. “Rouleur” is a cyclist type for a reason.
jackmott42 4y ago
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.
- gergely 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 90° without pushing more, you will gain easily 1kph just by changing position. More if it is windy.
    - newaccount74 4y ago
      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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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/challenge-to-cycling-aerodynamicists.html http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/10/chal... and https://betterbicycles.org/science/speed/validation-of-bicycle-power-equation/ https://betterbicycles.org/science/speed/validation-of-bicyc...
prmoustache 4y ago
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.
- jackmott42 4y ago
  And you can do fine in a road race with a gravel or cyclocross bike! Just gotta put appropriate tires on.
  - gergely 4y ago
    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.
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        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.
scott_w 4y ago
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.
762236 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
  - scott_w 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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.
sorenjan 4y ago
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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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/able https://alliedcycleworks.com/collections/echo https://alliedcycleworks.com/collections/echo Anything that's made of metal symply was never competitive to begin with
  - Melatonic 4y ago
    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.

by bbarn 4y ago

shagie 4y ago

> 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 https://www.horriblyhilly.com

gammarator 4y ago
Yeah, rolling hills are tough…. “Rouleur” is a cyclist type for a reason.

jackmott42 4y ago

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.

gergely 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 90° without pushing more, you will gain easily 1kph just by changing position. More if it is windy.
  - newaccount74 4y ago
    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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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/challenge-to-cycling-aerodynamicists.html http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/10/chal... and https://betterbicycles.org/science/speed/validation-of-bicycle-power-equation/ https://betterbicycles.org/science/speed/validation-of-bicyc...

prmoustache 4y ago

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.

jackmott42 4y ago
And you can do fine in a road race with a gravel or cyclocross bike! Just gotta put appropriate tires on.
- gergely 4y ago
  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.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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.

scott_w 4y ago

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.

762236 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
- scott_w 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.

sorenjan 4y ago

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 4y ago

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 4y ago
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/able https://alliedcycleworks.com/collections/echo https://alliedcycleworks.com/collections/echo Anything that's made of metal symply was never competitive to begin with
- Melatonic 4y ago
  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.