Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Is it the bike? Or the engine?
Quote | Reply
I ride a 2007 Focus Tri bike that I've been fit on (one of those video ones, and it was an awesome gift!). I have stock front wheel, and a hefty 32-spoke rear with my PT, so nothing special there. The bike has SRAM force, 10-speed, and I keep it pretty spotless, so it shifts awesome. Yes, I'm heavy, yes, I need to ride more. My FTP is 230 (which is sadly my current weight, since I had a heart attack last year!). But my speed seems to be far lower than others. I've always figured that getting really aero is for the guys that are trying to get from 24mph to 26... My 70.3 pace is only 19mph, so I figured the benefits of great wheels, aero helmet, latex tubes, etc. don't reall apply to me.
Before I try and buy speed with a new $4,000 bike, I need a reality check. Maybe my current bike is just fine for a few AGer races each year, and I should drop weight and work harder. If I dropped coin on a cool ride, but had only a marginal increase, I'd be pretty bummed. No goals of Kona qualifying, but if I'm limiting myself with hardware, I'll write the check.
Interestingly, my fastest 70.3 I averaged 20mph on a steel bike, a clip on aerobar and a borrowed disk. I was way fitter and ended up 5:19 with a blazing run at Vineman (okay, 7:30 pace for me was pretty awesome, don't judge). Yet last year, I was just under 19mph on a bike 10x more expensive, but almost 20 years older....
Suck it up and train? Or do I really have an equipment issue?

Michael
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Set a goal with your current equipment, and if you reach it reward yourself with the new stuff.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Set a goal with your current equipment, and if you reach it reward yourself with the new stuff.

Solid idea. Weight goal, FTP goal? With running, (my college background), it's easy, drop weight and get back to 8:00 pace in a 70.3 (48 yo now, so maybe that's a stretch?). Swimming? Also easy. Move from the 1:50 lane to 1:30 by working technique. Riding? Not so easy for me. While I can train a lot better, I'm wondering if my current ride is really fine and I just have work to do, or if a near 10-year old bike is significantly holding me back.
Late August I have a cool event. 2.4 mile swim + 5K run. Goals are easy there. 1:20 swim, and sub-29 run. Setting cycling goals have always been way more difficult for me.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You can both build fitness and upgrade your race day kit. Sounds like there's plenty of room for improvement on position, wheels (ie disc cover), good tires, helmet, etc. If you still want to upgrade your bike after that, everything will translate over just fine.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Engine
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mpderksen wrote:
My 70.3 pace is only 19mph, so I figured the benefits of great wheels, aero helmet, latex tubes, etc. don't reall apply to me.
Before I try and buy speed with a new $4,000 bike, I need a reality check.

A new frame will get you between similar advantage (or at best twice the advantage) as latex tubes, latex tubes are much cheaper than a new frame. Same sort of thing applies to an aero helmet. Of course this all the caveat that the new frame does not allow for a much improved position.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Difference between what you got there and a superbike with careful attention to aero is somewhere around 1-1.5 mph.

Drop weight. Train more. If you care about getting fast you should get a coach or join a tri club. Structured training with feedback will get you faster.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your bike alone is not holding you back. If you want to invest some $ in getting faster, get a professional fit and see if you're giving up performance with a subpar position.

At your age and weight spending a lot of time on the bike will build that engine with a lot less chance of injury compared to lots of running.

There's also no reason not to take advantage of lower cost improvements such as race tires and tubes and an aero helmet. These are marginal improvements that you can continue to use as your fitness improves. No reason not to practice now so you're dialed later.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Measure your bike and post your Pad Xy in this thread to get a comparison of your position to others. It may highlight that there is value in a fit or personal experimentation.
Then do some research on the site about cost effective speed upgrades - focus on things that would transfer to a new bike (in case you do end up going down that path).

While doing this, slowly build fitness and get leaner.

I'd note that Foci of that era were quite slack, so you may find that your position has been restricted by what the bike could achieve. In which case there is potentially a big advantage to be had from a bike that allows you to get more aero and is more aero than your current steed.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mpderksen wrote:
trail wrote:
Set a goal with your current equipment, and if you reach it reward yourself with the new stuff.


Solid idea. Weight goal, FTP goal? With running, (my college background), it's easy, drop weight and get back to 8:00 pace in a 70.3 (48 yo now, so maybe that's a stretch?). Swimming? Also easy. Move from the 1:50 lane to 1:30 by working technique. Riding? Not so easy for me. While I can train a lot better, I'm wondering if my current ride is really fine and I just have work to do, or if a near 10-year old bike is significantly holding me back.
Late August I have a cool event. 2.4 mile swim + 5K run. Goals are easy there. 1:20 swim, and sub-29 run. Setting cycling goals have always been way more difficult for me.

Combine them - set yourself a W/kg goal. Your current ride is almost certainly fine, though as others have said above you may be able to buy some cheap speed by getting latex tubes, better tires, a disc cover, an aero helmet, etc.

What is your level of confidence in the fitter who set up your position? And have you significantly gained or lost weight since the fit was done? If you've put on a lot of weight since the fit then you might be too cramped for your current size and losing power as a result Equally, if you've lost weight since your fit it could be that you can now get lower/steeper.

If you're already on a TT bike that fits you, then upgrading the frame is probably the most expensive way of getting more speed, in terms of $/second. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it of course, if you have the money and if you'll enjoy riding it more!
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's the engine, mostly. it's maybe an 80-20% split in terms of engine versus equipment, assuming your fit is dialed. if not getting your position dialed can be a huge boost in speed.

as for the rest- new frame, disc covers, latex tubes- some of theses are cheap, some not. The question is how much are you willing to spend?

personally I'd grab the low hanging fruit- latex tubes, position, helmet, maybe a disc cover. If you're at the pointy end of races and maybe losing podiums/races by small time gaps then it might be worth looking at a new bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The frame is probably the last thing that is holding you back. Plenty of other things to upgrade first that are much more value for money.

FWIW I rode a Focus Izalco Tria until a couple of years ago. I bought a new frame - not a superbike but a much lighter, newer carbon frame - and moved the components and wheels across. It took me a while to get what I think is a decent position on it and I'm now setting a few PB's but my 50 and 100 mile best times are still on the Focus frame from a couple of years ago.


mpderksen wrote:
My 70.3 pace is only 19mph, so I figured the benefits of great wheels, aero helmet, latex tubes, etc. don't reall apply to me.

Yes they do and will make far more difference to your speed than a new frame assuming the fit is good.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I know for me, buying new toys gets me outside and working. It's motivation to use my new stuff, whether it's new shoes, swim gear, or bike gadgets. Bike gadgets top the list. So I don't hold back if I "need" an upgrade on something. I don't think things like an aero helmet are just for those 25 mph riders. Slower riders actually get the largest chunk of time savings in most cases due to amount of time on the course. 22 mph may substantially increase the effectiveness, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge benefit at 20 mph. And it can be found cheap. I bought 2 Giro Air Advantage helmets for 50 bucks each (first one took a hit).

As far as weight, no matter what you do, losing weight will benefit the bike, so obviously work on that no matter what. I used to just ride for excercise. Since I started tri last year, I've gone from about 190 to 165. I'm not fast by any means, but I am ~2 mph faster than I ever was just cycling. I'm a little fitter sure, but that's taking it easy and I see those numbers.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mpderksen wrote:
I ride a 2007 Focus Tri bike that I've been fit on (one of those video ones, and it was an awesome gift!). I have stock front wheel, and a hefty 32-spoke rear with my PT, so nothing special there. The bike has SRAM force, 10-speed, and I keep it pretty spotless, so it shifts awesome. Yes, I'm heavy, yes, I need to ride more. My FTP is 230 (which is sadly my current weight, since I had a heart attack last year!). But my speed seems to be far lower than others. I've always figured that getting really aero is for the guys that are trying to get from 24mph to 26... My 70.3 pace is only 19mph, so I figured the benefits of great wheels, aero helmet, latex tubes, etc. don't reall apply to me.
Before I try and buy speed with a new $4,000 bike, I need a reality check. Maybe my current bike is just fine for a few AGer races each year, and I should drop weight and work harder. If I dropped coin on a cool ride, but had only a marginal increase, I'd be pretty bummed. No goals of Kona qualifying, but if I'm limiting myself with hardware, I'll write the check.
Interestingly, my fastest 70.3 I averaged 20mph on a steel bike, a clip on aerobar and a borrowed disk. I was way fitter and ended up 5:19 with a blazing run at Vineman (okay, 7:30 pace for me was pretty awesome, don't judge). Yet last year, I was just under 19mph on a bike 10x more expensive, but almost 20 years older....
Suck it up and train? Or do I really have an equipment issue?

Michael

coaching. If you were my client I'd tell you nutrition, heart health, and lifestyle are way more important than triathlon, but as for faster bikes:

1. Position
2. Clothing
3. Tires and tubes
4. Helmet
5. Wheels
6. Totality of crap hanging off your bike (including bars)
7. Frame

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's the engine. It's almost always the engine. Dropping weight will most certainly make the most difference on the bike and run.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Set a goal with your current equipment, and if you reach it reward yourself with the new stuff.

This is what i have done. When i got a new bike it helped motivate me to get out and ride it, my bike helped my motivation. Of course work on all the other normal things others have mentioned.

2024: Bevoman, Galveston, Alcatraz, Marble Falls, Santa Cruz
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mpderksen wrote:
My FTP is 230 (which is sadly my current weight, since I had a heart attack last year!). But my speed seems to be far lower than others.
There is an excellent thread where people are posting their average power and speed from recent races. Based on the info you posted, you are probably exactly in line with others. If your FTP is 230W, and you ride a 70.3 at about 70% FTP, then that puts you at 160W. The chart at the intro that maps watts to speed has others at about 19 MPH with 160W.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._last_race_P3499977/

So, the message is that you can train to increase your FTP to get faster, and you may be able to upgrade some equipment and bike parts to also get faster. But, you are probably not under-performing by much.

If you bought a fast helmet and wheels, you can probably add 1 MPH. Get a sleeved tri suite for another few tenths of a MPH. Upgrade your tires and tubes for a few more tenths. All together, with about $1,500 in upgrades, you can probably get 1.5 to 2.0 MPH. And all of these upgrades would transfer to whatever future bike you might get. Oh yeah, and they are additive to your FTP fitness improvements.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's not the bike, it's the position and equipment selection, not the bike itself. Get it dialed in, very aggressive and you can go surprisingly fast on meager wattage. Or very fast on higher wattage. I finally upgraded to a "real' 2 leg power meter recently. I can now say for sure, that I'm putting out anywhere form 5-15% less power than my competition for the same bike splits.

The engine still matters, but that not an excuse to not continue to refine your position and see if you can find a set-up that acceptably comfortable, but still very fast.

With the integrated stems of the newer superbikes, there's a big advantage to finding a good position on a cheaper bike, then just transferring the stack & reach to the new bike.


Don't discount the impact of the folowing:
1) Saddle
2) crank length
3) cockpit setup - pad spacing, extension length, and style (ski bend, straight, s bend, etc)

Those 3 can have a much larger impact than the stack, reach and setback themselves.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks everyone. Actually good news, then. I get to stop making excuses! Looking back at a few 70.3s from before the issues, I was averaging 170-180 watts, (Oceanside and Vineman), but my speed was more at the 18mph range. (Interestingly, that's higher than recommended, which could explain my run performance). I was also a full 30 lbs lighter. Just thinking that @ #200, 175W should be faster than 18mph....
Heart meds really screw with your body, but I'm off them now and have "permission" to get back on it. Nothing but the Swim/Run scheduled this season, so I can just enjoy the training without the pressure of an event looming.
Yeah, the fit was done before, and it was done by a guy I trust in the Bay Area, but now I can't get comfy in aero cause my stupid belly hits my legs! So,
1: clean up the diet first .
2: get back to regular base mileage.
3: big gear intervals for power improvement.
4: get some of the items mentioned above to make the most of what I have
5: enjoy that I'm still able to ride
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mpderksen wrote:
I ride a 2007 Focus Tri bike that I've been fit on (one of those video ones, and it was an awesome gift!). I have stock front wheel, and a hefty 32-spoke rear with my PT, so nothing special there. The bike has SRAM force, 10-speed, and I keep it pretty spotless, so it shifts awesome. Yes, I'm heavy, yes, I need to ride more. My FTP is 230 (which is sadly my current weight, since I had a heart attack last year!). But my speed seems to be far lower than others. I've always figured that getting really aero is for the guys that are trying to get from 24mph to 26... My 70.3 pace is only 19mph, so I figured the benefits of great wheels, aero helmet, latex tubes, etc. don't reall apply to me.
Before I try and buy speed with a new $4,000 bike, I need a reality check. Maybe my current bike is just fine for a few AGer races each year, and I should drop weight and work harder. If I dropped coin on a cool ride, but had only a marginal increase, I'd be pretty bummed. No goals of Kona qualifying, but if I'm limiting myself with hardware, I'll write the check.
Interestingly, my fastest 70.3 I averaged 20mph on a steel bike, a clip on aerobar and a borrowed disk. I was way fitter and ended up 5:19 with a blazing run at Vineman (okay, 7:30 pace for me was pretty awesome, don't judge). Yet last year, I was just under 19mph on a bike 10x more expensive, but almost 20 years older....
Suck it up and train? Or do I really have an equipment issue?

Michael

Engine and position, if you ride hilly TTs loose weight, once you are at 170-180lb and have your position dialed in, start thinking about helmet, Skin S, shoe covers etc.
Aero applies at all speeds.
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mpderksen wrote:
3: big gear intervals for power improvement.

Don't expect much from those. Nice to mix in for some elements of neuro-muscular adaptation and good for core work. But it increase FTP, you need to ride more, and you need Some good structured interval workouts. Biggest bump I ever got was riding between 0.85-0.92 in IF with intervals in the 90-120% range for 7 days, 60-120 minutes a day. I ran and swam minimally and was totally shelled when I was done and needed a full recovery week. But my FTP went up 10%.

I rode big ring for 2 hours on the IMWI course a couple weeks ago. I didn't get a bump in power any more than the same saddle time at the same power gave me. But strength isn't my weakness either with yeas of cycling under me. It was however, a great core workout for sure and on that course, if you have to choose between a 39 or a 53 when the FD breaks, choose the 39, every time, even if you a sub 5 rider on that course.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [motoguy128] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
motoguy128 wrote:
mpderksen wrote:
3: big gear intervals for power improvement.

Don't expect much from those. Nice to mix in for some elements of neuro-muscular adaptation and good for core work. But it increase FTP, you need to ride more, and you need Some good structured interval workouts. Biggest bump I ever got was riding between 0.85-0.92 in IF with intervals in the 90-120% range for 7 days, 60-120 minutes a day. I ran and swam minimally and was totally shelled when I was done and needed a full recovery week. But my FTP went up 10%.

I rode big ring for 2 hours on the IMWI course a couple weeks ago. I didn't get a bump in power any more than the same saddle time at the same power gave me. But strength isn't my weakness either with yeas of cycling under me. It was however, a great core workout for sure and on that course, if you have to choose between a 39 or a 53 when the FD breaks, choose the 39, every time, even if you a sub 5 rider on that course.

Okay, not ready for that level of detail, but I get your point.
Today, the pool was closed for maintenance, so I just switch to going for my first ride in FOREVER. 16 miles, 170W, 17mph. Still need to keep my HR down so I don't end up back in the hospital, but it was a great Zone 2-3 ride. Over 100°F, so the TSS of .65 was harder than it sounds. Plus, I still have the winter Gatorskins on! Bottom line, it felt great to be back out there.
Thanks for all the replies and help.

Michael
Quote Reply
Re: Is it the bike? Or the engine? [mpderksen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For those without an engine, it's the bike.
For those with a bike, it's the engine.

Reality, my fastest time ever was on a cheap (all relative) frame, stock front and a cover.
I now have a better bike, but the engine sucks.
Quote Reply