Let's see...a tri bike will make you faster only if you RIDE faster.

I wonder too sometimes. Back in the early '80s, guys like Allen and Scott were finishing Iron distance races in the 9 hour neighborhood riding 32 spoke wheeled road bikes. I'm not advocating tossing all the aero goodies in the trash, but sometimes the numbers produced in the wind tunnel do not directly corrolate to the street.

Brett

I can handle this one quite easily...

When I was racing USCF I found that my splits in a 40k TT were about 2 seconds faster and a total time if about 8-10 seconds on a TT Frame (Blade w/Aero bars) -vs- an Ultimate w/ bolt on bars. I had better luck getting time out of wheels and weight than I did frame angles. (Oh, and that was MY weight, NOT my bikes weight). I still will race any short (Sprint, Oly) tri on a normal bike with out any aero bars on it at all...Zipp 909's on an Ultimate with Ergo shifting. I feel that I can get more passing power out of the road frame than on the tri bike...I also make up my time on the uphills in short races (my tri bikes just dont climb as well as the road bikes).

I ride the Tri bikes more for the comfort over 112 miles (Softride Rocket TT7 and R1)

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

I personally believe that it is variable for different people. My wife's road/tri bike times are identical. Other people do notice a difference and will tell you that they are definately faster on a tri bike. But then I know a guy who bought a top of the line tri bike and was consistantly slower than on his road bike. I don't notice much difference myself but can run easier after getting off a steep bike. My hamstrings are dead once I start the run getting off a road bike. But my wife has no problem at all.

Could also be the course. I'd suspect a flat strait out course works better for a tri bike but for a hilly course I'd give the edge to a road bike.

 My guess is that possibly your tri bike position might not be optimal for aerodynamics. A road position by definition will not get you low enough to get you that fast. The patent for the aerobars is to narrow the shoulders. A good tri bike position rotates your body so that you can get lower without your knees hitting your chest.

One other possibility is that your body type might not be suitable for a tri position, and you may have extra power on a road bike rather than a tri bike. The the Big Slam could be for you, having narrowed shoulders in a rearward position.

Four minutes? Hmmmm. I dunno know about that, unless these guys are just that much slower on their road bike. Get a good pace line going on road bikes and you can get speeds of well over 35mph. TT times, in general, are almost always slower than pack speeds, as the TT'er is riding into the wind, even if it is a calm day wind-wise.

WHOA, fellahs....what you're missing here is that he did a 1 mile time trial for comparison between the two positions. I'd bet I wouldn't find a difference in a 1 mile TT either....I think I'd accellerate faster on my road setup, but my top speed may be faster on the TT bike...either way, the test is only going to last for under 2 minutes. So what?

Get out there and do at least a ten mile test between the two setups. There will probably be a measureable difference...especially if a set sustainable heartrate is maintained on each setup. I'll wager that at 40 k there would be a significantly measureable difference...especially if there were a run scheduled at the end of the ride. True, there are people that don't do better on a TT bike, but, they aren't very common in my opinion...which is worth exactly what I'm being paid to produce it. But, I think this is especially true when a run is involved after the ride.

1 mile is a sprint. 40k is an endurance effort. Big difference in energy expenditure requirements...

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

My Racing flats are 7 to 10 seconds faster per mile than my training shoes. If I go out and run a 12x400 work out alternating shoes every 400, it shows up plain as day...the interval with the flat will be 2 seconds faster. I have run footraces in both, but unless things are exactly the same it is pretty hard to compare. I am not nearly as well versed in cycling as running, but it seemed the same should hold true. So I went out and did an 8x1 mile, expecting to find some difference....all 8 were within a half second of 2:16...with no trend....I went about 90%...what I thought to be race pace. I'm going to tweek the setup on the cervelo and try it again next time the weather breaks. I think whatever setup moves you along the fastest when your trying to go fast should be the faster setup, regardless of the distance. How else will you get an accurate test? If I extend the distance to say 10 miles at a fixed HR, I guarantee the first interval will be the fastest.

Well, if you are going hard enough that your first 10 mile tt will be the fastest, regardless of the setup...you are going too fast. I guess if you never race more than 10 miles, it would be an appropriate test length, or if you never ran after running....

Certainly, testing is the only real way to know. It doesn't matter how you "feel". I "feel" more powerful in a standard road geometry set-up, but real-world testing proves me to be much faster over significant distances when in the triathlon or TT positioning (or whatever you wish to call the position where the bottom bracket is further back).

As far as your shoe weight/time differences, you're comparing apples and oranges. So what if heavy shoes make you 2 seconds slower in a short interval? What does that have to do with road geometry vs. tt geometry? Nothing.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I am having the same dilemma too, regarding TT vs Road bikes.

I own a Trek 5500 & a newer SoftRide SE, set up according to Dan's articles on Tri bike fit. I'll select the appropriate weapon according to the battlefield ;)

On two recent Oly (non-drafting) triathlons, of distinct characteristics but equal distances. One was over a hilly 6 bike lap circuit & another on a flat 3lapper. I used the road & the tri bike on the above races respectively.

It turned out that the route with the flatter profile raced using the Tri bike was one min slower than the hilly one using the road bike! I was dissappointed as I had indulged in time setting up & cost of my new tri bike. I was equally fit for both races & runs felt the same on both too.

Something is fundementally wrong here. I was searching the posts here and came across an interesting article "Interesting Expert view on Tri Seat height". It points out that a seat should be lowered on a tri bike for bio-mechanical reasons. Maybe my seat height is too high, but till I get a power reading on my positioning it's hard to pinpoint the cause.

---

*You're no good to me dead*

And your point is? Now guys are finishing in the 8 hour neighorhood. Are the current generation of Ironmen that much fitter than Dave Scott and Mark Allen? I highly doubt it.

I use the shoe test as an example of measurable results with a change of equipment that I expected to get and did not.

As it relates to pacing on a 10 mile TT...the first wouldn't necessarily be the fastest if A) I stay on the very low end of Aerobic...or b) If I am willing to let a move upward of my HR to be part of the test. I'm not sure I agree with you but I'll try the interval test with a 10 mile instead of a 1 mile. Interval work to me means going very hard for a short distance or time, certainly not something one could maintain in a race.

If you use interval workouts to train at a speed you don't use in a race, why would you try and make a determination on what is better in a race based upon an interval workout? As I said, do your tests under conditions as close to the race conditions as possible, i.e., 40k bike and run off the bike using the two bike positions, etc. Who cares what results you get otherwise?

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

<< And your point is? Now guys are finishing in the 8 hour neighorhood. Are the current generation of Ironmen that much fitter than Dave Scott and Mark Allen? I highly doubt it.

My point is that training takes precident over anything else. I also said I wasn't advocating throwing out all the toys either. It's better to spend money on cabon seat post clamps than cigarettes, but don't forget to train.

Brett

Your differences in bike times may not have much, if anything, to do with tri vs. road positioning. I'm ALWAYS faster on a hilly course, as long at it is rolling hills, when compared to flat courses. I think it is due to a couple of reasons...besides the fact that I coast well! I'm naturally an explosive power athlete, not a endurance athlete, so I find it easy to power over a hill, get up some speed over the crest, and coast down in recovery mode, rinse, repeat. This even serves me fairly well in half-iron distances. I don't think this will work for full iron distances....too much glycogen cost. Anyway, I'm drifting here, the point is, on a flat course, I never get to rest a few seconds, and for me, that seems to be very important. I think it "tells" on my lack of endurance training over the years, or, it simply reflects my individual physiology...we can't all be great endurance athletes, although many of us can be better than we currently are.

To really be sure, you must compare each setup on each course, followed by a run...don't forget the run! You may find a road position works best for you...if you do...sell the tri-bike. If you only get 1/2 of what you paid for it, it's still better than having something that isn't right for you. I doubt that a good fitting tri bike position would be slower, but, it is possible. THe only way you'll know is testing. Note: you do need a good fit, and a little time to adapt to your tri-position bike, but if this has been done and it's slower, and you trust your testing, bag it.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)