Currently on a Argon18 Radon (half carbon bike), I’ve been thinking long and hard about upgrading my frame to a stiffer bike.Not having tried any other bike before, I was wonder how much benefit I would get if I upgraded my frame to a carbon one (looking at the Cannondale SuperSix)?
The benefits of aero dynamics are well documented, and although arguable, there is still some form of quantitative justification for going aero. On the other hand, statistics, such as “17% stiffer than the previous year”, does not really give much of an idea of the benefit arising from the increased stiffness other than a vague concept of more energy going into the road.
So how much does a bike, say arbitrarily, 40% stiff really get you?
well damon rinard, if you do a search, discussed some pretty in depth stuff about this. I think the basic conclusion was that stiffer usually won’t make you any faster but it will feel better.
For instance in a TT scenario, you will be putting pretty close to no energy into the frame anyway. If you really mash it, you get a fair amount of energy into the frame but you get most of it back.
Imo, a stiffer bike isn’t faster because you are gaining watts in the bb( as you are probably not) but it is faster because it handles more confidantly.
A bike with a flexy front or rear end just does not track as well during a high speed turn. A fork alone can noticeably change the abilities of a bike under race conditions.
So if a stiffer bike reduces corrections to hold a line, or makes you feel less inclined to grab the brakes then a stiffer bike is faster.
But on a flat straight course stiffness probably doesn’t matter at all.
well damon rinard, if you do a search, discussed some pretty in depth stuff about this. I think the basic conclusion was that stiffer usually won’t make you any faster but it will feel better.
Feel better to ride or feel better on your body? I’d think a stiffer bike would punish your taint just that much more.
How about just training harder?? The speed will come.
What if the OP is already training with as much volume/intensity as they could possibly recover from? Your advice would put them into overtraining and then surely the speed would NOT come.
Such a lame post- can we finally abolish this response for everything involving aero gains , etc?
How about just training harder?? The speed will come.
What if the OP is already training with as much volume/intensity as they could possibly recover from? Your advice would put them into overtraining and then surely the speed would NOT come.
Such a lame post- can we finally abolish this response for everything involving aero gains , etc?
-Physiojoe
It’s not a lame post. If the OP is already maxed out volume/intensity wise, then they should probably just keep at it. It takes years to get to one’s ‘peak’.
And most of us are NOT maxed out in terms of volume/intensity. If you’re not battling for race wins, your biggest gains are going to come through better/harder/more consistent training. Not buying shit.
I have no problem whatsoever with people buying nice stuff. Stiff bikes are awesome. Nice looking bikes are awesome. There are LOTS of reasons to spend big dough on a really nice bike. But ‘going faster’ is rarely high on the list of reasons.
You can design a bike to be stiff torsionally/in the bottom bracket yet soft over bumps with clever seat stays, and chainstays that flex vertically but not laterally.
well damon rinard, if you do a search, discussed some pretty in depth stuff about this. I think the basic conclusion was that stiffer usually won’t make you any faster but it will feel better.
Feel better to ride or feel better on your body? I’d think a stiffer bike would punish your taint just that much more.
How about just training harder?? The speed will come.
What if the OP is already training with as much volume/intensity as they could possibly recover from? Your advice would put them into overtraining and then surely the speed would NOT come.
Such a lame post- can we finally abolish this response for everything involving aero gains , etc?
-Physiojoe
It’s not a lame post. If the OP is already maxed out volume/intensity wise, then they should probably just keep at it. It takes years to get to one’s ‘peak’.
And most of us are NOT maxed out in terms of volume/intensity. If you’re not battling for race wins, your biggest gains are going to come through better/harder/more consistent training. Not buying shit.
I have no problem whatsoever with people buying nice stuff. Stiff bikes are awesome. Nice looking bikes are awesome. There are LOTS of reasons to spend big dough on a really nice bike. But ‘going faster’ is rarely high on the list of reasons.
Well, unless the OP is an absolute moron, they already likely know they can get faster through training.
Example: “To answer your question about whether to upgrade to Zipp 808’s from your set of 303’s, you may save 30 seconds during an olympic race, but of course if you have room to improve your training, you could save yourself minutes”
How about just training harder?? The speed will come.
What if the OP is already training with as much volume/intensity as they could possibly recover from? Your advice would put them into overtraining and then surely the speed would NOT come.
Such a lame post- can we finally abolish this response for everything involving aero gains , etc?
-Physiojoe
It’s not a lame post. If the OP is already maxed out volume/intensity wise, then they should probably just keep at it. It takes years to get to one’s ‘peak’.
And most of us are NOT maxed out in terms of volume/intensity. If you’re not battling for race wins, your biggest gains are going to come through better/harder/more consistent training. Not buying shit.
I have no problem whatsoever with people buying nice stuff. Stiff bikes are awesome. Nice looking bikes are awesome. There are LOTS of reasons to spend big dough on a really nice bike. But ‘going faster’ is rarely high on the list of reasons.
Well, unless the OP is an absolute moron, they already likely know they can get faster through training.
Example: “To answer your question about whether to upgrade to Zipp 808’s from your set of 303’s, you may save 30 seconds during an olympic race, but of course if you have room to improve your training, you could save yourself minutes”
Much better than just “NOPE! TRAIN HARDER!”
-Physiojoe
Agreed. We need to put a stop to the “train harder” knee jerk response. Frankly it’s insulting as it assumes you don’t understand the basics of the sport.
I wonder how much effect rider weight factors into frame stiffness - If I’m 145 pounds, and another rider is 190, then stiffness may not be that big of a deal…
Along with that, frame size matters a great deal. The same bike in size 61 may have MASSIVELY less stiffness than in size 54
If you are on a sub 54cm frame, you probably don’t have to worry about frame stiffness much, since you are probably very light, and your frame is very stiff by virtue of being small.
if you are 6’3" 200lbs on a 58cm then you may notice a distrubing amount of flex on a noodly frame.
I wonder how much effect rider weight factors into frame stiffness - If I’m 145 pounds, and another rider is 190, then stiffness may not be that big of a deal…
The aero benefits for road bikes are well documented for high yaw, but for low yaw it doesn’t seem to matter - the most recent TOUR test shows that at zero yaw +/- 2.5 degrees a big fat tube Cannondale is as good as a Felt AR or Kestrel (and better than an S3). At higher yaw the drag is lower. And TOUR did the test well (except the should have put cables on the bikes, but that’s about all they missed).
careful concluding things like that from one test.
it may be true, or it may be something overlooked in the test (like cables, frame size choices, handlebars, rider not on the bike, etc).
Have you seen a similar test that came to the same conclusion at low yaw?
The aero benefits for road bikes are well documented for high yaw, but for low yaw it doesn’t seem to matter - the most recent TOUR test shows that at zero yaw +/- 2.5 degrees a big fat tube Cannondale is as good as a Felt AR or Kestrel (and better than an S3). At higher yaw the drag is lower. And TOUR did the test well (except the should have put cables on the bikes, but that’s about all they missed).
The aero benefits for road bikes are well documented for high yaw, but for low yaw it doesn’t seem to matter - the most recent TOUR test shows that at zero yaw +/- 2.5 degrees a big fat tube Cannondale is as good as a Felt AR or Kestrel (and better than an S3). At higher yaw the drag is lower. And TOUR did the test well (except the should have put cables on the bikes, but that’s about all they missed).
That’s a BIG “except”…look it up; exposed cables and cable housing runs can add a significant amount of drag, especially at zero yaw. Most “aero road bikes” minimize that source of drag with their mostly hidden cable routings…the Cannondale, not so much
You can design a bike to be stiff torsionally/in the bottom bracket yet soft over bumps with clever seat stays, and chainstays that flex vertically but not laterally.
