Today was my first outing on the new bike ('09 B12). In an attempt to get acclimated, I did a 10 mile warmup and followed it with a rolling 30 mile route that I generally use as a TT. The route is east-west and highly exposed, so on a normal day I have one leg with a stiff headwind and the other with a tail wind. On a typical day, the slow leg is in the 17.5-19 mph range and the fast leg is in the 19.5-21 mph range. My best time to date was just over 1:31. Today - with conditions normal, 10-15 mph winds, and not-so-fresh legs - I clocked in at 1:26. Didn’t feel as though I had overextended the effort, and the few traffic lights that I hit were certainly not in my favor. Climbing doesn’t appear to be any better over my roadie, but I can open up on the flats and push a higher gear over the rollers, which feels better from a momentum perspective. I still need to make some position refinements, but all in all it’s a smooth, powerful ride. Gotta agree with the consensus on the saddle though. I’m used to a specialized BG (which isn’t the most narrow saddle), but the stock Felt saddle is just too wide and flat, front and back.
It’s only one data point, so I am suspicious of coincidence. The rest of the week will tell a longer story.
What were you riding before? Could be a massive step up in product that accounts for the difference. It could also be “New Bike Syndrome”. I just bought an Argon 18 e-112 and seem to be enjoying the same “where did this speed come from?” scenario.
If you’re sitting up on a road bike into the wind vs in an aero position on a tri bike into the wind, I have to think that is one situation where the increased aerodynamics will be most apparent.
I think the most reasonable explanation to explain why a new bike is actually “faster” than the old bike for most people is the new bike’s drive train has a new chain and everything is well lubed and aligned such that drive train losses are reduced resulting in more actual power to the wheel. As you forget to maintain this new bike these advantages will slowly be lost such that the next new bike will also seem much faster than this one.
That’s a reasonable idea. In my case, I just bought a new frame and moved all my old stuff (which is always pretty clean) over. I don’t think “New Bike Syndrome or NBS” has been tested in a lab, but rocking new gear always puts a little pep in your step.
Just out of curiosity, what would you posit as a reasonable range for wattage sacrifices due to drive train issues such as those you mention? I did a quick and dirty analysis on the scant details provided by the OP and came up with a 24 watt delta (156 vs 180 watts) in order to produce the ~5 minute gain, IF the performance improvement were attributed entirely to the drive train efficiency. Reasonable?
Just out of curiosity, what would you posit as a reasonable range for wattage sacrifices due to drive train issues such as those you mention? I did a quick and dirty analysis on the scant details provided by the OP and came up with a 24 watt delta (156 vs 180 watts) in order to produce the ~5 minute gain, IF the performance improvement were attributed entirely to the drive train efficiency. Reasonable?
Thanks
Did I forget to mention that I ate my Wheaties yesterday? The new drive train is certainly in better shape than my old one. I wouldn’t discount that as one potential source of variance. There are too many variables at play, and the only determining factor will be my average ride performance over the coming weeks. Should be interesting, if nothing else.
I think the most reasonable explanation to explain why a new bike is actually “faster” than the old bike for most people is the new bike’s drive train has a new chain and everything is well lubed and aligned such that drive train losses are reduced resulting in more actual power to the wheel. As you forget to maintain this new bike these advantages will slowly be lost such that the next new bike will also seem much faster than this one.
I’m going to go with the opposite here and say that drivetrain differences are the least likely explanation for the difference. Drivetrain losses have been typically measured at 2-4%. So let’s call it somewhere around 5-10 watts in this case. Even if the old bike drivetrain was somehow 50% less efficient than the new one, which would be very hard to believe, we’re still only talking about 2.5-5 watts in savings, or maybe 10-20 seconds over 30 miles. This is minimal compared to the possible effects from all of the other things that could be different: body position, tires, frame aerodynamics, increased power output due to “new bike syndrome,” etc.
Agreed, mechanical resistance is far down the list… Biggest factors are wind resistance from 1) rider position, then 2) wheels & frame. Those could easily make a few minutes difference, vs only a few seconds for the drivetrain unless it was really bad - in which case that would probably be pretty obvious.
Would new bike fever be the same as I dropped a shit load of money now lets see what this could do? Might explain my improvement. Now I just have to by new shit every week.