Nubee Questions

Yes, a "real" road bike will help you go faster. Not necessarily as fast as another year of experience, more intense preparation, and losing maybe 15 pounds, but it will help and you will enjoy the experience more.

Since it seems like you're not racing, your goals should be geared toward ambitious recreation. How about losing some pounds, joining and riding with the local wheelpersons on a regular basis, making some friends, and just kicking your level of performance (and enjoyment) up a notch?

Look at the new bike as an indulgence or a tool, but not a goal. It will help make going after the goals more enjoyable. And don't bother upgrading the old Trek, just keep it around for commuting, running errands, out-of-town guests, and winter.

Looking at your arm and leg length, I'd say look for a road bike with a nominal size of 59-61 cm, a relatively short top tube (58-59 cm) and a head tube no shorter than 17 cm--for example a 60 cm Madone or a Giant TCR, size L.

Thanks OBC!

Not sure I can drop 15, but certainly can lose a bit more. Dropped from 218 all the way to 192 at one point before the century ride and couldn't lift a thing in the gym - I was weak to the point of dizziness. Would be nice to drop to a 32 waist again - now around 34, so an inch or two sounds like a good goal.

Did enjoy 5-6 weekly rides with the Charles River Wheelmen at the end of the season and will continue with that organization next year. Want to ride with my wife more, but we're at different levels/objectives. Explored the Wheelmen to also find a fit for her in cycling.

Thanks for bike suggestions ... was actually thinking 60cm would be a good target. Most of the riders I'm riding with are turning some really high-end stuff and kinda laugh at my old junker. Those $5k+ bikes are sexy, no doubt about it, but the T-930 carried me well and will continue to be a solid ride for general riding, fire road tours, xc, etc.

I have very little experience with road bikes and geometry, but do ski a lot (60-80 days/season) and am familiar with how different skis of the same basic design can be. I like short twitchy SL skis for all-mountain skiing because of their responsiveness. Wonder if I'll trend that way with bike feel too?

I'm getting more serious with ski racing, but don't see following the same course for cycling. Cycling is just a terrific way to really push myself and enjoy covering a lot of ground. I did enjoy pacelining and want to find a group I can fit into for that.

Thanks for feedback!!

Cycling is not the same but I have had road frames that were more twitchy than others. I ski a Head ISL and it is far different than say a Head recreational type ski as far as feel and turn radius. Variations on the bike are not as pronounced unless you are talking about a totally different kind of frame. It's hard to put into words but it is just a different discipline.
It's good you can ski that much. I just got in 4 good runs but need to do a little desk work now.
Hope I can do more tomorrow.
As far as a bike frame , get one that fits with decent components and make sure you like the color and fininsh on it.
It's like skis with cool graphics. The right color and graphics scheme makes you go faster.😉

Good info jhuskey - thank you. I've skied Atomic SLs since early 2000s, but did get a chance to demo the iSL RD a few years ago - tenacious hold. Slightly less rebound for me than the SL.11 I was on at the time, but liked the iSL very much.

Wasn't sure if bike frame geometry produced as pronounced a difference in handling as say an 11 meter SL ski vs. an 18 meter cheater GS - guess not.
I've had the same model year SL:11 - off-the-shelf, flex matched, and "race department" and they all skied different. Now on SL:12s, but actually prefered the 03 to 05 versions of the SL.11 the best.

Aye ... color is key! 😄

sitzmark said:

Good info jhuskey - thank you. I've skied Atomic SLs since early 2000s, but did get a chance to demo the iSL RD a few years ago - tenacious hold. Slightly less rebound for me than the SL.11 I was on at the time, but liked the iSL very much.

Wasn't sure if bike frame geometry produced as pronounced a difference in handling as say an 11 meter SL ski vs. an 18 meter cheater GS - guess not.
I've had the same model year SL:11 - off-the-shelf, flex matched, and "race department" and they all skied different. Now on SL:12s, but actually prefered the 03 to 05 versions of the SL.11 the best.

Aye ... color is key! 😄

Bike geometry isn't a simple thing, and you can't draw conclusions just based on a couple of dimensions. What can be said is that a bike that fits will handle better than a bike that doesn't fit.

Whether or not you need a new bike isn't something that can really be answered. We can post questions, but it will be your answers, need, and desires that will dictate whether you should get a new bike. Does your current bike do something you don't like? Does your current bike not do something that you want it to do? Does it cause you pain? Do you really want a new bike? Is there a new bike that's caught your eye? Don't buy a new bike because of or based on comments of those you ride with. In the real world, there's not going to be a huge, if any, performance difference between your bike and a new one. A new one might be lighter, but that matters little. Salesmen, maybe the folks ride with, and maybe folks here might say that new bikes are stiffer, or more aero, or equipped with newer kit, have better kit, but there's little in those claims. Buying a new bike, though, can be good for the soul, although not necessarily good for a marriage.

Spinning. In almost all cases the "riding" that's done in the vast majority of spin classes is not the sort of riding you would do on the road. The best advice for cyclists is to do the classes like they were ought on the road and ignore the instructor when they venture off into the silly.

Goals for next year? Well, from the sound of things, you're off to a great start (IMHO climbing...and descending...are the best parts of riding). Riding more should be a goal for next year. As far as training specific goals, those depend on your current condition and what you want to achieve. If you're interested in training, you should visit the training sub-forum on this site.

sitzmark said:

Did enjoy 5-6 weekly rides with the Charles River Wheelmen at the end of the season and will continue with that organization next year. Want to ride with my wife more, but we're at different levels/objectives. Explored the Wheelmen to also find a fit for her in cycling.

Give a holler to the Charles River folks for me--aw, they won't remember, anyway. That was 25 years ago. I used to ride with the Granite State Wheelmen, too. When riding around Massachusetts, just remember it gets better the farther west you go.

The reason I'm so authoritative on fitting you is that you're just a slightly larger, younger edition of me. And Eddy Merckx, if you need inspiration.

Don't get all hung up in geometry, except for the extended-head-tube bikes they're all pretty similar. You'd be looking for a basic road bike that isn't too long in the top tube. There are no dogs, just bikes that don't fit.

Well ... my inexperience somewhat limits my ability to answer ... kinda don't know what I don't know, but -

Not necessarily looking for a new bike - actually quite fond of the Trek 930. I have owned it for almost 20 years and we did some fairly intense singletrack together back in the early/mid 90's. That said, I am running 20 year old Suntour technology, so not the most precise shifting. Even though it's indexed, there is a mid-cog shift that I need to "finesse" a bit. I can fine tune it out, but it then jumps to another cog pair. My usual flat land running ratio is 50/14 and 50/16. I max out at 50/12, so there isn't much room left at the top end. Current front changer maxes out at 52T. 50T to 30T is already a little tricky, but I'm making it work - again with some finesse and fine tuning. A 700C wheel rather than the 26's I have will change my running gear. The T-930 is designed to accommodate both 700C and 26' wheels, but I think I'd prefer to make a clean break rather than add a third set of rims/hubs/brake adjustments to the mix. I can now swap out identical wheelsets with slicks or knobbies and ride road or off-road with virtually no effort.

Have 3 or 4 NOS cassettes, some cogs, and a few dérailleurs, but eventually I am going to run out of spare parts and shifting is going to get sloppy. Suntour Accushift cableheads are proprietary, but I've got more than a dozen cables. Suntour components don't play with SRAM, Shimano, or Campagnolo hardware, so a very costly drive train swap is coming at some point - especially at 3k+ miles per season. I've got a few seasons left, but I'm running obsolete hardware and change is inevitable. My gut is that current road components are dead-on precise compared to what I'm running. I do like precision. 😄

Long wheel base equates to sluggish turning. Not having ridden a short wheelbase, compact frame, I don't know exactly what to expect. I have a highly rated "cross vehicle" for handling performance (if there is such a thing), but it doesn't handle anything like an older Porsche I have. Will a frame change from the T-930 give me that kind of handling difference? Don't know - kind of why I'm asking for other's experience/suggestions. The T-930 was designed with off-road as it's primary goal - I think I'm satisfied that it can perform quite well on-road as it is currently outfitted.

I do want to focus on climbing endurance. During the century ride, I was looking to spin out the steeper hills after 75 miles, rather than burn myself out. A handful of riders passed me on some "steeps", but I was able to rejoin or pass on the following flats. Would a lighter bike provide a measurable climbing advantage - again, not sure?? Probably just need to get more fit than anything.

Good suggestions about dropping some pounds and concentrating on climbing endurance. That's the kind of input I'm looking for. I browsed the training forum a little bit, but definitely need to spend more time in there.

In formulating a strategy for "improvement", I'm wondering if measuring improvement is continually increasing my average mph over a fixed course, riding greater distances with fewer or no breaks, bounding large hills in taller gears, yada... Last year I just wanted to make sure I could finish a century. Now I need to figure out a new goal for 2010 and understand if there is a "typical" "progression plan in cycling.

alienator said:

Bike geometry isn't a simple thing, and you can't draw conclusions just based on a couple of dimensions. What can be said is that a bike that fits will handle better than a bike that doesn't fit.

Whether or not you need a new bike isn't something that can really be answered. We can post questions, but it will be your answers, need, and desires that will dictate whether you should get a new bike. ...

Goals for next year? Well, from the sound of things, you're off to a great start (IMHO climbing...and descending...are the best parts of riding). Riding more should be a goal for next year. As far as training specific goals, those depend on your current condition and what you want to achieve. If you're interested in training, you should visit the training sub-forum on this site.

CRW is a great organization. No doubt there are some who would remember you -they're a tight knit and dedicated group of riders.

Thank you for your insight.

oldbobcat said:

Give a holler to the Charles River folks for me--aw, they won't remember, anyway. That was 25 years ago. I used to ride with the Granite State Wheelmen, too. When riding around Massachusetts, just remember it gets better the farther west you go.

The reason I'm so authoritative on fitting you is that you're just a slightly larger, younger edition of me. And Eddy Merckx, if you need inspiration.

Don't get all hung up in geometry, except for the extended-head-tube bikes they're all pretty similar. You'd be looking for a basic road bike that isn't too long in the top tube. There are no dogs, just bikes that don't fit.

Again, I encourage you to try out the training forum.

As for weight on the bike and climbing, it's not the concern that people claim. The energy you spend on a climb is directly proportional to your bike/rider mass. If you double the mass, you double the energy required to climb a specified distance. If you stay at your current weight, but instead use a bike that weighs 17 lbs instead of 25, that'll save 3.6% of the energy you would have spent climbing on your touring bike. That's not a great amount. It's not something you would necessarily notice. Of course, it doesn't hurt to use a lighter bike (durability factors aside). Legs and lungs matter a lot more.

Thanks alienator! I understand and agree with what you're saying - much more performance to be gained in other places than the bike.

I will spend a greater amount of time looking and learning in the training forums. Need to work toward the "ideal" ratio - most power output and work efficiency per unit of body mass. Has to be one of those, right? Otherwise the lightest guy would always win the race. 😄😄

Do want to set a measurable goal for this season .. just not sure what it will be yet.

sitzmark said:

Have 3 or 4 NOS cassettes, some cogs, and a few dérailleurs, but eventually I am going to run out of spare parts and shifting is going to get sloppy. Suntour Accushift cableheads are proprietary, but I've got more than a dozen cables. Suntour components don't play with SRAM, Shimano, or Campagnolo hardware

That was the pretext for my new bike. I once got a Shimano lever to work with a Suntour front derailleur, though.

sitzmark said:

Well ... my inexperience somewhat limits my ability to answer ... kinda don't know what I don't know, but -

Not necessarily looking for a new bike - actually quite fond of the Trek 930.

...

Long wheel base equates to sluggish turning. Not having ridden a short wheelbase, compact frame, I don't know exactly what to expect. I have a highly rated "cross vehicle" for handling performance (if there is such a thing), but it doesn't handle anything like an older Porsche I have. Will a frame change from the T-930 give me that kind of handling difference? Don't know - kind of why I'm asking for other's experience/suggestions. The T-930 was designed with off-road as it's primary goal - I think I'm satisfied that it can perform quite well on-road as it is currently outfitted.

FWIW. Whatever your planned budget is for a road bike, you should consider that in the long run you will probably be happier if you cobble together your own frame & components ...

So, although you are not inclined to buying a set of 700c wheels, you should consider that almost everything you might get to retrofit your TREK frame can be used on a future road frame. The obvious components which may not transfer will be the headset, seatpost and possibly the BB.

Having said that, several years ago, I decided to see how feasible it would be to convert a Hardtail frame which I wasn't using in its intended manner (i.e., it was collecting dust) to full road regalia vs. using 26" slicks. Since I already had all the spare road parts floating around, it was only a matter of my time ... but, based on my experience, I think it will be worth the time & money you will need to spend.

Installing a ROAD fork allows the easy use of road brake calipers (the nut side of the fender mounting hole in the "bridge"/yoke needed to be enlarged to accept a recessed nut ... you will need to measure the reach to determine which brake calipers you should use. With the particular Mongoose frame, I used long reach (49-59) Tektro brakes, but presuming my early-90s vintage Trek MTB 850 frame is similar to your 930 frame, you may be able to use 'normal' reach (39-49 or 40-50) calipers because my recollection (based on a test fit) was that the reach on my Trek frame would allow the use of a Campagnolo (40-50) caliper for the rear brake.

The 'long' reach brake caliper may be too long for some road forks, but it was okay for the particular fork I used.

BTW. I don't think that the wheelbase causes what you perceive to be sluggish steering as much as the head tube angle.

Installing the road fork resulted in a head tube angle of approximately 73º. 73º is a pretty good head tube angle which is common on most off-the-peg road frames. The resultant head tube angle may be different on different frames with different forks -- for example, a cyclocross fork would probably have resulted in a 72º angle, etc.

IMO, the converted Hardtail rides great. It rides so well that I looked at a couple of other Hardtail frames I have with the possibility of converting them to use 700c wheels, too.

Because the Mongoose is an alloy frame, I needed to lace the 700c rim on a 135mm hub. Because your Trek is presumably steel, you can simply re-space the rear dropouts down to 130mm; and, that will allow you to easily use the wheelset on any future road frame(s) you may buy.

If you re-space your steel Trek frame to 130mm, then you can use any ROAD crank (regular or compact); but, if you leave the spacing at 135mm then you will probably need to use a differnt BB -- I used a BB with a 118mm spindle which is normally intended to be used for triple crank to get the chainrings to clear the stays.
[INDENT]To re-space (either direction) the dropouts on a steel frame you just need to remove the rear wheel, hold both dropouts in your hands, and press inward (or, pull out if going from a smaller to a wider spacing) with whatever you estimate to be 30lbs of force ... measure & repeat until you have brought the stays in/(out) to 130mm. Align the rear derailleur hanger by sandwiching it between two small pieces of scrap plywood and then tweaking it with a pipe wrench.
[/INDENT]If you don't want to respace your Trek's dropouts AND you don't want to change BBs, you can use a Campagnolo Centaur/Veloce/Mirage square taper crankset because Campy cranks use a slightly smaller taper (I tried the combination on the Trek frame which has a 113mm square taper spindle) but will not sleeve onto the spindle as far -- the angle of the taper is the same on Shimano & Campagnolo spindles, BTW.

I chose to remove the cantilever bosses on the Giant MTB frame in the second pic (not recommended since it means that the frame cannot revert to normal 26" wheels). It required a "long" reach caliper as pictured.

FYI. 10-speed Campagnolo shifters can be mated to 8-/9-/10-speed, non-Campagnolo drivetrains with minimal effort ... I prefer Shimano derailleurs.

Using non-QS Campagnolo shifters means that I can use any front derailleur. I recently decided to see how my first, late 70s Shimano Dura Ace front derailleur (third attachment) would work with the Campagnolo shifters ... and, the shifting is fine.

Some 7-speed Freewheels have similar spacing as 8-speed cassettes ... the SunRace Freewheels have the same cog spacing as an 8-speed cassette has.

I have an old Accushift rear derailleur, but I have never tried to mate it with any Campagnolo shifter to see if there was any compatibility ...

An 8-, 9-, or 10-speed Campagnolo shifter may actually work with your current rear derailleur, etc.

Nice work alfeng!! Will file the tricks away for possible future use.

For now, I don't want to take the T-930 completely to the "road side" because we have a place in the hills of Maine and I like to XC sometimes. Most likely whatever 700c wheelset I'd go with, I wouldn't want to trash off-road. The 700c/26 swaps would be more effort than I'd realistically invest. As it is, the T-930 is quickly convertible to whatever riding I might want to do - doesn't excel at anything, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It'll never leave my "quiver".

Suntour components can play OK with others if using friction shifting. (Isn't that the way we all learned to shift? 😄 ) XC Pro is basically grease-injectable versions of Suntour's high-end Superbe Pro road group, so it's very good stuff but long out of production. Like me, time has passed it "bye". <grin>

I confess - I have been keeping an eye out for wheelsets and frames that might build out into something of interest. Whichever way I go - off-the-shelf or project - it's a sure bet I'll be tinkering. .... maybe not to your level, but tinkering .... 😄

Going by what I've read here so far, I'm assuming that you are still using a 26" wheel, most likely with a width in the 1.25"-1.75" area? If this is the case, then upgrading to a road bike with 700c wheels can actually make a difference in performance. The larger diameter wheel will better hold it's momentum when on flat terrain, and the thinner tires of a road bike will offer you less rolling resistence. This can have a positive impact on performance, as far as speed goes.

Other than this though, the only other performance that would be gained would be as a result of spending more time riding. A new bike would most certainly ride smoother and shift crisper than what you are currently using, and in many cases this helps to encourage the rider to get out more and due to increased enjoyment.
Building on bobcat's bike recommendations, if you go the Madone route, I would suggest using the pro fit frame as it will offer a sportier and snappier ride, with more responsive handling than the performance fit Madone.

As far as goals go for a new season, one way to go about setting something up is to look back at how long it took you to complete your century this past season. Set a goal of decreasing your time by a certain percentage this year. For example, lets say that it took 6 hours last season (360 minutes) and you want to take 5% off of that, then this seasons the goal would be to finish it in around 340ish minutes. In order to accomlish this, you may want to make intermediate goals as well, such as doing one or two centuries leading up to the event as pacing/endurance preperation. It would be a good idea to invest in some sort of training tool in order to help yourself accomplish time related goals. The most economical would be a heart rate monitor (usually in the range of $60-$500), although there are much more advanced tools out there such as power meters if you enjoy the scientific side of training. However, power meters are extremely expensive compared to heart rate monitors, to the tune of $1,000+. I recommend the Polar S725x as far as a heart rate monitor goes, since they can capture a lot of different information (speed,cadence,heart rate,elevation gain/loss,temperature,etc) and have the option of being uploaded to a computer for graphing/review of workouts. They can be found online or at a LBS for between $300 and $360 depending on the retailer.

Yes, wheels are 26 x 21.6mm - 1.4" slick. 1.95 for knobbies but I quickly realized I didn't want to be training on those - they were noisy!! 😄

I did invest in a Garmin Edge 305/HR shortly after starting training, so I have the stats from all the rides and can do as you suggest. Great, thank you! Got tired of stopping to figure out where I ran off course for new rides. So much more productive to download the course and follow the line. There's a virtual rider function in the Garmin, but I didn't adjust the parameters to ever deal with "him". I'll go back through all the data to set zone goals and program the virtual rider to challenge me for the upcoming season. Maybe I'll wait to get into watts and all that stuff in my 3rd season. <grin>

Your century number was pretty close - 355 was the saddle time, but we rode as a group and the last 5 miles or so we really dialed it back so everyone could regroup and cross the finish line together. That also meant far more waiting at rest stops(4) to regroup than I had hoped. In solo training, I never stopped on rides less than 45-50 miles.

I found that it takes about 10 miles for my legs to "warn up". I guess it makes sense as blood flow/oxygenation increases, but it was a strange sensation at first. I have more power to deliver after 10 miles than I do when starting out. After each rest stop I felt like I was starting all over again.

Excellent! I'll save this post to show to my wife. 😄

oldbobcat said:

That was the pretext for my new bike. I once got a Shimano lever to work with a Suntour front derailleur, though.

sitzmark said:

I found that it takes about 10 miles for my legs to "warn up". I guess it makes sense as blood flow/oxygenation increases, but it was a strange sensation at first. I have more power to deliver after 10 miles than I do when starting out. After each rest stop I felt like I was starting all over again.

That seems like a fairly long warm up, especially if your doing a short to moderate length ride. Have you tried the Chris Carmichael warm up? Alternate 3 minutes easy spinning and 1 minute high cadence at a moderate to high effort. Seems to work well for me, especially on those rides where you may not want to spend 10 miles warming up due to time constraints.

No, total nube training .... junp on bike and try to keep it above 18mph on the flats and above 12/14 on "hills". Initially I'd feel a bit of burn and effort when trying to pull the hills, but after around 10 miles of riding I feel a "pump" in my quads like a weight lifting pump. From then on I can "cruise control" at 21-24 mph with power in reserve on the flats and add power to moderate grades and even some short steep grades without any burn or fatigue. My mind is telling me I should "feel it" but I don't.

It's hard to explain and I'm not sure if it's something others experience, The muscle expansion/"pump" is the sensation I get, my HR sets around 150 (unless I have to pull a significant grade), and then I know I'm in a different performance zone that I can comfortably ride in for an extended period of time.

I obviously have a lot to learn about training. The only scientific thing about my training was following a mileage progression chart for century prep. Better head over to the training forum. 😄

ToffoIsMe said:

That seems like a fairly long warm up, especially if your doing a short to moderate length ride. Have you tried the Chris Carmichael warm up? Alternate 3 minutes easy spinning and 1 minute high cadence at a moderate to high effort. Seems to work well for me, especially on those rides where you may not want to spend 10 miles warming up due to time constraints.

Thanks Eric - I checked out the CTS website. Looks like the programs are targeted toward competition-level athletes (or those who want to be), but I can obviously make my training more strategic - especially interval work and hills. Definitely part of season number 2.

I did have "hill days" in my training last year, but they were simply days where I mapped a course that incorporated all the steepest grades around my home training area. I tried to ride the course faster than the last time. ... Some days it was just to force myself to do the course when I really didn't want to work that hard, or it was too hot, or ... 😄

ToffoIsMe said:

That seems like a fairly long warm up, especially if your doing a short to moderate length ride. Have you tried the Chris Carmichael warm up? Alternate 3 minutes easy spinning and 1 minute high cadence at a moderate to high effort. Seems to work well for me, especially on those rides where you may not want to spend 10 miles warming up due to time constraints.