Road bike vs mountain bike

[bpgreen]

I think mashani will likely be the most knowledgeable about this, but I've bombarded him lately with PMs, so I thought I'd give him a bit of a break.

I started bike riding a couple of years ago, and started with a bike I found on a local classified website (well established before craigslist was even a blip).

I replaced it with a much newer (but still somewhat old) bike that was a better size and was also lighter than the first.

That's my current bike (Trek 8000 ca 2004). I was talking with somebody today who said that since all of my biking is on paved roads and trails, I should get a road bike.

When I look at the online classifieds, the used road bikes seem to be about the same price as they would be new through places like bikesdirect.com.

A good bike would probably cost more than a thousand dollars. But that's not in my budget.

There are road bikes for as little as $219 on bikesdirect. I'm sure those aren't great, but I'm wondering if I'd be better off with a new low end road bike than a 15 yo higher end mountain bike.

What thinks the borg?

[mashani]

Inkleg might be able to add something here, but really...

It depends.

An older used road bike with a better groupset (Shimano 105 or Ultegra, or SRAM Apex or Force) that has been maintained is a better bet then a cheap triple chain ring new bike with a crappy group set (every triple chain ring 21 or 24 speed bike is a crappy group set) for the same price. If your not just noodling around town and putting real miles on the bike, I would avoid all triple chain ring bikes, you may as well just ride your MTB if that's the only option because it's a better bike. Just put some wide slick tires on it, or some file tread "gravel" tires and you'll go faster on the road then you do now. If you can lock out the front suspension even more so.

If going with a groupset under those on a newer bike because on a new bike those are expensive, go with one that is a dual chainring up front, it will still be a better groupset then any triple. IE it would be a 14 or 16 speed instead of a 21 speed bike. Something like Shimano Claris groupset with an FSA compact crank instead of a triple. Many of the gears on the triple are going to be useless for road riding at any sort of speed anyways, your not losing anything but weight by getting rid of the damn thing and going with a 14 or 16 with a compact 2x front crank. A modern 8 speed Claris cassette is the same thing as an OLD 8 speed ultegra (formarly high end) cassette. But the triple chain ring up front isn't, it's likely just garbage because "more gears sounds better even if it's not".

Your MTB, even though a hard tail still has a more plush ride due to the relaxed geometry and the front suspension and fat knobby tires. Any road bike with skinnier slick tires and tighter geometry, especially if all aluminum is going to seem really harsh to ride at first compared to what you are used to, and more twitchy. But you will go faster due to lower weight, better power transfer, and less rolling resistance. You will gain some of that just putting slicks on your MTB, but not all. You can gain a bit more if you can lock out your front suspension, I don't know if you can or not.

If you can get an aluminum bike with a carbon fork used, that will give you a better ride then an all aluminum bike. Or a steel bike, but they are heavier. High quality steel isn't as heavy as cheap stuff, but still heavier then aluminum/carbon, and will be more expensive, but will feel much less harsh. All carbon is going to feel much better to ride then aluminum too, but also expensive unless you find a used bike deal. You can probably find an older 105 or ultegra group set aluminum bike with a carbon fork relatively inexpensively used if you look around.

I'll also add, a road bike that can support wider tires, IE 28/32 mm slicks will give you a plusher ride and it will not slow you down much if at all compared to a skinny 25mm tire. On the kind of bike you would be looking at for a lower price (IE not highly integrated aero frames), 28/32s are really only going to be slower on perfectly smooth surfaces, which unless you are riding in a velodrome you probably very rarely ride on. You are also less likely to get a pinch flat on wider tires then skinny ones.

[bpgreen]

I also posted this question on Facebook.

The responses I gott there were not nearly as complete, but the consensus seems to be that if I'm not willing to spend enough to get a good road bike, my current mountain bike is better than an inexpensive new road bike.

[John Sand]

I could dust off my 1980 Fuji...

[BlackDuck]

I could dust off my 1956 Schwinn...

Hey John...I fixed it for you!!

[John Sand]

You're a lot older than you look...

[mashani]

Honestly something like an old 1980s Schwinn World Sport if well maintained would be a better bike then any cheap rim brake bike sold today assuming you could deal with the mickey mouse ear down tube shifters. But I doubt you can actually find a well maintained one cheap, I think they are a collectors item these days if in good shape.

That was back when Schwinn was actually a real independent bike company and not a big box store brand.

[bpgreen]

Mashani sent me a PM with information on how to find a discount code for diamondback bikes (if you're wondering why he didn't just give me the code, when you sign up, you agree that you won't share it). If you're interested in the discount code, look for the vegan cyclist.

He also sent me a link to a sale on one of last year's models for $520 with the discount (original price $700). That was within my price range when I was looking at used bikes, but there was another bike with much better specs and an original price of $950 that was on sale for $670. The next step up was much more money, so I chose the $670 option (a bit more than $700 with taxes). That was more than I originally planned to spend, but I think it'll be worth it in the long run.

I definitely see a difference already. I'm riding 20-25% faster than before. Once I get used to the bike and start pushing myself, I think that will improve even more.

[mashani]

I'm glad its working out for you. That 20+% faster than before is probably the biggest gain your ever gonna get from a bike upgrade ever again though. Everything from now on is all on how hard you train I'm afraid.

This was the power numbers from my 45 mile ride from today. Except for some sprints it was mostly < LT. This was not a very hard pace for me, it was not even close to tempo for much of of it. I only weigh 59kg, someone who weighed a lot more would have to put out more power to go as fast. This is why we train with watts vs. speed or HR these days. HR changes when you age, my HR is low for the watts compared to someone younger. Speed is just a mix of many things (watts, weight, road gradient, aerodynamics and drafting). But watts are always watts.

I know you don't have a power meter, but if you can get on a spinning bike a the gym that has one, and do a 5 second, 30 second, 5 min, and 20 min spin on them and tell me what your power output is for each (make sure you rest in between, and pace the 5 and 20 minute tests, IE don't go harder then you think you can, and then if you still have more put it all out in the last few minutes). If I had those #'s I could give you some ideas on how and what to train.

Instead of a 20 minute effort, you can do this instead... start at 50 watts... then ramp up 25 watts every minute. At some point you will fail. Fail means not that it's getting hard and you don't like it... fail means you think you are going to barf or die if you go any harder. Tell me that highest # you reach and how far into that last minute you got and how much you weight and I can give you a w/kg value for a 60 minute effort estimation, which would be your "FTP". You can then use this value to see how you are improving by testing again later.

My actual FTP these days is around 4.5 w/kg which is ~25% harder then I rode here, and pretty ok for a 50+ age group.

Untitled.png (34.95 KiB) Viewed 874 times

[bpgreen]

I kind of figured that I won't see much more improvement from upgrading bikes again. I'm sure i could see a small improvement by getting a carbon fork, but it would be tiny at best. Even going to something high end will likely give me only an incremental improvement.

From here on out, it's on me.

Some of it is just getting dialed in to the new bike. But I need to improve my technique, learn how to shift better, and push harder in order to speed up from here. I think I can also improve just by getting in more miles.

Another thing that'll help is getting a speedometer mounted on my handlebars. It's a psychological thing, but it's like swimming in one of the middle lanes where I can see the lap clock (my eyesight is too bad to see it from the outside lanes). I had a speedometer on another bike and it makes a difference being able to see the speed without taking my hand off the bike and looking at my watch. Being able to see current speed helps keep me focused.

I don't have a power meter. What is it and how much does one cost? I might consider getting one as I get more serious about biking.

I meant to take a look at the spinning bikes at the rec center today, but forgot. Today would've been a bad day for a test because it was a weightlifting day and I'm always slower on weight days.

[mashani]

Unless it's more aerodynamic, a carbon fork is more for comfort, smoothing out the bumps. What little you gain (if anything) in stiffness over your aluminum isn't going to make you faster. If you were on really skinny tires, the smoothing of the bumps might make you a tad faster on a rough road, but you have 28mm tires, so your somewhat "plush" compared to an old school road bike. 28mm tires are pretty optimal as long as your not riding on perfect velodrome surfaces.

The biggest gains of a much more expensive bike would be weight differences (matters in the overall watts per kg when applied to real life riding) and more aerodynamics (matters when going fast when your not drafting). But those are all incremental gains at great expense... often only really worth it for the top level people. Most people could gain more just by improving themselves through training.

Power meters measure how many watts you are generating to make the bike move.

There are different kinds, some of them are attached to your cranks or pedals, those are very accurate but they can cost a lot of money. Some more then you spent on your bike because they are tied to groupsets that cost more then your bike.

A better option for you would probably be something like a Velocomp Powerpod assuming you have a PC to run some software on. Those attach to your handlebars and use a bunch of sensors to measure g-forces, wind speed and such and software written by some really geeky people to calculate an estimate of your power output. They basically work the same way that aerospace technology that measures the same types of things work, except scaled down to bike size. With them you have to set them up to match your bike setup (wheel and tire sizes) and the kind of tires, and your general riding position, and your bikes weight and your own weight and the kinds of roads you ride on (smooth, or crappy). You have to adjust the configuration if your weight changes. But once all that is dialed in they are accurate to within about 1% of what they really expensive power meters are. Even if not accurate to your exact power they still give you accurate *comparative* numbers, IE you can still use it to figure out training programs and measure improvements or loss (IE if you overtrain or get sick). So I would consider them good enough for most people.

Those cost $199-$299 depending on features enabled (some will measure side to side pedal stroke differences, IE if one leg is putting down more power then others etc.). If you buy the one without the extra features, you can add them later by upgrading software, so it's not a big deal to not get it up front and then decide later you want it.

They do require that you have a BLE or ANT+ cadence and speed sensor on your bike however, so you'd have to add another $70 or so for those things (IE something like a Wahoo speed/cadence sensor). You might already have those things if you have a speedometer / little bike computer. (if it is wired you don't have those things, if it's wireless then you probably do). Around the holidays, all of those things go on sale, sometimes a lot if you catch an Amazon flash sale or something. You might be able to get all of it for $200 if you time it right.

Just be warned, that they then lead you into following training plans that make you do things like this fun 27 mile seated interval workout I did today... if you wonder why my max speed is only ~20mph, it's because each interval was going *up hill*, I rode in a little loop around a set of roads here where I could just turn the cranks slow on the downhill to relax, and then go hard up the hills. It's kind of blurry because I had to shrink it to post here, but the intervals are all at around 350 watts target effort some a bit less some a bit more, about 6 w/kg, which is well above my FTP / LT. (Above LT means lactic acid builds up in your legs and the burn like mad). The point of a workout like this is to get your body to adapt to that so you can increase your LT and therefore your FTP and go harder for longer. This was intentionally not "max sprints" but 350 watt target (except for the bigger warmup sprint). Other workouts might involve max sprints, or sub threshold longer efforts or many things, a good plan will be designed around you and what you are trying to do. Me I'm getting ready for cyclocross season which is a whole bunch of hammering to high speeds, then having to slow down to go through twisty technical things or get off the bike to go over obstacles, then hammering again, combined with doing nothing for brief moments when you get the chance.

Untitled.png (42.06 KiB) Viewed 859 times

[mashani]

EDIT: See my post above too if you didn't.

If you get one or you can get on a spinning bike that has one, then you can see how you do you can compare yourself to a chart like this for fun if you like. I'm kind of a mix of that green line that starts at 95 and the yellow line that starts at 90 (I'm a couple of ticks below them in all cases, IE my FT is 4.5). I'm closer to the Green for 5s / 1m, and closer to the yellow for 5m and FT on the "mens" side. Those numbers are Watts per KG, so you take your watt output for 5s, 1m, 5m, 60m (or 20 minute adjusted or ramp test adjusted) and divide it by your weight (in KG).

You can then see what kind of a rider you are too, IE these lines are for various endurance or all around road cyclists (able to maintain power over time, but with less max power), where someone who is more of a sprinter or a track cyclist might have a line that actually starts higher and then actually goes down across the chart. You can tell them, because their legs look like they are NFL running backs, where mine look more like a marathon runners.