Hacker News Reader

Comment by hi | Hacker News Reader

> the fastest riders in the 200-mile Unbound average 20 mph (32 km/h) across the Flint Hills of Kansas.

Let’s not forget that the most important aspect of averaging 20mph on grave roads: drafting, low body weight and high fitness.

If you watch footage of the unbound gravel race they mention, the winners are with a group of riders until the very end.

The fastest riders are professionals sponsored by the companies trying to sell you this aero gear.

If you want to ride faster ride in a group, find your ideal body weight and spend money on a coach. Only then spend money on bike parts beyond the basic lubricated chain, correct tire psi, etc.

View on HN

This post feels very dismissive of pro cycling, aerodynamics engineering, and what TFA is about. Any pro cyclist is going to use drafting, a low body weight, and have high fitness regardless if they are racing on gravel or not. An upgrade of only 3% for a pro cyclist could be the difference in making podium or not.

Long distance gravel cycling is a relatively new sport and technology and engineering is still in its infancy. There is only minimal design crossover between a fully aero triathlon bike designed for going 112 miles as fast as possible, and a bike ridden for 350 miles by a top finisher at a race like Umbound XL.

Jan Heine isn’t even trying to sell you aero parts. Maybe tires, a journal subscription, or some nice looking parts, but his brand doesn’t sell aero parts. His website doesn’t even offer the aero fairings he used, nor HS r contact info for the framebuilder that built the bike he raced.

In fact there are already some changes in the way gravel is raced and there have been some waves in recent races. When reaching an optionnal resupply/refill point it used to be the case that if the leading 4-5 riders were calling for a pitstop the whole group would stop and wait for anyone to take food and drinks. Now some riders will decide they carry enough and not wait for those that decided on carrying less and stop more often and some additionnal strategy is being put in place. Also some elite riders are calling for a ban of aero handlebars, at least for the fastest ones who fight for the win, in the ground of safety reason. Many stopped using aero bars to set an example but others despite agreeing on the safety issue will continue to use them until a rule is set in place to ban them because they don't want to give up any possible advantage.

He is most definitely trying to sell you parts. Just not aero parts, and this whole article is partially marketing to tell you a bunch of the aero parts don't really matter, so you should buy his parts instead, and use his tires, etc, etc..

And he of course conveniently ignores all this stuff makes about 1/10th the difference rider fitness makes. He is a very fit/accomplished racer, at least he controls that variable, he does most of the test riding himself.

Personally, I'd change the order. Coach first, body weight second.

If there's one piece of equipment to buy first & ASAP, it'd be a powermeter and something to display the readout on.

Riding in a group is of course great, but first You got to have the legs to catch up and then the body weight / metabolism to keep up. Having the core / flexibility to be able to spend hours in somewhat aero position doesn't hurt either.

It always makes me laugh to see slightly overweight people on carbon frames. Having a few kilos over myself, I always thought I'd rather spend money / time / effort losing 3-4kg of fat, rather than mulling over how to shave 100g off of the groupset or 300g of wheels weight...

> but first You got to have the legs to catch up and then the body weight / metabolism to keep up.

Not just keep up, if you are riding in a group you need to be fit enough to take your turn on the front where you aren't draughting (at least if the group you are riding with is your team).

The actual team dynamics of professional road racing are fascinating, much like F1 they'll often pick the strongest and expect everyone else to support them.

yeah, I've never really been into group riding / drafting on a competitive level. I'm mostly trying to avoid it, actually (more of a self-supported racing kind of guy).

Where I train (Paris, polygone de Vincennes) there are quite a few groups riding together, but not sure they'd switch places. I guess it depends on why You do what You do.

In my case, if someone wants to ride behind me, I don't mind (other than that it makes me a bit more careful when passing someone / turning corners). I'm there to work on my power output or cadence, not to get KOMs on Strava segments ;-)

Yeah but carbon gives you cred, and basically _buys_ you speed. Losing weight is effort.

Sarcasm over, one of the funniest cycling stories i ever encountered. My work had a little low-key "bike club", a few guys cycling on warm evenings. One of the partners was a key member so over time non-bike guys started wiggling in for networking purposes.

One guy, with no clue how to ride, drops 2k++ on a full carbon bike, high end components etc. Cometh the first hill, and we find ourselves waiting at the top. 2 mins, 5 mins, finally 10-15 mins in one guy turns around to check up.

The carbon bike cyclist figured how to shift up, but didn't know how to shift down, and was trying desperately to climb in a downhill gear.

I quote your sarcasm.

> Losing weight is effort.

I knew a guy that was training to run an amateur marathon in under I don't remember which time. He went asking to a coach and came back with a long list of training exercises and runs or, the coach told him, lose 3 kg. He lost those 3 kg.

oh, that's a good one. Explaining how brifters work never gets old :-D

On a more serious note, I don't really see the appeal of biking as a social / networking sport. Yeah, we do have a sort of a bike cabal at work too, but if I'd like to network, I guess there are much more efficient ways to do that. Biking as a sport has quite high barriers for entry both in material and in getting fit enough to be able to at least reasonably keep up.

The sad thing is that $2k barely gets you a carbon frame with low end components now. A mid tier bike is maybe $5k, and high end can easily be more than $10k.

Personally I really don't get why anyone would pay $10k for a bike. Amateurs won't benefit nearly enough to make it worth it, and pros are of course sponsored.

It was 2k GBP so more like 3k USD but point stands. It wasn't a good bike.

I think semi pros are possibly the main audience. A friend is into endurance events and he just dropped something like 2k on a titanium frame.

There's a difference between weight weenie carbon and using carbon to improve ride feel and aerodynamics. I've got an old bike made out of Reynolds 853 steel that's lighter than my recent vintage full carbon bike.

The "ride feel" argument is something I quite frankly never understood.

I guess it's because I don't do competitive road racing (more of an ultra / bikepacking sort of guy). When I was shopping for my current frame (Kona Rove), I picked up the steel version mostly for maintenance / mechanical reasons more than anything else. Don't see much of a difference in "feel" from my old aluminium road to be honest (other than what's caused by the different geometry / fit).

I'd like to build up some chinese carbon frame next year just for fun, so we'll see. Maybe I'll change opinion then.

But yeah, I 100% agree that the aerodynamics on modern frames is significantly better. Just not really at the speeds at which I end up riding and with the amount of gear / packs I end up putting on the frame / handlebars.

While the Trek Émonda is as weight weenie as Trek gets, it can provide an apples-to-apples comparison between aluminum and carbon with basically the same geometry, wheels, bars, tires etc. My experience is that the carbon version feels significantly nicer.

For bikepacking, I'm with you: A traditional steel frame (albeit one with discs), nice wide tires to eat up road chatter, and plenty of places to mount gear.

It is subtle, but you will know it when you feel it. Aluminium frames can be engineered to have more flex, and some steel frames can be overbuilt to a point where the "steel feel" is diminished. So comparing any two random frames may not be sufficient to capture the feel.

Also the feeling is subtle enough that the components on your bike can be the larger factor. Tires, crank arms, handlebars, tire pressure, etc.. will all play a factor. Swapping all of your components from one bike to the other would be the best test, but unless your components in aggregate provide a "neutral" feel, it is possible that they could overwhelm the feeling that a different frame will provide.

Carbon frames don't really cost especially more money than a nice aluminum bike any more.

That's it. Same as in road cycling, the biggest air resistance is not due to the bike frame but due to the rider that will have to sit on it. The larger cross section is hard to ignore.

To improve speed, make the bike more comfortable so muscles can be more relaxed. To improve speed further, reduce cross section while maintaining a comfortable ride. For the last few percent, get a suit that sits tight.

All the rest is for those that want to save five seconds over an ironman ride, where group riding is not allowed. But hey, tri bikes do look cool, have fun.

Unless we’re talking about climbing, weight isn’t _everything_. I would argue that being able to stay in an aero position (go on YouTube, but essentially, get on the drops, elbows in, etc) for longer periods is far more important, these aero gains similarly applies to deep dish rims.

All that said, I do agree with your sentiment that shedding a few bricks is going to be more beneficial than shedding a few thousand on a new bike (or rims!). Hell, you might save yourself a divorce in the process!

Lubricated chains and aerodynamics save you energy in a group too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com