Speed

Talk about anything.

Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew

User avatar
dlovett
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: South Coast
Contact:

Speed

Post by dlovett »

So as the year had just finished I looked up my 2016 stats on veloviewer. It was interesting to see that both my original Fatbike and the Current one are actually on average faster than both my hard tail and susser.

This is across multiple years and all kinds of riding.

Ave Climb Ave Speed Ave Dist
Susser 404m 13.0km/h 29.8km
HT 510m 12.7km/h 32.4km
Fat 1 810m 13.1km/h 51.8km
Fat 2 522m 13.9km/h 37.3km

The fitness level was very similar across the last two years. The fats generally climb better and on the straights are easily as fast, once you have tyre pressure mastered. What is interesting is descent PB's. The Susser held most of them, but the 2nd fat bike has seriously chipped away at them, but it is approx 1kg lighter and has 4.0 v 2.35 tyres. It just proves what I have said that Fat doesn't mean slow and heavy.
User avatar
Richard G
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:09 am
Location: South Wales

Re: Speed

Post by Richard G »

Still not convinced. :ugeek:
Chew
Posts: 2602
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:46 pm
Location: Halifax

Re: Speed

Post by Chew »

:geek: Apples & Pears....

Susser - 13.6 m/km
HT - 15.7 m/km
Fat 1 - 15.6 m/km
Fat 2 - 14.0 m/km

Easier rides on the Fat 2 than the HT.
The Fat 2 may be 9% faster but the rides are 11% easier

I'd also say if your average rides are only 2.5 hours in duration, they're not long enough for the extra required effort to have an affect on the output.


Plus if they were great, people wouldn't have to keep convincing everyone else that they were :wink:
ScotRoutes
Posts: 8144
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:56 am

Re: Speed

Post by ScotRoutes »

I've looked at this and come to the conclusion that the average speeds are completely misleading as I tend to select the bike according to the terrain I'll be on. For example. a ride over Torridon would see me take a FS for the descents but it would involve a long hike-a-bike that would completely mess my average speed for the ride.
User avatar
ZeroDarkBivi
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:18 am
Location: Somerset

Re: Speed

Post by ZeroDarkBivi »

As far as i am aware, the HT550, covering a variety of terrain, has had both full suss XC bikes and rigid single-speeds at the sharp end, but never a fat bike... Just saying!
jam bo
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:54 pm

Re: Speed

Post by jam bo »

ZeroDarkBivi wrote:As far as i am aware, the HT550, covering a variety of terrain, has had both full suss XC bikes and rigid single-speeds at the sharp end, but never a fat bike... Just saying!
Ever tried a river crossing with a fat bike?
User avatar
Richard G
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:09 am
Location: South Wales

Re: Speed

Post by Richard G »

That's why it pays to work on those upper body muscles.
User avatar
GregMay
Posts: 3861
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:57 pm
Location: Calderdale
Contact:

Re: Speed

Post by GregMay »

Pedal faster on the other bikes.
Image
User avatar
dlovett
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: South Coast
Contact:

Re: Speed

Post by dlovett »

I never said that these would apply to you guys, they are my stats, so please don't tell me they are wrong in anyway.

They are correct for me.

Rather than bitch about them, the idea was for people to put THEIR own stats up.
Chew
Posts: 2602
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:46 pm
Location: Halifax

Re: Speed

Post by Chew »

Image

The data is what it is, its the interpretation to back up the claim of:
dlovett wrote:It just proves what I have said that Fat doesn't mean slow and heavy.
Its just riding bikes :wink:
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 24197
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: Speed

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

Its just riding bikes :wink:
Yer, even slow ones with silly big tyres :-bd ( :wink: )
May the bridges you burn light your way
ianfitz
Posts: 3642
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Speed

Post by ianfitz »

I looked at the stats for my bikes. I have them separated for when they are laden. These data indicate a c.1kmh slower average speed when bags are added to any bike. But the ride distances are much longer too.

The road bike is the fastest, then the rigid 29er, then the spearfish. I don't have a fat bike.

In my case I'm not sure that these averages tell me anything. I know that the spearfish is faster on many routes (because I've compared them to see) but yet the amalgamated data doesn't show this.
Image
User avatar
Richard G
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:09 am
Location: South Wales

Re: Speed

Post by Richard G »

I know that my road bike is faster than my carbon fibre race mountain bike... but oddly by no-where near as you might expect it to be.
ianfitz
Posts: 3642
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Speed

Post by ianfitz »

Richard G wrote:I know that my road bike is faster than my carbon fibre race mountain bike... but oddly by no-where near as you might expect it to be.
But if you do lots of long steadier rides on the road and only ever race you XC machine it would make a lot of sense.
Image
User avatar
Richard G
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:09 am
Location: South Wales

Re: Speed

Post by Richard G »

No, I'm talking about over the same loops. I was interested so I went out and did some duplicate rides where I was working to heart rate.

I actually think my race beast might be lighter than my road bike, b obviously the tyres should make it a good chunk slower though.
User avatar
whitestone
Posts: 8210
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:20 am
Location: Skipton(ish)
Contact:

Re: Speed

Post by whitestone »

It's really hard to do speed comparisons in the real world as there are so many variables that can affect the result. I did a comparison between standard 29er wheels/tyres and 650b+ wheels/tyres. I tried as much as possible to keep everything but the wheels the same including my heart rate (I was within one or two bpm on every segment). Whereas I expected some Strava segments to be quicker on the 650b+ as the terrain on those bits suited the higher volume tyres I was surprised that I was quicker overall on the test loop on those wheels.

But (and it's a big but) that was one ride of about 24Km when I used the same wheels on the Peak200 they became very much hard work. The wheels are at the cheaper end of the spectrum (Alpkit Rumpus) and the complete wheelset adds nearly 1.5Kg to the weight of the bike and in just the wrong place. I've not differentiated between wheels when I've logged rides on Strava so I don't really have the means to split them apart.

Tyres can also make a difference: on my fat bike I notice a difference between the Husker Dus that I bought it with and the Vanhelgas that I've fitted for winter. Both sets of tyres are the same weight (within a few tens of grams) so it's down to tyre pressures, tread and the compound used. Of course the reason we fit different tyres is to adapt the bike to different conditions and terrain so comparing an optimal tyre for a particular terrain with one that isn't is only telling us that the tyre is optimal not the bike. So riding a "slower" bike with an optimal tyre might actually be quicker than a "faster"bike with a sub-optimal tyre.
Better weight than wisdom, a traveller cannot carry
ianfitz
Posts: 3642
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Speed

Post by ianfitz »

Richard G wrote:No, I'm talking about over the same loops. I was interested so I went out and did some duplicate rides where I was working to heart rate.

I actually think my race beast might be lighter than my road bike, b obviously the tyres should make it a good chunk slower though.

Ahh I see. I did similar with the spearfish vs rigid.

I've got a similar situation with the rigid bike being lighter than my escapade
Image
User avatar
MarkW
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:07 pm
Location: Malvern. South Wales before that

Re: Speed

Post by MarkW »

ZeroDarkBivi wrote:As far as i am aware, the HT550, covering a variety of terrain, has had both full suss XC bikes and rigid single-speeds at the sharp end, but never a fat bike... Just saying!
Chance here for someone to set a first record!
User avatar
Mariner
Posts: 1794
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: East Devon

Re: Speed

Post by Mariner »

I've only got one bike. The comparisons I do is how strong the head/tail wind is. :lol:
Zazen - nothing happens next this is it.
User avatar
fatbikephil
Posts: 7386
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Fife
Contact:

Re: Speed

Post by fatbikephil »

ZeroDarkBivi wrote:As far as i am aware, the HT550, covering a variety of terrain, has had both full suss XC bikes and rigid single-speeds at the sharp end, but never a fat bike... Just saying!
Not quite true (briefly) :cool:

To be honest I dont care if my (15kg) fatbike is faster than any other bike, its flippin awsome - period. That said I bet its faster through foot deep windslab than any bouncer you would care to mention....
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Speed

Post by Alpinum »

My rides with my fatbike must be about 1/3 or even 1/4 of the speed of the ride's with my other bikes.

I only ride it on snow :wink:
And some of the best rides of my life where on the fatbike. Just sooooo slow.


As much as I dislike fatbikes on dirt and alpine single tracks etc. they do roll faster then one (fatbike unexperienced rider) would think looking at them and given my experience - which is only negative for dirt + fatbikes (except for very rough climbs), I still kinda agree with
dlovett wrote:It just proves what I have said that Fat doesn't mean slow and heavy.
But... I'll stick with slower and heavier outside snow/sand. heavier as in the feeling of the ride, not the absolute bike weight.
User avatar
Richard G
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:09 am
Location: South Wales

Re: Speed

Post by Richard G »

They do roll bloody fast down hills. Have seen that first hand on the weekend. :)
User avatar
voodoo_simon
Posts: 4325
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:05 pm

Re: Speed

Post by voodoo_simon »

What is it with 90% of fat bike riders, always preaching about how much better a fat bike is than anything else*. All a bit tiring


*When in reality, they're not
User avatar
fatbikephil
Posts: 7386
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Fife
Contact:

Re: Speed

Post by fatbikephil »

voodoo_simon wrote:What is it with 90% of fat bike riders, always preaching about how much better a fat bike is than anything else*. All a bit tiring


*When in reality, they're not
We're just trying to share the love.... Actually its a reaction to all of the bull on STW and other publications that seem to treat them as toys that aren't proper bikes for proper people. Somewhat ignoring their origins....
User avatar
whitestone
Posts: 8210
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:20 am
Location: Skipton(ish)
Contact:

Re: Speed

Post by whitestone »

On a road descent at the weekend I was very approximately half as fast on my fat bike as the fastest recorded on Strava (sorry for the S- word). However it was dark, I'd not done the descent before and I'm a wuss :lol:
Better weight than wisdom, a traveller cannot carry
Post Reply