litespeed v GIANT conundrum
Last Post 05/03/2014 01:31 PM by Hoshie S. 14 Replies.
Author Messages
stronz

Posts:315

--
04/26/2014 06:19 PM
so as some may remember i have two roadbikes -- 9 year old Litespeed Vortex and 1 year old GIANT TCR Advanced.  Both have Campy Record, Giant has super record, And pretty much similar equipment, similar gearing.  Have been using the litespeed as the bad weather bike just cause its older but what i have noticed is that the litespeed feels faster and actually usually produces faster times for the few sections of roads that I time myself.  There is a 5 km stretch that I ride which is mostly uphill but has some false flats and I use it as my barometer for what kind of shape I'm in.  Best times mid summer are just under 13min.  Lousy mid winter times a tad over 15 min.  Last week after a week of Florida riding which might as well be called wind training I came home and rode the 5km on my GIANT. Felt very good and thought I'd be in the 13 min area. Time was 14:45.  BAD.  Oh well just old I guess.

Rode it today on the litespeed 14:25.  Oh and I feel like crap, didnt sleep well last night and I have a cold.  I was NOT pushing myself today.   So what the hell makes the litespeed faster?  Is it faster?  The biggest diff between the bikes is the down tube: litespeed has an aero shape (diamond cross section)  while The GIANT is a box section.  I dont know -- the GIANT is more comfy and muted.  But I think the litespped is faster -- fwiw its about a pound heavier than the GIANT 15.5 v 14.5. Litespeed has Mike Garcia alum clinchers.  GIANT has Campy hyperons... Interested in your thoughts
zootracer

Posts:324

--
04/26/2014 07:50 PM
I sort of have the same quandary. I have a Trek 5.9sl, which is my "A" bike. "B" bike is a Colnago Master X-Light (which I seldom ride). The 5.9 rides better, eats up the rough chip seal roads, climbs like a mountain goat. The Colnago is faster by checking my average speed at end of rides. Only thing I can think of is the Colnago handles better on the descents, and handles like a demon. More thinking- my 5.9 has a compact crank 50/34 12-25, Nago has a standard 53/39 13-26. I suffer more on the Colnago, but I am pushing a bigger gear. So maybe gearing?
Dale

Posts:524

--
04/26/2014 08:02 PM
I wouldn't overlook comfort and the position on the bike as a factor in getting a faster time. If you're getting beat all to heck or the bike is bouncing around like you're doing Paris-Roubaix you won't be going as fast.
Orange Crush

Posts:1251

--
04/26/2014 08:48 PM
Posted By stronzo nonfumare on 04/26/2014 06:19 PM
Last week after a week of Florida riding which might as well be called wind training I came home and rode the 5km on my GIANT. Felt very good and thought I'd be in the 13 min area. Time was 14:45.  BAD.  Oh well just old I guess.

Rode it today on the litespeed 14:25.  Oh and I feel like crap, didnt sleep well last night and I have a cold. 

Interested in your thoughts

Its Florida. After I came back from spring break, I was sick and my riding sucked and was unpredictable. Hard to make 1:1 comparisons this way. Degenkolb and Kittel seem to be plenty fast on their Giants. I bet if you had ridden the bikes in reverse order you'd have gotten reverse results. Since it is an uphill you tested yourself on, I'd expect you ability of doing that to increase with every subsequent post-Florida ride. That's what happened to me, it took two weeks to get my climbing back to where it was before spring break.

Incidentally, Florida was my first experience with a LiteSpeed...sweet.


stronz

Posts:315

--
04/26/2014 09:06 PM
hmmm....both bikes have compact cranks. GIANT is 12-29, LS has 11-27 cassette. I'm always somewhere in the middle of the cassette for these rides tho. Jeez I dont know. Psitioning maybe -- giant is def more comfy. gonna ride it tomorrow see how i do
Orange Crush

Posts:1251

--
04/26/2014 09:06 PM
Posted By Orange Crush on 04/26/2014 08:48 PM
Posted By stronzo nonfumare on 04/26/2014 06:19 PM
Last week after a week of Florida riding which might as well be called wind training I came home and rode the 5km on my GIANT. Felt very good and thought I'd be in the 13 min area. Time was 14:45.  BAD.  Oh well just old I guess.

Rode it today on the litespeed 14:25.  Oh and I feel like crap, didnt sleep well last night and I have a cold. 

Interested in your thoughts

Its Florida. After I came back from spring break, I was sick and my riding sucked and was unpredictable. Hard to make 1:1 comparisons this way. Degenkolb and Kittel seem to be plenty fast on their Giants. I bet if you had ridden the bikes in reverse order you'd have gotten reverse results. Since it is an uphill you tested yourself on, I'd expect you ability of doing that to increase with every subsequent post-Florida ride. That's what happened to me, it took two weeks to get my climbing back to where it was before spring break. The only way to truly test is to use same power (measured), similar conditions and then check time and even that is difficult.

Incidentally, Florida was my first experience with a LiteSpeed...sweet.




Cosmic Kid

Posts:1192

--
04/27/2014 12:15 AM
What tires are you running on each?
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
79pmooney

Posts:1192

--
04/27/2014 01:43 AM
This sounds like different setups. Are they identical? If not, note the difference. You've just learned something about your body. Now take the setup from the faster bike and copy it exactly on the slower one. Can't get that position on the slower one? It's not the bike to keep. If you can, run the test again. Now you have a basis for a real choice.

The bike setup affects the powerplant. Tubes, parts, etc. affect resistance. Powerplant changes can be in the order of % points. Resistance differences, even "large" ones will be 0.1 % points.

I'm curious. Tell us how similar the setups are. (I like the really simple method of measuring horizontally BB to HB, vertically BB to HB, BB to reference point on the seat (roughly up the top tube but use identical points on the two seats for reference; identical seats helps a lot). Setback from BB to nose or reference point of seat. Note differences in bar shape, drop and width. Brake levers and locations.

For a fair test of two bikes, you need the same body position relative to the BB AND the same position relative to the wind. Until you do that, you aren't comparing the bikes. When I got my racing bike (back when all bikes were steel and aero wasn't yet in the cycling lexicon), I tied my best time ever purposely going easy pn its first ride. Next ride I was 2 minutes faster going around my usual 45 mile loop. Same wheels, about 2 pounds lighter, but much better fit that allowed me to breath better and develop more power though at the time I didn't know it.

Ben
Ride On

Posts:455

--
04/27/2014 08:03 AM
CK, CK, CK You have all people should have said , did you think about wind directions during the two tests ? How about what you had on ? Zipped up jersey one vs the other ? Different wheels ? Helmet ?

It's all about aerodynamics
stronz

Posts:315

--
04/27/2014 10:17 AM
I have same tires - conti 4000S on each. Litespeeds are more worn in fact the front has a flat contact patch. Also both wheelsets have the "tire within a tire" thing I do to prevent fllats (it works btw) but probably adds rolling resistance. But they both have it. The litespeed was the template for the GIANT set up. The lbs took the litespeed and copied all of the measurements. So they are in fact very close. The litespeed has a tad more stretch to it. ie the frame is a little longer (toptube) but the reach to the hoods is the same because the GIANT has a longer stem. I did this purposely so that as I get older and less flexible I can shorten the stem on the GIANT and be a bit more upright. Right now the two are very close in position -- perhaps I'm a bit more stretched out (more aero) on the LS -- maybe thats the whole diff. Gonna go ride the GIANT - see how I do.
stronz

Posts:315

--
04/27/2014 01:42 PM
OK proof that I have no idea what makes you fast and what makes you slow. Went out on my GIANT today and rode a 13:30 on that stretch of road. Almost a full minute faster than the litespeed yesterday. I did feell better today than yesterday and I got a good night sleep (thank you nyquil)...Ah well theyre both nice bikes and I think the difference is all in human variance. some days you have it some days you dont. Thanks for chiming in everyone.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:1192

--
04/27/2014 02:13 PM
You have way too many variabilities going on to draw any conclusions about which bike is "faster." Day to day weather changes are huge influences, but most importantly, you don't know how hard you are going one day to the next. You need a power meter to be able to better judge this.

You can feel "good" or "bad", but that is all subjective. You can even feel "bad" but that is because you are putting out more watts than you realize, hence the reason you feel "bad"....you are pushing yourself hard.

In your original post, you noted the LS was 20" faster than the Giant. No frame design is going to get you that kind of time gain over 5K. Those are the kind of gains you MAY see over a 40K TT,,,,and that is looking at a full aero TT frame vs. a road bike.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
smokey52

Posts:85

--
04/27/2014 03:34 PM
Are you using the same watch each ride to determine the time?
It doesn't seem to be an issue in this case, but sometimes the small differences in metrics are due to the measuring device, not the machine itself. For example, if you set your computer based on wheel dimensions, small differences in actual dimensions translate into differences in recorded measurements.
stronz

Posts:315

--
04/27/2014 06:53 PM
same old casio wrist watch. CK I think youre right too many variables. Glad I dont do this for a living!
Hoshie

Posts:123

--
05/03/2014 01:31 PM
Well, the interesting thing is that given day to day variance, it appears your "old" litespeed is still a good machine that you like to ride. So there is that.

J


---
Active Forums 4.1