TobinHatesYou wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:45 am
mattsurf wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:15 am
In terms of speed, there is not a massive difference between bike,
the Canyon and R5 are faster, maybe 2-3 mph at 250w, this is mainly down to the wheels. On a big climb the Canyon and R5 would be first to the top, however, I would still be faster on the 30 year old Hubli than another rider pushing 230w on a modern bike... the rider makes a much bigger difference than the bike
I liked everything you said up until this point. If I'm doing 250W up a 6% grade, it would take a 50lbs heavier bike to go 2mph slower.
On a flat, it would take 55W of drag to lose 2mph at ~24mph/250W. A decent old road bike isn't going to be 55W slower than the best UCI legal aero bike in that range of speeds.
in terms of flat, I did mean to say kph, not mph. 40 kph (25mph) the Canyon requires 252w, while 40kph on Hubli requires 274w (tested multiple times on a 500m strava segment on flat piece of road, with little traffic). I did some research on this last summer with my son who was conducting an engineering project on aerodynamics. Almost all of the difference could be explained by difference in wheel aerodynamics, we tested wheels separately, unfortunately couldn't do a direct comparison between the old Mavics on the Hubli and Roval CLX32 on the Canyon (due to disc brakes) however, we were able to compare the Mavics with a set of 40mm FFWD rims on the same frame.
The climbing performance is more of an estimate (although based comparing rides on a Strava segment on a 4%, 7km climb, that I have locally), however, different days, different clothing etc. I think that the difference is not weight, probably loss due to flex in the frame, wheels and cranks, and maybe some aero, I make that climb at 24kph average (15mph). Hubli weighs around 9.9kg (21.8lbs), 6lbs more than Canyon, but agree with you that weight is not the determining factor
