Over the years I've used a lot of different bicycles with a lot of different gear. Here, I've collected observations on these experiences. In general philosophy, I agree with Baron Manfred von Richthofen's famous statement, "The quality of the crate matters little. Success depends upon who sits in it." My primary interest in equipment is what is well designed, well built, and lasts over the years. Light weight and aerodynamics are nice to have but their affect on performance is overrated.

The most important general concept is that it is far more important to reduce rotating weight, than it is to reduce non-rotating or "dead" weight. In my experience, saving a few of ounces in the wheels, is comparable to saving a full pound in the frame. However, weight reductions are in general overrated. While acceleration is indeed based on the power to weight ratio, what people fail to consider is that the weight must include not just the bike, but also the rider. Thus, a 2 lb. weight savings may be a 10% improvement for the bike, it's only about a 1% improvement overall.

This is why getting a carbon fiber seatpost is a stupid waste of money. For a cost of close to $200 bucks, you save about one ounce, which is about a 0.03% improvement in the power to weight ratio. For less than half the cost, you can upgrade the tires and tubes, which will provide a difference you can feel with every pedal stroke and through every corner of your favorite twisty downhill.

WHEELS

The wheels determine how fast the bike will go. They should be strong, light and aerodynamic.

AERO VS. WEIGHT

Lately there has been a lot of emphasis on aerodynamic wheels, with technical articles "proving" that aerodynamic wheels are faster than equally strong, yet lighter wheels. The math is correct and incontrovertible. But remember that conclusions are only as accurate as the assumptions. If you read these articles carefully, you'll notice they all assume the ride is relatively flat and the cyclist is moving at a relatively constant speed. These assumptions simplify the mathematics. However, you have to consider whether this describes your typical ride.

If you ride on hills, then you spend far more time climbing the hills than going down them. And at climbing speeds, where you are spending most of your time, aerodynamics are irrelevant. Even when going down the hills, you need to brake for the turns and accelerate as you exit the turns. For this kind of riding, strength and light weight can be more important than aerodynamics.

As a test to satisfy my curiousity, I went to the bicycle calculation site and compared my old superlight Mavic E-2 wheels to the new Rolf wheels on my Trek. The Rolfs are faster on the flats because of their aerodynamics, but the old Mavics outperform the Rolfs on any grade 6% or steeper. The hills I ride every week are 10% and higher. Aero wheels are not always faster.

WEIGHT VS. ROTATIONAL INERTIA

When people say "weight" with wheels, what they usually mean is "rotational inertia". The latter depends not just on the weight, but more importantly, how the weight is distributed throughout the wheel. The same weight added near the rim, adds a lot more inertia than when added near the hub.

From this, we can conclude a few important facts.

First, when comparing wheels, weight is not the whole story. A heavier wheel may or may not have more rotational inertia.

Second, aerodynamic wheels add weight to the very worst part of the wheel. Their deep section rims add weight in the one place where that weight creates the greatest amount of rotational inertia.

Third, it emphasizes the importance of tires and tubes. Because they are at the outer circumferance of the wheel, their mass has a greater impact on rotational inertia than any other part of the wheel.

Fourth, it shows us that it is not wise to sacrifice strength in the hubs to gain lighter weight. Since hub weight is near the center of the wheel, it has only a small effect on rotational inertia.

BEARINGS

There are essentially two kinds of hub bearings -- cartridge (like a giant skateboard wheel bearing) and standard (ball bearings and cones). I prefer standard bearings. When adjusted properly, they have less rolling resistance than cartridge bearings. And, with proper maintenance they last effectively forever. However, many people prefer cartridge bearings because they require no maintenance. When they wear out you just buy new ones.

Over the years I've bought more wheels than I can remember and _none_ of them had the hub bearings adjusted just the way I like them. Usually, the bearings are adjusted too tightly. Also, they often are packed with inferior quality grease. The first thing I do is repack the bearings with a good quality grease. There are many good kinds of grease, though I use Schaeffer's 221 #2 which is a totally waterproof, aluminum complex grease. After repacking, I adjust the bearings with the cones just barely loose enough that you can feel a bit of play with the wheel off the bike. When the wheel is mounted on the bike the tension from the quick release is just enough to push them back together and eliminate the play. This eliminates "wheel wobble" and provides two key benefits:

  • It gives the lowest possible bearing resistance.
  • It makes the bearings last longer.

    • After this maintenance, my hubs go for a few years (sometimes decades) or tens of thousands of miles -- and even then they're not worn out, they just need another repack & adjustment. One exception to this maintenance schedule is La Ruta. However, La Ruta is an exception to just about everything.

    WHEEL SETS

    My Trek 2200 has Rolf wheels. These wheels are very strong, with good aerodynamics, though they are a bit heavy. Because most of my riding involves serious hills with twisty descents, I'd be willing to sacrifice some of their aerodynamics for lighter weight -- if I were to replace anything on the bike, it would be the wheels. However, these wheels came on the bike and based on my general "the crate matters little" philosophy of bicycles, I have no complaints.

    Rolf wheels use higher spoke tension than normal wheels and every 300 miles or so they start to "creak" as the spokes have loosened up. There are two ways to deal with this problem. First, you can retighten all the spokes when this happens (every few weeks or annually, depending on how much you ride). Or, you can remove each spoke nipple individually and apply locktite to the threads of the spoke before screwing the nipple back on. This latter solution is the one that was recommended by Rolf himself, and should have been done by Trek at the factory -- but wasn't.

    Some people think applying Locktite is stupid because it will make the wheel harder to true. These people don't understand that there are different kinds of Locktite -- red and blue. RED Locktite is very strong, nearly permanent -- don't use it on your spokes. BLUE Locktite is what you use on the spokes.

    Trek no longer uses Rolf wheels; they now (for 2002) use Bontrager wheels which are a bit of a copycat design. But they seem like a better design for hill climbers, since they're lighter and stronger than the Rolfs (though less aerodynamic). At least, I assume they're stronger, because Trek uses them on their Tandem, and I've never seen a Rolf or any other aero racing wheel used in such a demanding application.

    Some other cool wheels are the Zipp 303s, though I wonder why such a carefully designed wheel doesn't use paired spokes. Also, I've read some first-hand accounts of these wheels self-destructing under heavy load.

    TIRES & TUBES

    Tires (and to a lesser extent tubes) make a big difference in how well the wheels ride and corner. The best tire for clean dry pavement is a slick (bald) tire. This provides the maximum contact patch area for a given width of tire, which provides the best ratio of high cornering grip to low rolling resistance. My favorite tires are the Avocet Fasgrip 30 folding (kevlar bead) tires. I use them on my road bike (700x20) and on the tandem (700x25). They are relatively inexpensive, last long (thousands of miles) and outperform tires costing a lot more.

    Another good tire that deserves mention is the Vredestein Fortezza. They are the best cornering tires I have ever used. In fact, they are the only bicycle tire I've ever used, that corner as well as a motorcycle. Three reasons why they're not my favorites. First, they are heavy, enough that I can feel the difference between them and the Avocets. Second, they do not last; after about 1,000 miles I had corded them. Third, they are hard as a rock with their 145 PSI inflation pressure.

    Inner tube weight is important; most people don't realize that the difference between a light and a heavy inner tube is around 75 grams (nearly 3 ounces) per wheel. Butyl is one of the best inner tube materials (light & holds air well); latex is one of the worst (heavier & constantly leaks). And Butyl tubes are cheaper!

    My favorite inner tube is the "Lunar Light" from Performance bicycle , which weighs about 50 grams. These tubes require extreme care when mounting, and you have to make sure the rim tape is made of cloth and is perfectly centered. However, once they are mounted, they hold up very well; I do not get very many flats.

    The combined weight of the Avocet Fasgrip 30 tires in 700x20c size (165 grams), and the Lunar Light tubes (49 grams) is 214 grams. This is about 3 ounces lighter than a typical lightweight road racing tire (220 grams) with a typical tube (80 grams). And it's 3 ounces less weight at the outer circumferance of the wheel, where you most need to drop the weight because any mass creates the greatest inertia. It's enough to feel the improvement in acceleration and more responsive braking.

    I recently ordered a new kind of lightweight tube, the Maxxis Flyweight. I haven't put many miles on them, but my initial impressions are that they will replace the Performance tubes as my favorites. They weigh the same, are slightly cheaper, and each tube comes with a good quality cloth rim strip.

    Note: the best way to avoid flats is to inflate the tires to their maximum pressure before every ride. Depending on your rims, you may be able to go 5-10 PSI higher than the max recommended pressure. I do this and it really helps cut down on the number of flats -- especially on the tandem.

    FRAME

    The frame of the bike determines how it feels and rides on the road. The materials and geometry together determine how efficiently it climbs hills, whether it is smooth or rigid ride, and whether it feels stable or "twitchy" when cornering. No one material or geometry is best -- these are all tradeoffs that every person selects based on experience and personal preference.

    My preference is for aluminum frames. They are light, but since the frame is dead weight, it is not the light weight that makes aluminum so nice. I do a lot of hill climbing and nothing climbs like an aluminum frame; their oversized tubes make them so rigid and efficient. However, they can make your ass sore on long (3 hour +) rides. I find that a good saddle and biking shorts tames the ride somewhat, making the rigidity an acceptable tradeoff. Besides, with my love for high performance cars , I like the way a rigid aluminum frame communicates the "road feel" to the driver!

    Ironically, this rigidity of aluminum frames is not due to the aluminum. Anybody who rode one of the early flexy Vitus frames can attest to this (I owned one for several years). It is oversized tube diameters that make any frame rigid. These oversized tubes seem to be used almost exclusively with aluminum -- in part because aluminum is such a soft material. If these same tubes were used in a steel frame, it would be so stiff most people would consider it unrideable. So the irony is that aluminum, which is the softest of the metallic frame materials, is typically used to make the most rigid frames.

    COMPONENTS

    The components of the bike are (in my opinion) the least important part. Past a certain minimum level of quality, which will be found on any decent bike, all the different brands and models work well when adjusted properly.

    The more expensive components are easier to adjust, they do stay in adjustment better, and they are lighter. But none of these advantages make a significant difference on how the bike rides or how fast it goes. Indeed, some gruppos like Campy Super Record or Shimano Dura Ace, sacrifice durability to achieve lighter weight. When you are a pro and the bike only needs to last for one season (or even one race), this is an acceptable tradeoff. But if you want components that will last year after year, it's better to go one step "down" to Chorus or Ultegra for ultimate durability. Indeed, you never see Super Record or Dura Ace on tandems -- they just are not designed to hold up to the abuse. Overall, the primary reasons that expensive components (like Shimano Dura Ace) work better than cheaper ones (like Shimano Sora), is because:

  • the best mechanic in the shop adjusts Dura Ace, while the "junior" guys set up Sora
  • a mechanic working on Dura Ace takes however long is needed to get it working perfectly
  • a mechanic working on Sora spends as little time as needed to get it working at all

    • What this means is that if you know how to adjust it yourself, you can get anything of decent quality to work perfectly. So if you want the fastest, best riding bike you can get for a limited budget, don't waste your money on fancy components!

    GEARS

    I'm one of those old fashioned guys who believes that no properly made road racing bike ever had more than 2 front chainrings. Take what follows with that in mind. . .

    The benefits of triple chainrings are clear for mountain bikes, tandems and touring bikes that are loaded down with extra gear. But for a road racing bike that weighs 15 - 20 lbs. and is only carrying the rider, you can get gears plenty low enough without resorting to triple chainrings.

    However, the Shimano rear freewheels do not use optimal gear ratios in their stock configuration. You get stuck either with a 12-25, an 11-21 or (even worse) a 12-23. What you really want is an 11-25, and you can build one quite easily. For me, having the extra 11 T sprocket gives me an extra 5 mph on the fast ( > 40 MPH) downhills!

    Starting with a 12-25, you need to buy two things, both of which together should cost about $20 bucks:

  • 1) An 11 T size threaded end cap for the freewheel.
  • 2) An 11 T end sprocket for the freewheel.

    • Item (1) is different from the end cap for the freewheels whose smallest ring is a 12. It is smaller in diameter, and the threaded "neck" is just a millimeter or two longer. Item (2) is different from the Shimano XTR (mountain bike) version of the same. Its built-in spacer is just a tad (1 mm or less) thinner.

    Installation takes only a couple of minutes. You'll need a chain whip, freewheel end cap remover, and crescent wrench.

    Unscrew the freewheel end cap. Remove the smallest three (12, 13, 14) sprockets and the spacer for the 14. Leave the 14 (and its spacer) off, and reinstall the 13 and 12 sprockets, and the 11 end sprocket. Install the new 11 T end cap. Reinstall the freewheel on the wheel -- you're done. You now have a wide range 11-12-13-15-17-19-21-23-25 rear cog with smooth ratio transitions.

    Note: you do not need a new 12 T sprocket, because the stock 12 T end-cap sprocket also works just fine as a mid-cog sprocket.

    LIES, DAMN LIES, AND SPECIFICATIONS

    One frustating aspect of the cycling industry is the frequency with which companies lie about the specifications of their products. Counter to one's intuition, the quality of the product seems to be largely unrelated to whether the company will lie about it. In other words, some companies that make perfectly great products still lie about their specs. The most popular lies seem to concern the weight of the products.

    For example, while the Avocet Fasgrip tires are truly excellent tires, the specifications are incorrect. Each 700x20c tire says it weighs 165 grams, yet it weighs 182 on my scale. Each 700x25c tire says it weighs 195 grams, yet it weighs 212 on my scale.

    Another example: Performance and Maxxis both make a super light inner tube. Performance says theirs weigh 49 grams. Maxxis says theirs weigh 52 grams. The actual weight of their inner tubes are the same: 53 grams (the screwdown ring weighs 1 gram). So Maxxis tells the truth and Performance is, well, close enough to avoid a lawsuit.

    What can you draw from this? Take all specifications with a grain of salt. They are probably in the ballpark but if you care about the nitty gritty details you better measure it yourself.

    CONCLUSION

    So what is my "dream bike"? If I were to get a bicycle for which cost is no object, I would start with a Trek 5900, equipped with Shimano Ultegra (instead of Dura Ace) for better durability. Then I would change the rear cog and replace the tubes & tires as described above.

    However, as things are, my Trek 2200 is an awesome ride and I have no plans to change bikes. On this bike, I already changed the gears and tires as described above.