It's a question some Little 500 teams have thrown thousands of dollars at and a question some people have spent far too long thinking about...
I, myself, love bike builds and the little nuances and intricacies between them all.
I like the different angles at which people attack a build -- is it for lightweight climbing? Practicality? Aero gainz? Or maybe they just want all the flashiest parts?
The fun part about Little 500 bike builds is that because there are limited parts to change, in order for the upgrades to really matter you've got to think differently.
I've been asked what my fastest theoretical Little 500 bike build would be, and figured since I've given it enough thought, I should present all the components I think would make the fastest bike. I also figured I should tell why I think it's the fastest.
So here it is: my fastest *theoretical* bike build:
(I say *theoretical* because I'm not going to spend the time, money or effort into creating a bike for a race that I'll never race in... I just like to think about bike stuff and hope others can find value in my thoughts!)
Also, because it's so long, there's a TL;DR at the bottom.
 |
| The 2023 Melanzana bicycle featured on the RingerBikeReview |
The most important gains:
Before going over my own take on which parts are best, I do want to make it a point that the "best" parts and components listed here may not be.
However, I believe there are fundamental characteristics of parts within certain contexts that make them the best upgrades, and so I want to supply readers with that information.
Two areas of gains I think are the most important are:
- Parts that move and rotate in the air
- Rotational weight
Let's start with rotational weight.
Rotational weight: does it really matter?
First, let's go over what rotational weight is:
Rotational weight, defined by Eastern Illinois University (EIU), is the measure of how easy or hard it is to put a rotating object in motion or to rest. In the context of cycling, we're mostly talking about wheels.
Also from EIU: the heavier and further the mass is away from the rotational axis (on a bicycle wheel, it's the hub), the more difficult the object will be to accelerate and decelerate.
The tire, tube and rim of a wheel are the furthest away from the hub, so they're the hardest to get moving on a bike.
Accelerating and decelerating are an integral part of the Little 500 within the context of exchanges.
So obviously, rotational weight is very significant during an exchange.
(GCN made a video on rotational weight featuring PhD Oliver Bridgewood and Swiss Side engineer Jean-Paul Ballard stating how rotational weight only truly matters when accelerating and decelerating on a bike)
But in terms of numbers, how much difference can rotational weight make?
In motorsports, SignatureWheel says that "for every pound you shave off of rotational weight is the equivalent of 8.4lbs removed from static weight."
This is likely different under the conditions of cycling, but it's evident from this excerpt that rotating weight is heavier than static weight.
Decreasing rotational weight can help in other ways, too, as Cerebrum Sensor mentions that decreased rotational weight in the wheels will improve handling.
So if riders are to focus on shaving weight, I'd recommend shaving it off in the wheel department or in other areas that rotate.
And when we go over the rotating upgrades (rims, tires and tubes), keep in mind how significant the weight savings are with your new knowledge on rotational weight.
And if riders are going to focus on aero, they should focus on the parts moving in the wind...
During the 2024 Candy Stripe Classic, world record holder in the U18 hour-record, Fred Meredith, made an appearance. (GCN made a great video feature on him here.)
If you were at the event, you likely at least noticed his 27cm-wide road handlebars, where he could touch his thumbs together while on the hoods.
Meredith worked in conjunction with Dan Bigham, a well-known aerodynamicist in F1 and cycling, to bring down the U18 record.
I asked Meredith what the most surprising aerodynamic gains were, and he said "basically everything that moves."
Your frame is going to be static, your seat is going to be static... but there are some parts of the bike that rotate -- this includes wheels, cranks, the chainring and your legs.
If you think about it, these parts that rotate will be moving faster than the bike, itself, at some points.
At the top of the pedal stroke, the cranks, pedals, your shoes, ankles and calves will be moving forward on the bike.
Same goes for wheels: the top half of the wheels be moving forward in the wind, too.
And when objects move at higher speeds, aerodynamics will matter more, meaning an emphasis should be placed in these forward-moving areas when looking for gains.
Ex pro cyclist Alex Dowsett covered this briefly in a video on aero testing shoes.
And even though this article is on the fastest Little 500 bike build, this might be a good time to mention that shaving legs, aero socks and overshoes help overcome some of that forward-moving drag at the top of the pedal stroke, too.
I covered aero socks in an older article.
. . .
Now that we've covered how a rider should think when looking for the most optimal upgrades, being parts that move and rotate in the wind and have significant rotational weight (wheels), let's move on to the rest of the build:
The new State Bicycle Co. frames: to use or not to use?
With the new addition of State Bicycle Co. in the Little 500's bicycle sponsor position, there comes an odd transition for "little fivers." Should they use the new 2023 and 2024 frames that allow for more modern cranksets, even with the drawback of lesser stiffness, more weight and decreased aerodynamics?
That's right: *theoretically* the new State Bicycle Co. frames are less stiff, heavier and slightly less aerodynamic than the older Schwinn Little 500 bikes.
As shown in an article by Competitive Gear, aluminum alloy frames, like the Schwinn frames, are about 12% stiffer than steel alloy frames (State frames).
Weight may vary based on butting of the tubes (a reduction in tube thickness where stiffness matters less in order to save weight), but in the case of the "hi-tensile steel" (another way of saying cheap, heavy and non-butted tubing) State Bicycle Co. frames, it's going to be one or two pounds heavier when compared to the Schwinn frames.
 |
| A picture from Reynolds showing butted tubing |
Also to note is the fact that the downtube of the Schwinn bicycle frame is more aerodynamic than the round tubing found on the State Bicycle Co. bicycle.
The shape of the down tube is similar to an aerofoil, where the leading edge of the tube is round and tapers off into a point.
NASA's wind tunnel testing shows that, no matter the yaw, an aerofoil shape will perform better in the wind than a cylindrical shape. In some cases, by a very significant amount.
The drag coefficient, Cd, is a value that represent aerodynamic drag. In the case of cylinders versus aerofoils, cylinders are anywhere from .7 to .05 Cd where aerofoils are .045 Cd.
In terms of wattage savings between the State bike with a round down tube and Schwinn with an aerofoil downtube... it's hard to say, but from NASA's testing, we know that the Schwinn will be faster by some amount.
Increased wheel base (the distance between rear and front wheel dropouts) also plays a part in handling, with a longer wheel base offering better stability at speed.
Oppositely, a shorter wheel base offers nimbler, twitchier handling.
The women's Schwinn bike frames, listed as a 50cm frame equivalent by Schwinn, have a 1009mm wheel base, while the 50cm State Bicycles have a 985mm wheel base -- approximately one inch shorter.
The difference in wheel base likely can't be felt much, but I'd rather have that *theoretical* extra bit of stability in the slippery corners of Bill Armstrong.
Lastly, I think that the compatibility of cranks should be looked at.
The Schwinn bike cranks are heavy, proprietary, round one-piece cranks that need maintenance often and are hard to work on. Grit often finds its way into the bottom bracket.
I do believe there is value in the newer 68mm English thread sealed-bearing bottom bracket that the State Bicycle Co. bike offers. It's easier to work on, less grit gets in the bearings and it's far more compatible with other cranks on the market.
Aftermarket cranks can be lighter, more aero and can also come in shorter lengths.
However, I think that the aero and lightweight tubing of the Schwinn bike outweigh the benefits of better crank compatibility and bottom bracket on the State bike.
For frames, if it's not obvious enough, I'd choose the Schwinn bike.
Sand 'er down!
Yes, that Schwinn frame is going to be sanded down to bare aluminum alloy.
From reports on WeightWeenies.com, a sanded frame can save 100-180 grams.
Granted, you'll likely want to spray a clear coat on after the fact (which may weigh around 30-50 grams according to a user on WeightWeenies again), but that will ensure corrosion prevention on the bare frame.
In the realm of the Little 500, it has been done before.
Jacob Richards, an alumni of the Gray Goat cycling team, went all-out in his 2022 Individual Time Trial, placing 2nd with a time of 2:28:02 aboard his bare aluminum alloy Schwinn frame.
Richards sanded down the frame in order minimize the weight gain of putting stiffening foam in his frame.
He sprayed windmill blade curing foam into the rear triangle of his bike with the goal of stiffness and better power transfer.
According to Richards, it was noticeably stiffer.
I don't know for sure if the foam would actually work -- it seems to have merit, but I would at least recommend sanding down the frame for some extra weight savings.
Hooping
H Plus Sun, Velocity Ailerons, Velocity Blunt SS, State rims... many rim options exist. Which ones should you choose?
I believe that a rim with aero, lightweight and good width will be ideal.
And that perfect hoop can be found in the Velocity Blunt SS.
They are lightweight, have an aero U-shaped rim profile (this rim profile has been found to be more aero at yaw when compared to a V-shaped rim profile thought to be more aero many years ago), and -- I believe -- have an optimal width.
How does rim width affect tire width and diameter? And how does tire diameter affect the way a bike rides?
At first, I thought that a narrower inner-rim width would make the tire sit higher, effectively increasing tire diameter and creating greater rollout. However, this actually makes the tire balloon out and become rounder on the sidewalls, decreasing or not affecting the tire diameter.
This is evident in BicycleRollingResistance's tests on 25mm tires between three different rim widths. As the rim width becomes wider, the diameter of the tire actually increases slightly (and so does tire width!).
A rim with a wider inner rim width, like the Ailerons at 26.6mm allow the 35mm Kenda tires to sit nice and straight, increasing tire diameter.
An increased tire diameter would mean that, per pedal revolution, your bike would go slightly further.
According to Johnathan Becker, the Kenda Kwick Tendril tires sit ~2mm higher on the Velocity Blunt SS rims when compared to the stock State Bicycle Co. rims.
There isn't current numeric or photo evidence to prove this, but if you are in-the-know on current Little 500 information, you'll already know that Becker and the Teter team will use almost every advantage at their disposal.
I think that the Velocity Blunt SS rims, paired with aluminum alloy spoke nipples and a high-flanged hub will prove to be the most optimal setup considering aero, stiffness, lightweight and handling benefits.
The Kenda Kwick Tendril Tire Debacle
With three tires allowed to be used for the Little 500 within the last year, there's certainly debate as to which tires should be used in different events.
In my opinion, the Panaracer Pasela 32mm tire should be used on the front wheel for Series Events. Pasela tires, at most, are 205 grams lighter than the Kenda Kwick Tendril tires and 283 grams lighter than the recently-commissioned Vittoria Randonneur tires.
So why not run the Panaracer tire on the rear, too? It would save almost a pound per pair over the other tires?
Tire diameter.
*Theoretically,* no matter the inner rim width, the increase in tire diameter from 32mm width tires to 35mm width tires will be enough to make a difference in rollout -- meaning that per pedal revolution, the 35mm tires will go marginally further than the 32mm Pasela tire.
For an event where riders all top out in cadence, tire diameter is a huge deal.
And when comparing weight of the 35mm Vittoria Randonneurs and Kenda Kwick Tendrils, the Kenda tires sit 78 grams lighter.
So because of the increase in rollout compared to the Pasela and lesser weight compared to the Randonneur, I would use the Kenda Kwick Tendril on the rear wheel of my Little 500 bike.
Totally Tube
(ular?)
No, I'm not talking about running tubular tires (this isn't the 1950s).
I'm talking about the tubes inside of the tires.
The standard tubes that people see for sale in a bike shop or already in their stock Little 500 tires are made from butyl -- a synthetic rubber compound. They're robust and do the trick, but we're talking race bikes here: there's always a better and lighter component out there over the stock offerings.
Thermoplastic polyurethane, or TPU for short, is a lightweight plastic material often substituted for hard rubber materials. It fulfills its intended role in bicycle tubes wonderfully.
A standard 20-28mm butyl tube weighs ~120 grams, and the current lightest TPU tube offering from RideNow, the brand that I use, is 19 grams (for disc only). By using TPU tubes in both tires, riders will save 202 grams over 20-28mm butyl tubes, which is nearly half of a pound.
For the application of Little 500, a 35mm butyl tube weighs ~250 grams while 35mm RideNow TPU tubes weigh just 45 grams -- for the pair, that's a saving of 410 grams -- that's almost an entire pound weight difference.
(remember the static weight equivalent of 1lb rotational weight?)
Theoretically, TPU tubes are the lightest tube setup available, but because of the thinner material, they may be more susceptible to flats via sharp objects.
I feel as though TPU tubes will work perfectly fine on the cinders of Bill Armstrong Stadium, but perhaps others think differently.
I believe that the weight savings of nearly one pound, factoring in the exponential increase of weight via rotational weight during acceleration, outweighs the slight increase in flat likelihood.
I'd be using TPU tubes in my race setup.
Best bars in Bloomington
(Vid!)
The bars -- you'd think there's so little to change, but there's quite a lot to think about.
Do you go narrow and aero? Wide with pride? Positive/negative rise?
For myself and most others in the modern age of bikes: we love our narrow handlebars.
GCN's 2023 video of testing different widths of handlebars and their aero benefits showed that watt and time savings are linear when bars become narrower. A 10 second saving over a 10 mile time trial between a 40cm and 36cm handlebar was shown.
Because the 36cm handlebars are also more compact, we can bet they'll be lighter and more stiff when compared to a wider handlebar, too.
The best handlebars I could find that are aluminum alloy, 36cm and have aero tops are the Pro Vibe Alloy Pursuit handlebars.
There may be lighter or more aero bars out there, but these are the best I could find.
Weight (and cash) savings stem from stems
In terms of stems, there's only one to choose: an Uno Kalloy 7050.
If you know me well enough, you'll know just how passionate I am about the Uno Kalloy 7050 stems.
They're lighter than almost all carbon stems, are cheaper than most name-brand stems and they're simple yet good-looking.
 |
| RidesofJapan on Youtube is a fellow weightweenie and has a great video about Uno Kalloy stems here. |
You can get a 100mm Uno Kalloy 7050 stem from AliExpress within a couple of weeks for $23 including shipping and tax. Compared to a 100mm Zipp Service Course stem, priced at $61 after tax on Amazon, the Uno Kalloy stem is $38 cheaper and 45 grams lighter.
With that $38 saved, you can pair the stem with a set of M5x16mm titanium bolts for $6 which will save 10 grams over the stock aluminum bolts and some carbon headset spacers for $5, which will save three grams for every 1cm spacer when compared to the stock aluminum spacers. Assuming there are going to be 3cm of spacers, riders can save nine grams by switching to carbon.
Finally, you can also purchase a lightweight headset cap for only $5, which weighs in at three grams -- a whole five grams lighter than the stock headset cap and bolt.
In comparison to the Zipp stem with stock bolts, aluminum spacers and stock headset cap, the Uno Kalloy with titanium bolts, carbon spacers and lightweight headset cap is a whole 69 grams lighter and will still leave $22 leftover for spending in other areas.
There's no better option than an Uno Kalloy 7050 stem.
Choppy choppy
The Schwinn Little 500 bikes come stock with 27.2mm dia. and 350mm length alloy seatposts. These are fine, but there are lighter options out there.
Of course, knowing that riders are jumping on the bikes with all of their weight, it's best that the seatposts aren't incredibly-light -- like <150g.
Honestly, there aren't super light alloy seatposts out there on the cheap like the aforementioned Uno Kalloy stem, and if there are, I couldn't find them. However, there is a way to save some weight on your seatpost without spending any money.
The easiest way to drop some grams on your seatpost is by chopping it down.
It can be done easily with a miter box, hacksaw and sandpaper. Other methods with specialized tools also exist.
Here is a short article on how much length riders can safely shave off of their seatposts.
Because Little 500 intends for multiple riders to share the same bike with various seatpost lengths, the length you'd be able to chop off of a seatpost depends on the tallest rider. There may be a few grams to be saved here -- and it's free!
Saddle up...
This is an upgrade that's largely up to personal preference, with sit bone width being a large factor in choosing a saddle. The perfect saddle for me isn't going to be perfect for others...
(A great article on how to measure the width of your sit bones by Hincapie Cycling can be found here.)
However, I'd feel bad if I didn't touch on a -- largely unnoticed -- rule change in the Little 500 rulebook, made last year.
Carbon saddles are now legal.
The Little 500 guidelines now state:
“SADDLE: Saddle is up to your own preference. A steel railed seat is suggested for safety.”
Carrico confirmed this in an email -- carbon saddles are legal, but not suggested.
Considering that riders are going to be slamming themselves on the saddle, rider weight should certainly be considered when deciding saddle material.
Changing to carbon saddles may be an easy way to shave a few grams, though.
Does your chain hang low, is it waxed or is it Tri Flow?
We're talking chains, here.
First: chain tension.
If your chain is too tight, you're losing some watts and also wearing down your drivetrain faster.
Best practice is to tighten your rear wheel where the chain has ~1/2 inch of vertical movement, or "slack," from its natural position sitting on the chainring and rear cog.
It should be noted that some spots in the chain will be tighter and looser than others -- either due to the chain itself of a slightly-bent chainring (this is normal), but a 1/2 inch of slack all around the chain is ideal.
Second: What kind of lube are you using?
It's widely known and proven that using a waxed chain over a high-quality chain lube can save somewhere in the range of two percent of the watts -- or about five watts at a 250w power.
The chain will also last longer and stay cleaner with wax.
Thorough testing by Zero Friction Cycling showed the watt savings between lubricants under different conditions of contamination, as well as drivetrain wear prevented by each lubricant -- in almost all conditions of testing, a waxed drivetrain outperformed a lubed drive train.
Some people choose to use drip-wax, which is a liquid form of wax that later hardens on the pins and rollers of the chain.
Submersion wax, which is where a chain is dipped in hot liquid wax for a extended duration of time, has been shown to be more effective in protecting the chain because it penetrates and covers the pins better than a drip wax, proven by the aforementioned Zero Friction Cycling test results.
As long as we're talking about friction...
Do smooth-moving bearings like Kogel or CeramicSpeed really make a difference? And does the watt saving justify the cost?
There are many arguments pushing for the use of ceramic bearings, being that the ceramic balls last 3-5 times longer than a steel ball bearings and that there is less friction in ceramic.
However, I find that there are also many arguments against the use of ceramic bearings: mostly on cost, and justifiably so, as many CeramicSpeed bottom brackets start at $379.
Data from Schaeffler, a German-based manufacturer and developer of "rolling element bearings" did tests between standard steel bearings and Enduro brand ceramic bearings.
Many results were found, but three important ones are:
1.) The maximum improvement in ceramic bearing performance over steel ball bearings is 3%
2.) After 10,000kms of wear, the steel bearings perform better than ceramic bearings by ~.23 watts
3.) One type of bearing performs better than the other dependent on the seals and grease used (in the same conditions for both bearing types).
There's evidence for and against ceramic bearings -- either could be correct.
However, with evidence showing minimal gains (at best) for ceramic: do those minimal gains supporting ceramic bearings justify the cost?
And do we really need to spend $379 for a single part on a Little 500 bike?
Eh.
Taping up the loose ends
We covered nearly everything on the Little 500 bike, even delving into some other aspects like shoes, shoe covers and aero socks.
There is one more thing, however, that might be of value in the pursuit of making a Little 500 bike faster.
Filling up holes and gaps on the Little 500 bike with tape can help smooth airflow and create less drag.
We often see this on race day with teams taping up their frame numbers near the headtubes of the bikes.
In triathlon and time trials, sometimes we see tape covering helmet vents.
Some teams utilize tape in other areas, too.
On last year's Teter bike, electrical tape was placed on the brake mount holes of the fork.
There are likely other creative ways to place the tape to smooth airflow on the bike, but these are a couple that have actually been put into practice.
. . .
For you lazies: here's a TL;DR:
- Focus on upgrades on the rims, tires and tubes due to their high impact on rotational weight
- Focus on upgrades that move and rotate in the wind, such as cranks, wheels, chainrings and your feet/legs
- Use a Schwinn frame for Fall and Spring Series events because of it's weight saving, increased stiffness over the hi-tensile steel State Bicycle Co. frame, it's better aerodynamics on the down tube and it's longer wheel base which increases stability
- Sanding your frame to bare alloy saves 100-180 grams (don't forget your clear coat, though!)
- Use 36cm handlebars with aero tops
- An Uno Kalloy 7050 stem with titanium bolts, carbon headset spacers and a lightweight headset cap costs $22 less and weighs 69 grams less than purchasing a Zipp stem of equal length
- Chop yo seatpost (safely)
- Velocity Blunt SS rims are the best combo of aero, optimal inner rim width and weight savings
- Use the Panaracer Pasela on the front wheel in Fall and Spring Series events, use the Kenda Kwick Tendril in the front and rear in all other racing contexts
- Carbon Saddles are legal
- Submersion wax yo shit and keep chain slack at ~1/2in
- Fancy ceramic bearings *probably* aren't worth the price tag
- Use electrical tape!
. . .
Thanks for reading this long piece.
I'm sure it was a jumble of words to read through... but welcome to my inner thoughts!
I hope there was some solid information on this post -- of course, all up for debate -- I know there are some smart and/or headstrong characters out in the Little 500 community with differing opinions on these things. There is a comment section below -- I'm happy to admit I'm wrong or attempt to provide further evidence to support my opinions!
Comments
Post a Comment