How much faster is a good bike?

Panter

Or do it the other way round and add the weight of the 400quidder to the expensive one which could be tricky


Although, aren't the arguements about the differing geometeries valid? but don't the cheapie manufacturers just copy the geometery on the "top" bikes?

I have no idea, I'm just asking :oops:

Cheers

Chris

epicurus

PhilofCas wrote:

i'm puzzled by this, if there's negligible speed advantage then why do lots of people hanker after more expensive bikes ?, aside from a weight difference, what about stiffness of the bottom bracket and wheelset, tyre RR, aerodynamics etc ?.

It's been a long time query of mine, i have what is probably considered a 'starter' bike, at some point in the future i want to upgrade, i'm adamant that i won't do this unless there is a tangible difference in speed, i think i will be able to tell a noticable difference, but from the initial few replies above i'm beginning to wonder whether i will !!.

The difference will be very small I think, perhaps 0.5 mph max. The more expensive bike may be a little lighter but this only matters when going uphill. The more significant variables are aerodynamics and rolling resistance, and the more expensive bike will not be meaningfully better in this regard (assuming the same position and tyres). Stiffness is talked about a lot because it makes a bike feel exciting, but it does virtually nothing for average speed.

Even so, a 0.5 mph difference will matter to competitive racing cyclists when competing in a race. I'm not sure why this sort of difference would ever matter outside a racing environment. As Ken Kifer put it:

"For some reason, many have decided that the most important reason to ride a bicycle is to move quickly. This is odd because a cyclist is slower than anything except a equestrian or pedestrian. "

The reason people hanker after more expensive bikes is that they have been convinced by advertisers and magazines that spending money will make them fitter, faster, happier, more good looking and more sexually fulfilled. It's called consumerism.

It is a little sad that consumerism has infected so much of cycling, because in many ways cycling has and continues to be anti-consumerist. But there you go.

simon000

epicurus wrote:

The reason people hanker after more expensive bikes is that they have been convinced by advertisers and magazines that spending money will make them happier, more good looking and more sexually fulfilled. .

If that is the case I would have to spend thousands, infact I dont think that there is a bike out there for me

McBain_v1

Erm, my typical time for my typical 15 mile route was 50 minutes on my "old" bike (Reynolds 631 with Ultegra 9spd). When I rode the route on my Enigma Espirt my time was 43mins - warp speed gain in comparison :twisted: I'd say that a "good" bike can make for some pretty dramatic performance gains.

daniel_b

Is that an Esprit, or Espirt?!

18MPH on the old bike
20.93 MPH on the new bike

That's a 16% increase in speed, not too shabby at all.

Did you do the journey in similar conditons, and within a few days of each other?

McBain_v1

LOL! It's an Esprit - I always make that Typo :oops:

The second ride on the Enigma was the day after the first ride on the Reynolds - same weather (roughly) for both days. If anything I thought I would be slower due to being a bit fatigued from the previous day's effort.

Can't rule out the pyschological boost I might have got from riding a "new" bike though... :?

Phil Russell

A good question that I am not sure there is a clear answer to. If we accept that the comparison is between 2 bikes designed for the same purpose then much will depend on the frame design (including materials) and characteristics and some critical components e.g wheels.
Looking at components, consider the various bike ranges that use a common frame. Increasing costs derive from different levels of gear changers (e.g 105 vs Ultegra) and diffeent wheelsets. Apart from a minute weight difference, can you go faster on Ultegra than 105? I suspect not.
Looking at frame design (angles etc) ... why should a more expensive bike have a better design? It would not need any more cost to have a cheap frame built with any particular angles that a more expensive frame. Frame material could make a difference though and, with wheels, I suspect this is where higher cost brings benefits up to a point of diminishing returns.
Cheers, Phil

thebikeliker

I enjoy cycling. I enjoy the challenge of getting up a steep hill. I love that feeling of achievement when I manage to get over a hill that I previously could not get over.

I live near Hardknott and on my current bike I cannot ride over it but maybe on a lighter stiffer bike I can get a little further, and maybe, just maybe, one day I can get over it. What I do know is that if I keep trying I will be healthier and that in itself is worth a lot.

So, back to the question.

Yes I am sure the more expensive, lighter, bike will make you faster. Whether the extra time it saves is worth the price only you will know. Taken as an hourly rate of £s per hour I doubt it, but if it encourages you to ride more and increase your fitness level and thereby live an extra 4 or 5 years with a better quality of life then that would be priceless; wouldn’t it?

Spoff

In my experience, when I changed from a £250 alu bike (I wanted to see if I could get along with a racing bike so dipped my toe in) to a £1,000 alu bike with carbon fork then my average speed went up by about 1mph.
That's not because I've got better (because I really haven't) but it's a combination of a much lighter bike, better wheels and improved components.
Whether moving to a £2,000 bike would improve average times by another 1mph, I don't know but I've borrowed a carbon fibre front wheel and that's shaving more time off.
The better the components, the quicker you go but, if you don't train, you ain't going to go any faster . . .

palinurus

I recently did a couple flattish TTs on my commuting bike, with tribars fitted. It's a heavy, no-name, cro-mo steel frame, put together with bits from eBay and cast-offs from my other bike. My times were pretty similar (crap, but similarly so) to those I'd do on a better aluminium-framed road bike with the same tribars fitted, and with wheels of similar spec.

There are plenty confounding factors tho, being the wind/weather conditions, my own condition (wildly variable at times), traffic, and the commuting bike, although much heavier, has the bars set a couple inches lower, so I can get into a better position. It didn't "feel" harder to ride the TT on the heavier bike, once it was moving it appeared to take the same effort to keep it going. Up a gradual incline I wasn't aware of the extra weight. I did notice the extra weight of the bike up a short and steeper uphill section.

On a hilly and/or longer, ride I suspect the difference would be more significant. If there was any sort of competitive element with changes of pace, regular accelerations and stuff then I think the difference would become pretty apparent.

Dave L

Last year I did a few rides on my 1980's 753 road bike to see how it would compare to my Thorn "gas pipe" audax style bike.
Both steel frames yes, though the 753 is several llbs lighter and has much tighter geometry. The wheels/tyres on both bikes were about the same.
On routes that I have done dozens of times over the last couple of years, I instantly set my fastest ever times for each route. The increase in speed seemed to be about 1-1.5 mph on average.
The routes were undulating, though not really hilly. I put the difference partly down to the lighter weight, more confident handling, plus maybe a bit of a psychological boost.

Jeff Jones

I did my quickest ever 40km TT on a standard 12kg road bike that was 6cm too big for me. The weird thing was it had 38cm wide handlebars, so it was probably reasonably aerodynamic.

I got a much nicer (and smaller) bike a year or so later, put tri-bars on it and tried to beat my time on the same course. Result: Exactly the same time, down to the second!

bagpusscp

Second hand Trek 5500 in my LBS . Very nice . I asked myself a couple basic questions like , Q; Could I pedal it any faster . :roll: A ; No . Q; IF the frame got damaged ,could it be repaired . A ; No . At 49 I'am past posing . If you are a racing man/woman and lightness counts then yes . ME...... I'AM GOING NOWHERE FAST :shock:

PhilofCas

cheers epicurus

thebongolian

trying to be scientific, what would you expect to change from the cheap to the expensive bike?

(1) the weight'll probably go down

(2) let's assume the geometry doesn't which means the drag on you on the bike and your power to the pedals won't change much

(3) the stiffness of the bike will probably increase as will the quality of the components meaning more of that power goes to the rear wheel (e.g. being in the right gear)

(4) better wheels with lower drag

(4b) lighter wheels with lower rotating weight

(5) better tyres with lower rolling resistance

(6) the brakes will be better

You don't change so max and average power and endurance are constant.

The effect of all this will depend on what riding you are doing:

- On the straight and flat the expensive bike will be slightly faster thanks to (3), (4) and (5). My guess is that this could be worth 0.5-1 mph when cruising and 3 or 4 mph when sprinting

- If you are on a turny and flat route the situation is similar to when it's flat but you'll be able to accelerate out of corners more quickly thanks to (1) and (4b) and brake later when going into a corner. Your average speed should be higher but not sure by how much

- Climbing (1) and (4b) will increase in importance and (4) and (5) will factor in less as you're going slower. Depending on weight of the bike and steepness of the hill it's probably worth no more than 2 mph

- When straight descending (4) and (5) will dominate even though the weight of the cheap bike should help. Add in corners and (6) will make the quick bike faster still. Think this could be worth 5 mph plus you'll keep the speed for longer at the bottom.

This would suggest the best thing you can do is buy lighter more aero wheels and better tyres which fits with general consensus.

Anyhow just my thoughts - feel free to pick apart as I'm no mechanical engineer or aerodynamicist

richa

In addition to all that excellent points ^^ above ^^...

Carbon is 'supposed' to absorb the bumps better and be more comfortable. On a long ride this makes it less sapping. And thus more energy can be put into peddling the bike and less into fighting the bumps. Hence increased speed.

miketherower

my 2cents, from going from a 300 quid all aluminium to a 2k carbon - it'll be a bit quicker over 30 miles but massively quicker over 80 miles because of the comfort.

my average speed on a long ride has gone up by 3 or 4 mph.

Chris5150

I think overall the responses indicate that yes indeed small increases in speed may be had by spending more, but as someone pointed out once you get to a certain price level it tends to be the law of diminishing returns.
I dont really think its just about the speed though, comfort & longevity of components and smoothness of things like the gearchange etc all make a ride far more enjoyable.It is really important therefore to get the coreect frame/bike for you as an individual and take your time to get all your geometry right for your size & reach..things like that I found make you go faster.

Michuel

Chris5150 wrote:

I think overall the responses indicate that yes indeed small increases in speed may be had by spending more, but as someone pointed out once you get to a certain price level it tends to be the law of diminishing returns.
I dont really think its just about the speed though, comfort & longevity of components and smoothness of things like the gearchange etc all make a ride far more enjoyable.It is really important therefore to get the coreect frame/bike for you as an individual and take your time to get all your geometry right for your size & reach..things like that I found make you go faster.

Quoting my experience on hill-climbs of Ventoux

On Chrom-Moly bike, with toe-straps maybe 25lb bikeweight i did 100min on MtVentoux
On Reynolds 753 with toe-straps weighing maybe 22lb I did 98min 2 months later on MV
On Ti bike weighing 17lb I did 96min on MtVentoux a year later

The weather conditions were the same (good, no wind). fitness the same.

All were done with down-tube gear friction levers

Clipless pedals are more comfortable but donn't give any performance improvement - similarly for stiff carbon shoes

Phil Russell

To answer the question regarding a small speed diffeence so is it worth it? I think it goes beyond that. As you progress up the ££ stakes it is reasonable to expect that your enjoyment of the machine may increase as you get better, smoother components. Maybe there is little difference in bars and stems, saddles are very personal, but better wheels and smoother gears can be a joy to ride with.
Cheers, Phil

DavidTQ

Not up to the £2000 mark, but I could feel a difference between the Giant SCR1 and SCR3. How much difference it makes to speed im not sure, but straight off the mark you can feel the difference in the wheels you can feel the difference between sora and 105 in the shift in no time.

The frames are identical, weight overall probably not huge savings on the SCR1, but certainly the wheels and gears and the seat post etc add up to a bike that simply feels better to ride even if speed difference isnt so great it was a better more enjoyable ride, I guess not all differences come down to the stopwatch. I only paid £600 for the SCR1 in a sale so it was well worth the extra money over the SCR3

passout

OK guys, all very interesting but what is the optimal bike price and groupset type in terms of durability. I've a Trek 1000 (cost about £450 I think) with a Sora groupset which has lastest for four years - not even a new chain needed. In fairness it's my second bike and probably does just under 2500 miles p.a. only. In the same time my expensive MTB has gone through many components and over 10 chains. Not a fair comparison I know but you get the point. I've also heard that the most expensive road groupsets don't last well either.

I'm guessing my Trek 1000 is almost as fast as £2000 bikes but is actually far more durable too. What do you think?

palinurus

I'd guess around the £1000 mark would get a good-enough-to-race bike, which would be a fair sight better than an entry level road bike, with a 105 or better groupset, or equivalent. Good brakes make a surprising difference. With a wheel upgrade that would probably be a good compromise between price and performance.

Durability? probably not such a big difference. Replacing worn chains and other transmission bits isn't really that expensive except that, like-for-like, replacing bits on the cheaper bike is going to be cheaper. In practice people tend to upgrade when replacing bits.

With the right rider your Trek 1000 will indeed be faster than a £2000 bike. Investing time in riding will get you further than investing cash on bike upgrades, but you'll wear stuff out quicker. That said: never underestimate the mighty power of a wheel upgrade.

thebongolian

passout wrote:

OK guys, all very interesting but what is the optimal bike price and groupset type in terms of durability [...]

I'm guessing my Trek 1000 is almost as fast as £2000 bikes but is actually far more durable too. What do you think?

Doubt it's as fast on average. Top speed on flat or downhill might not be very different but in real life riding speed will be. See my post above.

As to your other question cheap frames are probably as durable if not more so as they'll be heavier duty so less at risk from bumps and knocks - though less true now aluminium has replaced steel which can be bent back into shape as the normal budget choice

Groupsets I don't know about having not had any for long enough. My suspicion is that most modern stuff will keep hobbling along OK for an awfully long time and if you look after it, replace chains regularly etc. it should keep running as new for years. And the bonus for cheap stuff is that the bits that wear out can be replaced for less.

Chris5150

Well I went out on my mates bike last night Its a Bianchi 928 SL Carbon HOC frame with full Campag record groupset and Campag Hyperon Ultra wheels....good grief was I impressed!. Did a short 32 mile circuit Im used to doing on my own Trek ( which is Carbon OCCLV110 or whatever!, with Shimano Durace ).
To be honest I wasnt any faster, had quite a headwind at times and I was out on the pop last night until 1am, so I think I would be marginally quicker on a good day.
The thing that impressed me about it though was just how much lighter and smoother it felt to ride, a bit twitchy at the front end, but other than that it felt great. Also very surprised as it is compact compared to my trek, but bearing in mind I didnt tweak anything, just sorted the seat out & rode away, I was pretty comfortable.
Love the campg levers, never used them before, definatley will spec them on my next bike.
All in all was it faster, like I say very marginally yes, but the big thing was the quality of the ride & how enjoyable it was to go out on...now just have to talk him into letting go out again!

sonicred007

Chris5150 wrote:

Well I went out on my mates bike last night Its a Bianchi 928 SL Carbon HOC frame with full Campag record groupset and Campag Hyperon Ultra wheels....good grief was I impressed!. Did a short 32 mile circuit Im used to doing on my own Trek ( which is Carbon OCCLV110 or whatever!, with Shimano Durace ).
To be honest I wasnt any faster, had quite a headwind at times and I was out on the pop last night until 1am, so I think I would be marginally quicker on a good day.
The thing that impressed me about it though was just how much lighter and smoother it felt to ride, a bit twitchy at the front end, but other than that it felt great. Also very surprised as it is compact compared to my trek, but bearing in mind I didnt tweak anything, just sorted the seat out & rode away, I was pretty comfortable.
Love the campg levers, never used them before, definatley will spec them on my next bike.
All in all was it faster, like I say very marginally yes, but the big thing was the quality of the ride & how enjoyable it was to go out on...now just have to talk him into letting go out again!

You've probably made the Campag brigade smile from ear to ear with that glowing reference

Finbar

Probably not as much difference as some folk would like to believe.

ninjaslim

for me £400 = road bike £2K = race bike

and I've just been amazed by the difference between a £2K & £3K bike

one reason I'm happy spending what some people consider a lot of money on my race bike is that its one of the only things in life (unlike others on this forum) where I can afford, with a little effort, to have a state of the art machine. my ferrari if you like.

It is faster

maybe 50% of which is pshycological