Expensive bikes

giant_man

pliptrot wrote:

Above the "mid" price range what you are buying is cosmetic. About a decade ago the cycle industry realized the value of branding and marketing and we all fell for it. I understand that C+ recently reviewed a bike costing 10 grand, and of course found it perfect. Here's betting exactly the same machine in Halfords with different stickers would get 8/10, or maybe 7/10 if it was significantly cheaper.

If you can tell any difference between Ultegra and Dura Ace, Chorus or Record, Ribble or Colnago frames, then you must be the emperor with clothes. Most folk see otherwise.

And -let's face it- there's little enough information to allow us to make an informed choice, particularly when buying frames. the industry has known for a long time how easy it is to forge a perception of quality correlating with price. They tell us little else.

I do agree with most of what you have said here, Ultegra and Dura Ace yes, and Chorus and Record yes, but come on, Ribble and Colnago? Anyone will tell a difference between these two frames. :? and no, I'm not royalty! lol

pliptrot

Yes, I concede that my frame comparison may be a bit of a stretch. But how would I know? There's very little decent information offered to allow us to make an informed choice. If I bought a steel frame, then I could choose the tubing based on detailed material data (which is readily available), and then choose a builder by reputation (I have a Roberts frame which a certain other builder who resprayed it for me said was the best workmanship he had ever seen, for example). With carbon? You'll end up paying big money (a C50 is about 2 grand?) for reputation alone, right?

aracer

giant mancp wrote:

but come on, Ribble and Colnago? Anyone will tell a difference between these two frames. :? and no, I'm not royalty! lol[/i]

Indeed - one says Ribble on the side, the other says Colnago - not hard to spot. Of course the other giveaway with a bare carbon frame from them is that there's a significant enough difference between the weights that it should be possible to tell using hand scales that the Ribble is lighter.

giant_man

It has nothing to do with weight of the two frames, the difference is in the contruction and the quality of the carbon fibre used.

The quality of the workmanship is what you pay for with the Colnago, and there are so many carbon frames out there at the moment that it is indeed very hard to make a choice, but when you start looking around for a carbon frame, look at the key areas around the frame, look at the bottom bracket area and look at the headtube and check the 'chunkiness' of these areas, and also at the quality of the lacquer on top of the carbon. And the actual weave in the carbon is something which will vary, as much as the price differences from various brands.

Shit from the road and small stones may or may not get to the lacquer but it shouldn't chip as such, but generally a carbon frame is very easy to look after and usually just needs a wipe over with a damp cloth to get most crap off after a wet or mucky ride.

Monty Dog

To an experienced rider, it would be quite apparent the quality of a good carbon frame, particularly at high speed. A good carbon frame has been 'tuned' such that it is stiff in the drivetrain and yet damps out the vibration from the road. Many monocoque frames are just stiff overall, whereas higher quality frames use tubes specifically selected for their purpose - this is why lugged frames from the likes of Colnago, Time, Look and Parlee are still felt to offer the best quality ride. Their small scale production also makes them more expensive. At our recent club roadrace, it was interesting to view the range of machinery on display, but consistently the most popular bike were Colnago - more than Specialized, Trek and the like. There's nothing wrong with a Ribble for the money, but don't think you're getting the same quality of material, design and construction.

redddraggon

Slightly off topic but still on the subject of good carbon frames:

Which is better a cheap carbon frame of the likes of the planet x or focus cayo, or an Al frame like the CAAD9? With the price of the complete bikes and components roughly similar, the frame is the difference.

giant_man

Depends what kind of ride you are after redddraggon, IMO all the Cannondales I have ridden, aluminium that is, I never really took to the ride quality. I haven't tried one of their carbon offerings I have to say, but you know .....

I do think the Planet X carbon frames are very good and have ridden one of these. Quite amazing vfm.

aracer

giant mancp wrote:

The quality of the workmanship is what you pay for with the Colnago, and there are so many carbon frames out there at the moment that it is indeed very hard to make a choice, but when you start looking around for a carbon frame, look at the key areas around the frame, look at the bottom bracket area and look at the headtube and check the 'chunkiness' of these areas, and also at the quality of the lacquer on top of the carbon. And the actual weave in the carbon is something which will vary, as much as the price differences from various brands.

Another one has been taken in by the marketing - of course what you actually pay for with a Colnago is largely that very marketing!

So the important quality of a frame is the "chunkiness"? Of course being lugged a Colnago does quite well in that regard with a lot of extra around the joints (which isn't actually doing anything useful structurally, unfortunately). I'll give you better lacquer, though I'm not that impressed with the idea of paying 3 times as much simply for a better paint job. Meanwhile the weave you look at and admire on the outside contributes about as much to the structure and ride quality as the decals on the downtube.

pliptrot

aracer,

Thankyou for some sense! Reading the prejudiced tripe above I was wondering whether to apply for a job with Colnago - working in an uncompetitive market is always best, or if I had some Colnago stickers I may start importing from one of the 5 big builders in Taiwan and sticking the C word down the side. I'm sure such generic frames would then be felt to ride better.

Ste_S

pliptrot wrote:

aracer,

Thankyou for some sense! Reading the prejudiced tripe above I was wondering whether to apply for a job with Colnago - working in an uncompetitive market is always best, or if I had some Colnago stickers I may start importing from one of the 5 big builders in Taiwan and sticking the C word down the side. I'm sure such generic frames would then be felt to ride better.

Colnago do that themselves already

eh

Of course when you buy a Colnago you are to some extent paying for a certain brand and history, however, they also make damn fine bikes that are amazingly well finished. The finishing is significantly better than on say a Ribble, fact and I don't own either brand and think each sits nicely within it's market space.

For what its worth when you are on the rivet in a race then that 1% difference in speed between the £1500 and £500, bike will make or break your race. If you don't race then the differences maybe harder to justify.

pliptrot

Ste_S

giant_man

aracer wrote:

giant mancp wrote:

The quality of the workmanship is what you pay for with the Colnago, and there are so many carbon frames out there at the moment that it is indeed very hard to make a choice, but when you start looking around for a carbon frame, look at the key areas around the frame, look at the bottom bracket area and look at the headtube and check the 'chunkiness' of these areas, and also at the quality of the lacquer on top of the carbon. And the actual weave in the carbon is something which will vary, as much as the price differences from various brands.

Another one has been taken in by the marketing - of course what you actually pay for with a Colnago is largely that very marketing!

So the important quality of a frame is the "chunkiness"? Of course being lugged a Colnago does quite well in that regard with a lot of extra around the joints (which isn't actually doing anything useful structurally, unfortunately). I'll give you better lacquer, though I'm not that impressed with the idea of paying 3 times as much simply for a better paint job. Meanwhile the weave you look at and admire on the outside contributes about as much to the structure and ride quality as the decals on the downtube.

No you don't get it do you? I don't give a flying f**k about decals and marketing, the money is in the construction. To have chunkiness in the RIGHT areas adds up to a strong frame and to a certain extent you can see where the money you're spending is going.

pliptrot

I think he gets it very well. Can you possibly tell me where I can get some objective information about the construction of frames, other than perhaps the chunkiness of the design - which undoubtedly is enough for some to hand over 2 grand?

No, I didn't think so.

aracer

giant mancp wrote:

To have chunkiness in the RIGHT areas adds up to a strong frame and to a certain extent you can see where the money you're spending is going.

So is it this chunkiness which as reported earlier also gives such a fine ride to a Colnago without any of the jarring excessive stiffness you get with cheaper carbon frames?

I'm also curious about where are the wrong areas to have chunkiness on a bike frame?

It's strange really - you'd think with the way they're so good at copying everything that the Taiwanese companies would have copied these features of a Colnago which are so plain to see if they're so beneficial to the frame quality.

WIth these 1% differences in speed between cheap and expensive carbon frames when it's make or break, you also have to wonder whether they faked all those races Sean Kelly won on a Vitus noodle.

Maybe I should just stop, as I know it's wrong to make fun of people's religion.

pliptrot

aracer,

you have it in one.

eh

WIth these 1% differences in speed between cheap and expensive carbon frames when it's make or break, you also have to wonder whether they faked all those races Sean Kelly won on a Vitus noodle.

But what we will never know is how many more races he would have won on a better bike. Further it is somewhat unfair to compare Sean Kelly's 20+ year old bike with those presently on offer. Heck I bet todays £500 jobs with some decent wheels would out perform those Vitus pieces of junk.

ppp123

It don't get that much better than this and it's 2100 quid

http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/Product_a ... ndex.html#

As for a modern 500 quid bike outperforming Sean Kelly's bike well read this from 1948 - anyone think they could do better than Bartali on his 2 speeder even on a 10 grand machine.

"The next day was Cannes to Briançon, 274 kilometres via the Allos, Vars and Izoard - the same Holy Trinity on which he had forged victory ten years previously. It took "Gino the Pious" just ten hours, nine minutes and twenty eight seconds to cover those 274 kilometres, crossing three passes over 2100 metres, and with a total amount of climbing of over 5300 metres. It was more than six minutes when Briek Schotte finished in second place; then came Fermo Camellini over nine minutes down; René Vietto at nearly eleven. When Bobet finished, in twelfth place, over eighteen minutes had passed, and Bartali had climbed to second overall, just 1' 06" down on his young French rival. "From snowstorm, water, ice, Bartali arose majestically like an angel covered in mud, wearing under his soaked tunic the precious soul of an exceptional champion. It took this day of apocalypse to express the total quality of this Italian champion" wrote Jacques Goddet in his Race Directo;s notes. "

aracer

ppp123 wrote:

anyone think they could do better than Bartali on his 2 speeder even on a 10 grand machine.

What drugs are we allowed?

Ste_S

If the quality of the bike makes that much difference, we'd all be riding Trek Madones with Dura Ace, 'cos that must be the best bike with all those TdF wins, right ?

I'm often worried that newbies to cycling, and in particular people new to cycle sport think they have to have a certain level of bike to get involved if they read some of the posts on this forum

pliptrot

And that's the point. There are so many variables in the sport that talking of better - or worse- bikes is largely nonsense. Discussion of a 1% difference due to the bike is like talking about how much lower in the water a supertanker sits when a seagull lands on it - pointless.

When I first started racing I was enthralled by the idea that the strongest man on the day may not win - and yet here we are in this abstract territory discussing tiny differences in bikes as absolutes.

But, we confuse sport with hobby; cycling has become a gadget fetish. I enjoy fooling and fettling with bikes, but I've yet to reach the religious fervor of some of the posters here. Just suggest that the Japanese make better kit than the Italians, and see the fulminating responses, if you don't get my drift.

The real problem with this sneering attitude and the manifest snobbery you can read in these posts is that it puts people - often young and of limited means - off cycling, because they can't afford an Italian with Campag on the side, and thus feel they can't be part of the sport.

ppp123

aracer wrote:

ppp123 wrote:

anyone think they could do better than Bartali on his 2 speeder even on a 10 grand machine.

What drugs are we allowed?

Oh you can use your favourite :-)

thebikeliker

anyone think they could do better than Bartali on his 2 speeder even on a 10 grand machine.

I bet Bartali could!

thebikeliker

Right, I've taken people's advice and lost 10lbs every time I wanted to buy that expensive bike.

Can I get one now?

pliptrot

Well, no-one will ever accuse you of blood doping.