does the bike make that much difference
get on your bike
Posts: 53
as the title says, does it? theres so much equipment & different bikes but you still need to get on it & cycle the thing so really just wondering about the difference the equipment really makes. all wheels rotate but does one do a better job than the other & why , the groupsets ...is there that much difference or is personal choice a biggee
just a thought
just a thought
0
Comments
-
That's the sort of question I'd ask on a golf forum. Except I'd never go on a golf forum.0
-
That's the sort of question I'd ask on a cigar forum. Except I'd never go on a cigar forum.0
-
No, it makes very little difference. All in the legs, lungs, heart, and brains. I / you could have the best bikes money can buy and the two of us will still come in 2nd. and 3rd.
in a three man race against, oh say, LA or AC. Even if they rode the worst of the worst junk bikes, so to speak.
0 -
Do what everyone else does on here, which is to go out and buy several different bikes, then start fiddling, tweaking and adjusting stuff on them all.
Keep riding them in different weather on strange roads, so you have a nice baseline for comparison. Then when you have changed every component on each bike at least twice, taken a year off and ridden 16,000 km on 5 continents "for fun", come back and tell us if you figured out the answer.Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
There is definately a point of diminishing returns. As long as the bike fits you and everything runs smoothly, you will not notice a massive return on spending more and more.
People buy into the marketing however, novices now think that every bike if its good has to be carbon for example, because it lighter...when the reality a god quality steel frame can match a cheap carbon frame in terms of weight and far surpass it in ride quality.0 -
-
I'm a reasonably fit person - I can do decent times in a 10k run and a 40 mile walk is easily within my capabilities. I've been commuting on a late 80s/early 90s 10 speed steel framed racer which only had 5 of those gears available due to a faulty front deraileur.
I've just bought a Specialised Secteur Sport 2010 and I'll let you know how I get on when I use it on the commute next week. Just riding it round the block felt fantastic compared to the old bike so who knows...0 -
cooper.michael1 wrote:People buy into the marketing however, novices now think that every bike if its good has to be carbon for example, because it lighter...when the reality a god quality steel frame can match a cheap carbon frame in terms of weight and far surpass it in ride quality.
Hmmmm, probably not. Much as I like steel frame bikes (and, in some ways, regard carbon bikes as BSOs!), I think at £400, a carbon frame from Ribble will be lighter and just as good in terms of ride quality to, say, a Bob Jackson hand built frame for £400. I'd say the Bob Jackson would represent better value for money in terms of man hours in construction and I'd probably cherish such a bike more but it is naive to suggest that the Ribble would be worse simply because it is a 'cheap carbon frame' - and never mind that the same frames are often sold at far higher costs with different, 'more desirable' head tube badges.
Carbon frames are madly cheap these days but there is plenty of evidence here that cheap does not mean poor quality.
Incidentally, my steel road bike is a rather low geared tourer. I've still overtaken plenty of people on flash carbon bikes during Sportives riding that bike. But it is much easier to overtake them on my posh carbon bike - it is half the weight of the tourer.......Faster than a tent.......0 -
I now have 2 road bikes, a 20 year old 10.5kg training/winter bike and a 7.2kg "nice" bike.
The nice bike is definitely faster, it has modern things like 10 speed,
a bigger range of gears, integrated shifters etc.
It's a pleasure to ride, and makes me feel good about cycling.
Sure it makes a difference. It won't make me into a great cyclist,
but nothing will do that. It will get me up hills faster, and up hills
that I cannot get up at all on my other bike.
I don't regret spending the money at all ( £500 wheelset, £400 imported carbon frame, £600 groupset, £200 on tyres, tubes, saddle, pedals etc. ).
But depends on your other financial priorities.0 -
Most important thing is fit. If you get it to fit perfectly then any bike can feel great!0
-
inseine wrote:So Mr Cooper, £ for £, steel or carbon?
I was trying to make a point, that just becuase the marketing men say something is better it is not nessesarily the case.
My usual rides are between 50-80miles in undulating Yorkshire. Between 2004-2008 for my main bike I rode a Pinarello Dogma, the one Fassa Bortolo, Ivan Basso etc used to ride. I swapped this 18months ago for a Planet X Uncle John, take a guess which I prefer??
The Planet X rides better for my purpose, fits me better, and for my normal rides is just as quick despite being 2-3lbs heavier. My times on my standard 50 mile route have remained pretty steady, and are more affected by my diet, how much sleep i've had, stress, weather, traffic, the wind direction, etc etc etc...than if i'm on a pro bike or a decent quality ordinary bike.0 -
NapoleonD wrote:Most important thing is fit. If you get it to fit perfectly then any bike can feel great!
I agree buying a bike which fits, and has the correct geometry for its use, is much, much more important than saving a few hundred grams.0 -
Rolf F wrote:cooper.michael1 wrote:People buy into the marketing however, novices now think that every bike if its good has to be carbon for example, because it lighter...when the reality a god quality steel frame can match a cheap carbon frame in terms of weight and far surpass it in ride quality.
Hmmmm, probably not. Much as I like steel frame bikes (and, in some ways, regard carbon bikes as BSOs!), I think at £400, a carbon frame from Ribble will be lighter and just as good in terms of ride quality to, say, a Bob Jackson hand built frame for £400. I'd say the Bob Jackson would represent better value for money in terms of man hours in construction and I'd probably cherish such a bike more but it is naive to suggest that the Ribble would be worse simply because it is a 'cheap carbon frame' - and never mind that the same frames are often sold at far higher costs with different, 'more desirable' head tube badges.
Carbon frames are madly cheap these days but there is plenty of evidence here that cheap does not mean poor quality.
Incidentally, my steel road bike is a rather low geared tourer. I've still overtaken plenty of people on flash carbon bikes during Sportives riding that bike. But it is much easier to overtake them on my posh carbon bike - it is half the weight of the tourer.......
I'm not saying that a ribble carbon frame is a bad product, not at all. However to the average joe, they now thinks carbon is better full stop, without considering alternatives. This is the product of marketing.
The new CAAD 10 for example is a fine example of the peak of Alu design, and an equal of many a carbon frame. However ask a random punter and they'd probably assume a ribble carbon is better just due to the frame material.0 -
there's got to be a placebo effect in here somewhere, too.
for example, just something like basic clean, lube, frame polish *seems* to make my bike feel a bit faster.
sure, lighter, stiffer, more aero ( and more expensive) componentry in things like wheels will shave seconds off perhaps. more up to date groupsets might shift a bit quicker, slicker.
the point is that none of this stuff gives massive jumps in performance, but it makes us feel good.
a thousand pounds plus for a power meter? will it shave little smidgins of time off a TT10 pb? possibly? is that value for money? not really... do i want one? hell yes.
zipp or lightweight wheels, pinarello dogmas, that ceepo viper frame :O
those too.Go for the break
Create a chaingang
Make sure you don't break your chain0 -
things like wheels will shave seconds off perhaps
I recently went from 2kg to 1500g wheels and it made a big difference to acceleration, hill climbing feels much easier than before too.
I honestly don't think a few 100g on a frame makes much odds either way for an amateur. Comfort is very important though. Nobody is going to perform well after 50 miles on a bike if they're not comfortable on it.http://www.strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible Price.
Specialized Roubaix SL3 Expert 2012, Cannondale CAAD5,
Marin Mount Vision (1997), Edinburgh Country tourer, 3 cats!0 -
I started with wheels and tyres.
Saving 100gm in the wheel rim is equivalent to saving 200gm elsewhere from an acceleration POV ( when you accelerate a wheel rim half the energy goes into rotational energy, half into forward energy, I think ).
Means you save a little energy when getting up to speed, and this is when you are working hard, so it counts more.
Plus a wheel with less flex goes uphill better.
Stiffness is important as well as weight.0 -
With the same tyres and the riding position, the only relevant (for an average rider) performance difference between various bikes will be the weight.
The problem is though that even a "massive" e.g. 5 pounds make only about 2.5% of the total package (bike+rider+gear) and 2.5% of weight saving doesn't translate in any way to a 2.5% speed gain.
An average, non-competing rider may perhaps expect to go 0.1-0.2 mph faster.
A set of new wheels, however light, also won't make you "noticeably" faster as you will still have to propel the whole +200 lb of flesh and metal not just a pair of 3-4.5 lb hoops.
The best way to demonstrate the relative insignificance of wheel weight (rotating mass) is first spinning quickly a wheel by hand (bike upside down) or riding a bike on a turbo with no resistance, and then... for a change, moving a fully loaded (200lb) supermarket trolley or pushing (accelerating) someone on the bike.
All of that obviously doesn't change the fact that almost every new expensive bike with the right label, loud paint job and low spoke count wheels will be faster than the old one 0 -
What do you mean, 'that much difference'? It makes a difference. But not nearly as much as the rider does. Then again, if you put a different rider on your bike, you're stuck at home with no wheels so what good is that? Here's my take on it:
- What you can do on a bike is mostly determined by what type of bike it is. Doing a downhill mountain bike course on a triathlon bike is quite insane. You could do a time trial on a downhill mountain bike but you'd have a severe disadvantage.
-How fast you can go on a bike is mostly about your legs, your lungs, and your willingness to suffer.
-Weight makes a noticable difference but not nearly as much as fitness does.
-There's lots of other things that make small differences too. Those small differences are very important if you're racing and only have to be 1/100 of a second faster than the other ones. They don't really matter if you're just riding recreationally.
-How long you can keep riding on a bike without feeling uncomfortable is mostly about how well it fits you and how well it fits the type of riding you are doing (geometry, stiffness/suspension).
-There's no bike that is good at everything, every bike is a compromise, and price is always a factor.
-Stuff that breaks on a bike is very annoying. As a crude rule of thumb, heavy stuff will last longer than light stuff, and expensive stuff will last longer than cheap stuff.0 -
Kit does make a difference, however, its pretty minimal, and the latest, greatest Carlos Fandango kit won't turn you into Lance Armstrong overnight.
Marketing has a big part to play, and its interesting someone mentions the placebo effect.
Personally, I must be an insensitive monkey boy when it comes to riding, because I can't tell the difference between lateral flex this, and stiffness that, and all the marketing buzzwords like "push the pedal, and the frame responds without a hint of lateral flex", all my bikes feel like that, and i really couldn't tell where any of my bikes are stiffer, flexier, it all feels the same to me!.
I just get on and ride.0 -
Get your engine tuned and well maintained before you put it in a Ferrari.
I notice a difference when i swap from the winter bike, that first ride feels like Derbyshire has had a change of altitude, times drop and the ride feels easier.0 -
Hmm, after 35 years of riding nothing but steel frames (including a beautiful custom Roberts), I finally bought a carbon framed Condor as a belated 50th Birthday present to myself. Something of a revelation, fun to ride and its the only bike I have on which my back feels better at the end of the ride than at the start. Having a range of different quality and vintage bits on various bike (never been higher than Campag Chorus), apart from clipless pedals, soft contact lenses and prescription sun glasses, none makes the slightest diffrence to performance IMO.0
-
I was cufting around on an alloy framed Ridgeback Geneis Day 2 flat barred road bike for about 5 years. I decided eventually that I 'needed' a carbon road bike to further my enjoyment, so picked up Madone 5.2 second hand. It feels about half the weight, it fits me better, soaks up road buzz way better than my old Ridgeback, but untilI I had ridden the Madone for several months I noticed no real improvement in performance over my standard routes. I think this is largely due to my body knowing how to ride the Ridgeback as I had had it for so long, that changing to a new machine meant my body had to relearn the basics. After about 2 months I thought I had wasted my money but then suddenly I noticed my times improving and I am now noticeably quicker (except in descents whcih I am working on).
The main thing for me is psycologically because my new bikeis more comfortable and it gives me a buzz of excitement when I get it out the shed, I am now making more time available for riding, which in turn makes me a better, fitter, faster rider.0 -
Bikes can feel very different when you ride them. I remember my twin brother and I getting different bikes when we went to university. Mine felt far stiffer and more responsive. His just felt sluggish and wasn't enjoyable to ride.
As you move up the price ladder the differences are minimal, but they do still exist. I have 5 different bikes and I could identify each within a minute of jumping on them from how they ride. The best ride is the most expensive bike, but the worst ride isn't the cheapest. Is the most expensive bike significantly faster? I'm not actually sure, but it just feels stiffer and more responsive.0 -
OP has a point... if you cant push a bike along at 25mph with what you already have then buggr all use in buying yourself a tt specific bike for that particular discipline as an example...
however when you can then thats where the lighter(more expensive) kit can play a part.0 -
there is the better or more expensive, the bike the better it feels thing going on, the more you will push etc, you will prob clean it regular so liooks good more of the time. The gear buying is an addiction also imo0
-
cooper.michael1 wrote:inseine wrote:So Mr Cooper, £ for £, steel or carbon?
My usual rides are between 50-80miles in undulating Yorkshire. Between 2004-2008 for my main bike I rode a Pinarello Dogma, the one Fassa Bortolo, Ivan Basso etc used to ride. I swapped this 18months ago for a Planet X Uncle John, take a guess which I prefer??
The Planet X rides better for my purpose, fits me better, and for my normal rides is just as quick despite being 2-3lbs heavier. My times on my standard 50 mile route have remained pretty steady, and are more affected by my diet, how much sleep i've had, stress, weather, traffic, the wind direction, etc etc etc...than if i'm on a pro bike or a decent quality ordinary bike.
I've done something very similar. Have a Giant TCR Carbon - so the same frame that the pros have ridden in past years and bought a Planet X Uncle John this year. I've not ridden the Giant since. I ride with the same training partner and my performance seems to be about the same - even though its a cross frame. I do have 2 sets of wheels for it though - the wider offroad tyres do slow me down, but the 23mm contis let me fly on it.
I'd say the law of diminishing returns plays a big part - a 6 grand bike wont be 6 times better than a 1k bike. And its always the better man who wins - the bike really doesnt matter that much. Look at the pros - theres not one bike that dominates - its the riders.0 -
"Does the bike make that much difference?"
Not once you get past the £1000 price point. Anything past that and as long as the bike fits you you're into serious diminishing returns territory and money is better spent on a coach and a power meter.0 -
It's a hobby for us, if it makes you feel good riding a 5 grand bike rather than a 500 quid bike good for you, enjoy it while you can!0
-
F*ck yes it does.
My Canyon at 6.2kg is far better than my 7.8kg Focus.
No only is it weight the workings of the components makes it better.
Canyon is SRAM Red and the Focus Rival.
On the same training loop the Canyon is 2.1mph faster over 35 miles.0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:F*ck yes it does.
My Canyon at 6.2kg is far better than my 7.8kg Focus.
No only is it weight the workings of the components makes it better.
Canyon is SRAM Red and the Focus Rival.
On the same training loop the Canyon is 2.1mph faster over 35 miles.
I guess that must be down to position on the bike and/or tyres?
Or do you go 2.1mph slower on the Canyon if you haven't had a dump for a while and you've got a full bladder?More problems but still living....0
