does the bike make that much difference
Comments
-
True that there is a law of diminishing returns when spending on super duper bikes.
It depends on the kind of riding you're doing.
For riding on the flat it's the aerodynamics that make the biggest difference.
People get a bit too hung up on the weight thing.*
So getting a good position, and aero wheels and helmet will make you faster on a time trial. You'll notice that timetrial bikes are pretty heavy compared to racers.
That said, for climbing and accelerating, weight makes a bigger difference.
My 10kg Allez is a nice bike, but my 7.4kg Cannondale is just Super. It accelerates faster due to the lower weight and stiffer frame / wheels and more efficient energy transfer.
I agree that there is a certain placebo effect when you're on a shiney bike too.
Someone commented on cleaning the bike then feeling faster. I get that too, when I clean the chain, or better replace the chain. It does feel more efficient, and I think it is. The links run more smoothly when clean and fit the cogs better when new.
*See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance for a pretty good discussion on the subject. My favourite quote is: "owering a bike's weight by 1 lb (0.45 kg), a major effort considering it may weigh less than 15 lb (6.8 kg) to start with, will have the same effect over a 40 km time trial on flat ground as removing a protrusion into the air the size of a pencil"0 -
Ive found to my great surprise that my recently aquired and nearly 30 yr old Raleigh Record Ace is only slightly slower than my Scott CR1 on the same 20-30 mile loops,ie about 2-3 minutes slower for a similar effort level, comparing the graphs on Garmin Training Centre i,m going about the same speed on the flat and downhill but the CR1 is a bit faster up the hills as it weighs about 3 kilo,s less, but on the Ace i can stay on the drops for longer as the old shape bars seem to be more comfortable, and its got downtube shifters and only 12 speeds in total , the braking is feeble compared to the CR1, though but that could be upgraded, i love my Scott but i could easily live with the Raleigh for the sort of riding i do.0
-
My favourite quote is: "owering a bike's weight by 1 lb (0.45 kg), a major effort considering it may weigh less than 15 lb (6.8 kg) to start with, will have the same effect over a 40 km time trial on flat ground as removing a protrusion into the air the size of a pencil"
That's an odd way to look at things - of course for a flat time trial ( with no very sharp corners ) weight has almost no effect at all, aerodynamics is everything.
Weight matters much more when climbing ( as does having suitable gears ).
If you are 1% lighter, you are going to be able to climb 1% quicker, near enough.
That probably won't matter to a non-competitive cyclist, but on a ten minute climb, if I can beat someone by 6 seconds, I'm going to be well chuffed.0 -
My Canyon at 6.2kg is far better than my 7.8kg Focus.
Or do you try a bit harder when you're on the Canyon?0 -
get on your bike wrote:so really just wondering about the difference the equipment really makes
I rescued an early-80s (I think) Raleigh from the tip for a measly five quid and it's as fast as my carbon Giant in terms of outright speed on the flat. A modern bike will out-accelerate the Raleigh though due to having 6 more gear choices and through not having to fumble with downtube shifters. For the same reason the Giant is better up hills, even though the Raleigh is very close in terms of outright weight (FWIW the rear derailleur on the Raleigh is a whopping 50g lighter than the Shimano Ultegra one on the Giant).0 -
'If you are 1% lighter, you are going to be able to climb 1% quicker, near enough'
Geebee where did you get this from? it is these sort of random statements that mean nothing. So if my bike is 10% lighter i'll go 10% quicker, there is no justification in that.
If you actually read the physics, weight does not have nearly as much of a difference as people think. Wheels are often quoted as THE best weight upgrade, yet reading a paper based on the physics, not feelings comes to the conclusion that:
'My point is that changing your wheels will not dramatically change how fast you go. It will make a small, but significant change. You should also beware anyone who tells you that brand X wheels give you a 3 km/hr advantage. They probably don't' [www.bikephysics.com]0 -
twotyred wrote:My Canyon at 6.2kg is far better than my 7.8kg Focus.
Or do you try a bit harder when you're on the Canyon?
or is the canyon just better than the focus, full stop, and the weight is only part of the equation.0 -
twotyred wrote:"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.
+1
I've spent a bit of time on hi-fi forums, and there's a saying "the best upgrade you can buy for your system is some new music". Transferred to cycling, I suppose what this means is "once your bike is reliable and well-fitted, the best way to enjoy your sport is to ride places."0 -
I went from a Hybrid running slicks to a carbon and the two main differences was more comfort easier to at least feel like you are not a sail standing up against a headwind and easier to keep a decent (for me) pace on the flat. Not noticed it flattening out hills as promised :P Due to the recent weather I have not tried it hell for leather downhill yet.
Do I regret the £1500, not one bit. Which if I am to be honest was a relief!0 -
So the 6.2kg Canyon should get up a hill in half the time it would take on my 12kg Kona MTB with slicks?geebee2 wrote:If you are 1% lighter, you are going to be able to climb 1% quicker, near enough.
Yeah, right :roll:
The only comparison I have made is between my SCR 2 and the Kona on commuting to/from work. The SCR, being 2kg lighter, feels more responsive and goes up hills with less effort but there's not much difference in overall time on the days I felt able to give it the berries. I'm hoping to try a carbon SCR at some point, would be interested to see the effect of a change of material with the same manufacturer and geometry.
Changing the wheels from the SCR's Alex DA22s to Shimano RS10s gave a noticeable improvement in acceleration despite the small weight difference (about 150g). I am guesing this could be due to better rigidity and, to a lesser extent, fewer spokes in the RS10s, despite these two things being apparently contradictory.Aspire not to have more, but to be more.0 -
So the 6.2kg Canyon should get up a hill in half the time it would take on my 12kg Kona MTB with slicks?
No, of course you have to take weight of bike and rider combined.
And then take off a little bit for energy expended against the small air+rolling resistance at low speeds.
So for 90 kilo rider, saving 6kg will let you climb about 5% faster,
other things being equal.
This is assuming an unlimited supply of "fuel".
In fact your legs only have a limited supply of "fuel" for immediate use,
so the benefit can actually be somewhat greater. If you run out of fuel,
your time to the top of the hill can be much greater.0 -
Hybrid vs a road bike - as you say - the position is probably most of the improvement in speed.
A 2mph average increase between road bikes does seem to be a bit much. Thats like the difference between a road bike and a road bike with tribars on.0 -
I'm 5-10% faster on my carbon race bike vs my commuting steel bike on the same course for the same perceived effort and average heart rate. Geometry between the 2 is similar, though admittedly slightly less aggressive on the commuter.0
-
cooper.michael1 wrote:twotyred wrote:My Canyon at 6.2kg is far better than my 7.8kg Focus.
Or do you try a bit harder when you're on the Canyon?
or is the canyon just better than the focus, full stop, and the weight is only part of the equation.
My point being the Canyon is a better bike to ride and I don't have to try as hard it seems to improve my performance over the Focus on the same route.Downloading ride stats for compared rides on each bike my average HR is lower and cadence higher on the Canyon. The difference in weight I feel is a contributing factor between the bikes.
The Canyon is also a far better designed and built bike than the Focus. The Canyon is a far more responsive and agile ride. You can also feel the noticeable difference in the frame stiffness. Coupled with the stiff Mavic R-Sys as I say it is a far more responsive ride. The Canyon is more stable at speed.
So imo yes the bike can make a difference. Of course fitness and bike handing helps.0 -
I found I rode much better when I bought a new pair of Oakleys. Of course it COULD just have been a placebo effect...0
-
i believe i ride much quicker blindfold. it might be a placebo, but ive no idea coz i cant see the computer
Go for the break
Create a chaingang
Make sure you don't break your chain0 -
Fat-Boy-Roubaix wrote:I went from a Hybrid running slicks to a carbon and the two main differences was more comfort easier to at least feel like you are not a sail standing up against a headwind and easier to keep a decent (for me) pace on the flat. Not noticed it flattening out hills as promised :P Due to the recent weather I have not tried it hell for leather downhill yet.
Do I regret the £1500, not one bit. Which if I am to be honest was a relief!
You've just proved my point 'went from a hybrid to a carbon' ...so you attribute that you road bike is better becuase it is made of carbon? ...I'd say its better for road riding becuase it is specifically designed for that, whereas the hybrid is a jack of all trades bike.
The marketing tells you carbon is light, quick etc etc... in reality any decent quality road bike would have given you a similar upgrade for road riding.0 -
OK. I wrongly assumed you were talking bike only.geebee2 wrote:So the 6.2kg Canyon should get up a hill in half the time it would take on my 12kg Kona MTB with slicks?
No, of course you have to take weight of bike and rider combined.
Not surprisingly, this subject crops up regularly on these forums:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15290445
How much slower is it riding up Alpe d'Huez with water in your tyres?
http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-mu ... lpe-dhuez/
Discussed in http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16083734Aspire not to have more, but to be more.0 -
Not surprisingly, this subject crops up regularly on these forums:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15290445
There is a post on that thread that suggests aero is still important when climbing.
Using the Wiki formula
P = gmVg(K1 + s) + K2 Va^2Vg
Say we are climbing a 5% gradient at 4.5 m/s (10 mph), no wind
g =9.8 m/s^2
m = 100kg (say)
Vg = 4.5 m/s (10mph)
s = 5% = 0.05
K1 = 0.0053
K2 = 0.185 kg/m
Va = 4.5 m/s
Friction + Climb power = 9.8 x 100 x 4.5 ( 0.0053 + 0.05 ) = 244 watts
Air resistance power = 0.185 x 4.5^3 = 17 watts
Improving K2 by 5% gains you ~ 1 watt.
Reducing weight by 0.5kg gains you ~ 1 watt.
The question here is how much (say) 50mm deep rim wheels will give
you in terms of % improvement. to K2 compared to a non-aero rim
( but with flat spokes ).
I dunno the answer to that, but I'm a bit doubtful if it would be 5%.
Most TT aero gains come from rider position and aero helmet I think.
Of course at higher speeds aero is much more important.0 -
no, no, my head,
boom.
Go for the break
Create a chaingang
Make sure you don't break your chain0 -
cooper.michael1 wrote:Fat-Boy-Roubaix wrote:!
You've just proved my point 'went from a hybrid to a carbon' ...so you attribute that you road bike is better becuase it is made of carbon? ...I'd say its better for road riding becuase it is specifically designed for that, whereas the hybrid is a jack of all trades bike.
The marketing tells you carbon is light, quick etc etc... in reality any decent quality road bike would have given you a similar upgrade for road riding.
To be really honest I went from a used and abused £300 bike with no brand or bottom end groupset bought really to use on trails etc with my kids but in the end used for commuting 15 miles to a £1500 bike and the three biggest differences were comfort (I put this down to the carbon) "Feels better" riding position and a small increase in flat speed to the amount of effort.
Is it £1300 quids worth of benefit? I doubt it but it makes it more comfortable for me which is worth it. I totally agree that had I spent £700 ish I would have got most of the above, but perhaps not the really soft ride which I put down to the carbon.0 -
Best thing I found so far on aero equipment is this
http://www.active.com/cycling/Articles/ ... htm?page=2
They quote drag force in grams, I assume this is at TT speed ( let's say 30mph, although it doesn't say unfortunately ).
The drag force attributed to changing wheels is only about 50g.
The drag at 10mph is 1/9 as much ( since aerodrag force goes as square of speed ).
So at 10mph this will only be 5g, so on a 5% slope, 100g extra weight will cancel the benefit.
Deep rim weight difference will quite likely be more than this, so my conclusion ( which agrees with common sense ) is that deep rim wheels are a disadvantage at 10mph on a 5% climb.
[ Note: I edited this, originally I suggested aero force was cube of speed ]0 -
Only you can answer that. If you feel it's money well spent then no-one else's opinion matters.Fat-Boy-Roubaix wrote:the three biggest differences were comfort (I put this down to the carbon) "Feels better" riding position and a small increase in flat speed to the amount of effort.
Is it £1300 quids worth of benefit?
A lot of people lose more than £1300 in depreciation on their car every year. That's money down the drain IMHO, I'd rather have the bike any day.
@geebee2 from what I've read you don't have to be doing 30mph for aero gains to be effective - you're still pushing through the air at 15mph, and in fact the *amount* of time gained is greater because the rider is out on the course for longer.
More info on aero time gains:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/aero ... namics.htm
http://www.socalttseries.com/Training/A ... fault.aspx
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/h ... aero-19273Aspire not to have more, but to be more.0 -
@geebee2 from what I've read you don't have to be doing 30mph for aero gains to be effective - you're still pushing through the air at 15mph, and in fact the *amount* of time gained is greater because the rider is out on the course for longer.
That's true - what I'm considering here is the conditions under which the additional weight of a deep rim wheel will outweigh the aero advantage.
For road races ( and also impressing your club mates on club runs ) it may well be that the climbs are decisive, and a deep rim will be a disadvantage.
On the other hand, for pace setting on flats, or for long flat solo breaks, or for sprinting, or just conserving energy on the flat, the deep rim is an advantage.0 -
My experience.
I had ran my 2009 trek 1.5 round authurs seat in edinburgh over the peroid of a year,
june 2009 to june 2010, various weather but not when too windy or at all when wet.
frst lap ever - 14:45 ( felt like dying ), a month or so later -13:15 ( felt almost mike dying ).
Another month or so - 12:11 ( felt knacked but did another lap ).
Over the next 9 -10 months go this down to 11:11 best. ( tdf next i thought )
Decided to test drive a Kuota kebel 2010 model
on the test drive did another lap ( good weather but very comparable to my 11:11 lap weather) - 10:15 ! Was very pleased with myself.
So purchased said Kebel and guess what? cant get to 10:15 again. last four laps ive been stuck at 10:40-10:45.
so whats wrong? well i guess trying to stay ahead of a 40 ish year old bloke on a dolan on my test drive game me 30 seconds!
So my non-scientific findings are this
ist improvement should be you
2nd improvement should be bike
3rd improvement should be cycle infront of someone you dont want to overyake you.
Still hope to break into the 9:00 mins mark some time but not expecting big things without far more time in the saddle.
Willie0 -
geebee2 wrote:Not surprisingly, this subject crops up regularly on these forums:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15290445
There is a post on that thread that suggests aero is still important when climbing.
Using the Wiki formula
P = gmVg(K1 + s) + K2 Va^2Vg
Say we are climbing a 5% gradient at 4.5 m/s (10 mph), no wind
g =9.8 m/s^2
m = 100kg (say)
Vg = 4.5 m/s (10mph)
s = 5% = 0.05
K1 = 0.0053
K2 = 0.185 kg/m
Va = 4.5 m/s
Friction + Climb power = 9.8 x 100 x 4.5 ( 0.0053 + 0.05 ) = 244 watts
Air resistance power = 0.185 x 4.5^3 = 17 watts
Improving K2 by 5% gains you ~ 1 watt.
Reducing weight by 0.5kg gains you ~ 1 watt.
The question here is how much (say) 50mm deep rim wheels will give
you in terms of % improvement. to K2 compared to a non-aero rim
( but with flat spokes ).
I dunno the answer to that, but I'm a bit doubtful if it would be 5%.
Most TT aero gains come from rider position and aero helmet I think.
Of course at higher speeds aero is much more important.
With that formula I can now massacre the gold standard time on Acte 1 etape 2011
merciMy pen won't write on the screen0 -
Fat-Boy-Roubaix wrote:
To be really honest I went from a used and abused £300 bike with no brand or bottom end groupset bought really to use on trails etc with my kids but in the end used for commuting 15 miles to a £1500 bike and the three biggest differences were comfort (I put this down to the carbon) "Feels better" riding position and a small increase in flat speed to the amount of effort.
You put the comfort down to carbon? why?...because the marketing men say carbon it is comfortable. You can buy frames of any material that range from super stiff bone shakers to being pretty plush. It sounds like in your experience you've ridden one £300 bike one £1500 bike, which one is better is not just down to whether its made of carbon or not.
It is just as much about the frame design, as the material. Try riding a BMC carbon and see if you think that is 'plush'...in comparison to a say a recent Cannondale CAAD alu frame.0 -
Criteria I always use is:-
Does it look good ?
Can I afford it ?
(Im talking bikes not women !)
People spend 1000's on cars - or fags - or phones - My indulgence is bikes - I enjoy my current bike, partly because it looks the part - it suits my ageing body - better than my Pinarello did (although great bikes)
Would agree that a £1000 boardman\Planet x \ ribble is good enough for most people - I spent an extra £400 because I wanted something that (IMO) looked a bit better - this means I will be happier with it for longer.
I challenge anyone not to go faster with pro race 3 tyres on though!0 -
Even when climbing the heavier aero wheel is supposed to be better. Read Alex's detailed post of 25 Apr 2009 on this page:geebee2 wrote:what I'm considering here is the conditions under which the additional weight of a deep rim wheel will outweigh the aero advantage.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=20Aspire not to have more, but to be more.0 -
Simon E wrote:
Even when climbing the heavier aero wheel is supposed to be better. Read Alex's detailed post of 25 Apr 2009 on this page:geebee2 wrote:what I'm considering here is the conditions under which the additional weight of a deep rim wheel will outweigh the aero advantage.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=20
Interesting thread, ta.
This raises the obvious question: why do the tour guys not use them on the mountain stages??0
