Carbon Bikes Are A Waste Of Money...

Bobbinogs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... octor.html

So, what do you think of the "study". Conclusive proof or psuedo-scientific babble?

Personally, I don't think it told me anything new but made for interesting reading. My next bike will still be the one I like the best at the time, that fits the best, meets my requirements and budget...or has the best colour scheme.

singlespeedexplosif

Can he do the same test with his pig-iron commuter and a carbon superbike up the Angliru?
thanks.

Stewie Griffin

Blasphemy surely.

bompington

It's clearly not a blinded trial at all, to do that you would need to commute blindfold, or with the bike wrapped in the kind of fairings car companies use to disguise new models on the road (you'd have to neutralise the aerodynamics carefully), for a whole series of runs.
I can think of lots of confounding factors in here, one obvious one is work rate: maybe you just try harder when you know you're on a slower bike, or maybe you adjust your speed, consciously or otherwise, to match the time you expect to be doing.

BTW this comes from the Christmas edition of the BMJ, which always goes for frivolous, entertaining and methodologically dubious papers.

LangerDan

Expensive anesthetics do not get you unconscious faster: cyclist
Super-light expensive anesthetics may not help you get unconscious faster, a cyclist has found, in a blow to pain sufferers who spend thousands on latest medication.

By Cycling Editor 7:30AM GMT 10 Dec 2010
A study published in the Christmas edition of the British Cycling Journal found that a modern, more expensive compound did not outperform an older, heavier sedation technique.
Mr Byker Grove, a cyclist in Royston Vasey, cycles to work most days and owns two anesthetics.
One is a 2,2,2-trifluoro-1-fluoroethyl-difluoromethyl ether that cost the NHS £2,500 and the other is a timber –handled lump hammer, purchased from a car boot sale for a fiver
Mr Byker bought the new gas thinking it would mean he put patients out faster but in a randomised trial he conducted over six months he found this was not the case.
He wrote in the BCJ: "My new compound seemed wonderful, if somewhat uncomfortable. I didn’t notice a dramatic decrease in sedation time, nor did the clock on the wall of the theatre record any notably swift procedures. But, one sunny morning, I got the patient completely out of his box in 13 seconds, the fastest I could recall. My hammer was consigned to a corner of the steriliser to gather dust—until I had a leak in the gas line.
"The next day I was back on my old mallet. I looked at the clock, thwacked the patient . . . and discovered I had knocked him out in 5 seconds. “Hang on,” I thought, “was it a fluke?”
Mr Byker conducted the study by flipping a coin to decide which procedure to apply at work over six months, counting “one-o’leary, 2-o’leary, 3-o’leary” to note the time..
The surgery was conducted on the same list of appendectomies, tonsillectomies and addadicktomes. Mr Byker wore appropriate clothing for the theatre and did not carry water.
His own weight remained stable.
He found the difference in average journey time to “lah-lah land” amounted to about 3 seconds
The maximum duration of unconsciousness was the same for both.
Mr Byker wrote: "Given these findings, why then do so many of us buy “performance” sedatives?
"The purchase of the shiny new equipment made me feel good, and even though the initial application is “harsher” (less comfortable),
"Which do I enjoy administering most? Well, after the trial I have to go for the hammer. The patient gets there as quickly, and it is more comfortable (for me), better value, has more 'character.' And I get the inestimable pleasure of tw@tting someone on the head.” “However, the patients do report some long-lasting side effects”
"If the Desflurane were stolen would I replace it? I’d have to say no. I’d spend the money on more fetching surgical scrubs clothing and the DVD box-set of “House."
He concluded: "A 50,000 per cent increase in cost did not reduce blackout time over a wide variety of procedures”

dodgy

I use Sporttracks, and in there I have every ride I've done for the last 5 years, fed by various Garmin GPS units over the years. I'm looking back at this data, so I can say with complete honesty that my various carbon bikes have been roughly 1.5mph faster than my various winter bikes over that period. I know this because I have a sub-category under cycling called 'winter bike' and 'summer bike'.

Both winter and summer bikes are quality bits of kit, the winter has mudguards.

Not conclusive I know, but I'm convinced.

thel33ter

Stuipid article. I believe the fit of the bike makes much more difference than how much it weighs anyway, but its obvious something 4kg lighter will be easier to move :?



You would be much better off riding one of these to work anyway

kettrinboy

dodgy wrote:

I use Sporttracks, and in there I have every ride I've done for the last 5 years, fed by various Garmin GPS units over the years. I'm looking back at this data, so I can say with complete honesty that my various carbon bikes have been roughly 1.5mph faster than my various winter bikes over that period. I know this because I have a sub-category under cycling called 'winter bike' and 'summer bike'.

Both winter and summer bikes are quality bits of kit, the winter has mudguards.

Not conclusive I know, but I'm convinced.

Today did a 25 mile ride on my 27lb Raleigh, three weeks ago did exactly the same ride on my 17Ib Scott CR1, same effort at 85% ave HR,similar wind speed and direction and the Scott was almost exactly 1.5 mph faster on ave speed,and i was on the drops 90% of the ride on the Raleigh but on the Scott rode entirely on the tops/hoods, so im convinced Carbon bikes are better but not by as much as i expected, i was thinking the old Raleigh would be 3-4 mph down but its faster than i thought.

beverick

Articles like that make my blood boil.

It's published for the sake of it and it's flawed in so many ways to make it irrelevant (as if it wasn't irrelevant in the first place of course).

The only 'science' in there is the reference to tossing the coin (and the weight of the tosser on the bike).

Unless you assess how much energy he's using and the time taken on a number of IDENTICAL journeys it's impossible to say with any accuracy whether there's a difference or not.

One thing's definate. Assuming all other things are equal, you will use less energy propelling a lighter bike. Whether this equates to an improved journey time is subject to any number of things.

It's rrelevant tat.

Bob

jgsi

This gets published in the BMJ?
Standards have dropped since I was working within the med profession.
The good doctor should get faster and harder miles and hours in to cure his sillinesses.
Best done on a much lighter bike than a porky 9kg'er as well.

Still doing my 10 on Sunday on me 11kg Allez though.

Smokin Joe

Carbon bikes are not designed as commuters where you spend half the time either stopped at lights or weaving in and out of traffic. They are race bikes, and when you are at maximum effort for hours at a time the difference between a lightweight responsive machine and a clunker is considerable.

God save us from no-nothing MAMILS who become experts overnight.

disquieting_museeuws

Smokin Joe wrote:

God save us from no-nothing MAMILS who become experts overnight.

Quite!

There's also the fact that on a lighter/better bike I for one actually consciously make less effort to go the same speed (being lazy I suppose). The doctor should pin a number on his back, see how comparatively fast his bikes are then. I suspect he wouldn't want to race on the clunker!

TLDNMCL

All I can say is that Dr. Groves has produced a very long winded article dedicated to stating the flamin' obvious.

If you are a full time super fit pro, then every ounce could potentially make a difference; if not, a super lightweight bike will rarely make a difference to Mr. Average (I say Mr. Average, not someone who is a fit club rider, regular sportive / endurance cyclist etc).

He's not comparing like with like to be honest - even regular commutes on the same route on the same bike can vary like hell depending on the conditions encountered - as previously stated, too many variables.

Cut it into regular six-inch squares and hang it on a nail on the back of the outside bog door is my suggestion.

ride_whenever

He's neglecting the most important factor, is the £1000 bike nicer to ride? In all probability it's much much nicer. Which is the main reason amateurs spend money on bikes.

dodgy

And to be fair, every year near Christmas the BMJ publishes fairly light hearted 'research', it's done mainly for fun.

snailracer

The problem with all your "my CF bike is 1.5mph faster" anecdotes, is that, if everything else (tyres, aerodynamics, etc.) were equal, there is no engineering explanation why the frame material can make anything close to that difference in speed. It may make a tiny difference, but not anywhere near 1.5mph.

The obvious conclusions are that everything else is not equal, or it's psychological (which is not to be underestimated).

tx14

dodgy wrote:

And to be fair, every year near Christmas the BMJ publishes fairly light hearted 'research', it's done mainly for fun.

i think you're right. the other possibility is just horrifying.

AndyF16

What a pointless bloody article - it's a shame there's so much meeja to fill these days that they resort to such unscientific, zeitgeist pandering (knocking anyone between 30 and 50 who buys anything but an ASDA special) twaddle! :x

disquieting_museeuws wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

God save us from no-nothing MAMILS who become experts overnight.

Quite!

Indeed, but did he actually mean know -nothing? :roll:

antfly

My aluminium bike is faster than my carbon bike, FWIW, and I don't commute.

dodgy

snailracer wrote:

The problem with all your "my CF bike is 1.5mph faster" anecdotes, is that, if everything else (tyres, aerodynamics, etc.) were equal, there is no engineering explanation why the frame material can make anything close to that difference in speed. It may make a tiny difference, but not anywhere near 1.5mph.

The obvious conclusions are that everything else is not equal, or it's psychological (which is not to be underestimated).

Totally understand your point. I quite often swap wheels between my bikes, that makes a good difference, but even taking that into account, the CF bike is consistently faster even on the lesser wheels. I have no explanation, perhaps it is psychological (though I doubt it), if so, then perhaps that edge is worth paying for

Just to be open.

My winter bike:
PlanetX (Lynskey Titanium Sportive)
Pro-Lite Bracciano wheels (a pretty light wheelset for its price)
Michelin Pro3 Race tyres

Summer bike:
Dolan Carbon Hercules
Xero XR-Carbon wheels (not particularly deep section, about 30mm I think)
Michelin Pro3 Race tyres

The summer bike is about 2lbs lighter, mainly due to Dura Ace groupset, and lighter bars, seat, stem etc.

tailwindhome

Take the same two bikes.

Ride up a decent size hill

Report back then.


You won't drive to work (in traffic) any faster in a Ferrari than a Ford Fiesta.

SteveR_100Milers

for the same reason a Ferrari might not get you to work any faster, but it will sure as hell be a lot more fun going slowly!

rake

dr groves seems to be testing a percieved theory of his that doesnt exist, maybe hes autistic. hes certainly obsessed with measuring numbers.
get yourself a power meter and a hilly course of 80 miles.

lemoncurd

The article was in The Telegraph not a cycling magazine and he makes a good point.

For the majority of people it is not worth spending thousands on a bike, they'll be just as happy, and as fast on a cheaper bike - as long as it's safe and reliable.

If you're fit and fast enough to see a difference between a £50 second hand bike and a £1000 bike then you're unlikely to be reading The Telegraph for buying advice.

BasilBrushTheFirst

I did much the same thing with my winter bike and summer bike - the latter is much lighter. I've reported somewhere on one of these blogs. Same route repeated many many times at a measured heart rate - with hills, in Derbyshire. I know HR isn't as good as a power meter before someone says that. The result was a complete draw. Seconds difference. These were all base training rides where I tried to keep the HR constant. The route is 30 miles and takes 2 hours, given the derbyshire terrain. In other words, the bike made ABSOLUTELY no difference...

geebee2

The right approach is a blinded trial - get the wife to pack an extra weight in somewhere on the bike ( where the rider cannot tell ) on some days but not on others. The weight needs to be small enough that the rider cannot easily guess whether it's there or not.

That way you can work out how much time difference an extra 100g makes, although it might take a large number of trials to get a statistically accurate result, given variable conditions.

This eliminates other variables : especially familiarity with a given bike, psychological and other differences. You could also test for psychological differences by telling the rider whether the weight is there or not, but sometimes you lie ( but the rider doesn't know this ).

RDW

bompington wrote:

BTW this comes from the Christmas edition of the BMJ, which always goes for frivolous, entertaining and methodologically dubious papers.

A point that seems to have been lost here, judging by some of the grumpy responses in this thread! A study in a previous Christmas issue discussed the mental and physical health of Gollum:

http://www.bmj.com/content/329/7480/1435.extract

The bike article itself is worth a read:

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801.full

'There was only one answer: a randomised trial. I toyed with the idea of blinding it but, in the interest of self preservation and other road users, decided against it.'

I like some of the responses, too:

'Looking purely at consultant anaesthetists (the only group included in the study), he has achieved a weight reduction of 4 kg by spending an extra £950 on a bicycle. To achieve the same weight loss through fat loss by exercise would require the expenditure of 28,000 kCal. At a rate of expenditure of 700 kCal per hour and an hourly rate of £36 per hour (the base point on consultant anaesthetists' salary scales), this would take 40 hours of exercise at a cost of £1440, considerably more than the cost of a carbon framed bicycle.'

'However further research is necessary...Specifically with a heavier rider, shorter commute (12miles) and comparing an 8 year old mountain bike with a more modern steel framed tourer. Unfortunately spousal funding is unlikely to be granted for this research. '

As in most of these articles, there's a serious point to be made, however. A standard commute is not the TdF and a shiny new carbon bike may have little practical advantage over a heavier but decent secondhand steel machine. One key statistic from the paper:

'Though a 30% reduction in bicycle weight may seem large, the reduction in total weight (bicycle + rider) of 4% is much less impressive.'

Smokin Joe

Less weight = less power needed to move it.

An indisputable law of physics, however many tests you can use to prove a BSO is just as fast as a race bike.

Colin Chapman once bollocked a mechanic for putting washers on the bolts on one of his F1 cars because of the extra weight, and at that time the turbo engined cars were pumping out 1200 BHP. He understood the importance of power to weight ratio better than some tosser who took up cycling because it is fashionable.

jgsi

RDW wrote:

bompington wrote:

BTW this comes from the Christmas edition of the BMJ, which always goes for frivolous, entertaining and methodologically dubious papers.

A point that seems to have been lost here, judging by some of the grumpy responses in this thread! A study in a previous Christmas issue discussed the mental and physical health of Gollum:'[/i]

A pity then that the Telegraph journo didnt pick up the frivolous nature of it all then..

wot .. wot all good dinner party banter wot wot..

antfly

Smokin Joe wrote:

Less weight = less power needed to move it.

An indisputable law of physics, however many tests you can use to prove a BSO is just as fast as a race bike.

Colin Chapman once bollocked a mechanic for putting washers on the bolts on one of his F1 cars because of the extra weight, and at that time the turbo engined cars were pumping out 1200 BHP. He understood the importance of power to weight ratio better than some tosser who took up cycling because it is fashionable.

If you are going to invoke physics then clearly Chapman was being somewhat unreasonable to say the least. Also, the doctor commutes 27miles a day, I can't see why he's a tosser.

SDK2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

for the same reason a Ferrari might not get you to work any faster, but it will sure as hell be a lot more fun going slowly!

I was also thinking exactly the same.
That article is a complete waste of time.