Carbon Bikes Are A Waste Of Money...

geebee2

A point that seems to have been lost here, judging by some of the grumpy responses in this thread

Ha! The humour comes from taking a very serious and grumpy approach to something that's very silly!

meanredspider

This thread subject appears somewhere else too. The article was light-hearted but I think there's some good points here:

- riding a heavier bike will get you fitter and you'll lose more weight (all else being equal). I remember the day I moved from my Costco BSO (nicknamed the Concrete Bike) to my Kona Cinder Cone (10 years ago now). On the ride home, I totally skinned the guy from the bike shop. The next day, he skinned my brother (he owned on OCLV Trek MTB) saying "your brother's much fitter than you". My bro and I would normally commute together. If I were training for an event, I'd add weight or resistance.

- losing weight from the rider is better than from the bike. It's usually cheaper (if done the calorie intake way) and the benefits are there on or off the bike.

I'm with Colin Chapman though. My race car is called "White Lightening" by my fellow Alfa racers as a reflection on my obsession with taking weight off the car (and driver). As I believe Carlo Chiti said (Alfa Romeo's Colin Chapman) "A light car is made up of light components". That includes the driver.

RDW

The Telegraph piece is a bit dry, but bompington mentioned the BMJ's Christmas tradition early in this thread, and the direct quotes suggest the article isn't exactly deadly serious (“Hang on,” I thought, “was that minute worth £950 or was it a fluke?” ).

The thing about physical laws is that you have to plug numbers into them to see what they say in a given situation (doctors do actually need to know this stuff). The author did the sums for the combined weight of himself and the bikes, and calculated he was (e.g.) expending only about 5% more energy in getting up the (modest) hills on the steel bike. This might be decisive in a serious race between well-matched cyclists, but didn't translate into a significant difference in arrival time under commuting conditions over varied terrain. Given the relatively small difference in overall weight, I don't see why this is even surprising. And you do have to consider the overall weight - you can reduce the burden of your water bottle by 100% if you leave it at home, but you won't get to work any faster. Colin Chapman's attitude sounds absurd taken in isolation, but presumably made sense as part of a general strategy of minimising weight across thousands of components in a racing vehicle that was much heavier than the driver. If you're driving to work every day, you're probably better off with the washers.

bagpusscp

Nah, this story missed the point. As you get older carbon bikes make going slower ,easier.

Smokin Joe

The story makes sense in the context of it not being cost effective to buy a carbon bike purely to commute on, but he seems of the opinion that the weight of the bicycle doesn't matter full stop.

PBo

calm down everyone - it's only a spoof article!!!

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801.full.pdf+html

balthazar

PBo wrote:

calm down everyone - it's only a spoof article!!!

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801.full.pdf+html

Even as a spoof, it presents more truth and cogent analysis than most arguments among cyclists on the same subject..!

priory

http://bikecalculator.com/

There is every reason to think his conclusions are spot on.

fiddle with the above calculator and you find that the difference between a 2000gbp lightweight and a 1kg heavier mercian frame or 500gbp racer amounts theoretically to a few seconds after a long ride, and in reality you will adjust for that as you ride if you are in a group, and if you are not how on earth would you know unless you are going absolutely flat out eyeballs popping every second of the way.
and who rides like that?.....oh, yeah , I forgot.

the point is a lot of normal people are being sold very expensive bikes only suitable for a few top performing time triallers and hill climbers. Comfort can make you faster( if you care more for speed than enjoyment), cheaper steel parts are often much more durable . You don't see many ultra lightweight bikes in a big audax event. Even if I started with one, by the time I've got my tools, spare tyres, food and clothes in the saddle pack with 2l of fluid I'll be more interested in strength of frame .

Customer: Is this a fast bike?
salesman (thinks):not with you on it mate.

meanredspider

FWIW, I think tyres make more difference. And probably clothing (big flappy jacket etc).

It would be good to do something more definitive to demonstrate some of this. Nevertheless, the guy has succeeded in writing a thought-provoking (or comment-provoking, at least (as I'm not sure how much thought has gone into some of them )) article...