What should I expect from my new carbon bike?
Comments
-
I read a sparkling review on cycle active of the focus, and quite surprised write op response to it.
I understand it is a personal thing, but still took me a back, especially as he says, there are this isn't the only good review on it.
I have an old raleigh (dunno year or model, its cromoly and had sora gs, now 105) and wknd thinking of an upgrade. I just feel like everything I do with it takes a year to be transferred to speed (i accept this may be a fitness issue), but not sure if a new bike will solve this now.
Interesting read anyway, and hope you enjoy your old bike, or find the perfect new one soon.0 -
oldwelshman wrote:Talking rubbish here.
Of course there is marketting involved but to claim Contador would win on an o steel frame is rubbish.
Of course if everyone was on a 10 yeaolrd steel bike he would.
With the carbon frame you should ecpect more power tranferred directly through the frame due to less flex, this will feel like you climb easierespecially when acceleratingor getting out of the saddle. Also the same will apply to accelerating for a sprint, the response is instant unlike steel which seems more like a couplke of pedalstrokes.
Good weheels will roll better due to better and more reliable bearings and flex less, especially on climbs.
They've got to you too! I bet you think Apple invented the smartphone.
Colin Sturgess did 18:48 for a 10 on a steel bike with no-tribars and 32 spoke box section wheels. The current record is 17:57. Now, given that at ~32mph the tribars alone would account for probably 15-20 seconds and the wheels al least 20-30, can you tell me how much difference carbon would make? And the is testing, where technology makes a far bigger difference than on the road.
At least try to back up your arguments.0 -
actually, that gives 10-20 secs down to carbon vs steel. Although I know that most of this won't be down to the carbon.
However, I feel like any higher upgrades on my current bike will overwhelm the frame.
Also, as it is quill set, upgrades, and fiddling with fit can be tricky due to lack of parts, and I am pretty sure the fit could do with some fiddling as it isn't as comfortable as I would have liked.0 -
How is that scientific? One result and it's supposed to suggest that new bikes aren't better?P_Tucker wrote:oldwelshman wrote:Talking rubbish here.
Of course there is marketting involved but to claim Contador would win on an o steel frame is rubbish.
Of course if everyone was on a 10 yeaolrd steel bike he would.
With the carbon frame you should ecpect more power tranferred directly through the frame due to less flex, this will feel like you climb easierespecially when acceleratingor getting out of the saddle. Also the same will apply to accelerating for a sprint, the response is instant unlike steel which seems more like a couplke of pedalstrokes.
Good weheels will roll better due to better and more reliable bearings and flex less, especially on climbs. They've got to you too! I bet you think Apple invented the smartphone.
Colin Sturgess did 18:48 for a 10 on a steel bike with no-tribars and 32 spoke box section wheels. The current record is 17:57. Now, given that at ~32mph the tribars alone would account for probably 15-20 seconds and the wheels al least 20-30, can you tell me how much difference carbon would make? And the is testing, where technology makes a far bigger difference than on the road.
At least try to back up your arguments.0 -
mask of sanity wrote:
How is that scientific? One result and it's supposed to suggest that new bikes aren't better?P_Tucker wrote:oldwelshman wrote:Talking rubbish here.
Of course there is marketting involved but to claim Contador would win on an o steel frame is rubbish.
Of course if everyone was on a 10 yeaolrd steel bike he would.
With the carbon frame you should ecpect more power tranferred directly through the frame due to less flex, this will feel like you climb easierespecially when acceleratingor getting out of the saddle. Also the same will apply to accelerating for a sprint, the response is instant unlike steel which seems more like a couplke of pedalstrokes.
Good weheels will roll better due to better and more reliable bearings and flex less, especially on climbs. They've got to you too! I bet you think Apple invented the smartphone.
Colin Sturgess did 18:48 for a 10 on a steel bike with no-tribars and 32 spoke box section wheels. The current record is 17:57. Now, given that at ~32mph the tribars alone would account for probably 15-20 seconds and the wheels al least 20-30, can you tell me how much difference carbon would make? And the is testing, where technology makes a far bigger difference than on the road.
At least try to back up your arguments.
The comparison is meaningless unless you put the same rider on the different bikes and measure the difference.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
First of all this is not the best argument as you quote one ride.P_Tucker wrote:oldwelshman wrote:Talking rubbish here.
Of course there is marketting involved but to claim Contador would win on an o steel frame is rubbish.
Of course if everyone was on a 10 yeaolrd steel bike he would.
With the carbon frame you should ecpect more power tranferred directly through the frame due to less flex, this will feel like you climb easierespecially when acceleratingor getting out of the saddle. Also the same will apply to accelerating for a sprint, the response is instant unlike steel which seems more like a couplke of pedalstrokes.
Good weheels will roll better due to better and more reliable bearings and flex less, especially on climbs. They've got to you too! I bet you think Apple invented the smartphone.
Colin Sturgess did 18:48 for a 10 on a steel bike with no-tribars and 32 spoke box section wheels. The current record is 17:57. Now, given that at ~32mph the tribars alone would account for probably 15-20 seconds and the wheels al least 20-30, can you tell me how much difference carbon would make? And the is testing, where technology makes a far bigger difference than on the road.
At least try to back up your arguments.
Unless he did exacltly the same route in same condition using two different bikes you cannot compare.
In addition to this I did not claim that carbon is faster for a TT this is an assumption you made.
I said the response for accelerating is improved which it definately is for both climbing or sprinting.
From personal experience I find it so much easier climbing when I leave my winter 853 bike in the shed from early summer onwards.
I klnow for a fact if I raced on that bike I would struggle in races on climbs more than I currently do, which is bad enough as it is
Also for sprinting out of a bunch the response is so much faster I even won a couple of bunch sprints this year
By the way I prefer NOkia N8, not impressed with Apple I Phone having been involved with its initial integration in UK 8)0 -
Of course new bikes are better - it's by how much that's the question. According to wiki, 1lb of weight saved would change climbing speed by 0.06mph up a 7% grade. That really isn't very much, unless you are racing up Alpine cols.
In terms of acceleration, the same wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance) has helpfully modelled a crit:
In a criterium race, a rider is often jumping out of every corner. If the rider has to brake entering each corner (no coasting to slow down), then the KE that is added in each jump is wasted as heat in braking. For a flat crit at 40 km/h, 1 km circuit, 4 corners per lap, 10 km/h speed loss at each corner, one hour duration, 80 kg rider/6.5 kg bike/1.75 kg rims/tires/spokes, there would be 160 corner jumps. This effort adds 387 kilocalories to the 1100 kilocalories required for the same ride at steady speed. Removing 500 g from the wheels, reduces the total body energy requirement by 4.4 kilocalories. If the extra 500 g in the wheels had resulted in a 0.3% reduction in aerodynamic drag factor (worth a 0.02 mph (0.03 km/h) speed increase at 25 mph), the caloric cost of the added weight effect would be canceled by the reduced work to overcome the wind.
So I think that's weight taken care of - it makes a difference, but in terms of the original question - there's no way the OP will notice on his leisure rides.
Regarding mechanical efficiency; I've not seen anything that shows a difference between alu/steel and carbon - if anyone has anything, I'd be interested to read it. So I'll assume that the difference is negligible.
That leaves aerodynamics - someone posted an article recently on a wheel test, and it showed a difference from best (Zipp 808) to worst (can't remember) of 15w at 50kmh. At a more likely 30kmh for the OP, this is ~3w, ignoring the extra weight. Assuming that the OP is reasonably fit, he might be cruising along at 250w - thus the difference is 1.2%, less than the +/- 1.5% quoted margin of error for every power meter on the market AFAIK. And I doubt the OP is riding around on 808s.
Whilst there are obvious flaws in the above which the enthusiastic rebutter could doubtlessly point out to his heart's content, hopefully its solid enough to illustrate my point. New shiny stuff is better, but unless you are racing you really won't notice the difference and even then you still probably won't.
Obviously, new shiny stuff is awesome and I am anxiously awaiting delivery of my new Chinarello Dogma this week.0 -
oldwelshman wrote:P_Tucker wrote:oldwelshman wrote:Of course there is marketting involved but to claim Contador would win on an o steel frame is rubbish.
.
I said the response for accelerating is improved which it definitely is for both climbing or sprinting.
From personal experience I find it so much easier climbing when I leave my winter 853 bike in the shed from early summer onwards.
I klnow for a fact if I raced on that bike I would struggle in races on climbs more than I currently do, which is bad enough as it is
Also for sprinting out of a bunch the response is so much faster I even won a couple of bunch sprints this year
From pictures on your photobucket account in your sig you look quite a handy track sprinter, doing a 200m.
Are you saying that you only won a road sprint because of the increase is stiffness of a carbon frame over your 853? Not because of your training or mental approach?
FWIW I race a 531 track frame, and I don't think it makes any difference to my placing in bunch races, even though most others race CF disks etc.0 -
Richard36 wrote:Well I sent the Focus Cayo back to Wiggle and tonight went out on my old road bike and thoroughly enjoyed it. I can honestly say I didn't notice any improvement with the Focus over the bike I've got now apart from the gear change on the Focus was much smoother.
So I've just saved myself £1000!
Thanks to all those who responded to my post.
From your description of the frame I would guess it is one of the old "Tange" frames from SJS. I have a knackered one in my garage.
On the topic of wheels/tyres, get some continental 3000 or Michelin Pro Race 3 or Schwalbe Ultremo ZX
These are quite expensive tyres but I'd be surprised if you didn't notice a difference with them0 -
I'm with P_Tucker on this. The performance difference between carbon and steel is absolutely minimal. It might feel slightly stiffer, but how that translates to actual speed is another matter. Contador was simply riding away from his opponents in the Giro, and would have done exactly the same on any tour bike within the last 20 years, be it steel, aluminium or carbon.
I have nothing against carbon - I ride a Trek Madone which is a lovely bike to ride, but it's absolutely no faster, and barely any lighter, that my Rourke framed steel bike.
To the OP - with the cash saved replace the gear cables, chain, cassette and jockey wheels on the old bike. That should give you a noticeably nicer gear change (unless they are already new of course!)0 -
Richard36 wrote:Well I sent the Focus Cayo back to Wiggle and tonight went out on my old road bike and thoroughly enjoyed it. I can honestly say I didn't notice any improvement with the Focus over the bike I've got now apart from the gear change on the Focus was much smoother.
So I've just saved myself £1000!
Thanks to all those who responded to my post.
Great thread, refreshing to hear someone say they're shiny new bike is actually a bit rubbish.
In my short experience the single most cost effect and best upgrade available is some nice tyres. What are you planning on doing with your £1000?0 -
Some very interesting responses - thanks
I would upgrade the wheels and tyres if I could be persuaded they would make a big difference. I got the Focus Cayo on the basis that others had said a new bike would make a massive difference. Thankfully I was able to return the bike but I wouldn't be able to return the wheels/tyres once they have been used.
If new wheels and tyres would make a noticeable difference then what would you recommend? A few recommendations have been made about tyres but not wheels.
Hopefully others who are thinking of buying a new bike are finding this thread useful.
Cheers0 -
What wheels and what tyres are a whole new kettle of fish
Light wheels help you to accelerate quicker and climb a bit quicker too, but the cost lots of ££££. Tyres "feel" different and can roll with less resistance. I upgraded my tyres and had to check I didn't have a flat the first time I rode because the new ones felt so soft and smooth but still fast, weird. I'd try tyres first. Find out how much your wheels weigh now to see if it's worth upgrading them.0 -
thanks0
-
Maybe buy something for the sake of it, and stop worrying so much about it making a huge difference.
Sometimes it's nice to buy new things for yourself, makes you feel better.0 -
I agree with MountainMonster, are you all saying you have never bought anything just cause you wanted to have a new one (or first one) of what ever.
I appreciate that if you don't enjoy the new bike you should return it, but can't see why people are saying that spending the money on a new bike is a waste.
Also, are you really telling me that Contador would have won the TdF with a £300 carrera from Halfords, or some Asda BSO, just as much as he won it on a carbon bike.
Of course material makes a difference, maybe not a one hour difference in a 2 hour race, but then again apart from putting a rocket on your backside nothing will make that much of a difference.
Its all down to an additional of incremental gains!!!!
Companies invest millions into R&D and it all helps, OK maybe 50% of the change from steel to CF was marketing, but trust me they wouldn't risk the big tours on marketing, after all the sponsor only pay if you are on the top, the lower you finish the less they pay.
And if CF really makes sod all difference, why did F1 (and al4 car racing) go down the route, they don't get any marketing from the material, as much as I would love to have Vettel's 2010 car, I cannot buy it at my imaginary local "Red Bull Dealership". And why does the airbus A380 have a CF nose and wing undercarriage, I bet the travelers don't go on A380 because it has CF bling!!!!!!0 -
Just because one guys opinion of his new carbon bike is not great does not make all carbon bikes pointless and no 'better' than an old chugger which is years old. Each to their own.
Out of interest what sort of level is your cycling at Richard36?ARTHUR
"Hello oh great one"
LARRY
"Are you talking to me or my ass?"0 -
I believe I have proven that carbon bikes are, from a purely functional POV, pointless for the vast majority of people. Using SCIENCE.
Of course, if spending a couple of grand on something which you can't measure outside a lab floats your boat, knock yourself out. If you want an expensive bike just because it's expensive and will make you feel special, then knock yourself out. Just don't lie to yourself and others that it will make any difference on your Sunday run to the local cafe.
Everyone wastes money on something. My cycling wardrobe looks like an Assos catalogue raping the Rapha website with a Sidi poster watching - not because I think it's worth the extra from a functional POV, but because it looks awesome and I'm rubbish at cycling - but DAAAAY-YUM I look good.0 -
What should i expect from my new carbon bike?
It'll waste your time, take over your life, have you gasping for breath. Then it leaves you with a sore @rse and never even calls :?Death or Glory- Just another Story0 -
lucasf09 wrote:Also, are you really telling me that Contador would have won the TdF with a £300 carrera from Halfords, or some Asda BSO, just as much as he won it on a carbon bike.
Of course material makes a difference, maybe not a one hour difference in a 2 hour race, but then again apart from putting a rocket on your backside nothing will make that much of a difference.
Its all down to an additional of incremental gains!!!!
Companies invest millions into R&D and it all helps, OK maybe 50% of the change from steel to CF was marketing, but trust me they wouldn't risk the big tours on marketing, after all the sponsor only pay if you are on the top, the lower you finish the less they pay.
And if CF really makes sod all difference, why did F1 (and al4 car racing) go down the route, they don't get any marketing from the material, as much as I would love to have Vettel's 2010 car, I cannot buy it at my imaginary local "Red Bull Dealership". And why does the airbus A380 have a CF nose and wing undercarriage, I bet the travelers don't go on A380 because it has CF bling!!!!!!
No, I'm telling you Contador would have won the Giro on any Pro Tour bike from the last 20 years.
A frame is about 2% of the total weight of a bike and rider (and that's with a light rider!) so how much difference is a couple of hundred grams going to make? Sure, there may be a slight increase in power transfer, put you're looking at tiny incremental changes.
But I completely agree in buying stuff because you want it or it makes you feel good. I love both my bikes - they both feel special in different ways and I bought them for no other reason than I felt like it.....but one isn't faster than the other, unless I'm putting more effort in!0 -
MountainMonster wrote:Maybe buy something for the sake of it, and stop worrying so much about it making a huge difference.
Sometimes it's nice to buy new things for yourself, makes you feel better.
+1 to that. Nothing wrong with having a nice bike, or bling bits for the sake of it.
The only serious way to gain performance though is to get fitter and probably lose a bit of weight, but having a bike that is nice to ride is a helpful incentive to do all the hard training.--
"Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."0 -
P_Tucker wrote:I believe I have proven that carbon bikes are, from a purely functional POV, pointless for the vast majority of people. Using SCIENCE.
Of course, if spending a couple of grand on something which you can't measure outside a lab floats your boat, knock yourself out. If you want an expensive bike just because it's expensive and will make you feel special, then knock yourself out. Just don't lie to yourself and others that it will make any difference on your Sunday run to the local cafe.
Everyone wastes money on something. My cycling wardrobe looks like an Assos catalogue raping the Rapha website with a Sidi poster watching - not because I think it's worth the extra from a functional POV, but because it looks awesome and I'm rubbish at cycling - but DAAAAY-YUM I look good.
That's a very good point, the difference may be tiny between materials, or between groupsets, hell, some of them may even be just mental differences, but at the end of the day if you feel better it was something well purchased.
Alot of people in my wifes family are the saver types, and will only ever buy something if they need it, and by need I mean NEED it. Broken washing machine, buy it, a nice meal out once every now and then, nope not going to pay. I hate people with that mentality, buying things does feel good, and for me, I would rather have nice things in my life I use alot rather than 100k sitting in a bank account for when I need a washing machine.0 -
Buy what you like, but don't naively believe the marketing. It's BS.
Once you get a £500 ali 'racer' that fits you properly, and is lubed up etc then it's all down to your legs and lungs, even for pros, Greg Lemond's 1989 tech should do.
As the OP says, you may even enjoy the ride more on a less marketed bike.0 -
16mm wrote:Buy what you like, but don't naively believe the marketing. It's BS.
Unfortunately many foolish people who should know better will go to their graves saying that carbon bottle cages made them faster - there are a few on this thread. I'm just glad I can provide a public service by warning n00bs to be aware of exactly what they are buying with a 3 grand frame:
1. A £400 frame
2. A £400 frame for A.N.ProfessionalCyclist
3. Part of a bike advert in ProCycling/on Eurosport
4. An extra bedroom for A.N.BikeManufacturer's holiday home
5. An shamefully low wage for A.N.ChineseWorker who builds said frame
If, knowing that, you still want one then great - don't let anyone tell you you're daft.0 -
I have no objection to buying things because I like the look of them, or even things that I don't really need but I'm not sure there are many people who would spend £1000 on a bike when there is no perceivable difference with the one they already have.
I would love to have another road bike even though the one I've got is fine but it needs to have something my existing bike doesn't have.
I would also buy a new bike so that I could have one for the winter and one for the summer.
My question was a perfectly innocent and honest one and I genuinely wanted to know what a carbon bike would give me over my existing bike.
To be fair perhaps if I participated in races, went on club rides, did many more miles a week I might have appreciated the Focus a lot more.
Thanks again for your responses.0 -
16mm wrote:Buy what you like, but don't naively believe the marketing. It's BS.
Hallelujah!
What it boils down to is that marketeers are, on the whole, lying scum, who exaggerate the tiniest, minutest of differences into enormous, vast, chasms of improvement, to generate dissatisfaction with what you already own and invoke a desire to buy their shiny new product. Because they're hungry for your cash.
We're all curious, and like to check things out for ourselves. So it can be nice to try new stuff and see whether it really is a quantum leap better, as the manufacturers' lying advertising (backed by supine magazine reviews), makes out.
However, after sinking a sackful of loot into some shiny new gizmo, the buyer has a psychological stake in believing the product really is a ton better than its predecessor, so we often con ourselves into believing that the marketing guff was true.
Borrowing or renting new products can give you a different take on it, letting you try things out without the financial and psychological investment which big ticket purchases involve.
Years ago, I was a member of a flash car rental club that, for a modest membership cost, enabled me drive a whole bunch of so-called dream cars. Because I'd not purchased the cars, I didn't have the same emotional stake in believing the cars were "great", and was able to see their minuses as well as their pluses. Sure enough, the novelty eventually wore off, and in the end, and I couldn't even be @rsed to use up all my membership points. It was easier to just use my regular hatchback rather than drive some so-called supercar.
A service which allowed people to rent flash bikes and components at modest expense, to check them out for themselves, would probably do a roaring trade for a while. Bit like the handbag rental stuff for female brand addicts. But I'm sure that many who did would eventually tumble to the idea that what they already owned was often pretty much as good as the procession of new stuff, ween themselves off their habit, and save thousands.
Cynical, moi? 0 -
Kinda reminds me of my m/cycle test. The best bit of advise I was given, was "Give your bike a really good clean and polish, along with your boots leathers and so on.
It won't make you a better rider, but it will make you feel a million dollars.....and that just might!"
Anyway. Yes like most folks. I don't buy things because I need them, I buy things because I want them.
Graham.
0 -
Well.....just to offer a different opinion....
My new Carbon frame bike is SOO much better, it's untrue!!! I love it!
Looks - tick.
Makes me feel good - tick
no rattling & things falling off - tick
Plenty of White = faster - tick
Smoother - tick
Much more comfortable - tick
Illusion of efficiency - tick
8)
I guess it's all down to what you are comparing it to. I guess it turns out my old alu ebay special bike is an absolute dog! 0 -
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... 0-11-43014
See the comments in the Canyon article.
Whilst frame stiffness is hard to define or notice and increased speed might only be a few seconds, if that. What I think is better, and more noticeable, about carbon is comfort. The first time I wheeled my CR1 home, I thought it felt like a bone-shaker, but once I threw a leg over it I was surprised how smooth it felt.
Also, if you feel good about that shiny new bike, you will be more confident and probably perform better as a result. A bike might change how you feel - but it won't change who you are!You mean what we thought they thought we think and thought they thought. We think? - Patrick0 -
Good old wikiP_Tucker wrote:Of course new bikes are better - it's by how much that's the question. According to wiki, 1lb of weight saved would change climbing speed by 0.06mph up a 7% grade. That really isn't very much, unless you are racing up Alpine cols.
In terms of acceleration, the same wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance) has helpfully modelled a crit:
In a criterium race, a rider is often jumping out of every corner. If the rider has to brake entering each corner (no coasting to slow down), then the KE that is added in each jump is wasted as heat in braking. For a flat crit at 40 km/h, 1 km circuit, 4 corners per lap, 10 km/h speed loss at each corner, one hour duration, 80 kg rider/6.5 kg bike/1.75 kg rims/tires/spokes, there would be 160 corner jumps. This effort adds 387 kilocalories to the 1100 kilocalories required for the same ride at steady speed. Removing 500 g from the wheels, reduces the total body energy requirement by 4.4 kilocalories. If the extra 500 g in the wheels had resulted in a 0.3% reduction in aerodynamic drag factor (worth a 0.02 mph (0.03 km/h) speed increase at 25 mph), the caloric cost of the added weight effect would be canceled by the reduced work to overcome the wind.
So I think that's weight taken care of - it makes a difference, but in terms of the original question - there's no way the OP will notice on his leisure rides.
Regarding mechanical efficiency; I've not seen anything that shows a difference between alu/steel and carbon - if anyone has anything, I'd be interested to read it. So I'll assume that the difference is negligible.
That leaves aerodynamics - someone posted an article recently on a wheel test, and it showed a difference from best (Zipp 808) to worst (can't remember) of 15w at 50kmh. At a more likely 30kmh for the OP, this is ~3w, ignoring the extra weight. Assuming that the OP is reasonably fit, he might be cruising along at 250w - thus the difference is 1.2%, less than the +/- 1.5% quoted margin of error for every power meter on the market AFAIK. And I doubt the OP is riding around on 808s.
Whilst there are obvious flaws in the above which the enthusiastic rebutter could doubtlessly point out to his heart's content, hopefully its solid enough to illustrate my point. New shiny stuff is better, but unless you are racing you really won't notice the difference and even then you still probably won't.
Obviously, new shiny stuff is awesome and I am anxiously awaiting delivery of my new Chinarello Dogma this week.
Theory sounds good about overcoming wind negating gain but in a race if you can get back on the wheelinfront fast you dont have to break wind, and I dont mean farting lol this is where fast response from frame comes in as couple of pedal revs and way you go. I can only speak from personalexperience but I find it much easier to close gaps when accelerating on carbon frame compared to steel and the more you can save on these efforts the better as they are energy sapping.0
