Bike differences

the_spooks

Maybe a strange question but one I'm curious to know the answer to.
As a reasonably new roadie and still loving my cube and drooling over the so called super bikes I'm curious what are the differences between my humble cube and its big brothers or the like of Pinarello, Colnago etc.
I read about how these bikes accelerate and handle, but unlike a supercar that has more power different chassis,the "engine" in this case remains the same, the rider and with very little difference in overal construction to chassis
I appreciate differences in construction and stiffness as well as better components, but as someone who has never been able to ride one of these super bikes, and no doubt never will be able to,but surely someone has been able to ride all manner of bikes and are able to describe the differences between upper and lower price bikes?
I'm not trying to start an argument over its worth etc more curious to find out people experiences on these bikes against more humble bikes.I'm also not trying to say I know that if I had one of these bikes I would be a better rider. Is it a case of unless you ride them it's difficult to put into words the slight differences?

Pigtail

I can't answer your question - but would like to know as well.

I have a new boss at work - and a few of us went out for a drink this week. As it often does the conversation turned to bikes. He started asking me about my bike (Allez elite) I was explaining alloy bike, quite racy but I would really like a carbon one - sticking to what I know I'd likely go for a Tarmac. He started asking why? What does a carbon bike bring that that one doesn't?

Disappointingly I couldn't provide any real answer. I then went away and thought about it. I've been slowly winding myself up to spending what would be a huge amount of money for me, and I don't know why?

golfergmc

I am far as you can be from being an expert and could be a million miles off here but I think it has to do with the stiffness around the bb and carbon can be made stiffer in ratio to weight meaning you can get a light but stiff bike that transfers power more efficently.

desweller

Your analysis is correct; for the vast majority of casual or amateur riders, the differences between high-end carbon and a good aluminium frame are well into the region of diminishing returns. IME CFRP can be made more elastic than aluminium due to the superior fatigue characteristics, so you get a more comfy ride, but it's not night and day by any means.

As you say, the major area for improvement is in the engine!

sungod

as above, it's the rider not the bike

a lighter bike can certainly give you an advantage vs. a heavier one, but it's not making you a better rider, it's just physics... f = ma, and ΔU = mgΔh, so a lighter bike will mean you can accelerate/climb a bit faster vs. a heavier one, the energy you use climbing is directly proportional to weight, so if you + heavy bike is 100kg, and you + light bike is 95kg, you'll use 5% less energy getting it to the top of the same climb

i think a stiffer bike feels most different when you are pushing hard, there's less chance you'll have the wheels rubbing on the pads when you get out of the saddle, and probably energy isn't being wasted bending the frame around (btw i'm not sure how much energy is really lost in a duller/flexier frame, might not be significant), generally it just feels more connected/stable when you push it

i've only ridden 4 different bikes enough to really get a feel for them, my favourite is my shiny bike, which also happens to be the stiffest/lightest by a long way

markos1963

After riding a few 'top end' bikes whilst testing for a new bike you can tell the difference even if you are a novice rider like me. I found that they tend to have a more aggressive geometry as well as being stiffer. The stiffness tends to be more concentrated though in areas where you need it, BB and chainstays. The ride can be harsh but some aren't, that's the problem when you buy you have to ride them to see if it fits your style of riding. Quality stands out as well, top end bikes are finished far better than most and have features that just scream quality at you. I doubt if most of us on here could justify them on performance gains though as I know I'm not good enough to exploit them. I would still buy one though if i have the money just because I like nice things.

Mad Roadie

to the OP - you have to ride them - I am lucky enough to have borrowed some lovely bikes - Stork/Colnago/Wilier/Canyon/BMC/Cervelo etc

and for me its the Wilier that I feel most comfortable with, BUT if there was a universal choice of 'top bike' all the other manufacturers would go bust

desweller

If people are saying, 'I have ridden top bikes and I can feel the difference', that kind of points to the problem.

It should be a given that you'll be able to feel the difference; if the return was not a very minor one no-one would be starting out by saying that. It's not like the difference between your Ford Focus and a 911. It just won't hit you in the face like that. You won't be able to definitively state that you are x mph faster on the flat, or 2 minutes quicker up your local alp, or whatever as a result of using this super-duper piece of kit.

PostieJohn

I have 2 Bianchi's, a full carbon C2C 928, with Veloce, it's no 'super' bike, but blooming expensive, nevertheless, and the bike in my sig. It's also kitted out with Veloce, as well as has the same saddle, tyres, similar pedals, etc.
Pretty much the only difference between the 2 bikes is the frame, making them great for comparison.

All the stuff you read in reviews, that you think (well I did anyway) is just guff and fluff:-
'oh the handling is so responsive', 'you really feel connected to the frame' blah blah blah, turns out to be true, the difference is quite startling.

The C2C is designed to be ridden all day, and when compared is almost 'bouncy'.
My hack is so much more responsive, quicker, and sharper, because of it's stiffness.
It's hard to explain, but Sungod non maths paragraph does a pretty good job.

It seems I'm being counter intuitive, saying my 'lesser' bike is better than my main ride.
But I'd image a proper super bike takes the best of both, and puts them into one glorious bike.

neeb

First of all, if you are looking for a better riding experience some of the most important things are not closely related to price, e.g. geometry/handling and a good fit. You could spend three times as much on a bike that would ride much worse, given your particular requirements, dimensions and riding style.

That said, you do get noticeable improvements (to the extent that riding will feel continuously, noticeably a bit different) with more expenditure, particularly between the entry level (say £700) and £1500, and less so between that and £3000. It basically comes down to stiffer, lighter wheels and stiffer, lighter frames. There's just a little bit more "zing" when accelerating quickly, or powering up a short hill out of the saddle. It probably won't make you any faster for average speeds over a flattish course, but it can make the bike more fun and engaging to ride and a bit more competitive.

I have a theory that stiffness only matters when you are out of the saddle. With a more flexible bike pedalling in the saddle feels a little different, but I'm not convinced you actually lose any power. In some ways I actually prefer the feeling of a less stiff frame when going along at a constant speed on the flat, it feels a little more lively and you get that feeling of "winding up" to speed. However, as soon as you stand up to power up a hill, you can feel some of your energy being lost in frame and wheel flex. A stiff, light bike tends to compliment (and encourage) a more aggressive riding style with more sharp accelerations (and of course will be better on hills generally).

cougie

If you get the comic this week they have a review of 3k bikes. All the wheels on the
Are around the £200 mark. It'd be interesting to see how thise bikes match up with bikes of under a grand but with bling wheels.

bobgfish

Well I've just gone from an Aluminium Secteur to a Carbon Fibre Roubaix. Same geometry and all the same parts. I ride a lot and I can tell the difference. The carbon is much stiffer and easier to put the power down. It also seems to "float" over the bumps and be a lot more compliant. I brought the Aluminium because I couldn't justify spending so much on Carbon. When the Aluminium broke they offered me an upgrade for very little money. I took it and am very glad. Next time I will skip right over the Aluminium and buy the carbon because I now feel it is worth it. Am I any faster? Probably not. Same motor.

Monty Dog

IME you really start to notice when riding bikes hard/racing - you're far more inclined to back-off on a fast descent or cornering than when you haven't absolute confidence in the way the bike handles. Likewise, when it is sorted, it feels like you're flying / on rails and the whole thing doesn't get 'upset' under braking. Often it's the way the whole thing rides, from the front forks and headtube through to the back-end/drivetrain - there are a remarkable number of bikes where this isn't quite right and it feel like each is serving a different purposes. Wheels and tyres also have a big impact too. Finally, what suits a 90kg sprinter / rouleur can feel positively awful for a 60kg climber - too much vibration and often difficulty in keeping it on the ground over rough surfaces IME.

Scrumple

For me it is the stiffness in the BB that means all the power does go to the wheels.

When I ride the ti bike, after the carbon, I'm far more knackered after a club run. And the Wilier just did the biz down the descents in Majorca like it was tweaked to perfection. On cheaper bikes there always seems to be a niggle and you ache more afterwards.

It doesn't make someone of my standard much better (relatively), but it is just much more satisfying to ride. For the pro's, the power gain over the distances is the key bit... the bikes don't flex as much.

wishitwasallflat

Hi bobgfish - I ride an Aly Sectuer! Please give the details on how, when and (if possible) why the Al frame failed on your Sectuer and who gave you the upgrade. Don't want to divert this interesting thread so maybe you could start a new one? I am sure there are other Sectuer and Al framed bike riders like me who would love to hear the details.

the_spooks

Superb guys thanks for the replies.
Just to add perhaps I am still developing my cycling vocabulary, for instance because of the amount and types of cars I have driven through the years I can describe how a car feels, differences etc but still find it difficult to transfer meanings to cycling. Flex is the thing I can't perceive, perhaps just shows I'm not trying hard enough lol
At the moment I will develop the "engine" a LOT more, lighten my "chassis" (currently 70kg) and learn how to drive. Perhaps after all of that, someone will let me try one of these higher end bikes to see if I can feel any difference for myself.

PostieJohn

When you get a bike that flexes or doesn't depending what you ride now, you'll instantly go:-

'aaahhhhhh FLEX'

and will then bore your riding buddies rigid with performance quotes and comparisons.

bobgfish

why the Al frame failed on your Sectuer

Riding into someone at speed is not a good idea. Broke the forks. Couldn't get a replacement in the same color so they agreed to replace frame. I've been well looked after.

'aaahhhhhh FLEX'

and will then bore your riding buddies rigid with performance quotes and comparisons.

This is about right. Hard to describe but you can feel differences from one bike to another. Now the question ebcomes as to which one is better. The one that is harsh but fast or the one that floats over rough roads and is almost the same speed.

rick_chasey

I'd suggest the differences are smaller than most people would think...

nickwill

The most important factor is how well your bike fits. Materials weight and stiffness of frame are also factors but subordinate to the first. I have two custom frames from Paul Hewitt. One is built from Columbus Zona and the second from Columbus Life. Both fit well, but the higher quality 'Life' frame is stiffer, lighter and has a certain 'rightness' which is indefinable but significant. I'm not convinced that carbon is automatically better. In fact I know a number of people who have moved back to aluminium frames after trying carbon. I think you get what you pay for, but a properly fitted mid range frame will ride better than a badly fitted top end one.