The bike does make a difference

Buckie2k5

Sold my 3 month old triban3 the other day and picked up a 2012 caad8. Now after reading loads on here about this bike and that bike etc i was a bit sceptical on how much a better bike could improve your speed.

Took her out for the maiden voyage this afternoon and smashed my pb's on a few segments without pushing that hard. WOW!! Not only has my speed improved but the level of comfort and ride quality is unreal iam now sold on the idea that the bike is everything lol how much faster would i be on a 4 grand dream machine

now wheres that discussion on white bar tape, 1 ride in and there looking grim lol

RubbishCyclist

Got the same bike, lovely!

Im assuming you have the tiagra with white bar tape? mine is minging after three months, soon to be changed to green

Buckie2k5

ye tiagra lovely looking bike a lot better in the flesh, pics on the web dont do it justice. Glad i took the gamble

just had a look at your post showing off your bike, i find it funny i also have a s2 mount on mine

simon_masterson

You need the aero helmet now, and don't forget the shoe covers and the skin suit; they really make you faster.

I'm glad you are enjoying your new bike, but the difference in speed between (for example) a '50s 10kg plain gauge 531 bike with all of the things that a racing bike supposedly should not have wrong with it (bottom bracket and frame flex, less stiff wheels, 'heavy' weight, etc) and something that you'd expect to see in all of the major competitions, will not be great. Do the riders of today ride 30% faster than Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx et al? If you watch major time trials, you will see fairly substantial (in TT terms!) time differences between riders. They've all got pretty similar bikes.

It's still not the equipment.

P.S. Some people like to use solvents and other strong chemicals on their white bar tape. I think it's easier to not have white bar tape, myself!

prhymeate

You got rid of the triban after just 3 months? Poor thing, haha. I also have a triban but don't think my next upgrade will for a long while yet.

stueys

I've been riding my winter bike over the last month and you can feel the difference between that (Spesh allez) and my Canyon (ultimate slx). The Spesh has an additional 2.5kg,I wouldn't say I'm significantly slower on it but its harder work to ride.

rolf_f

It's not about the bike. If you had a Triban for 3 months and replaced it already then probably you've only just started cycling. You'll be improving in leaps and bounds anyway and enthusiastic for your new bike. Plus the temperatures have increased a lot over the last week and that means, in my case, my commute times have dropped right down to summer times again. There's 1.5kg of weight difference between the two bikes; that's going to give you a speed benefit that's rather less than air temperature and wind variations will generate not to mention how good you are feeling on the day.

mallorcajeff

sure does i was sceptical ar first, I had a Cube Agree in Aluminium and that was great, changed it to a carbon Willier and couldnt belive how much better it was and thought you cant get better than this, then bought a Scott Addict RC with DA Di2 and it surely cannot get any better. Just gets faster and faster. I dont think I will be upgrading for a while as I have got to the point the bike is far far better than me so no need to chage it.

unixnerd

Just started using my winter steel tourer with seemingly lead lined 28mm Schwalbe Marathons, can't believe how much harder it is to get up to speed on it. Yet many years ago when it replaced my ten speed Raleigh it felt like a rocket ship. Can't wait for a nice day to get my Roubaix out, maxxed out at 3.8C here today.

hipshot

Simon Masterson wrote:

Do the riders of today ride 30% faster than Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx et al? If you watch major time trials, you will see fairly substantial (in TT terms!) time differences between riders. They've all got pretty similar bikes.

It's still not the equipment.

True. But you'll never convince some people.

john1967

hipshot wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Do the riders of today ride 30% faster than Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx et al? If you watch major time trials, you will see fairly substantial (in TT terms!) time differences between riders. They've all got pretty similar bikes.

It's still not the equipment.

True. But you'll never convince some people.

Merckx 116h 16' 58 1974
Wiggo 87h 34' 47" 2012

thats pretty close to 30% faster.Remember the man who said its not about the bike was probably cheating.Ill keep my Scott foil and well see if Cav wants to do next years tour on my old San remo.

kbmack

Interesting post. I've got two bikes, a Giant Defy Composite 2 (carbon thingy) and a Trek Alpha 2.1 (aluminium thingy). Taking into account a variety of factors, I reckon the Giant I own is about 1.5 mph faster than the Trek over a standard, lumpy, 60 km route I do. True, these might not be comparable bikes but the Giant I've got is much better at converting power to speed.

The Trek is pretty worn out I guess so recently I had the headset, rear cassette, cables and chain replaced and this has made a big improvement in this bike's performance.

I'd fight shy to say that's it's the bike that's making the difference as I guess the most important thing is the engine (the rider) but in my case I suppose the Giant is actually making a difference. Perhaps it's better suited to me?

Anyhow, glad you're enjoying the CAAD and hope it gives you many happy miles!

Fursty Ferret

john1967 wrote:

hipshot wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Do the riders of today ride 30% faster than Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx et al? If you watch major time trials, you will see fairly substantial (in TT terms!) time differences between riders. They've all got pretty similar bikes.

It's still not the equipment.

True. But you'll never convince some people.

Merckx 116h 16' 58 1974
Wiggo 87h 34' 47" 2012


thats pretty close to 30% faster.Remember the man who said its not about the bike was probably cheating.Ill keep my Scott foil and well see if Cav wants to do next years tour on my old San remo.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that the 1974 tour was longer in terms of mileage. Their average speeds were much close; Merckx at around 35kmh and Wiggins at around 39kmh. Then you have to take into account the route, the number of climbs, the length and number of time trials etc. So your figure of 30% faster is wildly inaccurate.

DavidJB

People that say it's not about the bike are normally the ones can't afford a good bike. Jealousy is an ugly colour.

simon_masterson

Fursty Ferret wrote:

You appear to be ignoring the fact that the 1974 tour was longer in terms of mileage. Their average speeds were much close; Merckx at around 35kmh and Wiggins at around 39kmh. Then you have to take into account the route, the number of climbs, the length and number of time trials etc. So your figure of 30% faster is wildly inaccurate.

Indeed!

Whilst I understand where this comes from, at worst it is a delusion, and very amusing at that (13st fat knackers worrying about a few grams), but it does no-one any favours. If it's the bike's fault, how long before it's the annoying colleague's fault, the argument with the wife's fault, the DIY that needs doing's fault, etc etc etc? Most amateurs are not too good for the bike. You could be lighter, you could be fitter.

But Fausto Coppi and Charly Gaul (et al) rode Alpe d'Huez and other mountain stages with superb grace, on clips and straps on plain gauge steel, yet some people worry about being able to get up the hills on their weekly club run/commute/sportive on their 9kg bike. I can only apologise to any such person, but I find that very amusing. Dr. Masterson has a prescription for you: A course of industrial strength reality check, to be administered five times daily...

simon_masterson

DavidJB wrote:

People that say it's not about the bike are normally the ones can't afford a good bike. Jealousy is an ugly colour.

My favourite bike is the one that I gazed at with wonderment as a lad. It was daddy's and now it is mine. I already own the best bike in the world.

P.S. Nice excuse.

nolight

DavidJB wrote:

People that say it's not about the bike are normally the ones can't afford a good bike. Jealousy is an ugly colour.

Likewise, people who say bikes matter a lot are normally the ones who already invested a lot and want to justify that investment :P .

andyh01

kbmack wrote:

Interesting post. I've got two bikes, a Giant Defy Composite 2 (carbon thingy) and a Trek Alpha 2.1 (aluminium thingy). Taking into account a variety of factors, I reckon the Giant I own is about 1.5 mph faster than the Trek over a standard, lumpy, 60 km route I do. True, these might not be comparable bikes but the Giant I've got is much better at converting power to speed.

The Trek is pretty worn out I guess so recently I had the headset, rear cassette, cables and chain replaced and this has made a big improvement in this bike's performance.

I'd fight shy to say that's it's the bike that's making the difference as I guess the most important thing is the engine (the rider) but in my case I suppose the Giant is actually making a difference. Perhaps it's better suited to me?

Anyhow, glad you're enjoying the CAAD and hope it gives you many happy miles!

That;sinteresting, I had an Viking Hybrid tripple flatbar for the commute used for nearly four years which I've recently upgraded to the Trek 2.1 105 drop bar , my commute is now easier and faster avg speed/times are up consistantly, as just used for a commute glad I didn't upgrade further for the little difference gained between Trek 2.1 and carbon dura ace etc..

simon_masterson

nolight wrote:

DavidJB wrote:

People that say it's not about the bike are normally the ones can't afford a good bike. Jealousy is an ugly colour.

Likewise, people who say bikes matter a lot are normally the ones who already invested a lot and want to justify that investment :P .

Quite.

But Rolf F has some very handsome bikes in his collection if I recall. I'm sure he's incredibly jealous!

thecryof

I have a 600 euro 2011 Giant Defy 3, bought this due to it being a nice bike and also didn't want to spend a fortune. I'm not sold on this carbon fibre stuff, I can keep up with most others' and my training is progressing nicely.

If the bike fits you and is in decent shape you can do as well as you want on it. Cost means nothing with this stuff, it's all about your mind and your legs.

thescouselander

I'm firmly in "the bike makes little difference" camp. A few months back I was going round on a cube agree gtc pro I borrowed - nice bike but according to my garmin I was no faster on it than on my aluminium giant defy that I ride to work on. To be honest, as an engineer I wouldn't expect anything different. You can buy into the marketing hype all you like but most of it is just pseudo science.

Of course there's nothing at all wrong with buying a nice bike - I just don't see the point in pretending it gives massive performance gains. After all we all have to obey the laws of physics no matter how much we've spent.

elderone

Not sure if it makes a difference over all,but the emotion and expectation from a newer better bike cant be ignored.You can get a top athlete trained to a peak physically and mentally and yet,when performing in front of a home crowd,he/she will raise there game.
On the other side of the coin,does getting a mega hot totty make you better in the sac,no it doesn,t but the feeling and enjoyment is better.
Either way OP,if it works for you,just ride and enjoy.

worcester19

Hello - I am one of the 13 stone fat knackers that are referred to above and yes I do think that the bike makes a difference!! I changed from a Peugeot Elan (circa 1992) to a Specialized Secteur and the feel of the bike is completely different and I love to go out on the bike all of the time now.

Stephen

worcester19

Oh and this very same fat Knacker has a healthy BMI and completed a number of Sportives!!

Bordersroadie

The irony is that the bike makes little difference but proportionally more difference with a rider of lower power output, ie a newbie.

My buddy, a powerful rider (and successful ex road racer) completed the Maratona Dles Dolomites on a £300 second hand Focus aluminium jobbie (10kg maybe?), in a very good time, thrashing into the ground thousands of Euros worth of sub 7kg carbon bling ridden by impeccible-looking Italians. Chapeau!

rolf_f

Simon Masterson wrote:

nolight wrote:

DavidJB wrote:

People that say it's not about the bike are normally the ones can't afford a good bike. Jealousy is an ugly colour.

Likewise, people who say bikes matter a lot are normally the ones who already invested a lot and want to justify that investment :P .

Quite.

But Rolf F has some very handsome bikes in his collection if I recall. I'm sure he's incredibly jealous!

Lol! I do. I keep posting my plot of my average speeds over the last couple of years so I won't do it again (for now!) but one thing you can't do is spot which bike I've ridden due to the average speed of the ride. My Look cost 3 times the price of my Ribble and there's no way that I could get conditions (ie my condition, weather etc) close enough for two otherwise identical rides to prove that it was the usefully lighter Look that gave me a faster time rather than the other conditions.

Yes, I could probably demonstrate that my heavy 501 tubed tourer or my harshly geared vintage Raleigh were slower but those are pretty extreme examples - certainly more so than the change described by the OP.

So, yes I've spent silly money on a bike, no I don't regret it one bit, no I don't think it makes me quicker than a much cheaper bike and no I'm not jealous of anyone and yes, riding the Look makes me feel cool!!

Edit: Just to stick some numbers on otherwise the above is just opinion.

Averages below of my speeds on four of my bikes. These don't take into account length of ride (eg this is a little unfair for the Look as I never commute on that and my 10-20 mile commutes are faster than my longer rides but anyway - it's not too big a deal). Distances all since the start of 2011. Terrain mostly Yorkshire hilly.

1) Orange P7 MTB (Chro mo steel). Weight - 31 lbs. Distance covered - 1033 miles. Average speed - 14.77 mph. Note - this is mainly on road in extreme conditions eg snow and ice with some off road miles but not much.
2) Dawes Horizon (1990) (Reynolds 501 steel). Weight - 28 lbs. Distance covered - 3412 miles. Average speed - 15.61 mph. Note - mostly winter commuting in cold conditions.
3) Ribble Grand Fondo (Carbon). Weight - 20lbs. Distance covered - 7122 miles. Average speed - 16.27 mph. Note - all sorts from commuting to long weekend rides.
4) Look 585 (Carbon). Weight - 16.6 lbs. Distance covered - 1967 miles. Average speed - 16.02 mph. Note - long rides only.
5) Raleigh (Reynolds 531 steel) - Weight - unknown but probably about 24 lbs. Distance covered (since November 11) - 160. Average speed - 15.05 mph. Weekend rides in undulating Sussex.

So, there you go. About 1.5 mph speed difference between fastest and slowest and the heaviest nearly twice the weight of the lightest! You could slightly misguidedly sum the above up as a speed increase of 0.2 mph per kg! I don't think it's about the bike

Fursty Ferret

That's a fascinating set of stats. Really puts things into perspective.

I think that lighter bikes generally come into their own when accelerating especially, but over the course of a ride for a non-pro racer who doesn't have to worry about victory margins measured in seconds, that's such a small proportion of the time that it doesn't bear worrying about.

However, would I buy a nice expensive carbon bike if i had the money? Of course I would.

Buckie2k5

Rolf F wrote:

So, there you go. About 1.5 mph speed difference between fastest and slowest and the heaviest nearly twice the weight of the lightest! You could slightly misguidedly sum the above up as a speed increase of 0.2 mph per kg! I don't think it's about the bike

its enough to finish a 100miler 30mins early. so the bike makes a difference.

rolf_f

Buckie2k5 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

So, there you go. About 1.5 mph speed difference between fastest and slowest and the heaviest nearly twice the weight of the lightest! You could slightly misguidedly sum the above up as a speed increase of 0.2 mph per kg! I don't think it's about the bike

its enough to finish a 100miler 30mins early. so the bike makes a difference.

True - I'll bear that in mind next time I'm planning a hundred miler and unsure whether to ride a carbon road bike or a steel mountain bike!

simon_masterson

Buckie2k5 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

So, there you go. About 1.5 mph speed difference between fastest and slowest and the heaviest nearly twice the weight of the lightest! You could slightly misguidedly sum the above up as a speed increase of 0.2 mph per kg! I don't think it's about the bike

its enough to finish a 100miler 30mins early. so the bike makes a difference.

You could make the bike from cooked spaghetti too; that would make a 'difference'. The speed gains between road bikes remain very small, and are dwarfed by the effects of individual performance on the day (in most amateurs) and environmental conditions. Who cares about the 2 minutes you gain over 40 miles if you struggle to get within 5-10 minutes of them?

keef66

Made me smile at the Cycle Show; a rather stoutly built gentleman was sitting on one of the Camapag EPS turbo bikes, and asking the sales chappie about the weight savings to be had in moving from Record to Super Record...