eureka moment

MrSweary

Lets face it folks - the bike industry is based largely on selling dimishing returns to people who are in no position to appreciate or benefit from them.

Of course I only say this because I have just spent £900 on a shiny new bike and am in no position to be thinking about my n+1...

Wobblehead

MrSweary wrote:

Lets face it folks - the bike industry is based largely on selling dimishing returns to people who are in no position to appreciate or benefit from them.

Sort of agree, I fell for it on looks and a test ride that my bank balance wishes i had not gone on

I do appreciate it, ride is great and it looks fantastic.

Benefit is there also, I am faster on it, however, does it matter that much as I do not race?

Any regrets, only one........... only been out on it 3 times before tucking it up for the winter

More bike than I'll ever need

Just need to lose a few kilo's over winter to do it justice.....

[img][/img]

MrSweary

Wobblehead wrote:

Sort of agree, I fell for it on looks and a test ride that my bank balance wishes i had not gone on

I do appreciate it, ride is great and it looks fantastic.

Benefit is there also, I am faster on it, however, does it matter that much as I do not race?

Any regrets, only one........... only been out on it 3 times before tucking it up for the winter

More bike than I'll ever need

Looks lovely.

Don't get me wrong - my Felt is a vast improvement in comfort and control than the cheapo hybrid and I'm a lot quicker over segments but then it is £600 worth of better kit. I'm not sure spending any amout extra on the next bike would yield similar improvements percentage wise. Unless I give up my day job and start doing this full time the bike is very unlikely to be the limiting factor in my performance - this is the case for the vast, vast majority of cyclists. We like to pretend otherwise because it justifies spending that extra £500.

Note : The author reserves the right to disown the above comments when shopping for his next bike.

Wobblehead

MrSweary wrote:

Wobblehead wrote:

Sort of agree, I fell for it on looks and a test ride that my bank balance wishes i had not gone on

I do appreciate it, ride is great and it looks fantastic.

Benefit is there also, I am faster on it, however, does it matter that much as I do not race?

Any regrets, only one........... only been out on it 3 times before tucking it up for the winter

More bike than I'll ever need

Looks lovely.

Don't get me wrong - my Felt is a vast improvement in comfort and control than the cheapo hybrid and I'm a lot quicker over segments but then it is £600 worth of better kit. I'm not sure spending any amout extra on the next bike would yield similar improvements percentage wise. Unless I give up my day job and start doing this full time the bike is very unlikely to be the limiting factor in my performance - this is the case for the vast, vast majority of cyclists. We like to pretend otherwise because it justifies spending that extra £500.

Note : The author reserves the right to disown the above comments when shopping for his next bike.

Wise words, I was like you, three months ago my 4 year old Ridley Orion was all I'd ever need.....

In all fairness there was a method in my madness, I was back on the fags and it was starting to effect my performance in a big way but couldn't stop. Bought the above machine and it skint me, totally. Paying it back with the weed money. Can't afford fags now, best way to stop and I get something good too.

MrSweary

Wobblehead wrote:

Wise words, I was like you, three months ago my 4 year old Ridley Orion was all I'd ever need.....

In all fairness there was a method in my madness, I was back on the fags and it was starting to effect my performance in a big way but couldn't stop. Bought the above machine and it skint me, totally. Paying it back with the weed money. Can't afford fags now, best way to stop and I get something good too.

Sounds like a good change - if you were anything like me that won't take long!

I can see a point where I want a new bike and I may even need it (for reasons other than the current one falling apart). I do however, realise that I am never likely to make such an advance in usability and performance as I did when moving from the cheap hybrid to a road bike that cost three times as much. If it were to be the thing that kept me riding with the enthusiasm I do now I'd consider it money very well spent though.

Good work giving up the tabs.

limoneboy

MrSweary wrote:

Wobblehead wrote:

Sort of agree, I fell for it on looks and a test ride that my bank balance wishes i had not gone on

I do appreciate it, ride is great and it looks fantastic.

Benefit is there also, I am faster on it, however, does it matter that much as I do not race?

Any regrets, only one........... only been out on it 3 times before tucking it up for the winter

More bike than I'll ever need

Looks lovely.

Don't get me wrong - my Felt is a vast improvement in comfort and control than the cheapo hybrid and I'm a lot quicker over segments but then it is £600 worth of better kit. I'm not sure spending any amout extra on the next bike would yield similar improvements percentage wise. Unless I give up my day job and start doing this full time the bike is very unlikely to be the limiting factor in my performance - this is the case for the vast, vast majority of cyclists. We like to pretend otherwise because it justifies spending that extra £500.

Note : The author reserves the right to disown the above comments when shopping for his next bike.

To be fair most of my changes tend to be heart not head . I suppose its due to the fact that i now have the finances to change gear all the time .where as when i was time trialing in my early 20s i had to put up with what i could afford but i was doing much faster times 22-23mins than i can now .

honestly ,my summer bike is now much better than i am but i love the way it looks like this, but now with DI2 ,trp970sl brake calipers and new iclic 2 racer pedals

simon_masterson

Briggo wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

Briggo wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

My bike cost £330 brand new.

I bet it's every bit as fast as yours.

If that's the case why doesn't Mr Wiggins ride that £330 bike?

Because he's contracted to ride the Pinarello? I bet he'd own you on a Grifter. Get my point?

The point is those at that level are on an equal basis which makes a fair comparison to then highlight how much difference a good bike makes.

That's just it; it's the equipment in which there is equality. All of the top professionals (with the unfortunate exception of some of the womens' teams) have access to all of the kit that they want. When you see the substantial (in TT terms admittedly) time differences between competitors in time trials, you are not seeing the effects of equipment choices.

But the bottom line is that whoever you are, these really are 'marginal gains'. They add up over great distances (eg. 20w of your energy saved per hour doesn't mean very much if you're going for a leisurely 2 hour jolly with a cafe stop) and in competitions; in which .01 of a second could affect the result. It takes however a lot of training to be able to deliver peak output for a prolonged period consistently; or in other words, what's the point of saving 3 minutes if you can't always get within 7 minutes of them?

I always make this point (for good reason), but are the riders of today 30% faster than those of yesterday (Coppi, Gaul, Anquetil, Merckx, et al), who rode 'heavy' 9-10kg bikes without aerodynamic design, clipless pedals, etc? Even 20%? I rest my case.

charlie_potatoes

Simon Masterson wrote:

I always make this point (for good reason), but are the riders of today 30% faster than those of yesterday (Coppi, Gaul, Anquetil, Merckx, et al), who rode 'heavy' 9-10kg bikes without aerodynamic design, clipless pedals, etc? Even 20%? I rest my case.

Why do you always make this point and what is the good reason?
Who is suggesting that today's rider is 30% faster or even 20%?

Simon Masterson wrote:

But the bottom line is that whoever you are, these really are 'marginal gains'. They add up over great distances (eg. 20w of your energy saved per hour doesn't mean very much if you're going for a leisurely 2 hour jolly with a cafe stop) and in competitions; in which .01 of a second could affect the result. It takes however a lot of training to be able to deliver peak output for a prolonged period consistently; or in other words, what's the point of saving 3 minutes if you can't always get within 7 minutes of them?

If you are a novice rider putting out 100w then an extra 20w is a massive difference. Is this what you are suggesting?
Three minutes off an average time trial is a massive gain. You appear to be saying that instead of being 10 minutes behind the competition you can spend 5k and get to within 7 minutes but there is no point to this?

In your posts you seem to support the 'expensive bike is a waste' theory but the 'evidence' you present appears to contradict this?

Would you add some clarity before you 'rest your case' please Simon?

simon_masterson

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Why do you always make this point and what is the good reason?
Who is suggesting that today's rider is 30% faster or even 20%?

It's the natural implication of everyone who says that 'modern' bikes are so much faster than 'old' bikes, or that 'it's the bike that makes the difference', and so on. To accept that this is basically true is one thing (50 years being a long time in technological terms), but you would think that if this were a major factor in a cyclist's performance that the numbers would be drastically different (eg. 20-30+% faster), and they aren't.

Simon Masterson wrote:

But the bottom line is that whoever you are, these really are 'marginal gains'. They add up over great distances (eg. 20w of your energy saved per hour doesn't mean very much if you're going for a leisurely 2 hour jolly with a cafe stop) and in competitions; in which .01 of a second could affect the result. It takes however a lot of training to be able to deliver peak output for a prolonged period consistently; or in other words, what's the point of saving 3 minutes if you can't always get within 7 minutes of them?

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

If you are a novice rider putting out 100w then an extra 20w is a massive difference. Is this what you are suggesting?
Three minutes off an average time trial is a massive gain. You appear to be saying that instead of being 10 minutes behind the competition you can spend 5k and get to within 7 minutes but there is no point to this?

I'm not suggesting that there's no point to the marginal gains; merely that they are a truly secondary concern; and the thinking that goes into time trial cycling is rather different to everyday non-competitive road cycling.

I just do not think that it is healthy for a cyclist (or any participant in any discipline, to be perfectly honest) to blame his equipment, when he is so far from being too good for it. The tiny time saving that you stand to make by going overboard with enhancements to your bike is dwarfed by the effects of environmental conditions and your performance on the day. Many cyclists don't fall for this, but some do; I've seen far too many posts on here from beginners convinced that it's the flashy bike that will make you fast. The reference to Coppi and Gaul highlights how silly it is that some people worry about the weight of their 8.5 kg bike for the climbs on their Sunday club run. That's all I'm trying to say here.

charlie_potatoes

Simon Masterson wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Why do you always make this point and what is the good reason?
Who is suggesting that today's rider is 30% faster or even 20%?

It's the natural implication of everyone who says that 'modern' bikes are so much faster than 'old' bikes, or that 'it's the bike that makes the difference', and so on. To accept that this is basically true is one thing (50 years being a long time in technological terms), but you would think that if this were a major factor in a cyclist's performance that the numbers would be drastically different (eg. 20-30+% faster), and they aren't.

Simon Masterson wrote:

But the bottom line is that whoever you are, these really are 'marginal gains'. They add up over great distances (eg. 20w of your energy saved per hour doesn't mean very much if you're going for a leisurely 2 hour jolly with a cafe stop) and in competitions; in which .01 of a second could affect the result. It takes however a lot of training to be able to deliver peak output for a prolonged period consistently; or in other words, what's the point of saving 3 minutes if you can't always get within 7 minutes of them?

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

If you are a novice rider putting out 100w then an extra 20w is a massive difference. Is this what you are suggesting?
Three minutes off an average time trial is a massive gain. You appear to be saying that instead of being 10 minutes behind the competition you can spend 5k and get to within 7 minutes but there is no point to this?

I'm not suggesting that there's no point to the marginal gains; merely that they are a truly secondary concern; and the thinking that goes into time trial cycling is rather different to everyday non-competitive road cycling.

I just do not think that it is healthy for a cyclist (or any participant in any discipline, to be perfectly honest) to blame his equipment, when he is so far from being too good for it. The tiny time saving that you stand to make by going overboard with enhancements to your bike is dwarfed by the effects of environmental conditions and your performance on the day. Many cyclists don't fall for this, but some do; I've seen far too many posts on here from beginners convinced that it's the flashy bike that will make you fast. The reference to Coppi and Gaul highlights how silly it is that some people worry about the weight of their 8.5 kg bike for the climbs on their Sunday club run. That's all I'm trying to say here.

Much clearer!
Thanks Simon