Just how crucial to road cycling is THE BRAND ?
Comments
-
If someone has a bit more disposable income than me and has a better bike, good on them. If someone has a bit less disposable income than me and has a cheaper bike, good on them. We're all cycling, so I'm not bothered.0
-
It would seem that it 'matters'. Pinarello for example is a well-established brand but the Team Sky connection has secured it (at least in 2012) as a byword to people 'new to cycling' for 'top end bike'. Forgive me a little stereotyping, but prior to Wiggins and co, would the average 'watched-the-Olympics/Tour/both-and-inspired-to-take-up-cycling' have aspired to own a Dogma 2? I doubt it.
But I think the 'aesthetic' matters at least as much as the 'brand'. If it boasts of being 'light', or 'stiff', or made from carbon fibre, the gullible punters will hand over their pocket money. It doesn't have to be consequentially light, it doesn't have to give lip service to the fact that weight isn't very important in cycling, and it doesn't have to be durable (eg. really cheap rims and hubs), or ethically/environmentally produced, and it doesn't even have to perform the best (eg. carbon fibre derailleurs and pedals); evidently, otherwise the manufacturers would presumably stop making this stuff.
However, the above was too sensible for this thread, so I'd like to point out that I very much enjoy overtaking people on expensive looking bikes on my vintage Falcon, which is made from plain gauge Tange no.5 and has 27" wheels. The smug satisfaction makes the rest of my ride that much better.0 -
Hip Priest wrote:If someone has a bit more disposable income than me and has a better bike, good on them. If someone has a bit less disposable income than me and has a cheaper bike, good on them. We're all cycling, so I'm not bothered.
This.0 -
Any part ive put on my bike as been with the full aproval of first my Mrs and secondly the techie at my local bikeshop whos ridden everything. Branding is a fact of life.the deeper the section the deeper the pleasure.0
-
Simon Masterson wrote:However, the above was too sensible for this thread, so I'd like to point out that I very much enjoy overtaking people on expensive looking bikes on my vintage Falcon, which is made from plain gauge Tange no.5 and has 27" wheels. The smug satisfaction makes the rest of my ride that much better.
Why would overtaking people on expensive bikes give you more pleasure (I am reading) than overtaking people on cheaper bikes?0 -
YIMan wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:However, the above was too sensible for this thread, so I'd like to point out that I very much enjoy overtaking people on expensive looking bikes on my vintage Falcon, which is made from plain gauge Tange no.5 and has 27" wheels. The smug satisfaction makes the rest of my ride that much better.
Why would overtaking people on expensive bikes give you more pleasure (I am reading) than overtaking people on cheaper bikes?
Indeed - two (mostly) independant variables; your speed and the cost of your bike. Chances are, if you are fast enough to overtake someone in the first place you'd probably be able to do it irrespective of what road bikes the two of you were on. You can feel smug about being a potentially stronger cyclist than the person you have overtaken (though, in truth, you can't be sure about that) but, if you are feeling smug because their bike cost more than yours, deep down you probably know that the person you passed is thinking "Oh well, I maybe slow but at least I can afford an expensive bike"!!Faster than a tent.......0 -
Perhaps the person on the expensive bike is doing a recovery ride or training in a low zone...0
-
Rolf F wrote:YIMan wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:However, the above was too sensible for this thread, so I'd like to point out that I very much enjoy overtaking people on expensive looking bikes on my vintage Falcon, which is made from plain gauge Tange no.5 and has 27" wheels. The smug satisfaction makes the rest of my ride that much better.
Why would overtaking people on expensive bikes give you more pleasure (I am reading) than overtaking people on cheaper bikes?
Indeed - two (mostly) independant variables; your speed and the cost of your bike. Chances are, if you are fast enough to overtake someone in the first place you'd probably be able to do it irrespective of what road bikes the two of you were on. You can feel smug about being a potentially stronger cyclist than the person you have overtaken (though, in truth, you can't be sure about that) but, if you are feeling smug because their bike cost more than yours, deep down you probably know that the person you passed is thinking "Oh well, I maybe slow but at least I can afford an expensive bike"!!
It says more about some kind of inverted snobbery / jealously of people on expensive bikes than anything else. It implies he is thinking "you are not a fast rider...how dare you have an expensive bike". What bike other people ride is absolutely nobody's business but their own.0 -
just my two pennies worth...
i can't afford the expensive kit. DHB stuff, cheaper Altura stuff, ho hum. The expensive kit looks the nuts (who doesn't want to look cool?) and if i could afford, i would.
My bike is a 90s cannondale. It does the job and i enjoy my cycling on it. The expensive bikes look the nuts and if i could afford, i would.
Enjoy your cycling on whatever you have in whatever you wear...0 -
YIMan wrote:Rolf F wrote:YIMan wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:However, the above was too sensible for this thread, so I'd like to point out that I very much enjoy overtaking people on expensive looking bikes on my vintage Falcon, which is made from plain gauge Tange no.5 and has 27" wheels. The smug satisfaction makes the rest of my ride that much better.
Why would overtaking people on expensive bikes give you more pleasure (I am reading) than overtaking people on cheaper bikes?
Indeed - two (mostly) independant variables; your speed and the cost of your bike. Chances are, if you are fast enough to overtake someone in the first place you'd probably be able to do it irrespective of what road bikes the two of you were on. You can feel smug about being a potentially stronger cyclist than the person you have overtaken (though, in truth, you can't be sure about that) but, if you are feeling smug because their bike cost more than yours, deep down you probably know that the person you passed is thinking "Oh well, I maybe slow but at least I can afford an expensive bike"!!
It says more about some kind of inverted snobbery / jealously of people on expensive bikes than anything else. It implies he is thinking "you are not a fast rider...how dare you have an expensive bike". What bike other people ride is absolutely nobody's business but their own.
Post wasn't intended entirely seriously. Forgive me for adding something inane to the debacle that is this thread.
But nevertheless, it's just like the 'fatsos in Team Sky kit' debate. There are a great many who think that they need a flashy bike to go fast/worry that their bike is too heavy for the hills on their club run/think that marginal gains apply to them/otherwise treat cycling as something else to throw money at rather than put nose to grindstone. But it's all just jealousy, I know.
0 -
Simon Masterson wrote:YIMan wrote:Rolf F wrote:YIMan wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:However, the above was too sensible for this thread, so I'd like to point out that I very much enjoy overtaking people on expensive looking bikes on my vintage Falcon, which is made from plain gauge Tange no.5 and has 27" wheels. The smug satisfaction makes the rest of my ride that much better.
Why would overtaking people on expensive bikes give you more pleasure (I am reading) than overtaking people on cheaper bikes?
Indeed - two (mostly) independant variables; your speed and the cost of your bike. Chances are, if you are fast enough to overtake someone in the first place you'd probably be able to do it irrespective of what road bikes the two of you were on. You can feel smug about being a potentially stronger cyclist than the person you have overtaken (though, in truth, you can't be sure about that) but, if you are feeling smug because their bike cost more than yours, deep down you probably know that the person you passed is thinking "Oh well, I maybe slow but at least I can afford an expensive bike"!!
It says more about some kind of inverted snobbery / jealously of people on expensive bikes than anything else. It implies he is thinking "you are not a fast rider...how dare you have an expensive bike". What bike other people ride is absolutely nobody's business but their own.
Post wasn't intended entirely seriously. Forgive me for adding something inane to the debacle that is this thread.
But nevertheless, it's just like the 'fatsos in Team Sky kit' debate. There are a great many who think that they need a flashy bike to go fast/worry that their bike is too heavy for the hills on their club run/think that marginal gains apply to them/otherwise treat cycling as something else to throw money at rather than put nose to grindstone. But it's all just jealousy, I know.
Whoosh! Lol0 -
ddraver wrote:There are an awful lot of similarities between cycling and golf....
Except the fitness :?:0 -
natalie gulbis is semi fit.0
-
This country needs more Eastern Europeans0
-
Sorry to drag up this old argument but I had a thought today.
Despite the OP originally talking about brands of clothing mainly, it very quickly (second paragraph) turned to bikes and moaning at the concept of a mediocre rider buying a higher spec bike.
The 'Brand' thing is just a red herring to get onto the real issue, cost, which equals jealousy, imo.
For clothing there are quite a few variables, but for bikes its just cost really.
My personal feeling is buy what you want. I have several Mont Blanc pens (and a pencil) but my handwriting is still as shite! An expensive bike will ride better, improve performance and enjoyment though, so I see it as a good thing.
My thought was this though. An average bike today was probably high end 10 years ago, and a high end bike today will probably be average in 10 years time.
In that 20 year period the Beginner/average rider has not really changed, but bikes have a lot.
A high end bike is only expensive because it is the latest technology at that point in time.
The people who are unhappy with newbies riding around on carbon bikes (for example) now, are the same people that will think its fine in 10 years time, when elite riders bikes are made of an even better material and carbon will be the norm (as aluminium is now).
What all that means (as I see it) is that what those that moan about newbies having decent bikes are saying is that they don't like them having them while they are high end, i.e. cost a lot, which can only be due to jealousy!0 -
AFAIC in answer to the OP it's totally down to the individual.
Personally I buy the best I can afford, I'm not a label person and if an item seems to "tick all the boxes" inc price I'll buy it.
My best bike is a Kuota KOM these frames are riden in the pro peloton and been riden to stage victories in the tour. To me that says quality product, compared in price to a Pinarello, Cervello, Time etc they're a veritable bargain. Not cheap but to me VFM, no doubt for others it HAS TO BE A BRAND X,Y or Z though. Their choice.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
All I would say is just buy whatever brand makes you happy. Its your personal choice. Stop worrying or sneering at others and get out and ride the bloody stuff. After all that's what its intended for! Cocking a snoot at those with expensive kit is no different to the beauts moaning because halfords now sell pinarellos.0
-
Re. the snide remarks about 'marginal gains' ... funnily enough, the worse the rider the better effect they will have to my mind ... when dealing with the top 0.5% of riders the difference in rider and benefit of the gain will be minimal ... but where the opportunity for improvement is greater there will obv. be better advantage in small changes ...
Just think of a mid-range saddle to a decent one ... the difference in quality of mide-range saddles is huge, in the high end ones not so much (ps. i used saddles as an example because of the vast difference in the various styles/brands ... much like the vast differences in cyclists) ...0 -
Crankbrother wrote:Re. the snide remarks about 'marginal gains' ... funnily enough, the worse the rider the better effect they will have to my mind ... when dealing with the top 0.5% of riders the difference in rider and benefit of the gain will be minimal ... but where the opportunity for improvement is greater there will obv. be better advantage in small changes ...
Funny, I look at it completely the opposite way around. Those 'marginal gains' are pretty much insignificant compared to the effect of, say, losing a few pounds from the waist, or training a bit harder. For a pro who is (in theory) in the absolute peak condition and pushing their bike as hard as they can, those 1-2W gains can actually make a difference (even if it's only a few seconds over a stage) that can't really be picked up elsewhere.0 -
JamesEs wrote:Funny, I look at it completely the opposite way around. Those 'marginal gains' are pretty much insignificant compared to the effect of, say, losing a few pounds from the waist, or training a bit harder. For a pro who is (in theory) in the absolute peak condition and pushing their bike as hard as they can, those 1-2W gains can actually make a difference (even if it's only a few seconds over a stage) that can't really be picked up elsewhere.
Exactly. That's why they're called marginal gains. There are big gains to be made at the lower end of the fitness spectrum, but it's the small things that really matter at the top, even if individually they only make very small performance differences.0 -
JamesEs wrote:Crankbrother wrote:Re. the snide remarks about 'marginal gains' ... funnily enough, the worse the rider the better effect they will have to my mind ... when dealing with the top 0.5% of riders the difference in rider and benefit of the gain will be minimal ... but where the opportunity for improvement is greater there will obv. be better advantage in small changes ...
Funny, I look at it completely the opposite way around. Those 'marginal gains' are pretty much insignificant compared to the effect of, say, losing a few pounds from the waist, or training a bit harder.
Precisely.
It is of course - ironically - true to a certain degree that a less fit rider might produce more noticeable performance differences with higher spec equipment, but
A) it is hardly important that the bike theoretically saves the rider 2 minutes over the ride if the rider's fitness and conditioning make his performances fluctuate by considerably more than that,
and
if you allow yourself to blame the bike then I fully expect you to fall for other excuses for your own inability to perform at your best. You should train yourself first and worry about the bike later. We in the West are far too good these days at fixing things by throwing money at them instead of employing hard graft, initiative and dedication. If you think that your bike is too heavy for the hills on your club run then you are fooling yourself anyway, never mind the fact that weight is of course an overstated factor in cycling as it is.
Personally I'd much rather encourage budding cyclists to challenge their limits and carry on even when the lactate is burning unbearably, but that kind of old fashioned stuff doesn't sell cycling mags; put Sky on it and the punters line up, apparently... 0 -
Another thread where Masterson gets on his high horse about how he can cycle fast and further on a steely without spd sl pedals!!!
Yawn yawn yawn!!
Simon how much do you weigh?One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
About 66. Height 6'0. Has arms like 12 year old girl and less hair than Brad Wiggins. Looking for fun, friendship and maybe more.0
-
Who gives a fcuk how big the gains are! Its there money and they can buy whatever bike they like.
They can train on any bike. If they put the work in then thats good enough. They dont have to be on a shite bike first.
The two things are completely separate.
I am a lot faster on my new bike than my old. Even if its not the bike and all in my head, I am still faster on it!
Loosing weight would be good, but loosing weight and having a faster/lighter bike is even better!
If light bikes are not faster, why loose weight?0 -
Carbonator wrote:If light bikes are not faster, why loose weight?
The majority of your effort goes on pushing air out of the way. Fat bellies are not aerodynamic. 0 -
good thread fwiw ...0
-
Apparently "Livestrong" gear is quite cheap these days....0
-
i ride a £1000 fuji and baggy shorts and mtb shoes to be honest i dont take what people think. its their problem if they look down their noses at me.2010 Forme Reve
2010 Giant Talon 10 -
Raffles wrote:Does branding play a substantial role or none at all in your decisions what to ride , wear, buy or be seen using ? If you were riding in a pack of Assos clad Pinarello Dogma 2 bike owners ......would it make you feel intimidated or any less of a rider because of it ?
I'd see it as a challenge!0 -
Well I've been out on my bike tonight for an hour. Just on a local trading estate, I'm new, I wobble! I'd struggle to overtake a mobility scooter at the moment, yet alone some posh carbon flying machine.
Allez bike, Specialized shoes, B'twin bib shorts, Polaris jersey & Castelli jacket.
All purchased to do a job - not because of branding.
As for marginal gains .... Let's lose the two stone extra that I'm carrying first eh Still thinking of something clever to say!0
