Road Bike speed versus Touring Bike

JKWH
JKWH Posts: 4
edited July 2013 in Road buying advice
Does anyone know how much faster over 75 miles a £2k'ish carbon fibre road bike might be compared to a steel touring bike? I can't work out if it's worth having two bikes. I know the geometry is different but it seems fitness counts the most followed by a pair of light wheels. Any views gratefully accepted.

Comments

  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    With the same wheels and tyres there wouldn't be much in it. Why do you need or want to be quicker?
    More problems but still living....
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    I did two return trips to York recently. One on a carbon Ribble with my kit in a rucksack and one on my Raleigh Randonneur (steel frame relic of the 80s) with my kit in a pannier.

    The round trip was 17 minutes quicker on the Raleigh. I've not given enough information for anyone to determine what the quickest bike was all else being equal but I was much more comfortable over 72 miles for each trip with the kit in the pannier. That's why a tourer is a nice thing to have. I wouldn't be without either.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • JKWH
    JKWH Posts: 4
    Thanks for your comments. Every Sunday I go out with a bunch of mates on flash bikes and drool over their carbon machines. However I do have a sneaking suspicion that the difference in times is small and only becomes relevant if you are serious about racing/time trialling. Think I'll buy a couple of pairs of wheels and stick with the tourer!
  • marcusjb
    marcusjb Posts: 2,412
    A set of light wheels is certainly sensible.

    Whilst not a tourer, my audax bike is pretty hefty and steel. I have a few sets of wheels, and certainly the lightest set make a huge difference and I can keep up with people on carbon. I'm about to ride my first TT on it as well - might even take the mudguards off for that though! Whilst I too lust after a bit of carbon bling for my stable, I really don't need one. I don't race and my audax bike is plenty fast enough.

    As ever, it's the engine that makes the most difference - If you're keeping up with your mates on carbon bikes, then I dare say, your engine is performing a little better than theirs!
    Stuff about riding a bike a long way
  • grim168
    grim168 Posts: 482
    I have a hewitt tourer which is a couple of miles an hour slower than my scott speedster on average.
  • RDW
    RDW Posts: 1,900
    Old steel bike vs carbon fibre bike:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801

    It's written as a rather jokey academic paper for the Christmas issue of a journal, but makes some serious points.
  • smidsy
    smidsy Posts: 5,273
    JKWH wrote:
    Every Sunday I go out with a bunch of mates on flash bikes and drool over their carbon machines.

    Do you keep up? If so you have your answer.

    If not, it is not the bike :D
    Yellow is the new Black.
  • JKWH
    JKWH Posts: 4
    RDW wrote:
    Old steel bike vs carbon fibre bike:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801

    It's written as a rather jokey academic paper for the Christmas issue of a journal, but makes some serious points.
    Yep it has convinced me to stick with the tourer. Many thanks for the link.
  • jameses
    jameses Posts: 653
    The problem I have with that paper is that it's comparing times for a commute, therefore it's a relatively short distance and the major limiting factor is going to be rush hour traffic not the bike itself.

    From my experience, a lighter bike does lead to an increase in average speed but the effect is only really noticeable over longer distances.

    Is it worth spending 2k on a new bike? No, if you just want to go a bit faster. Yes, if you have the money to spare and it will bring a smile to your face every time you ride it.

Categories