Clipless Pedals, really required, I mean, really?

RDW

So, anyone got an opinion on helmets? I mean, are they really necessary..?

Anonymous

Could do without saddles on short rides too :roll:

zingaiya

Moving away from the emergent flame war...

I use flats and a pair of trail running shoes. The plentiful grip on the shoes means I've hardly ever had an issue with my feet slipping. Also very useful when I'm closely following my beloved and she randomly slams on her brakes.

Anecdata: n=1

Neil_aky

Carbonator wrote:

Neil_aky wrote:

Most of the performance is about you, not the bike, not the pedals but you.


It is a good feeling overtaking someone who is on a really expensive bike wearing all the kit (I take pleasure from it);

Am really confused by your comments.
You just seem to be jealous of people with decent kit and want to vent your disappointment when you find one that you are fitter than lol.

If the bike made a lot of difference then I could understand feeling good about it (i.e. passing a fast bike on a slow one), but as you had said yourself that it does not then the only difference you are really highlighting is cash!

How do you feel when you pass someone else on a Triban, or a Viking or something?
How do you feel when someone on a proper bike and wearing the correct clothing passes you?

I say 'proper bike' in relation to your Triban, as if it were not for some of the more established brands and technology that you seem to despise, Tribans would not even exist.

Oops I thought it was obvious that my comments were tongue in cheek. I do not despise established brands, nor am I jealous. Most people starting out will tend to buy a cheap bike as a starter so it's a nice feeling when you start getting fit enough to ride with people who would appear to be more serious about cycling.

I don't really gloat if I go past someone, I really was joking. I actually don't care what people are riding, the important point is getting fitter and enjoying the cycling. Must remember to use an appropriate emoticon next time to make it clear that I am joking!

Neil_aky

Carbonator wrote:

Neil_aky wrote:

It is a good feeling overtaking someone who is on a really expensive bike wearing all the kit

Who do you think feels best at that moment, you or the guy on his really expensive bike?

And do you think he feels better, worse or no different when he see's your really cheap (the cheapest you can get) bike go by?

See my other answer - I was joking.

trek2300

Not mandatory but i just changed to clipless and the transition was one of minimum fuss. As a novice i found the clipless much better and would recommend them but its a personal choice go with whats comfortable for you

Anonymous

Neil_aky wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Neil_aky wrote:

It is a good feeling overtaking someone who is on a really expensive bike wearing all the kit

Who do you think feels best at that moment, you or the guy on his really expensive bike?

And do you think he feels better, worse or no different when he see's your really cheap (the cheapest you can get) bike go by?

See my other answer - I was joking.

Well thats ok then 8) Sorry for the flaming if you really never have those thoughts

I know a lot of people do and it makes my blood boil.
Maybe someone else who does have those thoughts/views would like to answer the questions I (mistakenly) asked you.

My view is that the bike and your performance on it are largely completely separate things.
So people can compare bike with bike and performance with performance, but its pointless mixing the two, and when its done it just seems because of plain old deadly sin No. 6, 'envy' IMO.

Neil_aky

Carbonator wrote:

Neil_aky wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Neil_aky wrote:

It is a good feeling overtaking someone who is on a really expensive bike wearing all the kit

Who do you think feels best at that moment, you or the guy on his really expensive bike?

And do you think he feels better, worse or no different when he see's your really cheap (the cheapest you can get) bike go by?

See my other answer - I was joking.

Well thats ok then 8) Sorry for the flaming if you really never have those thoughts

I know a lot of people do and it makes my blood boil.
Maybe someone else who does have those thoughts/views would like to answer the questions I (mistakenly) asked you.

My view is that the bike and your performance on it are largely completely separate things.
So people can compare bike with bike and performance with performance, but its pointless mixing the two, and when its done it just seems because of plain old deadly sin No. 6, 'envy' IMO.

I agree, I also have photography as a hobby and I learnt on a cheap film camera, as I got more into the hobby and better at it, I bought better cameras and lenses which, with my improving skills, I was able to appreciate and take advantage of. If I compare this to cycling I can see a great similarity, assuming a reasonable level of quality, you can learn to be a good cyclist on a lower level bike, as you become a better cyclist then you will probably want to buy a better bike - it will not improve your skill / fitness but you will be in a position to appreciate and take advantage of the better equipment.

But going back to the original point, I would rather be in the position where I find myself getting closer to the bike in front rather than falling behind / being constantly overtaken

simon_masterson

Carbonator wrote:

My view is that the bike and your performance on it are largely completely separate things.
So people can compare bike with bike and performance with performance, but its pointless mixing the two, and when its done it just seems because of plain old deadly sin No. 6, 'envy' IMO.

We've been over this old chestnut before, but this is just not correct. A suitable simplification for people who aren't very good at cycling, yes, but nothing more; it relies on all other things being equal, which obviously they never are.

The rider represents the vast majority of the frontal area of the bike. If you put your average fatso on an expensive time trial bike which places them in a position they lack the physical conditioning to comfortably sustain (thereby both compromising power output, and causing the rider to crane the neck or ride on the base bars, etc), or is much stiffer than they are used to, they will not produce superior performance. A high performance bike is designed to facilitate the high performance of a capable rider; far from being 'largely completely separate', the two are inextricably linked.

There are obviously some areas of aerodynamics and handling that can have a positive effect on the speed of the rider, but even then this is not simple either; deep section rims might be more aerodynamic but they are also heavier, and I would therefore expect a weaker, less fit rider to find lighter, climbing-oriented wheels better to ride.

WiganLardster

Neil_aky wrote:

But going back to the original point, I would rather be in the position where I find myself getting closer to the bike in front rather than falling behind / being constantly overtaken

Everyone has a competitive streak to a lesser or greater extent, I don't think you need to justify it to someone who obviously has a chip on their shoulder. I ride a hybrid, and I get a sense of satisfaction when I overtake a roadie, even though I know he may be taking it easy or taking part in a 2,000,000,000 mile audax. Conversely, the other week when a guy on a mountain bike with big knobbly tyres blew past me about 5 mph quicker, I felt a bit deflated - it's only natural, and anyone who says otherwise is probably a robot, or the Dalai Lama.

pride4ever

OP is clearly a lunatic lol.

charlie_potatoes

Simon Masterson wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

My view is that the bike and your performance on it are largely completely separate things.
So people can compare bike with bike and performance with performance, but its pointless mixing the two, and when its done it just seems because of plain old deadly sin No. 6, 'envy' IMO.

We've been over this old chestnut before, but this is just not correct. A suitable simplification for people who aren't very good at cycling, yes, but nothing more; it relies on all other things being equal, which obviously they never are.

The rider represents the vast majority of the frontal area of the bike. If you put your average fatso on an expensive time trial bike which places them in a position they lack the physical conditioning to comfortably sustain (thereby both compromising power output, and causing the rider to crane the neck or ride on the base bars, etc), or is much stiffer than they are used to, they will not produce superior performance. A high performance bike is designed to facilitate the high performance of a capable rider; far from being 'largely completely separate', the two are inextricably linked.

There are obviously some areas of aerodynamics and handling that can have a positive effect on the speed of the rider, but even then this is not simple either; deep section rims might be more aerodynamic but they are also heavier, and I would therefore expect a weaker, less fit rider to find lighter, climbing-oriented wheels better to ride.

That all seems to be out of context to what is being said? I thought Carbonator was refering to someone on a budget bike (eg. a Triban) overtaking someone on an expensive bike with expensive kit (eg. Dogma/Rapha). Or am I missing something?
Also fair to point out that a Time Trial bike and position is not always the best solution in every situation. This has been clearly demonstrated today.