Big climbs with big bikes: who boasts the most?

Azhar

Hello hello,

Just a quick question to Ask if my current road bike, a Claus butler elite 2011 with marathon pus tyres and 16 speed, is too heavy for a sportive. I use this bike to commute to work and ride as much as I can on the weekend. The weight of the frame along with the weight of tyres slow me down on the hills and after seeing the kind of bikes people were riding at Manchester 100 today I feel I would be at a huge disadvantage even though I'm comfortable on the bike and have averaged 16.5mph over 18 miles climbing 480ft....

I would love a new bike but money constraints won't allow me...yet..

Thanks

Edit: bike weighs approx 12kg maybe more.

napoleond

You'll be fine. It's not a race.

simon_masterson

My main bike weighs 12kg. The whole weight thing is marketing and conformity more than anything else. Until you are very, very good, it is nothing more than a decidedly secondary factor, even on really tough climbs. (which we don't actually have in Great Britain anyway)

It remains to be said that your bike is at the heavier end of the spectrum for a road bike, but if you do what most people do at some point and buy a new posh ride, it will almost certainly be considerably lighter than that anyway. Educated guess says that a bike of that weight probably has heavy wheels too, so an upgrade pair would likely shave off a fair bit.

dodgy

Simon Masterson wrote:

even on really tough climbs. (which we don't actually have in Great Britain anyway)

ugo.santalucia

Next sunday I am doing the Etape Cymru on an 11 Kg bike and that's considerably hillier than your Manc. 100... so you are not alone there...
There are a large number of people on super skinny bikes and then there are the others

Barteos

Azhar wrote:

Hello hello,

Just a quick question to Ask if my current road bike, a Claus butler elite 2011 with marathon pus tyres and 16 speed, is too heavy for a sportive. I use this bike to commute to work and ride as much as I can on the weekend. The weight of the frame along with the weight of tyres slow me down on the hills and after seeing the kind of bikes people were riding at Manchester 100 today I feel I would be at a huge disadvantage even though I'm comfortable on the bike and have averaged 16.5mph over 18 miles climbing 480ft....

I would love a new bike but money constraints won't allow me...yet..

Thanks

Edit: bike weighs approx 12kg maybe more.

You are concentrating too much (and irrationally) on the weight alone.
In percentage terms the difference between e.g. 9kg and 12kg is very small when you take into account your own body weight (which you didn't mention BTW...). Also heavier tyres/wheels don't roll slower per se.

If there is anything that may be slowing you down at the moment it's the Marathon Plus tyres and it's got nothing to do with their weight. They have very thick casing with bomb-roof puncture system that add extra rolling resistance.
Putting a pair of 25mm GP4000s on should make a noticeable (actual) difference to your speed and you could use those tyres for events and at weekends.

Your average speed will have very little to do with the price and weight of your bike. It's about legs and riding position

simon_e

12 kg isn't so bad but Marathon Plus are very draggy tyres. If you can afford it then I'd swap them for something lighter and faster-rolling (from what I've read that just about anything apart from knobblies!). I have been running Schwalbe Blizzard Sport tyres on my training/commuting bike and found them surprisingly good. They cost less than £10 each

thejimmymethod

It's only too heavy if you're not fit enough. Sure, something lighter might be a bit quicker or easier but you'd be spending more more money for smaller gains. Keep riding, get fitter, ride longer and ride harder and you'll get more out of cycling than spaffing money on lightness. Plus you get to feel super smug when you go past someone on there mid life crisis riding your 'heavy' bike

Bobbinogs

As per the above, your bike is not too heavy but your tyres are built for trundling along bike paths and the like. I would actually think about buying another set of wheels and then fit them out with new tyres (as others have suggested) and a new cassette. Then you could swap quickly for more sporty rides at the w/e, etc., and swap back for the commute.

£300 would get you a decent set of wheels, cassette and nice tyres that would transform your ride from an enjoyment point of view. Lot's of options but bear in mind that the weather is about to change so maybe handbuilts would be a good choice for wheels as the rims can be easily replaced after a few tough winters.

arthur_scrimshaw

I've seen people on MTBs ride Sportives, doesn't mean they're slow either!

markhewitt1978

Most sportives you can do on any bike so it matters zero.

Azhar

thanks everyone for your replies. My bike is more of an entry level bike that i bought a couple years ago and now i use it to commute (approx 100 miles a week) and ride on the weekends. I was always under the impression that to be in a sportive you had to have a really decent road bike to get a good result (i realise its not competitive) so i'm glad to read that other cyclists have heavy bikes as well.

following the advice from several people above i will be visiting my LBS to get a pair of the continental 400s GP tyres. I've seen the weight difference on wiggle between the 4000s and marathon plus tyres and i'm looking forward to seeing the changes when i ride on different tyres.

thanks again. have a nice day.

rolf_f

dodgy wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

even on really tough climbs. (which we don't actually have in Great Britain anyway)

Indeed! I think Simon may have received a knock to his noggin!

paul_mck

man the f**k up dude.

simonhead

I think the OP is looking for a reason to press the button on a new bike. Maybe the wife has said "theres nothing wrong with your bike" and he is looking for some more experienced cyclists to tell him that shelling out on a carbon bike with funky wheels is absolutely what he needs to do.

markhewitt1978

simonhead wrote:

I think the OP is looking for a reason to press the button on a new bike. Maybe the wife has said "theres nothing wrong with your bike" and he is looking for some more experienced cyclists to tell him that shelling out on a carbon bike with funky wheels is absolutely what he needs to do.

Azhar,
Your bike is the worst I've ever seen. If you turn up to a Sportive on that not only will all the other cyclists laugh and point at you, the organiser will tell you go to home again because your bike is awful.

Does that help?

simon_masterson

Rolf F wrote:

dodgy wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

even on really tough climbs. (which we don't actually have in Great Britain anyway)

Indeed! I think Simon may have received a knock to his noggin!

Oops, I forgot about the British alps. Silly me.

slowbike

Azhar wrote:

thanks everyone for your replies. My bike is more of an entry level bike that i bought a couple years ago and now i use it to commute (approx 100 miles a week) and ride on the weekends. I was always under the impression that to be in a sportive you had to have a really decent road bike to get a good result (i realise its not competitive) so i'm glad to read that other cyclists have heavy bikes as well.

Entry level bikes are just fine - it's more the engine than the drive train that matters.

Those ppl on £6k road bikes doing sportives are just kidding themselves - they don't need to spend that much on a bike - they'd be just as quick on a £600 bike... but it's their money! or well, it was!

markhewitt1978

Slowbike wrote:

Those ppl on £6k road bikes doing sportives are just kidding themselves - they don't need to spend that much on a bike - they'd be just as quick on a £600 bike... but it's their money! or well, it was!

They won't be *as* quick but they'll quite probably be *nearly* as quick. Of course, riding a better bike is more fun, and that's why we do sportives, it isn't like commuting where it's only really time that matters.

CiB

Slowbike wrote:

Those ppl on £6k road bikes doing sportives are just kidding themselves - they don't need to spend that much on a bike - they'd be just as quick on a £600 bike... but it's their money! or well, it was!

There are numersous reasons for spending more on a bike, just as there are for buying a nicer car instead of a base model or a decent hi-fi in place of a one-box stereo system. At least one of those reasons is simply having the money available in the first place. Why buy something that you don't really want just because it saves a few hundred quid? What would you do with that money instead, if there were enough of it that the odd few hundred quid doesn't make a jot of difference anyway?

Just asking...

keef66

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

I've seen people on MTBs ride Sportives, doesn't mean they're slow either!

True that is. I was overtaken by a couple of chaps on MTBs on my last sportive. Never saw them again, so either they went off too fast and had to bail out, or they were a lot fitter and faster than me. I suspect the latter is more likely...

rolf_f

Simon Masterson wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

dodgy wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

even on really tough climbs. (which we don't actually have in Great Britain anyway)

Indeed! I think Simon may have received a knock to his noggin!

Oops, I forgot about the British alps. Silly me.

I've been up The Col de la Columbiere, The Ramaz, The Joux Plane, Avoriaz etc (on a bike!). They go on for a long way and they aren't easy but they don't blow your brains out through your nose like any number of climbs around Calderdale. Any climb is tough if you go up it fast enough but most Alpine climbs don't have the gradients to make you think you might have to get off and walk. 15 minutes of pain on Mytholm Steeps is tougher than an hour of it on The Joux Plane.

Seriously - have you personal experience of the average Alpine climb and the toughest climbs we have in the UK?

slowbike

CiB wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Those ppl on £6k road bikes doing sportives are just kidding themselves - they don't need to spend that much on a bike - they'd be just as quick on a £600 bike... but it's their money! or well, it was!

There are numersous reasons for spending more on a bike, just as there are for buying a nicer car instead of a base model or a decent hi-fi in place of a one-box stereo system. At least one of those reasons is simply having the money available in the first place. Why buy something that you don't really want just because it saves a few hundred quid? What would you do with that money instead, if there were enough of it that the odd few hundred quid doesn't make a jot of difference anyway?

Just asking...

For most ppl - expensive hi-fi systems are like buying expensive bikes - it makes not a jot of difference to the actual performance. But they feel better having it.
I have an amp from my student days - coupled with some Mission speakers... no it's not Argos cheapo stuff but it's nowhere near "expensive". I had a couple of blokes round who enjoyed buying expensive surround sound systems - one component for them would cost double my setup. Could they tell the difference? Could they heck!
If you put an oscilloscope in and analysed the outputs from the two systems then no doubt the more expensive kit would re-produce the intended audio more faithfully (well, you'd hope so) - but when it comes down to it most of the time the end user doesn't have the skills/awareness to actually tell the difference.
I think it's similar with bikes - once you get above a certain level, the difference between kit is negligible for the average rider. The shifts might be smoother, more feel in braking, etc ... But the average user c/would be as fast on a lower spec machine.

So - why spend more? Because it feels nice ...

markhewitt1978

Slowbike wrote:

So - why spend more? Because it feels nice ...

It's as good a reason as any . People buy bikes - much like cars - as much on emotion and how it makes them feel and how they fell they will be viewed by others, just as much as the practical aspects.

diamonddog

Slowbike wrote:

For most ppl - expensive hi-fi systems are like buying expensive bikes - it makes not a jot of difference to the actual performance. But they feel better having it.
I have an amp from my student days - coupled with some Mission speakers... no it's not Argos cheapo stuff but it's nowhere near "expensive". I had a couple of blokes round who enjoyed buying expensive surround sound systems - one component for them would cost double my setup. Could they tell the difference? Could they heck!
If you put an oscilloscope in and analysed the outputs from the two systems then no doubt the more expensive kit would re-produce the intended audio more faithfully (well, you'd hope so) - but when it comes down to it most of the time the end user doesn't have the skills/awareness to actually tell the difference.
I think it's similar with bikes - once you get above a certain level, the difference between kit is negligible for the average rider. The shifts might be smoother, more feel in braking, etc ... But the average user c/would be as fast on a lower spec machine.

So - why spend more? Because it feels nice ...

+ 1 for this

slowbike

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

So - why spend more? Because it feels nice ...

It's as good a reason as any . People buy bikes - much like cars - as much on emotion and how it makes them feel and how they fell they will be viewed by others, just as much as the practical aspects.

Indeed - and I have no real objection to that (although sometimes you have to giggle) ... but for the OP wanting to enter a sportive - no problem on any road worthy bike you have ...

ugo.santalucia

It is very interesting: we find it morally acceptable to spend big money on assets (properties etc.) but it seems morally dubious to spend big money on goods (cars, bikes, TVs etc)... whilst the very nature of capitalism dictates that we have to spend money on goods and not on assets... it is pretty clear what happens when we spend money on assets (see 2007).
The markets are regulated by the balance between demand and offer and that's valid for goods, but not for assets, as when an asset price goes up, the demand increases, which is in antithesis with capitalism...

Moral is, stop spending a fortune in properties and buy more bikes!...

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

It is very interesting: we find it morally acceptable to spend big money on assets (properties etc.) but it seems morally dubious to spend big money on goods (cars, bikes, TVs etc)... whilst the very nature of capitalism dictates that we have to spend money on goods and not on assets... it is pretty clear what happens when we spend money on assets (see 2007).

It is possible to spend sensibly on property - eg don't buy at the top of the market and don't borrow too much. The long term result is that you end up far better off than you would have had you not bought. Certainly my experience.

Spending big money on goods is throwing money away. Fine if you can afford it - unfortunately, a very large number of people only think they can afford it. That's not the same thing.

CiB

Slowbike wrote:

CiB wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Those ppl on £6k road bikes doing sportives are just kidding themselves - they don't need to spend that much on a bike - they'd be just as quick on a £600 bike... but it's their money! or well, it was!

There are numersous reasons for spending more on a bike, just as there are for buying a nicer car instead of a base model or a decent hi-fi in place of a one-box stereo system. At least one of those reasons is simply having the money available in the first place. Why buy something that you don't really want just because it saves a few hundred quid? What would you do with that money instead, if there were enough of it that the odd few hundred quid doesn't make a jot of difference anyway?

Just asking...

For most ppl - expensive hi-fi systems are like buying expensive bikes - it makes not a jot of difference to the actual performance. But they feel better having it.
I have an amp from my student days - coupled with some Mission speakers... no it's not Argos cheapo stuff but it's nowhere near "expensive". I had a couple of blokes round who enjoyed buying expensive surround sound systems - one component for them would cost double my setup. Could they tell the difference? Could they heck!
If you put an oscilloscope in and analysed the outputs from the two systems then no doubt the more expensive kit would re-produce the intended audio more faithfully (well, you'd hope so) - but when it comes down to it most of the time the end user doesn't have the skills/awareness to actually tell the difference.
I think it's similar with bikes - once you get above a certain level, the difference between kit is negligible for the average rider. The shifts might be smoother, more feel in braking, etc ... But the average user c/would be as fast on a lower spec machine.

So - why spend more? Because it feels nice ...

If you say so.

sbbefc

You might be a bit slower on a heavier bike but its not as if its going to stop you from completing the course. It all has to do with your fitness and if you're prepared for it you'll be fine.

Re: UK climbs vs alpine. I've done a couple of alpine HC climbs including the Alpe D'Huez, I enjoyed it, kept to a rhythm and didn't go out too fast as it was a bit of an unknown. I rode a triple and didn't need to get into the little cog at the front. I found Blwch y Groes (N wales) and Great Dunn Fell (Pennines) (Back in March, not as fit, snow, wind) harder climbs, saying that the likes of the Mortirolo are different beasts all together.

dodgy

Rolf F wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

dodgy wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

even on really tough climbs. (which we don't actually have in Great Britain anyway)

Indeed! I think Simon may have received a knock to his noggin!

Oops, I forgot about the British alps. Silly me.

I've been up The Col de la Columbiere, The Ramaz, The Joux Plane, Avoriaz etc (on a bike!). They go on for a long way and they aren't easy but they don't blow your brains out through your nose like any number of climbs around Calderdale. Any climb is tough if you go up it fast enough but most Alpine climbs don't have the gradients to make you think you might have to get off and walk. 15 minutes of pain on Mytholm Steeps is tougher than an hour of it on The Joux Plane.

Seriously - have you personal experience of the average Alpine climb and the toughest climbs we have in the UK?

+1

In my opinion, Hardknot followed by Wrynose is harder than any HC alpine climb that I've done. I was in the Alps in July (also climbed Joux Plane, Joux Verte, Ramaz, L'Encrenaz, Colombiere while I was there), and while they're tough, the gradient is well, errr - graded.