How much is it 'about the bike'?

heavymental

How much difference does a top end bike really make over an average £1k machine? Friends of mine have just been on a long trip through France. Some on relatively cheap bikes and one guy on an S Works of some kind. I've just looked at the prices of those bikes and realise that these days it's not unusual to see a selection of bikes way over £5k :shock: Not sure if it was that common when I last looked at road bike prices about 5 years ago? Although I probably never looked at that end of the catalogue. The guy on the S-Works had been told in the shop that the difference he'd get would be most noticeable on the flat and when accelerating.

So what are the advantages? Weight, aerodynamics and stiffness resulting in better efficiency I'd have guessed but crikey, seems to be possible to spend a lot of money these days. I ride a carbon Scott CR1 from 2006 which I build up from parts which is very light but I've only ever owned 2 road bikes and I can't imagine there would be much to be gained by dropping £5k on something.

simon_masterson

In terms of actual performance (or the time taken to complete a course), very little. You are the majority of the frontal area and the overall weight.

But otherwise, better bikes will handle better, have parts that work better... it's a case of getting what you pay for like any other. You don't need it.

TakeTurns

Minuscule. The faster you go, the harder it gets to break through the wind. So if you ain't got the power then you aint going nowhere!

I wouldn't say 1k is average, but back in the day, you could buy a frame like an s-works for the price of 1k. But now obviously there's a greater technology advancement and innovation that goes into it, as well as most of it just being marketing and a result of inflation.

dilatory

I'd wager the jump from 500 to 1,500 is much greater than the jump from 1,500 to 5,000.

cougie

It's definitely diminishing returns. Do the training - that will bring you better results than a more expensive bike.

heavymental

Yes, I guess it's marginal gains. One of the guys did the ride on a bike he got for a couple of hundred quid but he does huge miles. I've always been of the opinion that if you get something that suits you and is reasonably light, then it's all about the miles in your legs. No need to spend anything like £5k. I've always advised people to spend a grand on a holiday in the alps rather than a bike upgrade to go 'faster' on their usual routes. Memories are more important than bikes and a holiday will enthuse you to train for your next trip to the mountains.

madasahattersley wrote:

Might make you go a bit faster. A nice time trial bike might make you go a lot faster, but no matter how fast it is, how comfortable it is, how good the handling and acceleration and aerodynamics and stiffness are or how much it cost, it will never give you more satisfaction from riding.

FWIW at the moment I'm riding a steel 631 bike with 9 speed campag and big heavy tyres, weighing over 11kg, and I'm enjoying riding now more than I ever have really. Much more than when I had a Cervélo S5 with Sram Red.

Yes, I'm enjoying riding my first road bike which is an old Cannondale I converted to single speed when the shifters broke. Nice to cruise around on.

charlie_potatoes

cougie wrote:

It's definitely diminishing returns. Do the training - that will bring you better results than a more expensive bike.

This.
It is relative to your budget though. £1500-£2000 buys a great bike. But if you have a few quid to spend then.....

Anonymous

Diminishing returns for sure but you get what you pay for and personally my 4k bike is worth every one of the quarter of a million pennies over my 1.5k ones.

Its only money and if you are into cycling I do not see the big deal.
Plenty of worse ways to spend 3 grand ( cost of 5k bike minus cost of normal/current one) or whatever that people do not bat an eyelid at.

Anonymous

cougie wrote:

It's definitely diminishing returns. Do the training - that will bring you better results than a more expensive bike.

Doing the training on an expensive bike or training to earn an expensive bike will get you the best results though

kajjal

The main thing is the bike is setup correctly for you and has the gearing you prefer. After that is down to you. Road biking is a marketing mans dream with loads of expensive upselling for little real gain for the majority of riders.

Went out on my XC mountain bike today which is a fast relatively light off road hardtail bike. followed my normal road route and was about 3mph slower on average than doing the same ride on my road bike and it was a lot harder work too

hypster

I've got a CR1 about the same age as the OP and it would be hard for me to imagine a bike that suits me better for the sort of long distance riding I do. I was on a 100 mile sportive today and met up at the start of the ride with some friends of a friend. One was on a £8500 Dogma and the other on an Orbea which including the wheels was reputedly around £5500. After the roll-out at the start I didn't see them again because they couldn't keep up with us and we weren't pushing that hard.

Okay, trivial example, but as others have said, it's more about what suits you and your level of fitness more than the bike. If you were racing though little things might matter such as using tubs, aero wheels, etc. etc. If you're just a recreational cyclist like me then dropping cash on a nice bike is just about vanity, but nothing wrong with that if you can afford it. Just don't think a £8.5K Dogma is necessarily going to make you any faster than a £1K CR1.

Anonymous

Kajjal wrote:

Went out on my XC mountain bike today which is a fast relatively light off road hardtail bike. followed my normal road route and was about 3mph slower on average than doing the same ride on my road bike and it was a lot harder work too

If it was a lot harder work then presumably if you put in the same effort when on the road bike you would go more than 3mph faster?

Surely the road bike has much higher gears than a hard tail?

I might rag my hard tail into work and then do the same on my road bike just to check though.
Even better, might take the hard tail to the 10 mile time trial route as I know how long that takes on my road bike.

Not that the extra cash is about speed anyway.
My 4 mile commute is hell the MTB, quite nice on the cross, but much better on the road bike.

heavymental

hypster wrote:

I've got a CR1 about the same age as the OP and it would be hard for me to imagine a bike that suits me better for the sort of long distance riding I do. I was on a 100 mile sportive today and met up at the start of the ride with some friends of a friend. One was on a £8500 Dogma and the other on an Orbea which including the wheels was reputedly around £5500. After the roll-out at the start I didn't see them again because they couldn't keep up with us and we weren't pushing that hard.

Okay, trivial example, but as others have said, it's more about what suits you and your level of fitness more than the bike. If you were racing though little things might matter such as using tubs, aero wheels, etc. etc. If you're just a recreational cyclist like me then dropping cash on a nice bike is just about vanity, but nothing wrong with that if you can afford it. Just don't think a £8.5K Dogma is necessarily going to make you any faster than a £1K CR1.

Stumbled across this when trying to figure out what year my CR1 is. Some guy stripped the paint and did a custom job... http://forums.roadbikereview.com/scott/ ... 40175.html Might be of interest to you. Not that I'd bother! Think they changed the CR1 to be more sportif orientated at some point as well. Mine is the more racey design but I find it fine for long days in the saddle too. I've just put 25mm tyres on too which takes a bit of the buzz out.

Initialised

Carbonator wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Went out on my XC mountain bike today which is a fast relatively light off road hardtail bike. followed my normal road route and was about 3mph slower on average than doing the same ride on my road bike and it was a lot harder work too

If it was a lot harder work then presumably if you put in the same effort when on the road bike you would go more than 3mph faster?

Surely the road bike has much higher gears than a hard tail?

I might rag my hard tail into work and then do the same on my road bike just to check though.
Even better, might take the hard tail to the 10 mile time trial route as I know how long that takes on my road bike.

Not that the extra cash is about speed anyway.
My 4 mile commute is hell the MTB, quite nice on the cross, but much better on the road bike.

You should try it the other way around and see how your road bike handles a trail centre or a rough ride over the moors.

Mr Dog

Put Mo Farah in clogs and he'd still torch 99.99% of the field. It still makes me happy I ride a bike almost as good as the pro riders but I'm under no illusions. Genes and hard work trump everything. That kid on the rusty old hack will humble my middle aged ass any day.. live and let live.. it's about the battle against yourself

Anonymous

Why do threads that are about differing bikes for an individual turn into individuals fitness v bike, and then other peoples fitness v bike? :?

The OP did not ask if he could beat Mo Farrah or even Mo Molam should if he re mortgaged his house to get a new bike.

Surprised the OP has not been told to lose a couple of stone yet :roll:

arran77

According to Lance it's not :P

kajjal

Initialised wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Went out on my XC mountain bike today which is a fast relatively light off road hardtail bike. followed my normal road route and was about 3mph slower on average than doing the same ride on my road bike and it was a lot harder work too

If it was a lot harder work then presumably if you put in the same effort when on the road bike you would go more than 3mph faster?

Surely the road bike has much higher gears than a hard tail?

I might rag my hard tail into work and then do the same on my road bike just to check though.
Even better, might take the hard tail to the 10 mile time trial route as I know how long that takes on my road bike.

Not that the extra cash is about speed anyway.
My 4 mile commute is hell the MTB, quite nice on the cross, but much better on the road bike.

You should try it the other way around and see how your road bike handles a trail centre or a rough ride over the moors.

My 6ft6, 100KG would lead to a very short off road ride with my road bike

kajjal

Carbonator wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Went out on my XC mountain bike today which is a fast relatively light off road hardtail bike. followed my normal road route and was about 3mph slower on average than doing the same ride on my road bike and it was a lot harder work too

If it was a lot harder work then presumably if you put in the same effort when on the road bike you would go more than 3mph faster?

Surely the road bike has much higher gears than a hard tail?

I might rag my hard tail into work and then do the same on my road bike just to check though.
Even better, might take the hard tail to the 10 mile time trial route as I know how long that takes on my road bike.

Not that the extra cash is about speed anyway.
My 4 mile commute is hell the MTB, quite nice on the cross, but much better on the road bike.

I got bit carried away and really went for it on the MTB and at one point was so knackered I fell off the road

The big knobbly tires really slowed me down especially up hill , it was brutal. Off road the MTB is a fast bike

diplodicus

Kajjal wrote:

My 6ft6, 100KG would lead to a very short off road ride with my road bike

I think you would be surprised at what a road bike can deal with. I did Paris Roubaix Challenge in April on a 3 year old CAAD 8 that has done approx 10,000 miles. Only changes from stock were 28mm tyres and double wrapped bar tape. Nothing fell off and the conditions were brutal in places :shock:

pinno

diplodicus wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

My 6ft6, 100KG would lead to a very short off road ride with my road bike

I think you would be surprised at what a road bike can deal with. I did Paris Roubaix Challenge in April on a 3 year old CAAD 8 that has done approx 10,000 miles. Only changes from stock were 28mm tyres and double wrapped bar tape. Nothing fell off and the conditions were brutal in places :shock:

Would you have done the Paris Roubaix on a cf machine? Well done if you finished my mate did the late summer version and was grateful that a lot of grass had grown between the cracks.

I don't need an expensive machine, I don't need a spare C40 for the hell of it - 'cos I already have them . Just as i said on another thread, I am more comfortable now than I have ever been and I am 2.5mph quicker without being any fitter (not that it matters much).
You could spend your money on a lot worse.

diplodicus

I possibly would have done it on a carbon frame, but at the time I only had the CAAD 8. I did finsh and riding into the velodrome was one of the best things I have done on a bike 8)

I have since bought an evo supersix and it is so much more comfortable. However if I do P-R again next year I will probably use my CAAD. The chain took chunks out of the chainstays when riding the cobbles and I couldn't bear to do that to my shiny new pride and joy.

pinno

diplodicus wrote:

I possibly would have done it on a carbon frame, but at the time I only had the CAAD 8. I did finsh and riding into the velodrome was one of the best things I have done on a bike 8)

I have since bought an evo supersix and it is so much more comfortable. However if I do P-R again next year I will probably use my CAAD. The chain took chunks out of the chainstays when riding the cobbles and I couldn't bear to do that to my shiny new pride and joy.

Err...granny, eggs, teaching, suck, to...Chainstay protector?

mjf1975

In a city, a Ferrari wouldn't get me from A to B any faster than my Golf (well not legally).

I'd sure as hell enjoy driving a Ferrari a lot more though.

markhewitt1978

Does it make a difference? Yes. How much of a difference? Well it depends, a lot on what you're expecting.

I've noticed mostly whenever I've done an upgrade that the difference you see is mostly on shallowish inclines, on some slopes where previously you'd think of as proper hills, the improved bike tends to flatten the terrain out so you're powering up small rises the same as you would on the flat. For pure flat and proper climbing it makes little odds.

supermurph09

Differences I noticed on my new bike were:

Ultegra 6800 is light years ahead of the 6700/105 mix I had on my other bike, changes are slicker (and quicker) saving time on climbs, particularly when under load.

The frame is stiffer, gives a better feel and must surely be transferring more watts onto the tarmac, ergo quicker.

Thanks.

HellsCyclist

TakeTurns wrote:

Minuscule. The faster you go, the harder it gets to break through the wind. So if you ain't got the power then you aint going nowhere!

I wouldn't say 1k is average, but back in the day, you could buy a frame like an s-works for the price of 1k. But now obviously there's a greater technology advancement and innovation that goes into it, as well as most of it just being marketing and a result of inflation.

For this reason I would imagine a slightly more aerodynamic bike would benefit an already powerful rider much more than a fat blob. Like you say, the faster you go the harder it is to break through the wind, therefore aerodynamics are much more effective at speed innit?

BrandonA

Heavymental wrote:

How much difference does a top end bike really make over an average £1k machine? Friends of mine have just been on a long trip through France. Some on relatively cheap bikes and one guy on an S Works of some kind. I've just looked at the prices of those bikes and realise that these days it's not unusual to see a selection of bikes way over £5k :shock: Not sure if it was that common when I last looked at road bike prices about 5 years ago? Although I probably never looked at that end of the catalogue. The guy on the S-Works had been told in the shop that the difference he'd get would be most noticeable on the flat and when accelerating.

So what are the advantages? Weight, aerodynamics and stiffness resulting in better efficiency I'd have guessed but crikey, seems to be possible to spend a lot of money these days. I ride a carbon Scott CR1 from 2006 which I build up from parts which is very light but I've only ever owned 2 road bikes and I can't imagine there would be much to be gained by dropping £5k on something.

Can't believe you've been on the forums for over ten years, have knocked up over 4,500 posts and you are yet to see a thread on this very subject :shock:

Those for whatever reason who have only cheaper bikes like to think that the bike has no effect on performance

Those that have £5k bikes like to justify why they have them.

I think the actual answer is more complex than value. For example a cheap TT bike may be quick than a top of the range pro tour team road bike. Why is this? It is aerodynamic features of the frame that count and that does not necessary equate to expensive.

I know which of my two bikes gives me the most pleasure. I'd take DA shifting over 105 any day of the week. I love my aerofly handlebars, if for nothing else just because they look good. I love the fact that my carbon Mavic wheels do not wrap underneath me like sub £500 wheels can do.

bmxboy10

FWIW I think the majority of people start cycling, get the bug and due to large amounts of disposable income start the journey of continual upgrades, seeking perfection, alternating between frame materials etc etc etc.

At some point the penny drops that its not about the bike however having a bike you enjoy riding is critical if you want cycling to become a way of life and a hobby that you want to do week in week out. Some may need the marginal performance gains that expensive bikes offer but some you come to realise its about how cycling makes you feel that counts and that is not dependent on how much your kit costs.

pinno

My expensive kit works well, performs well, is comfortable, is responsive and I have shaved all excess weight off me so I am not lugging any extra weight up hills. All I need to do now is get/stay fit.
My winter bike is in region of 10kg's with lights and mudguards and a pair of base level Fulcrum wheels. Not only is it disproportionately slower (kg for kg) than the all singing all dancing Wilier, it is much less responsive, much less comfortable and my average speeds on it are roughly 3 mph slower. If I only rode on the flat, the difference may be negligible but the difference in terms of energy output and return is remarkable to the extent that when the clocks go forward and I jump on the summer bike, I can almost double the mileage with the same effort.
I'll eat my hat if you can prove that that is all placebo and a figment of my imagination; there is nothing quite like top notch bits, wheels and frames.
My old Columbus SL frame (that I rode and upgraded ad infinitum for 18 years) is not a patch on the cf Wilier.