Will a different bike be that noticable??

cmd205

Morning.

I'm just getting into road biking. Been an avid MTB'er for years but enjoying the road riding a little more at the moment.

I currently ride a BTwin Triban 300. Bought it second hand 18 months ago for £120!!! Alloy everything and a cheapish groupset. It rides fine and everything works. I currently average about 16mph. 17mph on a solo ride if I push it.

I'm now thinking of upgrading to something a bit better but wondered what difference it's going to make. I was thinking of going lightweight (I'm only 10st and would be size small so expect weight to be important). Full carbon (poss even wheels).

What differences am I going to notice?

mfin

Taking a guess that you'll be spending something like £3000, compared to the bike you have that you've just described, it should feel like a completely different experience, fast, light, quick to accelerate, nimble with great shifting. The chances are it would be far more engaging and enjoyable to ride. How much quicker you'll be on it is debatable, a measurable and noticeable amount is likely, a few percent (possibly 5,10,15% ...more than that is getting unlikely).

Make sure whatever you buy fits like a glove, tune your fit on the bike you have until it's perfect if you can. First road bikes are valuable in this regard, you can experiment and work things out.

Matthewfalle

As you have a MTB background, how much difference would a new MTB make?

Then it's the same for a new road bike.

cld531c

Depends on what you want to use it for. If 25 ish miles ride on the flat I would expect youd only really notice you had £3k less than you had before, on longer, hillier rides you may find it is more comfortable/holds speed better but if it makes you happy go for it!
I have a steel, a steel fixed, a carbon and a cheap btwin bike - average speed on a circa 20 mile flat circuit is virtually identical on all 4, on a 60 mile+ ride the btwin felt poo but the steel one fab, and on a hilly ride the btwin ok but hefty. Main difference I noticed was the brakes (which are crap on the Btwin even with new pads) and the Btwin is a more upright position than I prefer. If you can borrow a mates bike before taking the leap that may give you a better idea.

milemuncher1

Stay with Decathlon.

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/ultra-940-a ... 89555.html

This is a massive bargain.

It will be a different world to what you’re used to.

cld531c

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Stay with Decathlon.

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/ultra-940-a ... 89555.html

This is a massive bargain.

It will be a different world to what you’re used to.

Only size medium

cmd205

That's some great advice - many thanks.

As far as using MTB as an example, I don't think it's an ideal comparison. There is a huge difference between cheap and expensive MTB's - the main ones including suspension performance and longevity of components. I've down-hilled in Morzine for the past 4 years and I'd never do any of those runs on a cheap bike for fear of something breaking! In terms of a road bike, I kind of understand what was said above about possibly not noticing much difference on a flat 20 - 30 mile run.

The bike I'm looking at is a Planet X EC130 with Ultegra 6800. I was close to pressing the button this morning when they had a deal for Black Friday down from something like £1700 to £999 but chickened out!! It looks a lovely bike - but would it be worth it / would I notice?!?! Hmmmm.

fenix

I think you would notice a difference. It will be lighter and probably a bit faster.

The only thing is that after a few hours on it - you won't notice theres a difference - it becomes the norm.

I reckon you'll notice more of a difference from your bike to the EC130 than you would from the EC130 to a 3k bike.

w00dster

I guess its like Mountain Bikes, you can buy a very capable XC full sus for £1500, a £5k full sus is generally going to be lighter, better wheels, better suspension, probably a more racy set up as it will be built for fast XC racing. While there is nothing wrong with the cheaper bike, the more expensive will likely be a quicker ride.
Road bikes are similar, your BTWIN is a respectable bike and a good starter bike. But moving onto other bikes you will see a difference. For just over £1k you could get a very good CAAD 12 for example, it will have a more racy geometry frame and better groupset. For £3k you could get a very good Canyon with good aero wheels, even better groupset and finishing kit. This won't necessarily be any quicker than the CAAD12, but it will have some nicer components, the wheels will give a small performance improvement. Moving up to £5 or £6k, this is where the returns are much smaller, that isn't to say they won't offer performance benefits or even just be visually more aesthetically pleasing.
You need to decide what your budget is, what type of riding you are going to be doing and then decide from there what you should buy.(Do you need wider tyres or disc brakes? Do you want out and out lightweight bike for hill climbing, aero maybe? Is comfort a real factor, this could lead you towards a Roubaix, a Domane or a Synapse)

cld531c

That Planet X looks a nice bike.
Suspect you will have to make your mind up quick as there is limited stock :-)

milemuncher1

cld531c wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Stay with Decathlon.

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/ultra-940-a ... 89555.html

This is a massive bargain.

It will be a different world to what you’re used to.

Only size medium

from what he says, he’s about the same size as me, that is the size I use, on my 720 AF.

lesfirth

cld531c wrote:

/holds speed better .

I will add this to that list. err ....... spin up quicker, roll better,.... and holds speed better.

Bumo_b

Went from a Focus Cayo to a Bianchi and attempted to jump on and speed off. Nearly came off due to my stupidity. Totally different feeling and far more lively. That being said, the Cayo could take some abuse and handled well no matter what I did, including some pretty ludicrous speeds at L'Etape downhill. The most forgiving was my first Giant Defy 3, rode like an idiot and survived like a pro, although it was never very lively. My experience, and it is just my limited experience is that the upgrade gives you a more responsive, lively and smooth ride (as well as a little faster). That being said,they are also very responsive when I take my eye off the ball! The superior brakes help in those situations though.

kajjal

I mountain bike in the drier months and the go on road over the winter using 25mm tread / 28mm case Roubaix pro tyres.

Once thing I noticed was I missed having hydraulic brakes on my first road bike, the riding position was a bit too low & stretched out and the thinner tyres made the ride a bone shaker. Due to this a bought a Specialized Diverge DSW comp. It is very smooth on road, light enough and has a good range of gears. In the summer I put 33mm knobbly tyres on it and take it off road as well, some times on a 50 mile mainly off road ride. The bars are shorter reach which is ideal for me.

Have think what you want from a road bike and it is worth giving a bike like the Diverge a test ride to give you a different comparison. The main thing with a road bike is it fits you well and you have the range of gears you need. The rest is then down to how much you are prepared to pay for what you want.

keezx

mfin wrote:

How much quicker you'll be on it is debatable, a measurable and noticeable amount is likely, a few percent (possibly 5,10,15% ...more than that is getting unlikely).

Think of < 1%.

mfin

Keezx wrote:

mfin wrote:

How much quicker you'll be on it is debatable, a measurable and noticeable amount is likely, a few percent (possibly 5,10,15% ...more than that is getting unlikely).

Think of < 1%.

Well I was comparing the Btwin he said he had to a £3k bike minimum, as he said he was going lightweight carbon (turns out he meant really average carbon etc) so there's not as much gain. There's more difference to be had than you say though.

That heavy and incredibly basic Btwin compared to a modern high end carbon bike like I mentioned, if it made the same ride that was 16mph into 16.8mph for him then that is 5%. He'd get that, certainly more if the terrain is hilly and a route with lots of braking and corners and accelerations required.

Note I am sceptical of gains made by equipment, but I'm basically comparing something crap and heavy with something pretty much as quick as things relatively get.

First.Aspect

A more expensive bike will feel nicer. Better groupsets shift better, better tyres are grippier and more comfortable, better frames generally stiffer etc etc. And nice things are nice to own and nice to use, so you'll probably use it more.

You won't notice much/any difference in speed, unless you do a lot of hills, though.

cycleclinic

This is like asking do cox apples taste different pink lady apples, they do so different bikes do feel different and there can bee resoanble difference in pace between them depending on quite alot of things. So your question OP is a vauge one with a vauge answer. try a few it like buying a car you need a test ride.

cmd205

Thanks for all the replies - really interesting stuff.

davidof

Keezx wrote:

mfin wrote:

How much quicker you'll be on it is debatable, a measurable and noticeable amount is likely, a few percent (possibly 5,10,15% ...more than that is getting unlikely).

Think of < 1%.

hah, that's about it. Actually climbing the difference will almost entirely be down to the weight. So for a 11kg Decath Triban 300 to an 8kg planetx, assuming the rider weighs 80 kg we have

88/91, about 3.5% faster.

On the flat, possibly not so much.

mfin

It's also not all to do with weight though, for example.... On the same "just about lumpy" rides one of my two carbon bikes has averaged just over 3% quicker than the other when looking at the last 100 times on each. I alternate the usage pretty much, so we're not talking difference seasons or fitness levels at all. One is slightly heavier <>500g, neither are aero bikes, both have the same wheels, exact same position being ridden, same gearing. Oh, and it is actually the slightly heaver one that is quicker not the lighter one.

When riding the two the power transfer feels obviously better on the faster one.

ZMC888

You're probably asking this question in the wrong place. These message boards are filled with knobs that think that carbon fibre is the devils work and will melt in the rain, but have a carbon fibre front fork on their bike in the most critical area for failure in the history of cycling. Some of the same people vehemently argue that aero anything is also pointless.

GCN recently did a video on YT on a similar subject. The answer is that the new much better bike will be in real terms about 5-10% everywhere. But it's how much better the bike will feel to ride that will make the most difference to you.

dannbodge

The biggest difference I found going from a cheaper bike to a more expensive one was the gearing.
Going from 9spd to 11spd allowed me to find the ratio that I like/most comfortable for me. That may have made me faster or it might not have, but it made me feel faster.

mfin

ZMC888 wrote:

GCN recently did a video on YT on a similar subject. The answer is that the new much better bike will be in real terms about 5-10% everywhere. But it's how much better the bike will feel to ride that will make the most difference to you.

That'll be this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdb7KEc7xJI

davidof

ZMC888 wrote:

GCN recently did a video on YT on a similar subject. The answer is that the new much better bike will be in real terms about 5-10% everywhere.

GCN have to keep the industry happy. I'll stick with my figure of around 3% when climbing (time difference) for the bikes he mentioned.

shortfall

ZMC888 wrote:

You're probably asking this question in the wrong place. These message boards are filled with knobs that think that carbon fibre is the devils work and will melt in the rain, but have a carbon fibre front fork on their bike in the most critical area for failure in the history of cycling. Some of the same people vehemently argue that aero anything is also pointless.

GCN recently did a video on YT on a similar subject. The answer is that the new much better bike will be in real terms about 5-10% everywhere. But it's how much better the bike will feel to ride that will make the most difference to you.

I think the knobs are the ones that think carbon fibre is the only material of choice for making a decent roadbike frame or who argue that a pound here or there will slow you down noticeably. I think the ones who are posting about rain damaging carbon are usually being ironic. There may be the odd one among them who believe this to be true and they would indeed be knobs.

ZMC888

Shortfall wrote:

ZMC888 wrote:

You're probably asking this question in the wrong place. These message boards are filled with knobs that think that carbon fibre is the devils work and will melt in the rain, but have a carbon fibre front fork on their bike in the most critical area for failure in the history of cycling. Some of the same people vehemently argue that aero anything is also pointless.

GCN recently did a video on YT on a similar subject. The answer is that the new much better bike will be in real terms about 5-10% everywhere. But it's how much better the bike will feel to ride that will make the most difference to you.

I think the knobs are the ones that think carbon fibre is the only material of choice for making a decent roadbike frame or who argue that a pound here or there will slow you down noticeably. I think the ones who are posting about rain damaging carbon are usually being ironic. There may be the odd one among them who believe this to be true and they would indeed be knobs.

No, I'm talking about people who think aluminium alloy is the best thing ever in the history of the universe and that it's better than anything else even when their front fork is made from carbon fibre anyhow. When other people simply state that they personally prefer carbon fibre, titanium or steel for some applications and aluminium for others from personal experience they fly off the handle and start attacking people with a different opinion. Pretty knobbish behaviour.

shortfall

Well I visit the forum pretty much every day and if it's full of the people you describe then I've managed to miss most of them.

w00dster

I must be one of those knobs zmc is referring to. I rate a CAAD 12 very highly, as i do a Trek Emonda alr.
I think both are very good bikes for the budget and as someone who races crits i think they are top bikes for that purpose.
ZMC previously said people like me go on about alloy because we cant afford carbon...last season i had a £6k trek emonda slr, i now have a Trek Domane SL (also have an alu one), plus i have an expensive carbon XC hardtail race bike.
A few years ago i raced on an entry level carbon frame and entry level carbon tubular wheels, wasnt at all impressed with this frame and i swapped it for a caad. But hey I'm a knob for having real world experience.
I'm not denying a good carbon frame isn't better than alu, but alu isn't the evil ZMC thinks.

https://youtu.be/h3RG5dztrXM

If someones budget is about £1500 then alu should be a potential option.

w00dster

ZMC i didn't notice any threads with you personally getting attacked. I just noticed other people having differing opionions to you.
Please send the link where these zealous knobs attacked you.
Never seen anyone on here say aluminium is the best material for frame building either, most people post similar experiences to me in that its pretty good for the price. Not as harsh as it used to be etc.

alistaird

Biggest difference I notice between bikes (with the same 'fit') is around comfort - I have never found an aluminium frame (with carbon forks) that I found comfortable over a longish ride. I find titanium and carbon more comfortable (but these are generally older frames with relatively standard tubing sizing and not the more modern 'stiff' large tubed carbon frames which I have not tried.) The more comfortable the frame - the quicker I tend to be over a 2 -3 hour ride.

Just my 2p worth...

A