When is enough enough?

CiB

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

I agree with, and already said each to their own. I'm not a luddite, but also not a slave to 'progress' for its own sake. To me, no matter how much money I have in the bank, that extra .2 of a second in shifting speed would never be worth it - fair enough if it is to you, no skin off my nose. For me, and I only speak for myself, the often eye-watering cost of (increasingly) marginal gains is simply not worth it, particularly in a sport where the rider makes by far the biggest impact to speed.

There's so much more to Di2 than speed of shift. It's consistent in the change so you're not fishing around to get it just so. It's self-indexing on the front when the rear selection requires it to be; in theory it never needs re-adjusting once it's set but sometimes you need to, and you can do it on the road. You can do it even if it doesn't need doing, just to check. It loses the ugly cables that used to be in the eye-line in front of the bars. And it's nice. That's a valid reason, that it's a nice thing to have and to use. Good mechanical is fine too, but Di2 is nice.

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

And here's another thing - tech may have improved immensely, but design has gone in reverse. Modern cars are hideous, and personally I find modern bikes extremely boring to look at too. My first, and to this date favourite, car was a (40 year old already) Triumph Herald. It broke down constantly, I'd have to run the heater in the summer to keep it cool, it could barely do 60mph or above 33mpg, and you'd have to wear earplugs on long drives to avoid hearing loss. If it weren't for the wife I'd trade my reliable, economical, safe and fast Mondeo in for another Triumph in a heartbeat. I don't like plastic dashes, I don't like the ridiculous blind spots, I don't like how it looks, and I don't like front wheel drive. Progress isn't linear.

Entirely subjective opinion. I like the design of a lot of modern cars, and really like the tech that they come with now that allows us to download a radio programme to the phone and play it through the ICE without needing to read 30 pages of the manual to do it, and it pauses it when you get out of the car at a motorway services for example. Better than Radio 1 on 247mw.

Ergonomics are so much better too in modern cars, but like you I fancied a return to my childhood a few years ago and bought a Land Rover, a SIIA jobby. For the first week it was brilliant, just how I remembered getting to school etc when I was 8. But then it was crap. Slow, noisy, smelly esp at startup when it billowed exhaust fumes over nextdoor's kids. It did 14mpg round town if I was careful, and I generally had my own fan club following me along main roads until a layby loomed into view and I could wave them on.

Agree on fwd tho, although in the snow switching out the ATC allows the handbrake to become a useful addition to the steering wheel for pointing it in the right direction.

Like James May said, old cars are for looking at. Modern cars are just better in every respect except nostalgia.

CiB

Course you can say the same about lots of things, on the why pay more argument. Why buy a 4K tv in John Lewis for three grand when Tesco sell a perfectly good set for £399? Why bother with a Merc when Hyundai can sell you a half-decent mid-size saloon for a lot less? Why buy a nice little pile of Naim black boxes at four grand each when Curry's sell something they also call 'hifi' for £99? Tough one that...

pilot_pete

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

The only thing I take a bit of issue with is when bike makers seem to introduce unnecessary tech just to make the prior stuff obsolete - Di2 in particular seems very pointless.

That’s a bit of a skewed view on development. Do you still own a twin tub washing machine and mangle? Do you drive a car with a starting handle rather than a starter motor? Gas lights at home? :roll:

It’s called development and advancement. There are always those that don’t get it because they personally don’t see the advantage or don’t like the cost. But today’s cutting edge is tomorrow’s old hat and the price points come down. There will always be an entry level, a mid-range and a top end. When I was a kid a Colnago with Super Record was just a dream on a poster on my bedroom wall as it was as out of reach as a Lamborghini.

I for one am very happy that clever engineers keep developing and trying and advancing tech. Sure, my old Raleigh Rapide was a nice bike when I was 14, but quite honestly it’s not a patch on a modern day bike.

Similarly my first car, a Hillman Imp felt brilliant at the age of 17, but it was a sh1theap which suffered from overheating (radiator in the front, engine in the back), warped head (due to overheating), constant ignition problems due to points that would burn out regularly, a heater that was hopeless, uncomfortable, cold, unrefined, and couldn’t carry 4 adults up a hill (I kid you not, my mates would have to get out and walk up the hill to meet me at the top!) I look at entry level cars now and the development is astronomical...

So di2 may seem pointless to you, but it certainly isn’t pointless. You can carry on buying Tourney and if you are happy with that then great, others don’t share your blinkered view on development, sophistication, form and function. Each to their own.

PP

I agree with, and already said each to their own. I'm not a luddite, but also not a slave to 'progress' for its own sake. To me, no matter how much money I have in the bank, that extra .2 of a second in shifting speed would never be worth it - fair enough if it is to you, no skin off my nose. For me, and I only speak for myself, the often eye-watering cost of (increasingly) marginal gains is simply not worth it, particularly in a sport where the rider makes by far the biggest impact to speed. It also isn't always the case for the price points coming down - often the reverse occurs when tech becomes 'obsolete' and harder to find. I had a devil's own job trying to find some nice tyres for my Raleigh in a 27, particularly in the relatively small market where I live. If it weren't for the internet and international shipping I would have been a bit screwed - and even then I had to compromise a bit on what I got.

And here's another thing - tech may have improved immensely, but design has gone in reverse. Modern cars are hideous, and personally I find modern bikes extremely boring to look at too. My first, and to this date favourite, car was a (40 year old already) Triumph Herald. It broke down constantly, I'd have to run the heater in the summer to keep it cool, it could barely do 60mph or above 33mpg, and you'd have to wear earplugs on long drives to avoid hearing loss. If it weren't for the wife I'd trade my reliable, economical, safe and fast Mondeo in for another Triumph in a heartbeat. I don't like plastic dashes, I don't like the ridiculous blind spots, I don't like how it looks, and I don't like front wheel drive. Progress isn't linear.

Sorry, you can’t just say you are not a Luddite and think that is definitive. You say modern cars are hideous. That’s very subjective. Sure there are pretty and ugly ones around, but my god, the majority of cars were not only ugly but completely unreliable back in the 1970s. You had to take a toolbox and spares every where you went. Nobody does that in a modern car. So your favourite car was a Triumph Herald. Great, I have a Triumph Spitfire, which is the same chassis. I love it, but it is a nostalgic toy, the engineering is appalling (transverse leaf spring causing inner rear wheel to tuck under on a long bend at speed), front trunnions made of brass which wear quickly no matter the maintenance, a chassis which sags in the middle due to a lack of roof which means the door openings become too small, rubbish hood fitting which always leaks, I could go on. Modern cars are simply a world away.

You bought a Mondeo, known for boring predictability. You made a conscious decision to buy a car with all the features you have listed as hating! That’s not really very clever is it? If you hate front wheel drive, why buy a car with front wheel drive? There are plenty of rear or four wheel drive cars available. You don’t like how it looks, it’s plastic dash, it’s ridiculous blind spots.... :roll:

Well, there are literally hundreds of more exiting and inspiring modern cars that you could have chosen, but being a Luddite you like to prove your point by buying a Mondeo... at least your wife is sensible. I quite fancy an Aston Martin Vantage, which you can get for less than £30k second hand now, funny old thing, cheaper than a Mondeo

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/new/201901304430055

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How you can say modern bikes are boring to look at when there is such a vast array of choices and designs is beyond me. I remember bikes in the 1970s all looking pretty much the same with round tubes (all the same size), classic diamond frames with horizontal top tubes, all forks being virtually exactly the same, wheels looking exactly the same apart from spoke count and gum wall tyres. All quill stems were the same polished alloy, as were bars. Very few choices of saddles and groupset. Choice of chainset? 53/39 sir, why would you want anything different? Unless of course you were even more manly and had a 42 8nner chainring. Down tube shifters, no indexing.

We now have a vast array of tube profiles, monocoque or traditionally built, carbon fibre, alloy, stainless, titanium, different section rims, better spokes, disc or rim brakes, groupsets for every price point, gear choices for racers and old fart plodders, saddles galore, excellent lights, various choices of handlebar reach, drop, hell not even all round! The choice is fabulous and there is a price point fo every budget. Things get obsolete, they always have its nothing new and you can certainly still get parts for many, many long obsolete bikes and will do for years to come.

You make a point about having the ‘devils own job’ trying to find 27” tyres. Well, I suspect being a Luddite you struggle with Google. The first result, yes the FIRST result in a google search for 27” bike tyres threw up a pair of Raleigh tyres and tubes for sale:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/372044521439?chn=ps&ul_ref=https%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F710-134428-41853-0%252F2%253Fmpre%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.ebay.co.uk%25252Fi%25252F372044521439%25253Fchn%25253Dps%2526itemid%253D372044521439%2526targetid%253D594043203110%2526device%253Dt%2526adtype%253Dpla%2526googleloc%253D1006648%2526poi%253D%2526campaignid%253D1660961677%2526adgroupid%253D69691738771%2526rlsatarget%253Dpla-594043203110%2526abcId%253D1140486%2526merchantid%253D7285664%2526gclid%253DCj0KCQiA1sriBRD-ARIsABYdwwH7RHhbl1-JZQ8a7SfM7auLC22v93mOA9ncKRX6AY_UXTgsUomkBNkaApskEALw_wcB%2526srcrot%253D710-134428-41853-0%2526rvr_id%253D1841310027622%2526rvr_ts%253Da543a0211680ab14f7f75d04fffd7725

£16.99 for the pair, posted, with a pair of inner tubes. :roll:

You may like your 1970s bike , as do I, but the fact is that is due to nostalgia, not because any aspect of the items listed above is better than their modern day equivalent. Sure, you don’t need anything more sophisticated, and good luck to you. But stop criticising the industry for developing just because you like staying in the past. The funny thing is you evidently haven’t tried electronic shifting so your opinion is uneducated, and that sir makes you a Luddite. Following your logic your 1970s Raleigh is completely unnecessary and extravagant as there are still penny farthings around...

PP

sgt.pepper

CiB wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

I agree with, and already said each to their own. I'm not a luddite, but also not a slave to 'progress' for its own sake. To me, no matter how much money I have in the bank, that extra .2 of a second in shifting speed would never be worth it - fair enough if it is to you, no skin off my nose. For me, and I only speak for myself, the often eye-watering cost of (increasingly) marginal gains is simply not worth it, particularly in a sport where the rider makes by far the biggest impact to speed.

There's so much more to Di2 than speed of shift. It's consistent in the change so you're not fishing around to get it just so. It's self-indexing on the front when the rear selection requires it to be; in theory it never needs re-adjusting once it's set but sometimes you need to, and you can do it on the road. You can do it even if it doesn't need doing, just to check. It loses the ugly cables that used to be in the eye-line in front of the bars. And it's nice. That's a valid reason, that it's a nice thing to have and to use. Good mechanical is fine too, but Di2 is nice.

It was just an illustration - you could apply it to any expensive kit that has minute gains - say spending a fortune on a stem that's a few grams lighter, or the latest wheelset. I've never tried Di2, maybe it's amazing and I'd become a convert, but for now I'm not fussed.

CiB wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Entirely subjective opinion. I like the design of a lot of modern cars, and really like the tech that they come with now that allows us to download a radio programme to the phone and play it through the ICE without needing to read 30 pages of the manual to do it, and it pauses it when you get out of the car at a motorway services for example. Better than Radio 1 on 247mw.

Ergonomics are so much better too in modern cars, but like you I fancied a return to my childhood a few years ago and bought a Land Rover, a SIIA jobby. For the first week it was brilliant, just how I remembered getting to school etc when I was 8. But then it was crap. Slow, noisy, smelly esp at startup when it billowed exhaust fumes over nextdoor's kids. It did 14mpg round town if I was careful, and I generally had my own fan club following me along main roads until a layby loomed into view and I could wave them on.

Agree on fwd tho, although in the snow switching out the ATC allows the handbrake to become a useful addition to the steering wheel for pointing it in the right direction.

Like James May said, old cars are for looking at. Modern cars are just better in every respect except nostalgia.

I'm about 30, and bought the Herald when I was 19, so I wasn't nostalgically reliving any prior glory days. There's a reason that retro gear still finds a market with younger generations who have grown up in the digital world.

Tech has clearly improved - I run LEDs, a (subtle) modern camera and will be installing a modern dynamo hub on my 10 speed. I put STIs and will be getting some deeper wheels for my Competition - I love getting to enjoy the benefits of classic design with modern practicality - sadly installing a modern engine in classic car is prohibitively expensive.

At the end of the day I genuinely don't care what people buy - it filters down to the second hand market anyway. To me, the difference between sinking money into cars than into bikes, is that I could beat a professional driver if I were in a LMP1 car, and he in a road car - but all of us would get slaughtered on a 12k TT monster by a pro on a 200 quid bike from Halfords.

pilot_pete

Why are you shifting the goalposts to imply people buy modern for marginal gains? Maybe people just like things like di2 and their function. It’s got nothing to do with going fast and thinking you could beat a pro on a Halfords £200 bike. :roll:

sgt.pepper

Pilot Pete wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

The only thing I take a bit of issue with is when bike makers seem to introduce unnecessary tech just to make the prior stuff obsolete - Di2 in particular seems very pointless.

That’s a bit of a skewed view on development. Do you still own a twin tub washing machine and mangle? Do you drive a car with a starting handle rather than a starter motor? Gas lights at home? :roll:

It’s called development and advancement. There are always those that don’t get it because they personally don’t see the advantage or don’t like the cost. But today’s cutting edge is tomorrow’s old hat and the price points come down. There will always be an entry level, a mid-range and a top end. When I was a kid a Colnago with Super Record was just a dream on a poster on my bedroom wall as it was as out of reach as a Lamborghini.

I for one am very happy that clever engineers keep developing and trying and advancing tech. Sure, my old Raleigh Rapide was a nice bike when I was 14, but quite honestly it’s not a patch on a modern day bike.

Similarly my first car, a Hillman Imp felt brilliant at the age of 17, but it was a sh1theap which suffered from overheating (radiator in the front, engine in the back), warped head (due to overheating), constant ignition problems due to points that would burn out regularly, a heater that was hopeless, uncomfortable, cold, unrefined, and couldn’t carry 4 adults up a hill (I kid you not, my mates would have to get out and walk up the hill to meet me at the top!) I look at entry level cars now and the development is astronomical...

So di2 may seem pointless to you, but it certainly isn’t pointless. You can carry on buying Tourney and if you are happy with that then great, others don’t share your blinkered view on development, sophistication, form and function. Each to their own.

PP

I agree with, and already said each to their own. I'm not a luddite, but also not a slave to 'progress' for its own sake. To me, no matter how much money I have in the bank, that extra .2 of a second in shifting speed would never be worth it - fair enough if it is to you, no skin off my nose. For me, and I only speak for myself, the often eye-watering cost of (increasingly) marginal gains is simply not worth it, particularly in a sport where the rider makes by far the biggest impact to speed. It also isn't always the case for the price points coming down - often the reverse occurs when tech becomes 'obsolete' and harder to find. I had a devil's own job trying to find some nice tyres for my Raleigh in a 27, particularly in the relatively small market where I live. If it weren't for the internet and international shipping I would have been a bit screwed - and even then I had to compromise a bit on what I got.

And here's another thing - tech may have improved immensely, but design has gone in reverse. Modern cars are hideous, and personally I find modern bikes extremely boring to look at too. My first, and to this date favourite, car was a (40 year old already) Triumph Herald. It broke down constantly, I'd have to run the heater in the summer to keep it cool, it could barely do 60mph or above 33mpg, and you'd have to wear earplugs on long drives to avoid hearing loss. If it weren't for the wife I'd trade my reliable, economical, safe and fast Mondeo in for another Triumph in a heartbeat. I don't like plastic dashes, I don't like the ridiculous blind spots, I don't like how it looks, and I don't like front wheel drive. Progress isn't linear.

Sorry, you can’t just say you are not a Luddite and think that is definitive. You say modern cars are hideous. That’s very subjective. Sure there are pretty and ugly ones around, but my god, the majority of cars were not only ugly but completely unreliable back in the 1970s. You had to take a toolbox and spares every where you went. Nobody does that in a modern car. So your favourite car was a Triumph Herald. Great, I have a Triumph Spitfire, which is the same chassis. I love it, but it is a nostalgic toy, the engineering is appalling (transverse leaf spring causing inner rear wheel to tuck under on a long bend at speed), front trunnions made of brass which wear quickly no matter the maintenance, a chassis which sags in the middle due to a lack of roof which means the door openings become too small, rubbish hood fitting which always leaks, I could go on. Modern cars are simply a world away.

You bought a Mondeo, known for boring predictability. You made a conscious decision to buy a car with all the features you have listed as hating! That’s not really very clever is it? If you hate front wheel drive, why buy a car with front wheel drive? There are plenty of rear or four wheel drive cars available. You don’t like how it looks, it’s plastic dash, it’s ridiculous blind spots.... :roll:

Well, there are literally hundreds of more exiting and inspiring modern cars that you could have chosen, but being a Luddite you like to prove your point by buying a Mondeo... at least your wife is sensible. I quite fancy an Aston Martin Vantage, which you can get for less than £30k second hand now, funny old thing, cheaper than a Mondeo

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/new/201901304430055

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How you can say modern bikes are boring to look at when there is such a vast array of choices and designs is beyond me. I remember bikes in the 1970s all looking pretty much the same with round tubes (all the same size), classic diamond frames with horizontal top tubes, all forks being virtually exactly the same, wheels looking exactly the same apart from spoke count and gum wall tyres. All quill stems were the same polished alloy, as were bars. Very few choices of saddles and groupset. Choice of chainset? 53/39 sir, why would you want anything different? Unless of course you were even more manly and had a 42 8nner chainring. Down tube shifters, no indexing.

We now have a vast array of tube profiles, monocoque or traditionally built, carbon fibre, alloy, stainless, titanium, different section rims, better spokes, disc or rim brakes, groupsets for every price point, gear choices for racers and old fart plodders, saddles galore, excellent lights, various choices of handlebar reach, drop, hell not even all round! The choice is fabulous and there is a price point fo every budget. Things get obsolete, they always have its nothing new and you can certainly still get parts for many, many long obsolete bikes and will do for years to come.

You make a point about having the ‘devils own job’ trying to find 27” tyres. Well, I suspect being a Luddite you struggle with Google. The first result, yes the FIRST result in a google search for 27” bike tyres threw up a pair of Raleigh tyres and tubes for sale:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/372044521439?chn=ps&ul_ref=https%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F710-134428-41853-0%252F2%253Fmpre%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.ebay.co.uk%25252Fi%25252F372044521439%25253Fchn%25253Dps%2526itemid%253D372044521439%2526targetid%253D594043203110%2526device%253Dt%2526adtype%253Dpla%2526googleloc%253D1006648%2526poi%253D%2526campaignid%253D1660961677%2526adgroupid%253D69691738771%2526rlsatarget%253Dpla-594043203110%2526abcId%253D1140486%2526merchantid%253D7285664%2526gclid%253DCj0KCQiA1sriBRD-ARIsABYdwwH7RHhbl1-JZQ8a7SfM7auLC22v93mOA9ncKRX6AY_UXTgsUomkBNkaApskEALw_wcB%2526srcrot%253D710-134428-41853-0%2526rvr_id%253D1841310027622%2526rvr_ts%253Da543a0211680ab14f7f75d04fffd7725

£16.99 for the pair, posted, with a pair of inner tubes. :roll:

You may like your 1970s bike , as do I, but the fact is that is due to nostalgia, not because any aspect of the items listed above is better than their modern day equivalent. Sure, you don’t need anything more sophisticated, and good luck to you. But stop criticising the industry for developing just because you like staying in the past. The funny thing is you evidently haven’t tried electronic shifting so your opinion is uneducated, and that sir makes you a Luddite. Following your logic your 1970s Raleigh is completely unnecessary and extravagant as there are still penny farthings around...

PP

Apologies for the double post.

Already addressed the fact that I can't be blinded by nostalgia for an era I never actually lived through.

I wanted tan sidewalls without tread - ending up have to compromise on a pair of (actually rather nice) Panaracer Paselas. The postage to NZ from the UK doubles that cost again - let alone the wait time. If I were buying them because I had torn a tyre rather than upgrading, I'd be back on my modern commuter for a good 2-4 weeks.

My wife is definitely the sensible one - if it weren't for her we'd have a full garage and no furniture. The Mondeo is a good car for a work horse, but I bought a sensible one first because I can't move a sofa in an Aston Martin.

I'm not criticising the industry for developing and progressing, we all reap the benefits. What I'm saying is a) at what point is the extra outlay worth it in an endeavour where the rider makes up the vast majority of the difference, b) I don't think the never ending 'market diversification' always benefits us as consumers and c) I think it can become easy to get caught up in the endless chase for 'marginal gains,' and stop appreciating what we love about the sport in the first place. Again, I'm not saying you, personally, but I honestly can't say that guy on the latest kit is enjoying himself more (or less) than I am.

Plus, I look cooler. 8)

CiB

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

It was just an illustration - you could apply it to any expensive kit that has minute gains - say spending a fortune on a stem that's a few grams lighter, or the latest wheelset. I've never tried Di2, maybe it's amazing and I'd become a convert, but for now I'm not fussed.

But you've moved the goalposts again, and have ignored the list of reasons why - for this example at least - Di2 is much better. That list of reasons isn't 'marginal minute gains', that's a cumulative list of reasons why it's an attractive proposition. And I missed off the ease of changing down a cog or two whilst still giving it big stick up a hill. That's another big plus.

Stems? I don't think anyone would buy a superlight stem on its own, but as a package of improvements and weight-saving it's there on merit. And it probably looks nicer than a std stem too. You've claimed that you look cooler so you can't argue that looking good isn't in the mix of reasons to buy stuff. You just disagree on what looks better.

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

At the end of the day I genuinely don't care what people buy - it filters down to the second hand market anyway. To me, the difference between sinking money into cars than into bikes, is that I could beat a professional driver if I were in a LMP1 car, and he in a road car - but all of us would get slaughtered on a 12k TT monster by a pro on a 200 quid bike from Halfords.

Don't know about you but I don't compare my cycling (or driving, or any other sports ability) against pro competitors. I compare it with an arbitrary personal target of how good I could be for a reasonable finacial outlay aligned with the benefits [to me] of having nicer gear.

meursault

old fart plodders

I resemble that remark.

philbar72

cowboyjon wrote:

I love it how almost every thread on this forum somehow manages to become a narcissistic jizzfest with people finding an excuse to list all the nice things they've bought themselves.

hehe, yeah, it does turn into this. I've a pair of nice bikes, and a crap car. its fine.

thegreatdivide

cowboyjon wrote:

I love it how almost every thread on this forum somehow manages to become a narcissistic jizzfest with people finding an excuse to list all the nice things they've bought themselves.

Or the inverse snobs who expect a hearty slap on the back for not buying anything expensive.

Matthewfalle

£3,500 on a groupset

anyone on here bought one yet?

pinno

I have loved every bit of this thread.

I have an ageing Porsche and the shiny bikes but I am still parsimonious. Did you see what I did there?

Almost every bit of cycling kit/parts I own is second hand. Bar bib shorts* and some parts, I have managed to find everything I need/want second hand: Carbon bike x 2, campag record gruppo's, Dura ace carbon wheels (C35's), Campag Eurus wheels, carbon Wilier compact chainset to match the bike.... The list is endless and the difference with brand new? Well, about 8k. I couldn't have bought it if someone else hadn't spent the cash on bits when they were new.
I've had the "Great bike, pity the legs don't match". F*ck off, I had Leukaemia and I also have 2 artificial hips. Oh you've passed me on your Apollo and you are giggling off into the distance in front of me! Well, if you hadn't, it would be a bit embarrassing, wouldn't it?

*It's one thing I will not buy second hand but more, old pads probably won't comfort my bony 4rse. If it's all you can afford, fine, I have no problem with it.

Being both a petrol head and cyclist simultaneously, the sort of money I see/hear of being spent on classic cars is eye watering. Makes cycling look ridiculously cheap.

I have 0 nostalgia for old steel framed bikes. The bits yes, but the overall feel of a modern CF bike with Ergo/Sti levers, a decent set of wheels and good tyres, far surpasses anything I ever rode 30, 20, 15 years ago.

And that's where we can make the comparison. A lot of 'Classic' cars are much over rated.
What has changed is the mentality. Once, I used to go out with a club and there were all sorts of shapes, sizes and abilities. Now it's a clique and I really miss group rides. I hear of 14mph groups and 16mph groups etc ffs :roll:
I got fed up of the perpetual 'Oh hiya, riding much?' To which I have replied and (he) thankfully hasn't spoke to me again) "I'll tell you how many miles I am doing and you can decide whether you want to talk to me or not".

The proliferation of cycling in the UK has been one helluva revolution but like all sports, there will be extremes but it doesn't represent the norm.

step83

Matthewfalle wrote:

£3,500 on a groupset

anyone on here bought one yet?

I did laugh at that pricing when it appeared, an then the price of some of the bikes that come kitted with it, 11K+ for a bike? Sorry that is just insane I would never dream of spending that much on a bike. OK I recently bought a new frame but only as mines damaged but not even close to the cost of that groupset (actually only about £800). I could think of far far more useful things to spend that 3K on let alone the 11K!

sgt.pepper

I've been giving this some thought the last week or so, because it did set me wondering about what I love about cycling and whether I'm a luddite. I think I probably confused things a bit by bringing in classic cars. To me, you can break spending on bike into three parts;

1 - Speed
2 - Feel
3 - Aesthetics

Different people have diferent budgets, and there's also a fine line between bike design progressing, and anti-consumer 'market diversification.'

The other thing I've been pondering in this space - power meters. I don't want one, just as I barely use strava, because I find the moment you put a number on something it removes the 'feel,' I suppose 'romance' of it. Curious to hear thoughts on that.

Maybe I was just a luddite born the wrong decade though, I don't know.

neeb

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

The other thing I've been pondering in this space - power meters. I don't want one, just as I barely use strava, because I find the moment you put a number on something it removes the 'feel,' I suppose 'romance' of it. Curious to hear thoughts on that.

Although this is a common perception I actually disagree quite strongly. A power meter lets you see how feel corresponds with actual power. So it lets you calibrate feel. You start to get a finely tuned feeling for what's efficient.

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

I have loved every bit of this thread.

I have an ageing Porsche and the shiny bikes but I am still parsimonious. Did you see what I did there?

Almost every bit of cycling kit/parts I own is second hand. Bar bib shorts* and some parts, I have managed to find everything I need/want second hand: Carbon bike x 2, campag record gruppo's, Dura ace carbon wheels (C35's), Campag Eurus wheels, carbon Wilier compact chainset to match the bike.... The list is endless and the difference with brand new? Well, about 8k. I couldn't have bought it if someone else hadn't spent the cash on bits when they were new.
I've had the "Great bike, pity the legs don't match". F*ck off, I had Leukaemia and I also have 2 artificial hips. Oh you've passed me on your Apollo and you are giggling off into the distance in front of me! Well, if you hadn't, it would be a bit embarrassing, wouldn't it?

*It's one thing I will not buy second hand but more, old pads probably won't comfort my bony 4rse. If it's all you can afford, fine, I have no problem with it.

Being both a petrol head and cyclist simultaneously, the sort of money I see/hear of being spent on classic cars is eye watering. Makes cycling look ridiculously cheap.

I have 0 nostalgia for old steel framed bikes. The bits yes, but the overall feel of a modern CF bike with Ergo/Sti levers, a decent set of wheels and good tyres, far surpasses anything I ever rode 30, 20, 15 years ago.

And that's where we can make the comparison. A lot of 'Classic' cars are much over rated.
What has changed is the mentality. Once, I used to go out with a club and there were all sorts of shapes, sizes and abilities. Now it's a clique and I really miss group rides. I hear of 14mph groups and 16mph groups etc ffs :roll:
I got fed up of the perpetual 'Oh hiya, riding much?' To which I have replied and (he) thankfully hasn't spoke to me again) "I'll tell you how many miles I am doing and you can decide whether you want to talk to me or not".

The proliferation of cycling in the UK has been one helluva revolution but like all sports, there will be extremes but it doesn't represent the norm.

What you on about Willis?

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I have ...norm.

What you on about Willis?

Looking back - no frikkin idea.

Moonbiker

Worst think about one aspect of expensive bikes is how stupid clueless people have talken over in some local cycle clubs give dumb advice to new riders like saying you need minimum ultegra and a power meter or a bikes noe worth looking at. (But same people don't even know how to cycle properly in a group etc & have never raced.)

Might be why theese same cycle clubs had zero young new riders only retired mammils, & most of the the traditional old fashioned type cyclist who doesn't buy a new bike every year, but still handy @ the local 10 mile TT aren't in the clubs anymore.

zest28

Honestly, I see no point of cheap road bikes. A gravel bike or a cross bike with road tyres is just as fast as cheap road bikes while being far more capable.

Matthewfalle

Zest28 wrote:

Honestly, I see no point of cheap road bikes. A gravel bike or a cross bike with road tyres is just as fast as cheap road bikes while being far more capable.

its not about the bike, Willis.

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I have ...norm.

What you on about Willis?

Looking back - no frikkin idea.

good point, well presented.

zest28

Double post.

zest28

Sorry, how to delete double posts?

zest28

Zest28 wrote:

Zest28 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Zest28 wrote:

Honestly, I see no point of cheap road bikes. A gravel bike or a cross bike with road tyres is just as fast as cheap road bikes while being far more capable.

its not about the bike, Willis.

Ofcourse it is. There is no point in buying a road bike if it is just as fast as a Gravel bike.

Hence why I sold my weight weenie 5.8 kg non-aero road bike as the differences were too close (except in climbing)

The only road bike I have now is an aero bike because that bike is alot faster.

neeb

Zest28 wrote:

Zest28 wrote:

Zest28 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Zest28 wrote:

Honestly, I see no point of cheap road bikes. A gravel bike or a cross bike with road tyres is just as fast as cheap road bikes while being far more capable.

its not about the bike, Willis.

Ofcourse it is. There is no point in buying a road bike if it is just as fast as a Gravel bike.

Hence why I sold my weight weenie 5.8 kg non-aero road bike as the differences were too close (except in climbing)

The only road bike I have now is an aero bike because that bike is alot faster.

It won't be - it it's a lot faster that will be down to position, setup and other factors. If the eqipment makes a really significant aero difference it will be down to wheels and cockpit. The difference that an aero frame makes in practice is barely detectable. The same could be said for weight of course, although you will certainly notice a couple of kilograms once the gradient gets really steep. The thing is, in typical UK conditions although we don't have many long hills there are often lots of short, steep pitches, and you do really notice weight on those.

There's a big campaign by the bike companiies right now to try to persuade us that it's all about aero and weight doesn't matter, because they want to sell us new stuff and it's cheaper to make fancy aero tube profiles than it is to make high quality lightweight equipment. Of course it's true that drag is extremely important, but a frame is not going to make nearly as much difference as they want you to believe.

All those figures you see about X watts saved at Y kmh are based on false assumptions, such as that the drag differences between two frames without riders in a wind tunnel equate to the same drag differences between two riders riding those frames on the road. Not to mention that they always fiddle the sums in favour of heavier riders etc.

DeVlaeminck

Zest28 wrote:

Honestly, I see no point of cheap road bikes. A gravel bike or a cross bike with road tyres is just as fast as cheap road bikes while being far more capable.

Presumably the point of a cheap road bike is that it's cheap ?

zest28

A lot of armchair experts here who never owned these bikes and did actual tests with them.

shirley_basso

I had a cheap road bike. Good aero position. Plenty fast.

Sadly not cheap enough as some scrote stole it.

neeb

Zest28 wrote:

A lot of armchair experts here who never owned these bikes and did actual tests with them.

What tests did you do?

Did you make sure that the bikes were set up exactly the same (that's actually quite difficult, you've either got to have a jig or an obsessive personality and be a dab hand with geometry charts and plumb lines, taking several repeat measurements.

Then you would need to do many tests on the same course(s) with a power meter, wearing the same clothes and adopting exactly the same position. Many tests because you'd need to have a really big sample size to allow for variations in other variables such as wind, air density etc. And of course if it was the frames you were testing you'd need to use the same wheels each time with the same tyres at the same pressure.

I've also owned a rather wide variety of bikes and done informal tests on them (and I have some subjective opinions about what's fast and what isn't that I can't really back up with hard data), but at the end of the day lots of people have done this sort of stuff before and done it more thoroughly, and you probably will learn more about it from an armchair than from comparing average speeds on Strava..