# Does how much you spend on a bike actually matter for most cyclists..?



## Upstream (19 Aug 2013)

Hi all,
This would be my first post in the beginners section and it may not fit here but it seemed the most appropriate. On forums and when chatting with other cyclists, people talk about wheels, gear setups, frame, weight etc.
My question is this... For cyclists who do it as a leisure activity only - going out on the road two or three times per week and doing 30 - 50 miles each time and entering four or five sportive rides per year of up to about 100 miles (and averaging between 15 and 17mph on a run), dos bike choice make any difference or is it all just hype?
So for example if such a rider was on a £300 road bike, would their performance show any noticeable improvement if they for instance (without any increase in outings, change in diet etc etc) they bought a bike costing say £1,000?
Thanks.


----------



## Hacienda71 (19 Aug 2013)

As long as the bike does what you need it to don't worry.
The gains against spend become more and more marginal the more you spend. A £7000 bike is not going to be 7 times better than a £1000 bike. It is likely to be quite a bit better, but the biggest factor is the rider. If someone has the money to by a high end bike then that is fine, the most important part imho is to enjoy riding, whatever the cost of your bike.


----------



## Hill Wimp (19 Aug 2013)

I agree with @Hacienda71 it's all about the enjoyment you get from your bike whether you got it in a boot fair for £25 or bought it for £2500. The more expensive one won't go faster unless you get fitter.


----------



## madferret (19 Aug 2013)

I don't think it matters too much, I like the small improvement I recently made with second hand Boardman Hybrid Comp > Trek 7100 FX and its nicer to ride, lighter and the gear change is better etc. Its not improved me greatly but then I didn't spend a lot of money either. I suspect I may want a road bike at some point as well, but just couldn't justify spending tons, so will probably also be second hand.

If its enjoyable then its worth it. I do fear some folk may buy a bike and be put off if its too heavy, set up wrong or whatever but any cycling is better than no cycling. 

Its always tempting with a new hobby/obsession to throw a lot of money at it, but for me I have to prove that I am going keep it up before I spend silly amounts.


----------



## MikeW-71 (19 Aug 2013)

^^ this really

I will shortly be able to answer almost your exact question. I've been riding a Giant Defy 2 so far and I am very happy with it, excellent bike. I've just bought a Defy Advanced 2. I can feel the new one is lighter and a bit more nimble, seems to accelerate better. But will it make me faster? I'll find out for sure on thursday when I can give it a proper ride. I suspect the answer will be "only slightly" I'm not expecting to suddenly gain 2mph. It should be a nicer ride though 

Going from a £300 bike to a £1k bike, it will improve their performance, but only a little. Nowhere near as much as if they improve their fitness.

The amount you spend on a bike doesn't matter, whether it's £300 or £10k, the rider is what counts.


----------



## Hill Wimp (19 Aug 2013)

If i thought a £7000 bike would get me up hills a lot easier i would consider re mortgaging the house as i love cycling BUT it won't. My recent bike fit taught me that proper fitting, small changes and advice and just getting out there make the biggest differences plus according to a local bike pro most decent road bikes under £1000 have more than enough gears to get you up a mountain, you just have to have the knowledge of when and how to use them and good fitness.


----------



## ayceejay (19 Aug 2013)

This is a question that gets asked many different ways on this (and other) forums and predictably there are many different answers, a lot of them beginning with "it all depends".
I think it is a good idea to see if you enjoy cycling before you invest too much money but it seems as though you have passed that stage so be aware that if you upgrade now and you see an improvement (in whatever form that takes) you will likely want to upgrade again later on. Buying and selling bikes is usually a one way street and selling your old bike will not help much in financing your new bike so - my answer:
buy one with a decent frame and average components, wheels and so on and then you can upgrade gradually in the future. If you join a club you will meet other people doing the same upgrading tango so when someone moves up from his $500 wheels to $2000 wheels you could pick up a bargain, just be careful.


----------



## Andy Smith (19 Aug 2013)

I started on a Carrera TDF that cost me £250 and upgraded to a Giant Defy 1 that was £1000. There is a significant difference in the weight and standard of components used which is what the difference in money is for. I had been using the Carrera for 6 months so was reasonably fit and I can say that as a consequence of the upgrade my average speed went up by 3 or 4 mph over the 16 mile evening course I regularly ride. There is no doubt in my mind that you get what you pay for with bikes and I'm sure if I spent another grand to go for a decent carbon with good spec I would notice another step up in performance. There are some great bikes about now for well under the grand and would say to anyone buying a first bike or upgrade, spend at least as much as you can afford, or even a little bit more, to get the best frame, wheel and components as you are able. If your not sure what this means post some questions on this very helpful forum and you will receive sensible help and advice.


----------



## biggs682 (19 Aug 2013)

i have found the biggest improvement on lots of the bikes i have owned comes from having the hubs serviced on a regular basis .

having never owned a new bike i dont know how much an improvement there would be over or 2nd hand


----------



## Sillyoldman (19 Aug 2013)

losing 3 stone and getting fitter has made much more of an improvement to my riding than upgrading/replacing my steed.


----------



## vickster (19 Aug 2013)

Spend what you can afford and justify to yourself, that's my motto


----------



## User16625 (19 Aug 2013)

Hill Wimp said:


> *If i thought a £7000 bike would get me up hills a lot easier i would consider re mortgaging the house* as i love cycling BUT it won't. My recent bike fit taught me that proper fitting, small changes and advice and just getting out there make the biggest differences plus according to a local bike pro most decent road bikes under £1000 have more than enough gears to get you up a mountain, you just have to have the knowledge of when and how to use them and good fitness.


 
You can. and for cheaper than 7k: http://www.ebay.co.uk/bhp/honda-cbr600rr-blue
However it makes things a bit too easy, you will get fat.

Seriously tho what the OP asked is something I often used to wonder myself. What would happen if I had a lighter frame, disc wheels and Duro Ace 105 carbon fibre everything else. I just get the best my money can buy and get out there. The bike I have now cost hundreds more than my previous one and in terms of actual performance improvement, I honestly could not say as I havent measured it beyong fitting a basic speedo to my bike. What I have noticed is that since having a nicer bike I have done bigger rides and my maximum speeds do seemed to have improved slightly. I noticed that I am now hitting 40mph on particular descents more often than I used to (I always go apeshit on good downhills).


----------



## Saluki (19 Aug 2013)

My husband has gone from a Carerra Vanquish to a Boardman Team Carbon Ltd and I have noticed a difference in his performance, so to speak.
He blasts past me on small hills, he is riding further and faster. I think that it has a lot to do with the fact he loves the bike and it fits properly. Its lighter so he is climbing better. The Vanquish was a tad small for him. It was the bike he wanted and could best afford - he got given the money for the Boardman in Halfords vouchers. Good job he didn't want a Cannondale or something.


----------



## marzjennings (19 Aug 2013)

Matters to me, I hate riding cheap crap that breaks. As a big lad with powerful legs, who has a tendency for abusive mountain bike riding (abusive to body and bike), I do not miss the days when I could only afford the cheap stuff. 

And to the question, yes I would expect an average cyclist to see a noticeable improvement in performance jumping from a £300 to a £1000 bike. But not as big an improvement if they lost some weight, got a good fitting or just improved their fitness. 

I'd say the rider contributes about 70% and the bike about 30% to overall ride performance, speed and efficiency.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (19 Aug 2013)

Beyond a certain bicycle price tag, the only things that will significantly improve your performance are: lose any excess weight, and work on the leg muscles . I noticed a difference in speed when I bought my first road bike in November, compared to the touring bike that I'd used for everything (commuting + recreational) up to then. This was mainly due to the road bike weighing 8kg compared to 15kg for the tourer. I still use the tourer, though, for commuting, because it's ideal for it. I doubt that buying a more expensive road bike would make much difference to my performance, though.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (19 Aug 2013)

Andy Smith said:


> I started on a Carrera TDF that cost me £250 and upgraded to a Giant Defy 1 that was £1000. There is a significant difference in the weight and standard of components used which is what the difference in money is for. I had been using the *Carrera for 6 months so was reasonably fit and I can say that as a consequence of the upgrade my average speed went up by 3 or 4 mph over the 16 mile evening course* I regularly ride. There is no doubt in my mind that you get what you pay for with bikes and I'm sure if I spent another grand to go for a decent carbon with good spec I would notice another step up in performance. There are some great bikes about now for well under the grand and would say to anyone buying a first bike or upgrade, spend at least as much as you can afford, or even a little bit more, to get the best frame, wheel and components as you are able. If your not sure what this means post some questions on this very helpful forum and you will receive sensible help and advice.


So what your saying is that the defy over my viking I could expect 19-20mph+ avgs. as I am averaging 16mph on most routes I take these day.


----------



## AndyPeace (20 Aug 2013)

Nigelnaturist said:


> So what your saying is that the defy over my viking I could expect 19-20mph+ avgs. as I am averaging 16mph on most routes I take these day.


 
I think a well designed frame geometry/engineering would make a difference. I've only really put in short performance rides on my new Trek, but have hit a 19.5mph average (on a short loop) though that difference between my previous personal best (18mph on the Hybrid) is properly more down to gearing and power to weight. On straights and descents I can be upto 5mph faster than my hybrid, though that likely comes down to gearing (and it's level of efficiency) and (for me)roadbike positioning (which you already have). Interestingly my top speed is not that different (well not yet) which I'd suggest comes down to bike handling skills and confidence. I think in the comparison of a Defy and your Viking ( that you've adjusted to find a good fit for you...over time). I'd wager that you'd start off being 2mph or less better than you are now but would probably do more miles than you already do  I'd speculate further down the line ,with growing bike handling skills, the difference will be more significant...on the premise that a finely tuned frame is easier/more precise to use, allowing you finer/less fatiguing control over your bike.


----------



## Gravity Aided (20 Aug 2013)

Components make a difference. Component levels get better as a bicycles quality rises, but there gets to be a point where the expense may be more easily solved with upgrades down the road. So buy a nice, light frame in the mid-range- the upper part of middle seems best. This will give you a good start . You may then upgrade as needs be. Anything less than upper middle level will probably not net you a frame that is worth upgrading when the time comes. A frame that fits you well, in the upper middle range, will serve you well, and will let you get well started, and do a good job as your extra bicycle when you decide you need something flashier.


----------



## the_mikey (20 Aug 2013)

I am sitting on the fence here, I think some of those factors are important for sustaining an interest in cycling. I've only really enjoyed cycling since I've discovered that you can buy a good quality light weight bicycle made with parts that work well and are easily serviced/maintained. Before that I only ever had awful bikes that were heavy and impractical that I would never dream of cycling on for more than a mile or two. Where you draw the line regarding what is excessive cost and what is sensible is not so easy, as each person who rides will have different needs, but as the OP mentioned riding sportives, I would expect a bike between £400-700 would do it, bearing in mind the cheaper bikes tend to provide a good frame but some of the components fitted are rubbish, especially wheels.


----------



## vickster (20 Aug 2013)

Having a nice bike (err bikes) means that I am much more inclined to ride more often and further. If honest, if I had a cheap, heavy bike I probably wouldn't ride it. It's my hobby and am happy to spend quite a large chunk of my disposable income on it. I would never have a £7k bike as I could never justify it to myself even though I could buy one if I wanted (I don't really give two hoots what others think). I'd also be concerned about it being nicked! Comfort, looks, reliability and weight are the key factors, not performance as I am the limiting factor ultimately


----------



## Andrew_P (20 Aug 2013)

Nigelnaturist said:


> So what your saying is that the defy over my viking I could expect 19-20mph+ avgs. as I am averaging 16mph on most routes I take these day.


 No, *you* ride your new more expensive bike harder as it helps the self justification process 

On serious note of course it will be different its a different quality bike but adding 4-5mph instantly would be a stretch IMHO.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Aug 2013)

@AndyPeace
@Andy Smith was comparing a TDF with a Defy so would be a similar change to what I would get. Though its cost me a fortune (relatively) as you say to get the bike setup, though most as been through necessity rather than a simply upgrade, components such as stem (threads stripped, hence new stem, and because a different size new bars), seat post, saddle. Wheels because my others gave up the ghost again not expensive ones (but every spare penny I have for 1 1/2 months).
The wheels gave an improvement, but the rest as really down to me getting fitter,


----------



## slowmotion (20 Aug 2013)

My bike cost seven hundred quid, three years ago. It was a lot of money to me, but I made sacrifices. I'm thinking of buying another in the next year that might cost a bit more, purely because I like beautiful engineering. I have absolutely no illusions that it will make me a better or faster cyclist. BTW, my motor has been valued by the accountant at 28 quid. Will you give me a break?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Aug 2013)

Andrew_P said:


> No, *you* ride your new more expensive bike harder as it helps the self justification process
> 
> On serious note of course it will be different its a different quality bike but adding 4-5mph instantly would be a stretch IMHO.


I wouldn't ride it any harder, only to my physical abilities.


----------



## HLaB (20 Aug 2013)

My mate is a phenominal cyclist (my excuse is he's half my age ), and in a recent race somebody took his front wheel out, buckling the fork, etc so whilst he was waiting for the replacement he borrowed a 20year old bike and did some local TT's he aced them, sailing by folk on their £Xk bikes and Zipp wheels. He got his bike back for the NCRA road race the other night and won that but even then his bike does not compare moneywise to the others. It doesn't matter too much what bike if you have the engine and he does


----------



## Mile195 (20 Aug 2013)

I was told once that the difference between spending £500 and £1000 is phenomenal. The difference between spending £1000 and £1500, is trivial - at this stage you save mere grams in terms of weight and component quality is only marginally better.

I have to say that when I bought my current bike (BMC Streetfire) I test rode several bikes. two or three from the £400-£600 range. Compared to the BMC (which I paid about £1100 for) they were indeed not very good. I could feel that not all the power I was putting into the pedals was going to the wheels, an indicator that part of it was going into making the frame flex instead. Gear changes felt clunkier and there just seemed to be generally more resistance.

I'm not a bike snob - up to that point I'd been riding a 25 year old Peugeot racer, but even I in my limited road cycling experience at the time could tell the difference.

So yes - to me I would always spend at least £1000. However, I would draw the line at too much above that. I reckon if you're racing and you really, really know your bikes, and that every little improvement is in some way beneficial then you might want to spend 000's and 000's, but personally for me it simply wouldn't be warranted.


----------



## Cycleops (20 Aug 2013)

Lets face it you are not going to go much faster on a five grand bike than one costing a fifth as much, but you you might look and feel much cooler!


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Aug 2013)

Cycleops said:


> Lets face it you are not going to go much faster on a five grand bike than one costing a fifth as much, but you you might look and feel much cooler!


Vanity.


----------



## Gravity Aided (20 Aug 2013)

And I remember when the dividing line was $250.00(159pds.), not 1000pds. Mile195 makes a great point that has always been true for bicycles-at some point in the price range, you face a law of diminishing returns. Then, it is up to you and your athletic abilities.


----------



## mattobrien (20 Aug 2013)

I have now got two road bikes, a more and a less expensive one.

The more expensive one is faster over any distance, but the shorter the distance the less noticeable the difference. Over 20 miles you are probably only looking at around 0.5mph, so not a great deal and certainly not 4-5mph.

The more expensive bike comes into its own over longer distances. It is lighter and I believe that more of the power is transmitted from the rider into making you go faster. It is possible to cover relatively long distances at a pace that would not be achievable on the less expensive bike. It feels like you use less energy pedalling and have more left in the tank later on in longer rides, making a higher speed more sustainable.

Also being lighter, the more expensive bikes goes up hills quicker and saps less energy doing so, again making for a quicker overall ride.

At the end of the day I get more pleasure riding the more expensive bike than the less expensive one as the whole experience is nicer, but it is handy having both as the less expensive one is now equipped with mudguards and will be on duty for the winter / wet weather rides etc.

Each to their own though and a bike is better than no bike.


----------



## y2blade (20 Aug 2013)

Hacienda71 said:


> As long as the bike does what you need it to don't worry.
> The gains against spend become more and more marginal the more you spend. A £7000 bike is not going to be 7 times better than a £1000 bike. It is likely to be quite a bit better, but the biggest factor is the rider. If someone has the money to by a high end bike then that is fine, the most important part imho is to enjoy riding, whatever the cost of your bike.


 


Well said.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (20 Aug 2013)

When I was stretched on the sofa with ice packs on my knees, and had been told by a physio that I may never ride again, I promised myself a carbon fibre road bike if I got back in the saddle.
I'm not planning on spending a vast amount, but I think I can keep that promise now.


----------



## y2blade (20 Aug 2013)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> When I was stretched on the sofa with ice packs on my knees, and had been told by a physio that I may never ride again, I promised myself a carbon fibre road bike if I got back in the saddle.
> I'm not planning on spending a vast amount, but I think I can keep that promise now.


 
I like that^^^


----------



## Upstream (20 Aug 2013)

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments. I always understood that if someone was a pro or semi - pro rider then the amount spent on the bike would make a significant difference but I was really interested to know if a difference existed for enthusiasts such as myself and my friends and it appears that any difference would be negligible at best.

One thing that I was always curious about was when people would talk about stiff wheels, cranks and / or frames; Could an average rider for example put out sufficient power that a less than stiff wheelset / crank / frame would actually make any difference at all..?

Another is if for example someone was running a fairly budget level gear setup (say Shimano 2300 or SORA) which was in good working order and adjusted correctly - Would there be any discernible improvement in switching to say... Ultegra or Dura Ace? From what I understand, the difference in weight is in the order of grams and significantly less than say riding with one water bottle onboard instead of two.

I think I'm starting to conclude that at my level - any modern road bike in good condition is unlikely to result in any performance increases or decreases dependent upon which end of the price spectrum up to £1,000 they sit.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Aug 2013)

@Upstream
A lighter bike would have made a big difference to me today. I can't comment on frames, but the wheel upgrade even though it's only an RS10 set made a big difference, in the order of 1mph on avg, but then my old ones where past redemption. I would love a lighter bike for rides like todays 62miles in just under 4hrs the bike will have weighed about the 13-13.5Kg, but as I would to spend £500 + 2nd hand its not a foreseeable option.


----------



## jim55 (20 Aug 2013)

yeah ,theres a few really nice specced bikes for that kinda money (planet x full carbon for example ),for me ,i wouldnt spend beyond that level ,1000 pound is as far as i think i would go ,beyond that its diminishing returns for most
my main/good bike is a 753 steel framed bike (prob mid 80s woodrup) ,mainly dura ace and 105 good ?open pro rims and tyres and its been fitted with sora shifters (as this bike would have had downtube shifters i think when it was brand new ),would i notice a diff on a new whizzbang steed ?prob ,but its gona b marginal and placebo i think ,ill stick with what ive got


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Aug 2013)

Upstream said:


> One thing that I was always curious about was when people would talk about stiff wheels, cranks and / or frames; Could an average rider for example put out sufficient power that a less than stiff wheelset / crank / frame would actually make any difference at all..?
> 
> Another is if for example someone was running a fairly budget level gear setup (say Shimano 2300 or SORA) which was in good working order and adjusted correctly - Would there be any discernible improvement in switching to say... Ultegra or Dura Ace? From what I understand, the difference in weight is in the order of grams and significantly less than say riding with one water bottle onboard instead of two.


 
It might be worth looking at the Triban owners club thread to get an idea of how and which upgrades were worthwhile on what was initially (very competitively) priced as a £300 bike. I think it was set up with 2300 and a none too solid crank. As far as I remember, the most noticeable improvements came with new wheels, a few seemed to have gone over to a Sora crank but I don't think many have actually changed the dérailleurs over to Sora. 

Obviously, there's a limit to how much upgrading is worth doing - the frame itself would quickly become the weakest link - but the thread might help you answer your question. I suspect wheels might be worthwhile upgrading but if the Sora or 2300 is working fine, I suspect they won't be worth changing.


----------



## screenman (20 Aug 2013)

Remember, it is cheaper to lose a pound off of the belly than a pound off of the bike.


----------



## screenman (20 Aug 2013)

User13710 said:


> A nice bike will be easier and more enjoyable to ride than a crappy old bike, but miles on the crappy old bike will make you stronger when you get on the nice bike.


 
So would miles on the newer bike, bit like what is heaviest lb of feathers or a lb of coal.

I say a difference would be noticed, bit like going from a family saloon to a sportier hatchback.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Aug 2013)

screenman said:


> Remember, it is cheaper to lose a pound off of the belly than a pound off of the bike.


Till you can't lose no more.


----------



## screenman (20 Aug 2013)

Then you start shaving hair off.

It is an old saying that has been going around for a very long time.


----------



## GrasB (20 Aug 2013)

What does money for you? Some money buys on-road performance gains but there are a whole host of things which will not be seen in performance but the rider will notice. The step from SRAM Apex to Force my save a few seconds in 100 miles but with SRAM Force or even Red I can just slam the gears around how I like. Laying the power down when sprinting or climbing doesn't phase Red & Force gives a hardly any objection, Apex however will quite happily cause a dumped chain due to a miss-times shift. Sure you can ride around Apex but it's less hassle with Force & Red. Frame wise a few £££ may not buy you a faster bike but you well find that on day 3 or 4 of that cycling holiday you're far less fatigued than on your cheap frame. 

At the end of the day it's up to every rider to find their requirements & levels of compromise.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Aug 2013)

screenman said:


> Then you start shaving hair off.
> 
> It is an old saying that has been going around for a very long time.


Remember Samson.


----------



## screenman (20 Aug 2013)

He was he guy trying to push the pillars apart, not go faster and be more hairodynamic. To be honest I think he was a bit before my time.


----------



## screenman (20 Aug 2013)

At the end of the day a bike or 4 in my case are just toys, as long as we only spend disposable income on them and get great pleasure from them then all should be good and bright in the cycling world.

Well maybe not the bright bit as one of mine is a matt shade of black, which as we all know is not bright. But there again bright cannot be used in describing me.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (20 Aug 2013)

screenman said:


> He was he guy trying to push the pillars apart, not go faster and be more hairodynamic. To be honest I think he was a bit before my time.


Ha-Ha, you know where I was coming from.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (20 Aug 2013)

User13710 said:


> Eighteen months of miles on a heavy bike made my road bike feel like it had a motor in it. I think I said a difference would be noticed?


Every day riding on my 3 stone () single speed makes me want more high gears on the hybrid.


----------



## Boon 51 (21 Aug 2013)

Just my bobs worth..

All my bikes have been about a grand... but the things that make me go faster have been.... the right gearing for hills ( big cogs on casseette) some top tyres and a good saddle.. not much to do with the actual bike?

PS.. oh and padded shorts..


----------



## carolonabike (21 Aug 2013)

The Guardian did an experiment a few weeks ago to see how much difference an expensive bike makes to an average cyclist. We all know what the answer is but it's still quite interesting.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/video/2013/jul/17/man-v-bike-video


----------



## Nigelnaturist (21 Aug 2013)

carolonabike said:


> The Guardian did an experiment a few weeks ago to see how much difference an expensive bike makes to an average cyclist. We all know what the answer is but it's still quite interesting.
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/video/2013/jul/17/man-v-bike-video


I think thats more the type of bike than cost.


----------



## porteous (21 Aug 2013)

Hill Wimp said:


> If i thought a £7000 bike would get me up hills a lot easier i would consider re mortgaging the house as i love cycling BUT it won't. My recent bike fit taught me that proper fitting, small changes and advice and just getting out there make the biggest differences plus according to a local bike pro most decent road bikes under £1000 have more than enough gears to get you up a mountain, you just have to have the knowledge of when and how to use them and good fitness.


 
Absolutely on the button! I restore and ride bikes between 43 and 65 years old, usually mainstream makes top end bikes (if that makes sense), mainly Rudge / Carleton / Raleigh. I usually use modern 27" wheels and the oldest lightweight NOS or original parts I can find. A finished rebuilt bike usually comes in around £75-90 unless I go for a professional paint job, and I reckon rides as well as anything you could buy now for £1500 or so. I have picked up some really nice steel from E-Bay that only needs a good servicing from as little as £30. Fitness and endurance are the key factors once you have any bike that is mechanically sound and properly set up for you. An added bonus is that old but good bikes are less likely to be targeted for theft.


----------



## screenman (21 Aug 2013)

So what you are saying is my nice new car with all the extra's and refinement only drives as well as a 1950 sit up and beg Ford pop.

Personally I own bikes both older and new the newer one's have the edge on everything.


----------



## porteous (21 Aug 2013)

When it's a 1960s Mk 2 Jag against the current Mondao based Jag saloon which "has everything", then the answer is Yes.


----------



## Gravity Aided (21 Aug 2013)

screenman said:


> So what you are saying is my nice new car with all the extra's and refinement only drives as well as a 1950 sit up and beg Ford pop.
> 
> Personally I own bikes both older and new the newer one's have the edge on everything.


 
Except repair costs and acumen. There, the older bikes beat some digital controlled unit. I can fix an older bike myself.


----------



## screenman (22 Aug 2013)

porteous said:


> When it's a 1960s Mk 2 Jag against the current Mondao based Jag saloon which "has everything", then the answer is Yes.


I have driven both in the last couple of years and the Mondeo version is easier and far more economical, there is a pleasure in owning the older models which is why I usually hold onto my old bikes, but do not ride them.


----------



## screenman (22 Aug 2013)

Gravity Aided said:


> Except repair costs and acumen. There, the older bikes beat some digital controlled unit. I can fix an older bike myself.


 
Well I can fix a new one myself, differing skill levels I suppose. Great thing about cycling is it brings lots of different people together.


----------



## lejogger (22 Aug 2013)

I had this exact thought the other day when I was stood in the Specialized concept store looking at a limited edition Campag Super Record equipped beast sporting zipp 404s with an £11k price tag swinging from its neck. 

£11k!

My carbon bike cost me £1k initially and I've probably spent at least another £1k on upgrades. 

Is that bike between 5 to 10 times faster than my bike? Is it 5 to 10 times more desirable? 
Is it good value for money?

I would hope it would be faster, but more to do with the wheels and possibly a small weight saving, but I imagine it would be marginal. In terms of group set you're comparing the top end Campag group to the top end SRAM group that I have, so there shouldn't be any significant shifting difference. 

Frame would be lighter and now a little more modern but both carbon, both relatively aero, and with a similar geometry.

Now at the other end, would the difference between a £100 - £200 road bike be similarly marginal in comparison to my carbon bike? 
I would think massively different with regards to weight, aerodynamics, research and development, frame material, shifting performance, comfort, rolling resistance on the hubs etc 

There is certainly a particular price point where you can get a lightweight road bike that performs in a similar manner to the top end machines and you will only see very marginal improvements by switching to the very top end specs. 

I doubt very much that if there is a chap in my club who always beats me to the top of long, hard, climbs on a bike the same spec as mine by say a minute, but then i spend £11k on this specialized, I'm not going to suddenly start beating him. But put him on a £100-£200 bike and I fancy my chances. 

Regardless, it depends on what you want from your riding. A club rider who is doing a bit of racing will appreciate marginal gains. It helps to get a pb in a time trial or shave seconds off a sprint. 
If you're just riding for fitness or enjoyment and the occasional sportive then the more you spend over around £800-£1500 you're probably not going to get value for money performance gains.


----------



## Cletus Van Damme (22 Aug 2013)

I got caught with the cycling bug a couple of years ago. My first bike was actually pretty good that I bought off a mate, a Marin Mill Valley Alp. More or less a flat barred road bike. I got into cycling because of a serious knee problem that prevents me from basically doing anything else. Still I read a lot and convinced myself that I needed a road bike. I got a previous years model Specialized Secteur Sport reduced to £520. Again more reading magazines etc made me think that I needed to upgrade the Sora shifters so I could change gear on the drops. I did this at considerable expense and never ride on the drops anyway, and the difference in gear change is negligable if anything with the better shifters. I also upgraded the wheels mainly because the stock ones that came with the bike were shoot. I have also changed various other bits and I guess a similar specced bike these days would cost about £1000. If I was to go back in time the only thing I would of changed is the wheels as the ones that came with the bike were utter garbage.

The difference in my speed between my old Marin and the Specialized is really small regarding my times etc. Still the Specialized is nicer to ride and makes me feel a bit better riding it. Still I now realise that as long as the bike does not weigh a ton it is not really going to make much difference to somebody of my ability and with my injury. I used to look at carbon road bikes and better groupsets but now I hardly ever bother as I am positive that Shimano 2300 would be more than adequate for my needs. I have finally realised that it is the engine that makes the difference, this is much better for my wallet to be honest.

So for me I think an expensive bike is a waste, but at the same time I would hate to ride a really cheap overly heavy bike.


----------



## MikeW-71 (22 Aug 2013)

I have my answer 

The new bike is lovely. It's a bit more comfortable than the Alu bike, accelerates better and the 105 shifts crisper and faster. Biggest difference? It climbs better, very noticeably so compared to the Defy 2.

What's made the difference? I reckon 90% of the climbing improvement is the wheels. I've gone from a 2Kg+ wheelset to a 1700g one on the new bike, the rest is from less wasted energy with the carbon frame being stiffer in the right places.

Through one segment on the ride, I really went for it. I had done the same on the Alu bike when I got new tyres and the conditions were about the same. It starts off with a short climb, then a gentle descent followed by a lump, the whole thing is 0.8 miles. I was nearly 2mph faster through it 

Overall, I was about 0.5mph better off on a 14 mile ride, but the longer the ride, the less that would be I think. I could well be less tired towards the end, which would be very welcome.

It was quite an interesting comparison


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Aug 2013)

I am not going to read this whole thread, because I suspect it will be full of the usual for this type of thread, a fair mix of practical answers and dross (the prevailing opinion on forums re. who gains most from marginal gains is rather misguided and seems to me, more like self justification for NOT spending more).

The answer to the thread title is, it does not matter, unless you think it does.

It may make a difference performance wise though. How much depends on many things!

So there is your cryptic answer, but it is correct!


----------



## Chris S (23 Aug 2013)

Upstream said:


> Hi all,
> This would be my first post in the beginners section .


 I wonder how long it will be before you start a helmet debate?


----------



## ushills (23 Aug 2013)

screenman said:


> So what you are saying is my nice new car with all the extra's and refinement only drives as well as a 1950 sit up and beg Ford pop.
> 
> Personally I own bikes both older and new the newer one's have the edge on everything.


 
Bike technology has not progressed as much as car technology so the changes are not comparable.

There is unlikely to be any real difference at the amateur level between a similar geometry and geared road bike from the 70's and now. My steel framed pro was similar in weight to my current bike and yes it has less gears, however, the overall ratios were the same.

Fitness and weight will make a bigger difference once you reach a certain price level and that is way less than £1000.


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Aug 2013)

ushills said:


> Bike technology has not progressed as much as car technology so the changes are not comparable.
> 
> *There is unlikely to be any real difference at the amateur level between a similar geometry and geared road bike from the 70's and now*. My steel framed pro was similar in weight to my current bike and yes it has less gears, however, the overall ratios were the same.
> 
> *Fitness and weight will make a bigger difference once you reach a certain price level and that is way less than £1000.*


 

Justification please?

Fitness will always make the biggest contribution regardless of the kit, hence it is a moot point!


----------



## Upstream (23 Aug 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Justification please?
> 
> Fitness will always make the biggest contribution regardless of the kit, hence it is a moot point!


 
Rob3rt... From what I've seen of other questions you've answered in the past you seem to be very experienced. Answer this for me...

According to Strava (which may not be all that accurate - although I have put in accurate information pertaining to age, weight etc) it tells me that on my rides, on average - I put out between 150 - 200w and that when cranking hard uphill it can go up to bursts of up to 550w. From what I can tell, that amount of power is pretty modest.

When people talk about needing stiffer frames, stiffer wheels and stiffer cranks - in your opinion, would a person weighing in at just under 80kg (me) and putting out a relatively small amount of power cause even a cheaper frame, wheel or crank to flex? If the answer is no, then from my perspective, unless I'm riding a really heavy bike - making changes to components is unlikely to result in any performance gains. If on the other hand it's the case that my weight and power output would cause the components mentioned above to flex and therefore absorb a significant amount of pedalling energy - then there could be a case for upgrading.

Let me have your thoughts,

Thanks.


----------



## Profpointy (23 Aug 2013)

As with any product, there's a "you get's what you pays for" curve, but it's slightly more complex than that. At the low end, you are basically buying crap, and essentially wasting you're money, but over a certain threshold you start getting something basically usable and you are then in pay-more / get-more equation, then at some point the curve starts to go very steep, and you're into diminishing returns. Usually there's some sort of sweet spot of value / performance. I guess for bikes that'll be in the £800 to £1500 range. My bikes are in this range (just)

But as well as outright performance, be they "diminishing returns" or not, you are also getting "niceness" which is a slightly different thing. That might be decorative lugs, some titanium, Campag record or whatever, but not out and out performance. I can see the appeal of that too.


----------



## Simmer (23 Aug 2013)

I think it is similar to beach casting rods, you get the tackle tarts who have to have the latest and greatest £400 pound rod. Often they can cast 50 yards maximum. I'll cast 120 with a rod half the price. ...but they take a lot of pride in their gear and it gets them out fishing so why shouldn't they. 

the difference in prices of road bike though is huge.. personally I don't see the point of spending over a grand on something when I wont be able to appreciate the benefits it brings (and it wont get my 15stone bulk up hills any quicker)


----------



## themosquitoking (23 Aug 2013)

Simmer said:


> the difference in prices of road bike though is huge.. personally I don't see the point of spending over a grand on something when I wont be able to appreciate the benefits it brings (and it wont get my 15stone bulk up hills any quicker)


 

If it's white it will.


----------



## Simmer (23 Aug 2013)

Doh I forgot the white rule.


----------



## MikeW-71 (23 Aug 2013)

Upstream said:


> According to Strava (which may not be all that accurate - although I have put in accurate information pertaining to age, weight etc) it tells me that on my rides, on average - I put out between 150 - 200w and that when cranking hard uphill it can go up to bursts of up to 550w. From what I can tell, that amount of power is pretty modest.
> 
> When people talk about needing stiffer frames, stiffer wheels and stiffer cranks - in your opinion, would a person weighing in at just under 80kg (me) and putting out a relatively small amount of power cause even a cheaper frame, wheel or crank to flex? If the answer is no, then from my perspective, unless I'm riding a really heavy bike - making changes to components is unlikely to result in any performance gains. If on the other hand it's the case that my weight and power output would cause the components mentioned above to flex and therefore absorb a significant amount of pedalling energy - then there could be a case for upgrading.


 
I'll pop a thought in in here. Frames and forks are designed to flex. If they were utterly rigid, they would be awful to ride, so they are designed to flex in certain areas, some more than others. To make an Alu or Steel bike stiffer, the tubing would be thicker which adds weight. Tricks can be done with tube shaping, but that is essentially it. Carbon has the benefit of being able to be stiff and also light.

On the flat when I'm just cruising along, it would make absolutely no difference which bike I was on, the top speed I could achieve would be the same (drag rules top speed, not weight). However, the bike with lighter wheels would be easier to accelerate.

When climbing, and you are putting out all the power you can, you will be flexing parts of the bike and wheels (yes, even us modest riders). If some areas (BB and chainstays most often) can be stiffened then more of your energy goes into turning the wheel. Add lighter wheels to that and the difference is noticeable.

IMO, if I put the new wheels on my Defy, I would see 90% of the improvement the new bike has shown, but over a decent distance ride, the overall speed gain will be very small. The only further improvement on the new bike would be an even lighter set of wheels, making it a little easier again, but it's ultimately up to me, my legs and my fitness to go any faster. It's all the bike I will ever need.

I wasn't gonna be buying the Advanced 2, I was after something for £1400, but when you're offered a £2k bike for £1600, it would be rude not to


----------



## Rob3rt (24 Aug 2013)

Upstream said:


> Rob3rt... From what I've seen of other questions you've answered in the past you seem to be very experienced. Answer this for me...
> 
> According to Strava (which may not be all that accurate - although I have put in accurate information pertaining to age, weight etc) it tells me that on my rides, on average - I put out between 150 - 200w and that when cranking hard uphill it can go up to bursts of up to 550w. From what I can tell, that amount of power is pretty modest.
> 
> ...


 

To be concise.

1) Strava power figures are complete dross. Ignore them, they are meaningless!

2) "Stiffness" is only one performance benefit of more expensive bikes and overall stiffness is not what you are paying for, you are paying for stiffness where it matters whilst retaining compliance (for comfort) in other areas.

3) Most people who claim they need stiff this and stiffer that, have no idea what they need, they just think they need it because some dreck filled magazine told them they needed it.

On another point:

It is a myth that only elite athletes will gain from marginal improvements, in many cases, the overall speed returns for upgrades will be greater for a lower level athlete than for a high level athlete. Any wattage savings translates to greater speed increases at lower speeds than at higher speeds, even in the case where an elite athlete reaps a greater saving, wattage wise. For example, an elite athlete might save 5W, and gain 5 seconds in a 10 mile TT, a mid level club rider might save 3W and gain 8 seconds in a 10 mile TT (picking numbers out of the air, for the sake of illustrating my point) because the power increase required in order to gain a unit speed increase grows exponentially the faster you are going.


----------



## Powely (25 Aug 2013)

I was averaging just below 15mph on a 30/40 mile trip on my Carerra Virtuoso but that was on partially loose gravel then on my Cube Agree Race I averaged over 21mph in the 50 mile Great Manchester Cycle, which is closed road and tarmac. So I'd say yes but I'm not sure how much the closed roads had an effect and also the difference in road surface. Plus the Virtuoso wasn't really the right size and I wasn't riding clipless then either. So actually I'm not sure this is much help after all as there's too many factors to consider. My tuppence worth anyway.


----------



## Upstream (25 Aug 2013)

Powely said:


> I was averaging just below 15mph on a 30/40 mile trip on my Carerra Virtuoso but that was on partially loose gravel then on my Cube Agree Race I averaged over 21mph in the 50 mile Great Manchester Cycle, which is closed road and tarmac. So I'd say yes but I'm not sure how much the closed roads had an effect and also the difference in road surface. Plus the Virtuoso wasn't really the right size and I wasn't riding clipless then either. So actually I'm not sure this is much help after all as there's too many factors to consider. My tuppence worth anyway.


 
Yes - lots of factors there . I'd say that if I tried to ride with just flat pedals again now, my average speed would probably drop by 3 or 4 mph. If I threw some loose gravel into the mix - perhaps another 2 - 3 mph.


----------



## Powely (25 Aug 2013)

Profpointy said:


> As with any product, there's a "you get's what you pays for" curve, but it's slightly more complex than that. At the low end, you are basically buying crap, and essentially wasting you're money, but over a certain threshold you start getting something basically usable and you are then in pay-more / get-more equation, then at some point the curve starts to go very steep, and you're into diminishing returns. Usually there's some sort of sweet spot of value / performance. I guess for bikes that'll be in the £800 to £1500 range. My bikes are in this range (just)


 

I quite agree with the above... I also feel that there's an enjoyment factor from the behavioural aspect of something engineered better to consider also.


----------



## Upstream (31 Aug 2013)

Powely said:


> I quite agree with the above... I also feel that there's an enjoyment factor from the behavioural aspect of something engineered better to consider also.


 
Yes - I can understand that.


----------



## Gravity Aided (31 Aug 2013)

As for me, I'd just rather have something older, that costs less, and still have the benefits of advanced engineering. Look at the Viscount/Lambert bikes from the 70's. Death fork aside, they broke a lot of new ground. Sealed bearings, aerospace tubing, all at a price point below other bicycles. Schwinns from the 1980's, in many cases, had road bicycles built from Italian Columbus Steel. Raleighs at the same time pioneered the use of aluminum tubing and epoxy joining. See what engineering and technical innovations work for you. Ultra light weight ? Shifting? Advanced design? Frame characteristics? All might be found in different guises in different bicycles.


----------

