# Cheap Vs Expensive



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

I don’t get the difference between buying a cheap road bike and a really expensive one. 

why do people buy +£1000 pound bikes, and go on about lube and changing parts every year or so etc.

I bought my steel road bike years ago for like £60 or £80 a few year ago, so far I’ve bought some new wheels and tires and a cable probs something else.

Point is I haven’t spent much, yet I can still ride fast and get some good KOM's on strava.

Are the really worth it and why?


----------



## BSRU (7 Sep 2012)

Because people can


----------



## PpPete (7 Sep 2012)

A really good steel road bike could be very close to a modern titanium or carbon fibre or the best of the aluminium frames.
You don't say whether your £60 or £80 was second hand.... I'm guessing it was.

Just don't do what I did and walk into a really enthusiastic shop who insists you try out the latest greatest... after you've just done a hard ride on your old bike. As I said at the time, "it's like strapping on a fresh pair of legs".


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

People ask me why I dont get a new bike, It looks pritty shabby up close, I sort of just grind off the rust and spray a blob of paint over the area, (the paint gets on other stuff like the gears or what ever) makes it look worst. And theres dirty oil all over it etc, ow and the rear cog think move about abit, ow and the brakes sqweek. It all works tho, so why upgrade


----------



## GrasB (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Point is I haven’t spent much, yet I can still ride fast and get some good KOM's on strava.


How many miles have you ridden? I get to the point where my cassettes are slipping in one gear or another within 10k miles, that's less than a years riding for me. Obviously if you're looking at 2k miles a year you'll get 5 years out of a cassette.


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

BSRU said:


> Because people can


 
what he said

anyone can do what they like, but not looking after your bike isn't something to be proud of.

When people spend a lot of money it's an investment, so they look after it to make sure it lasts.
and not everyone rides just to brag on strava


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2012)

There is a price point/equipment grade where it makes sence getting a good level of kit.

For example - Tiagra is an excellent groupset - you can pay bits more here and there for better parts.

Can't say 've ever regretted buying Dura Ace for the best bike - it's been on the bike 22 years. I originally had a loose cup BB, but only changed that when the cartridge ones came out - bought the Dura Ace/XTR bb for about £70 (over 15 years ago) and haven't ever touched it - other than to remove to check frame and re-assemble. Same with the pedals - haven't once needed to service them, but they were top of the range. Headset was changed to a cartridge DA a few years ago because the old one had finally pitted. That was over £60 for the headset. When I bought the bike I had the spare cash, wasn't married or had kids. Would be very different now if I wanted to splash that cash again.

My commuter was a mix of 'good' long lasting parts - wasn't cheap, and was bought on a 'most durable and reasonable weight basis'. BB is a basic cartridge shimano - easy to replace if it fails - hasn't in over 3 years. Headset - fairly standard, but protected as have guards. Hubs - reasonable Formula ones - LBS recommended as it's easy and cheap to replace the cartridge bearings - also easy to re-grease ! Rims high quality Mavics - been re-placed 2-3 times now due to wear. Bars/stem - went near higher end as the weight/strength was much better than the cheaper ones. Got XT SPD's for about £45 - well sealed, and a doddle to re-grease.

You probably got your steel bike second hand - they are very good bikes - don't know the kit on it, but if looked after and maintained they last.

Some folk like changing and modding bikes - better than doing it to a car ! Your money, do what you like with it.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

So far about 600 + miles, I have no idea what it did in its 18 years or so life before me.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

Lee_M said:


> what he said
> 
> anyone can do what they like, *but not looking after your bike isn't something to be proud of*.
> 
> ...


 
No its not, I do the best I can with the money ive got.

Who brags on Strava?


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> So far about 600 + miles, I have no idea what it did in its 18 years or so life before me.


 
so you havent yet had it long enough to know if your lack of maintenance is a long term successful strategy or if it will suddenly collapse in a heap and the seat post end up your arse


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> No its not, I do the best I can with the money ive got.


 
that wasnt what you implied, everyone has a financial limit and have to live within that, there's nothing wrong with that
dont know how old you are or how well off you are, but some people are older and richer and can choose to buy themselves nicer bikes. Its not a case of thinking they are good enough to notice the difference from an expensive bike, but its nice to have one


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> So far about 600 + miles, I have no idea what it did in its 18 years or so life before me.


 
Ah that's not loads yet then.

Many of us are clocking that in 4 - 6 weeks of commuting say, in all weathers, so spending £1k on a bike makes sence if you read my post above. My best bike isn't used all the time now - just the odd weekend, but the last 3 times it's been out in the rain and muck. Just gets cleaned up, dried out and lubed and put away for the next ride.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

Lee_M said:


> so you havent yet had it long enough to know if your lack of maintenance is a long term successful strategy or if it will suddenly collapse in a heap and the seat post end up your arse


 
Which also means I havnt had it long enough to class the maintenace as "Lack of maintenance" .


----------



## GrasB (7 Sep 2012)

fossyant said:


> Ah that's not loads yet then.
> ...
> Many of us are clocking that *in 4 - 6 weeks* of commuting say...


 Lightweight that's 2-3 weeks of riding


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

fossyant said:


> Ah that's not loads yet then.
> 
> Many of us are clocking that in 4 - 6 weeks of commuting say, in all weathers, so spending £1k on a bike makes sence if you read my post above. My best bike isn't used all the time now - just the odd weekend, but the last 3 times it's been out in the rain and muck. Just gets cleaned up, dried out and lubed and put away for the next ride.


 
In terms of speed then, I supose my only Issue is weight and gears? The lighter the bike the faster and the lighter the bike the more expensive it will be
*Therefore Fast = Expensive ?*


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Which also means I havnt had it long enough to class the maintenace as "Lack of maintenance" .


 
Hey I'm not arguing with you, just repeating what you said:



> I sort of just grind off the rust and spray a blob of paint over the area, (the paint gets on other stuff like the gears or what ever) makes it look worst. And theres dirty oil all over it etc, ow and the rear cog think move about abit, ow and the brakes sqweek. It all works tho, so why upgrade


 
dirty all, moving rear cassette and squeaking brakes, paint on your gears - all sounds a bit like lack of maintenance to me

it's your bike you can do what you like, but that doesnt mean that people who buy expensive bikes are wrong


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> In terms of speed then, I supose my only Issue is weight and gears? The lighter the bike the faster and the lighter the bike the more expensive it will be
> *Therefore Fast = Expensive ?*


 
also the cleaner and more efficient the drive train the more of your power will be converted to power at the rear wheel and not converted into wearing out your drive train

For the same rider a more efficient bike will be faster, but efficient covers many things, not just lightness, if you really want to go faster, lose weight - it'll be cheaper than shaving weight off your bike


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> In terms of speed then, I supose my only Issue is weight and gears? The lighter the bike the faster and the lighter the bike the more expensive it will be
> *Therefore Fast = Expensive ?*


 
Fast depends on you - not the bike.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

I got the little baby new tires and wheels and a cable, I clean the chain and gears with WD40 every week, The other stuff is just visual. I try to look after her.


----------



## GrasB (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> In terms of speed then, I supose my only Issue is weight and gears? The lighter the bike the faster and the lighter the bike the more expensive it will be
> *Therefore Fast = Expensive ?*


Yes but it's all diminishing returns. One I've found is when you start doing 'naughty stuff' like swapping chainrings & sprockets at full power when climbing you notice the difference between SRAM Rival, Force & Red cassettes & chains. Rival just doesn't want to play ball, Force is sloppy but will shift but Red just gets on with it. When behaving your self there's no perceivable difference between the 3, so yeah the best bike gets SRAM Red because it does the job better. Training, commuting bikes etc get Rival because I'm not going to worry about 2 or 3s lost by easing off for the gear change.



black'n'yellow said:


> Fast depends on you - not the bike.


Up to a point, you take the full-sys mountain bike with knobbly tyres & I'll take my M5 Carbon Low Racer.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Fast depends on you - not the bike.


 
So why dont the pro's have cheap crap steel bikes like me?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

Lee_M said:


> also the cleaner and more efficient the drive train the more of your power will be converted to power at the rear wheel and not converted into wearing out your drive train
> 
> For the same rider a more efficient bike will be faster, but efficient covers many things, not just lightness, if you really want to go faster, lose weight - it'll be cheaper than shaving weight off your bike


 

I can’t lose weight, I’m lean as.


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> So why dont the pro's have cheap crap steel bikes like me?


 
law of diminishing returns
at elite level sport is measured in miniscule differences, so while you might not notice much difference between a steel bike and a carbon one they will and that might make the difference between being TdF winner and 10th place

all sport at that level is a weapons race


----------



## GrasB (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> So why dont the pro's have cheap crap steel bikes like me?


Cause those extra 5w after a 150km DOES make a difference.


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> I can’t lose weight, I’m lean as.


 
That's still the best way to go faster, look how thin wiggo is, compared to how thin he used to be as a track rider

not sayig you should do it - hey I'm 15 stone! but thats the way to do it


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

Wiggins thin, no thankx thats horrible. I know what you mean tho


----------



## HovR (7 Sep 2012)

Advantages modern (more expensive) bikes give over older steel racers tend to be in the weight department, and also the gears.

Modern indexed STI gears will give a much more responsive and snappy gear shift with the shift levers in a more convenient place (not to mention often 10+ speeds on the rear), and the lighter frames will assist riders in climbing hills and accelerating - It's up to the individual whether these advantages are worth the extra money, and to many they are.

Saying that a more expensive bike is faster isn't always true, as that completely depends on the rider.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

So the definitive answer is a well maintained cheap steel bike vs. a new expensive bike is the expensive bike only has slight advantages in speed as an amateur?


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

if you put all the same groupset on both bikes then the difference would be minimal at amateur level - assuming you havent put it all on a 1950s heavy steel bike

of course it then comes down to whether you "want" a steel or carbon bike


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

So I can keep my old beauty, i dream of giving her a respray but always wondered if it was worth it or to just save up for a new one.


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

that depends on what it is, how much it weighs and also what state it is actually in - ie how much time and efort to prep it and will you end up with a good quality frame at the end

only you know what condition the frame is in and whether its worth it - make a good winter project though


----------



## sabian92 (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> I got the little baby new tires and wheels and a cable, I clean the chain and gears with WD40 every week, The other stuff is just visual. I try to look after her.


Oh Lord.... WD40 is the worst thing to use. I destroyed an entire drivetrain using WD40.

You're far better off using a degreaser (Muc-Off do a good one in a spray can) and some proper lube.

WD40 is a Water Dispersant (i.e. it gets rid of the lubricant).


----------



## Peter Armstrong (7 Sep 2012)

ooops!


----------



## Lee_M (7 Sep 2012)

although the makers of wd40 do say it is safe to use as a bicycle chain lubricant,


----------



## GrasB (7 Sep 2012)

sabian92 said:


> Oh Lord.... WD40 is the worst thing to use. I destroyed an entire drivetrain using WD40.
> 
> You're far better off using a degreaser (Muc-Off do a good one in a spray can) and some proper lube.
> 
> WD40 is a Water Dispersant (i.e. it gets rid of the lubricant).


The Mickle method, grasb style:

spray WD40 onto a cloth
wipe the chain down with said cloth
apply dry lube
wipe down chain with said cloth
apply dry lube
Nice clean chain which is well lubricated & allows the chain lasts a good 3-5k miles.


----------



## G2EWS (7 Sep 2012)

Interesting thread. I am a reborn newbie having been into mountain biking years ago and just recently bought my carbon bike last week.

This reminds me of my other big hobby which is photography. When you start out you cannot believe why someone would spend £5k on a lens when there is a similar one for £300. Then as you get better and you realise why people spend lots of money on what we call 'fast lenses' you start to get rid of the 'cheap' kit and buy the 'right' kit. As mentioned above 'if you can' of course!

My previous mountain bike is a nice bit of kit and I have enjoyed riding it up and down dale. But recently when I went to see a brother and was looking at his collection, which included the arrival of a £5k frame so he could do some changes I discussed carbon bikes. I couldn't understand what it was about. He asked me if I had ridden one and I had not. Give it a go he said! So off I went and found the one I have now bought and boy what a difference it is. Everything about it is smooth and easy to use.

I need to make changes as it will be used mainly on road or tracks rather than mountains. So I will need for example to change the tyres probably for hybrid styles.

But when I do make the changes and buy wet weather gear and mud guards and probably panniers, lights etc, how easy it would be to buy cheap and buy twice just like in the photography world! So for me, I will spend what it takes to get the right kit after asking in this forum what I need.

So back to the OP's question. I personally can see a huge difference between a 'cheap' bike and a 'good' bike. If you can afford it then buy it. If you cannot or more importantly don't want to spend the money, then don't. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter as long as you are happy and satisfied with what you have.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## Cyclist33 (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Fast depends on you - not the bike.


 
But also the bike. Are you saying that one rider would put down the same velocity over a given route on a 7 kg stripped down bike, as on one laden up to 20 kg?

Stu


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> So why dont the pro's have cheap crap steel bikes like me?


 
Because whether you know it or not, you are not as fast as you think you are. Your 15mph averages don't amount to very much - even in amateur level competition. Sorry to be blunt.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

sabian92 said:


> WD40 is a Water Dispersant (i.e. it gets rid of the lubricant).


 
it is also a lubricant.


----------



## AndyPeace (7 Sep 2012)

> So the definitive answer is a well maintained cheap steel bike vs. a new expensive bike is the expensive bike only has slight advantages in speed as an amateur?​


 
I have one steel bike that is now 25yrs+ old and is ridden by many friends of the family, as well as myself. They all agree it's a dam good bike...better than many alloy's of a similar class. it is the comfiest bike I own and I could ride forever on it for that reason. advantages are not always about speed. Taking out rotating weight, like running lighter tires, pedals, crank etc can give improvements to speed, acceleration and hill climbing. You could always upgrade the frame latter. It depends on what you want and have time for. Without doubt, Your biggest advantage in speed comes from your own fitness, how well you fit your bike and your skills. I'm not sure I can give a definitive answer other than to say you dont need to spend alot to run a good bike but you can spend a lot and get a bike that dosent fit your needs.


----------



## BrumJim (7 Sep 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> But also the bike. Are you saying that one rider would put down the same velocity over a given route on a 7 kg stripped down bike, as on one laden up to 20 kg?
> 
> Stu


 
I'd like to see a 20Kg bike (that's not from JD Sports...)


----------



## cyberknight (7 Sep 2012)

BrumJim said:


> I'd like to see a 20Kg bike (that's not from JD Sports...)


I think cyclist meant one laden with panniers, lights etc , my commuter easily gets to 20 kg fully laden and boy do i feel the difference when i get on the nice bike at the weekend which is at least half the weight .Its easier to climb, accelerate and takes less power to maintain the same speed .


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Sep 2012)

I notice a huge difference by not taking my lock out. 

with regards to WD40... its a lubricant, a degreaser, and a contradiction in terms. Clever marketing has pulled the wool over many peoples eyes regarding what it's actually good for. For me, it's great at getting the sticky residue off after removing a sticker.

when i bought my mtb years ago it needed a new rear dérailleur... i could only afford a £7 acera one. It did the job but I pandered after something better. Eventually i got an XT one, far more expensive... it did exactly the same job, no better, no worse and the weight difference was barely noticeable... so where did all the extra money go? I have no idea.


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2012)

HovR said:


> Modern indexed STI gears will give a much more responsive and snappy gear shift with the shift levers in a more convenient place (not to mention often 10+ speeds on the rear


 
Hmmm, this is true if riders set things up properly. The clanging and crunching you could hear at the bottom of little hills from many riders on the Manchester 100 would suggest a good proportion can't set them up.


----------



## oldfatfool (7 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> Lightweight that's 2-3 weeks of riding


Or 1-2 weeks even


----------



## Cyclist33 (7 Sep 2012)

BrumJim said:


> I'd like to see a 20Kg bike (that's not from JD Sports...)


 
I said "laden up to 20 kg", which I would have thought was obvious enough to mean including a bottle of water, a rack and pannier full of stuff, lights, plus the rider's massive ego of course!

But anyway, my question stands, does one rider put the same performance down on two otherwise identical bikes where one of the bikes is loaded with kit and the other is stripped to the bone?


Stu


----------



## oldfatfool (7 Sep 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> But anyway, my question stands, does one rider put the same performance down on two otherwise identical bikes where one of the bikes is loaded with kit and the other is stripped to the bone?
> Stu


 
Depends if he was already riding the 7kg bike to their maximum, also depends on the terrain, the loaded bike would be quicker downhill slower uphill etc etc


----------



## Cyclist33 (7 Sep 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Depends if he was already riding the 7kg bike to their maximum, also depends on the terrain, the loaded bike would be quicker downhill slower uphill etc etc


 
Assuming all other variables were identical, would the rider do the route in a quicker or slower time? If the answer is not "both performances would be identical", then it cannot be accurately stated that "Fast depends on you - not the bike.", as if that is all there is to it. Which was my point.



Stu


----------



## roadrash (7 Sep 2012)

to the op ... ride what you like and like what you ride ,

do any of us actually need someone elses approval , if your happy with your lot (and it sounds like you are ) then enjoy


----------



## HovR (7 Sep 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> Assuming all other variables were identical, would the rider do the route in a quicker or slower time? If the answer is not "both performances would be identical", then it cannot be accurately stated that "Fast depends on you - not the bike.", as if that is all there is to it. Which was my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Stu


 
"Fast depends on you - not the bike."

What that means is the difference between a 9 kilo steel bike and a 7 or 8 kilo alu bike, at an amateur level, is going to be negligible at best. You could take this to extremes and compare a 6 kilo featherweight with a 25 kilo BSO, but it isn't in the spirit of the phrase.


----------



## Cyclist33 (7 Sep 2012)

HovR said:


> "Fast depends on you - not the bike."
> 
> What that means is the difference between a 9 kilo steel bike and a 7 or 8 kilo alu bike, at an amateur level, is going to be negligible at best. You could take this to extremes and compare a 6 kilo featherweight with a 25 kilo BSO, but it isn't in the spirit of the phrase.


 
Since the phrase had no context beyond itself and was stated in its nakedness as a fact, I think you're speculating on the spirit of the phrase.


----------



## Standoff (7 Sep 2012)

I was was quite happy with my inherited (off my son) halfords special. Then I borrowed my sons new carbon bike. I am considerably faster on a run but this may be down to me peddling harder. The enjoyment factor due to better handling, gear change and brakes makes me think it's worth the extra thousand pounds!


----------



## HovR (7 Sep 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> Since the phrase had no context beyond itself and was stated in its nakedness as a fact, I think you're speculating on the spirit of the phrase.


 
Well the fact that we're debating about the speed differences between steel racers (which are typically in the 9 kilo region) and newer alu/carbon bikes is a bit of a giveaway to me. Take the phrase literally or in the spirit of the thread, it's your own choice which you're entitled to.


----------



## mickle (7 Sep 2012)

Lee_M said:


> although the makers of wd40 do say it is safe to use as a bicycle chain lubricant,


 
They would say that.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> Since the phrase had no context beyond itself and was stated in its nakedness as a fact, I think you're speculating on the spirit of the phrase.


 
in the context of this thread, surely it was clear enough? Riders are fast, bikes are not. Put the OP on a Venge and it's likely he will not be that much faster than he is now. But there does come a point where an ancient steel contraption will become a limitation, rather than a bragging tool. Doesn't sound like he's reached that point yet though....


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> They would say that.


 
they would say that, because it's true. It may not be ideal as a lubricant, in much the same way as water isn't ideal either, but it's not 'unsafe' to use....


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Sep 2012)

I just love the smell of a new bike the more expensive the better...


----------



## Powely (7 Sep 2012)

Because my cheap bike is rubbish and has bent already! :/ So I am looking to invest in something decent. Saying that from my research so far it appears you can still spend a 1k on a bike which isn't a good as other at the same price. So I would imagine it still all comes down to quality rather then the cost but unfortunately quality comes at a cost.


----------



## AndyPeace (7 Sep 2012)

> But anyway, my question stands, does one rider put the same performance down on two otherwise identical bikes where one of the bikes is loaded with kit and the other is stripped to the bone?
> Stu


 
If all variables were eliminated, i.e. bikes had equal aerodynamics; both set ups put the rider in the same seating position, etc...purley on weight, the difference on flat terrain would be minimal, it would win you a race but not really make much difference to a commute. Consider also that a bike is not the only weight in the complete machine, so if your 90kg and unfit riding a 7kg bike vs a skilled competiion racer-fit 70kg rider on a 20kg bike which machine weighs more? Of course rider weight is not clear cut, it would be down to how much was muscle and flab,etc. but your fitness is a far bigger factor than droping a couple of kilos off 100kg load


----------



## Andrew_Culture (7 Sep 2012)

I'm all in favour of insanely expensive bikes, I don't think I'll ever own one but the cash they hopefully inject into the trade benefits me by keeping skilled mechanics in business so they can help me out with my bikes.

Or am I being optimistic?


----------



## youngoldbloke (7 Sep 2012)

Here is an interesting article from the BMJ
_"Bicycle weight and commuting time: randomised trial _
_*Objective *To determine whether the author’s 20.9 lb (9.5 kg) carbon frame bicycle reduced commuting time compared with his 29.75 lb (13.5 kg) steel frame bicycle."_
- and if you can't be bothered to read it, the conclusions were:
_"*Conclusions *A lighter bicycle did not lead to a detectable difference in commuting time. Cyclists may find it more cost effective to reduce their own weight rather than to purchase a lighter bicycle."_


----------



## AndyPeace (7 Sep 2012)

> I'm all in favour of insanely expensive bikes


 
Me too  But I have no dillusions that a more expensive bike will turn me into a human rocket

Spending a lot of money on a bike which you want to achieve and push your personal best on, to compete in races and dazzle club mates with is one context. Running an ecomical bike for day to day transportation is another.


----------



## Flying Dodo (7 Sep 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> Here is an interesting article from the BMJ
> _"Bicycle weight and commuting time: randomised trial _
> _*Objective *To determine whether the author’s 20.9 lb (9.5 kg) carbon frame bicycle reduced commuting time compared with his 29.75 lb (13.5 kg) steel frame bicycle."_
> - and if you can't be bothered to read it, the conclusions were:
> _"*Conclusions *A lighter bicycle did not lead to a detectable difference in commuting time. Cyclists may find it more cost effective to reduce their own weight rather than to purchase a lighter bicycle."_


 
I'm certainly faster commuting on my Ti bike compared with my steel clunker. Mind you, it's probably because I push myself more on the Ti, as it's so much lighter, and easier! Perhaps that consultant took the opposite view, and didn't put as much effort in when he was on his carbon bike, on the basis that it was easier, which is why his overall timings were almost identical?


----------



## Andrew_Culture (7 Sep 2012)

Now I possibly would fork out on a Ti frame, but more for strength and longevity, but I guess that's an argument for another thread...


----------



## GrasB (9 Sep 2012)

fossyant said:


> Hmmm, this is true if riders set things up properly. The clanging and crunching you could hear at the bottom of little hills from many riders on the Manchester 100 would suggest a good proportion can't set them up.


Or they've got SRAM Rival & are trying to change gear while pushing out 450w 



oldfatfool said:


> Or 1-2 weeks even


Sorry I have a wife & a full time job!


----------



## boh67 (9 Sep 2012)

I agree with the OP. my road bike was £50 second hand. It does me great I did 30 miles today and loved it


----------



## Primal Scream (9 Sep 2012)

BSRU has the truth of it "because they can" I have an entry level £500 road bike, one day I will decide to replace it, the new bike will not make me noticably faster or go further, I will just get it because i want it. 

N+1 is all you need to know


----------



## vickster (9 Sep 2012)

I like new shiny things and I tend to get bored and want a change - even if I go as quickly or slowly on the bike. I can afford to and will probably change my commuter bike every year...I used to change my car every 6-12 months...this is far cheaper, costs a couple of hundred to change, rather than 1-2k  And bikes are rather cheaper to run and maintain (ok I have a car too but I've had this one for over 2 years, record for me  )


----------



## Mo1959 (9 Sep 2012)

I did the exact same route two days in a row out of curiosity Yesterday on my carbon fibre road bike and today on my hybrid. Considering my legs felt a bit heavy today and the hybrid is around 5 kg heavier I was only 5 minutes slower and average 0.5mph less.


----------



## monkeylc (10 Sep 2012)

at the end of the day its the same as anything you love/enjoy,you can spend thousands on any interest?
family
car
house
garden
clothes
golf
absolutely anything ,but if you enjoy it it's the reason you work for money.

just enjoy it and stop thinking why about others


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (10 Sep 2012)

IMO, you spend more $$$ on a higher end bike, and you get better components etc. There is nothing wrong with a cheaper bike if it works for you, and you take care of it. Me, I live by the motto "When you buy quality, you only cry once."

And lubing and caring for a bike should be no different then me caring for my motorcycles. You take care of them, they take care of you and don't surprise you on the commute to work or when your 50Km out in nowhere.


----------



## youngoldbloke (10 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> So far about 600 + miles, I have no idea what it did in its 18 years or so life before me.


Just re-reading the thread. May I humbly suggest that if you have only cycled 'about 600+ miles in the 'few year ago' since you bought it you are not really in a position to comment on the difference between 'a cheap road bike and a really expensive one'. If it suits you and you are happy with the way it rides that's fine. Myself, I don't really understand what the difference is between my 10 year old Ford Focus and a new Ferrari. Why do some people spend so much money? I am very happy with the Focus - it's reliable and goes quite fast, but then I _don't want_ a Ferrari - but I *really need* a new 6.7 Kg road bike.


----------



## mickle (10 Sep 2012)

Cheap and _inexpensive_ are two different things. I'll happily ride an inexpensive bike but I wont do cheap!


----------



## Peter Armstrong (10 Sep 2012)

Thank you for everyone’s input, I’m wondering how to justify spending +£500 on a bike to my GF and if I’m actually going to get any faster. I’m also planning some triathlons and would be embarrassed on my steel bike compared to the hardcore carbon TT bikes.


----------



## Rykard (10 Sep 2012)

show her the really expensive ones first, then show her you cheaper compromise...


----------



## G2EWS (10 Sep 2012)

Rykard said:


> show her the really expensive ones first, then show her you cheaper compromise...


 
A good tactic!

Chris


----------



## Crosstrailer (10 Sep 2012)

I would say don't get hung up on the argument about how much time an expensive bike will/won't shave off your commute or favourite ride. In my experience, its not about that. It is about ride enjoyment and user experience.

I have two bikes in regular use, a 1990 something British Eagle and a 2012 Spesh. If I rode both on the same route there may not be a huge difference in completion time, but the Spesh is a far more comfortable bike which is a heck of a lot nicer to ride than the Iron Eagle and I get far more pleasure from. Maybe it is worth looking at it from a different angle ?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Sep 2012)

Quick Questions, Anyone got any views on which ones better?

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/fuji/aloha-20-2012-triathlon-bike-ec031226

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/quintana-roo/kilo-2011-triathlon-bike-ec025906


----------



## GrasB (12 Sep 2012)

The frames look to be about the same on paper. My only impression is the Quintana Roo has a slightly higher spec which goes with the £300 higher MSRP price tag,


----------



## Ethan (12 Sep 2012)

This thread perfectly sums up why I've given up with cycling forums other than Weight Weenies (which is only good for a bit of bike porn.)

Cyclists aren't half an annoying bunch!
I'm not referring to OP, fyi.


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Quick Questions, Anyone got any views on which ones better?
> 
> http://www.evanscycles.com/products/fuji/aloha-20-2012-triathlon-bike-ec031226
> 
> http://www.evanscycles.com/products/quintana-roo/kilo-2011-triathlon-bike-ec025906


 
The Fuji looks like shoot so I would take the QR if forced to choose. However, I wouldn't buy either of those bikes personally.


----------



## Ethan (12 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Thank you for everyone’s input, I’m wondering how to justify spending +£500 on a bike to my GF and if I’m actually going to get any faster. I’m also planning some triathlons and would be embarrassed on my steel bike compared to the hardcore carbon TT bikes.


 
Is it your money, or do you share all the money?
If the latter isn't the case, why do you need to justify spending £500+ of your money on a bike?! It's your money, you worked for it. As long as there aren't more important things to be spending it on, saving for a deposit on a house, rent, diy or similar then surely you can do what you want with it?
My girlfriend, bless her, had to endure my unhappiness as I worked in a dead end job for a boss that treated me like crap working stupidly long hours all just to afford my two new bikes.
In the end I got sick and tired of the job, and left before I had enough money to get both bikes. Now my girlfriend isn't a cyclist, she thinks it's insane that I spend so much money on it. But she still chipped in £100 so I could afford my TT bike. Why? Because she could see how much I wanted it, how hard I worked and how happy it would make me. And even if it is a massive expense that she doesn't understand, she'd rather see me chuffed than settle for something slightly worse than I wanted.
Thank god I have her, the idea of having to justify what I spend my money on doesn't sound appealing.


If it's a case of sharing the money you both make, then perhaps it's a little different.
Still, I don't make my girlfriend justify spending £60 on a little bottle of smelly water, do you?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Sep 2012)

Ethan said:


> Is it your money, or do you share all the money?
> If the latter isn't the case, why do you need to justify spending £500+ of your money on a bike?! It's your money, you worked for it. As long as there aren't more important things to be spending it on, saving for a deposit on a house, rent, diy or similar then surely you can do what you want with it?
> My girlfriend, bless her, had to endure my unhappiness as I worked in a dead end job for a boss that treated me like crap working stupidly long hours all just to afford my two new bikes.
> In the end I got sick and tired of the job, and left before I had enough money to get both bikes. Now my girlfriend isn't a cyclist, she thinks it's insane that I spend so much money on it. But she still chipped in £100 so I could afford my TT bike. Why? Because she could see how much I wanted it, how hard I worked and how happy it would make me. And even if it is a massive expense that she doesn't understand, she'd rather see me chuffed than settle for something slightly worse than I wanted.
> ...


 
Share money: yes. Deposit on house: yes. Rent: yes

Smelly water ewww


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> The Fuji looks like s*** so I would take the QR if forced to choose. However, I wouldn't buy either of those bikes personally.


 
If you wanted a TT bike and that was your limit then yes? if not why not?


----------



## simon.r (12 Sep 2012)

I've come to the conclusion that there's a price point beyond which the improvements become so small as to be barely noticeable to me as an average punter. This applies to all sorts of things, not just cycling.

For example, I'm in the process of looking at new laptops and I reckon I'll spend about £500 on one. This, I think, will be a fair bit better than a £300 one, but it won't be as good as a £1500 one. The improvements the £1500 one has over the £500 one will be of little benefit to me, given that I'll only use it for surfing the net, the odd spreadsheet and so on.

The same with cycling. I'll be faster on a £1000 bike than a £99 BSO, but I doubt I'd notice much difference between a £1000 bike and a £5000 bike, given my skills and fitness level.

But each to their own.


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> If you wanted a TT bike and that was your limit then yes? if not why not?


 
Personally speaking, at that price point, I wouldn't even look at TT bike's.

I would look at a road bike, this way you can ride it a lot more often (sure you can ride a TT bike a lot, but it doesn't feel right in traffic etc) and you can ride in groups (many groups will shun you if you turn up on a TT bike because of the associated dangers) and enter lots of different kinds of events etc. You can probably get more spec for your money with a road bike too and there is nothing stopping you from adding clip on Tri-bars to get a more aero position should you need to.

I would have said if you really want a TT bike, go with Planet-X stealth, but they have upped the price on this now. It was £1k and at that price was pretty much unbeatable but now it is priced at £1299.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (12 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Thank you for everyone’s input, I’m wondering how to justify spending +£500 on a bike to my GF and if I’m actually going to get any faster. I’m also planning some triathlons and would be embarrassed on my steel bike compared to the hardcore carbon TT bikes.


 
I forget, are you commuting on this bike? Is so compare the cost of your bike to the cost of a car.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> Personally speaking, at that price point, I wouldn't even look at TT bike's.
> 
> I would look at a road bike, this way you can ride it a lot more often (sure you can ride a TT bike a lot, but it doesn't feel right in traffic etc) and you can ride in groups (many groups will shun you if you turn up on a TT bike because of the associated dangers) and enter lots of different kinds of events etc. You can probably get more spec for your money with a road bike too and there is nothing stopping you from adding clip on Tri-bars to get a more aero position should you need to.
> 
> I would have said if you really want a TT bike, go with Planet-X stealth, but they have upped the price on this now. It was £1k and at that price was pretty much unbeatable but now it is priced at £1299.


 
I ride alot on my own at weekend, wanted a TT bike because I want to do triathlons, the angle of the seat post haveing somthing to do with saving muscle energy for the run, somthing like that. I would keep my old bike or commuting.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Sep 2012)

Andrew_Culture said:


> I forget, are you commuting on this bike? Is so compare the cost of your bike to the cost of a car.


 
Well me and the other half share a car, and my works on the way to hers so Wont be saving money really, it puts half a mile extra on, if that, when she drops me off.


----------



## GrasB (12 Sep 2012)

simon.r said:


> For example, I'm in the process of looking at new laptops and I reckon I'll spend about £500 on one. This, I think, will be a fair bit better than a £300 one, but it won't be as good as a £1500 one. The improvements the £1500 one has over the £500 one will be of little benefit to me, given that I'll only use it for surfing the net, the odd spreadsheet and so on.


OT: I wouldn't be spending my money on a £500 laptop. They tend to be slow for the specification, don't age well at all & if you're a heavy user they tend to break well within 3 years. Generally you need to be looking ay £800-1500 for something which is quick, well made & will last upwards of 5 years.


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> I ride alot on my own at weekend, wanted a TT bike because I want to do triathlons, the angle of the seat post haveing somthing to do with saving muscle energy for the run, somthing like that. I would keep my old bike or commuting.


 
You can do triathlon on a road bike, many people do, lots even use hybrids etc. In fact in the highest level Olympic and shorter distance triathlon's the pro's use road bikes because the events are draft legal.

The angle of the seatpost on a TT bike is steeper for one main reason, to rotate the whole riding position forward around the ankle joint in order to avoid closing the hip angle when lowering the front end. This maintains power output as much as possible while minimising frontal area.

Further geometry considerations are a slacker head tube angle and more fork rake, this gives a more stable straight line ride quality to contend with the forward shift of weight distribution but comes at a price of impaired handling in bends etc.

An additional consideration, a TT bike is only going to be of much benefit if you manage to hold the aero tuck for a substantial portion of the ride time, if you are riding in hills etc a lot, then you will be honking on the base bars and may as well be on drop bars with brake hoods (this would give easier access to the shifters aswell). In steep or bendy descent's again you will be out of the tuck position so you can brake and maintain reasonable handling to get you through the bends.

Oh and TT bikes are generally heavier than an equivalently priced road bike!


----------



## GrasB (12 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> You can do triathlon on a road bike, many people do, lots even use hybrids etc. In fact in the highest level Olympic and shorter distance triathlon's the pro's use road bikes because the events are draft legal.
> 
> The angle of the seatpost on a TT bike is steeper for one main reason, to rotate the whole riding position forward around the ankle joint in order to avoid closing the hip angle when lowering the front end. This maintains power output as much as possible while minimising frontal area.
> 
> ...


I have used the same base TT/Tri frame for my Road & TT bikes. The reason is that I do hill climbs, lots of them, so I need more options for climbing than best possible aero for the flat sections.


----------



## mickle (12 Sep 2012)

Ethan said:


> This thread perfectly sums up why I've given up with cycling forums other than Weight Weenies (which is only good for a bit of bike porn.)
> 
> Cyclists aren't half an annoying bunch!
> I'm not referring to OP, fyi.


 
I used to think that cyclists were an annoying bunch when I worked in cycle retail. And then I worked in the real world for a bit and realised that it's humans in general that are annoying.

But there's nothing more annoying than someone who posts on a cycling forum about how they've 'given up' on cycling forums. It begs the question: 'Why are you still here'?


----------



## VamP (12 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Thank you for everyone’s input, I’m wondering how to justify spending +£500 on a bike to my GF and if I’m actually going to get any faster. I’m also planning some triathlons and would be embarrassed on my steel bike compared to the hardcore carbon TT bikes.


 

See, i would be more embarrassed to show up at a tri with a top end TT bike, and have loads of people overtake me, than on a steel bike and overtake others. So long as it was well maintained and didn't squeak!

Also most tri's will have a full mixture of bikes, shopping bikes, hybrids you name it. Just go and do one.


----------



## 4F (12 Sep 2012)

VamP said:


> See, i would be more embarrassed to show up at a tri with a top end TT bike, and have loads of people overtake me, than on a steel bike and overtake others. So long as it was well maintained and didn't squeak!
> 
> Also most tri's will have a full mixture of bikes, shopping bikes, hybrids you name it. Just go and do one.


 
This, I would go for the road bike option as well and work on your own fitness first.


----------



## HovR (12 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> OT: I wouldn't be spending my money on a £500 laptop. They tend to be slow for the specification, don't age well at all & if you're a heavy user they tend to break well within 3 years. Generally you need to be looking ay £800-1500 for something which is quick, well made & will last upwards of 5 years.


 
Tell that to my £400 HP laptop, bought 5 years ago, _very _heavily used - But well looked after.

Still as fast as the day I bought it (fast enough for 3D graphics rendering, CAD, word processing, HD video editing etc) and haven't had to spend any money on it as of yet.


----------



## redcard (12 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> OT: I wouldn't be spending my money on a £500 laptop. They tend to be slow for the specification, don't age well at all & if you're a heavy user they tend to break well within 3 years. Generally you need to be looking ay £800-1500 for something which is quick, well made & will last upwards of 5 years.



A £500 core i5 laptop is perfectly fine and will last years if taken care of.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Sep 2012)

Can you stop talking about laptops, please got to Laptopchat.net for that


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Sep 2012)

Ha Ha just check, its actualy a website


----------



## Rob3rt (12 Sep 2012)

If you really want to get a TT bike though, you should try riding one and not feel pushed to buy a road bike without giving it a go. But an experienced opinion (having made mistakes) is don't bother unless you start taking tri or TT seriously. I own a TT bike and it never gets used. I bought it when I had the money and I talked myself into it as I too was planning on doing triathlons and time trials. I test rode a few and settled on one that fit the best despite it being a bit more expensive than I was initially intending to pay. I bought it and I loved it. Since then it has seen zero use other than the occasional round the block or turbo session. I ride my geared road bike 95% of the time and my fixed wheel road bike the other 5% of the time (the opposite of what used to be the case actually).

Having seen the errors of my purchase, I did regret it for some time and contemplated cutting my losses and selling up, but my girlfriend talked me out of that. On the plus side, I am riding in a club again and training properly, having revived my desire to ride fast. Assuming I maintain momentum it will get a lashing next year.


----------



## trampyjoe (12 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Can you stop talking about laptops, please got to Laptopchat.net for that


surely http://geekschat.net/forums/servers-pcs-and-notebooks.32/ would be a better choice!?


----------



## rb58 (12 Sep 2012)

There is another dimension to all this I think. A bike is not just a means of transport, it says something about the rider. It's a lifestyle thing. I'm not a competitive cyclist and have no ambitions to be, so the 'it's faster' argument holds no sway with me. But I do like nice things. And my best bike is indeed A Nice Thing which, if Mrs rb58 had any sense, would be adorning the living room wall when it wasn't being ridden on dry sunny days.


----------



## Ethan (13 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> I used to think that cyclists were an annoying bunch when I worked in cycle retail. And then I worked in the real world for a bit and realised that it's humans in general that are annoying.
> 
> But there's nothing more annoying than someone who posts on a cycling forum about how they've 'given up' on cycling forums. It begs the question: 'Why are you still here'?


 
Maybe you have a talent for attracting the annoying type - I find people are generally very pleasant. Probably something to do with your personality, I often find that people behaving like abrasive little plebs are more likely to receive similar treatment in return.

I came back to see if I could stop the site sending me emails, seeing as I had sod all to do the rest of the day I thought I'd have little gander around.
I rapidly remembered why I avoid sites like this!


----------



## Graham1426 (13 Sep 2012)

No one ever regrets buying quality...........and quality is expensive...


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

Ethan said:


> Maybe you have a talent for attracting the annoying type - I find people are generally very pleasant. Probably something to do with your personality, I often find that people behaving like abrasive little plebs are more likely to receive similar treatment in return.
> 
> I came back to see if I could stop the site sending me emails, seeing as I had sod all to do the rest of the day I thought I'd have little gander around.
> I rapidly remembered why I avoid sites like this!


 
Not doing a very good job of avoiding it then..........


----------



## rb58 (14 Sep 2012)

Graham1426 said:


> No one ever regrets buying quality...........and quality is expensive...


I don't regret buying the things I have, but I do question my sanity sometimes..


----------



## Mo1959 (14 Sep 2012)

rb58 said:


> I don't regret buying the things I have, but I do question my sanity sometimes..


 
I bought a really good quality exercise bike (Reebok B5.8e) a couple of years ago and, have to admit, I do regret buying it. I really don't enjoy exercising indoors at all so it hardly gets used. Give me the outdoors any time.


----------



## Ethan (14 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Not doing a very good job of avoiding it then..........


 
Were you selective in what you wanted to take in from my comment, or are you just dyslexic?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

Your a strange guy Ethan, I think you need help.


----------



## Ethan (14 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Your a strange guy Ethan, I think you need help.



And your an odious little daffodil.


----------



## GrasB (14 Sep 2012)

Mo1959 said:


> I bought a really good quality exercise bike (Reebok B5.8e) a couple of years ago and, have to admit, I do regret buying it. I really don't enjoy exercising indoors at all so it hardly gets used. Give me the outdoors any time.


You regret buying something you don't use, you don't regret the fact that it's a high quality item. A subtle but significant difference


----------



## Beebo (14 Sep 2012)

Ethan said:


> And your an odious little ****.


 


Ethan said:


> I often find that people behaving like abrasive little plebs are more likely to receive similar treatment in return.


 
Very well put Ethan, you deserve all the similar treatment you get.


----------



## trampyjoe (14 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Your a strange guy Ethan, I think you need help.





Ethan said:


> And your an odious little ****.


 
*You're


----------



## Mo1959 (14 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> You regret buying something you don't use, you don't regret the fact that it's a high quality item. A subtle but significant difference


 
Yes, that's true I suppose. Worst of it is that you never get anything like what they are worth if you try and sell them. I suppose if we happen to get a really atrocious winter it is there for use.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

Ethan said:


> And your an odious little ****.


 
Ha Ha


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

Looking at some bikes £800-£100 and most have compact 50/34, is this the norm? I want somthing that has 52+ for some serious decent speed.

Would you have to alter the gears yourself?


----------



## Shaun (14 Sep 2012)

Please keep it civil and stick to the topic at hand - bike advice.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Globalti (14 Sep 2012)

Unless you're a pro or a very fit amateur I doubt whether you would use a 52 -11 for more than a few minutes on any ride. I'm usually in the top third of my age group when I undertake anything competitive but I can't sustain riding even in 50 -11 solo for more than a few minutes on the flat because of the wind resistance at that speed. Obviously with a tow or a following wind or a hill I could manage a 52 but only briefly and as long as the conditions allowed.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Looking at some bikes £800-£100 and most have compact 50/34, is this the norm? I want somthing that has 52+ for some serious decent speed.
> 
> Would you have to alter the gears yourself?


 
A compact is fine! 50:11 is plenty tall enough, I barely ever touch that ratio. I am a bit of a spinner though, but still even on descent's you would probably bottle it before you felt the gears were limiting you. Once you are descending at those speeds you will most likely freewheel and try to get nice and aero.


----------



## Globalti (14 Sep 2012)

PA, I've just taken the trouble to jump back to the start of this thread and your original post is quite defiantly controversial. If you want to understand the roadie obsession with shiny new kit, cleanliness, purity and perfection and along the way, gain an understanding of the real reason for leg shaving, go and buy a small book called The Escape Artist by the respected cycling writer Matt Seaton. It's a very readable and entertaining account of Seaton's growing obsession with road riding, it explains a lot of roadie lore and convention and it ends with a terrible twist, which I won't spoil for you. Get it; you'll enjoy it.

Here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Escape-Arti...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347616653&sr=1-2


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> A compact is fine! 50:11 is plenty tall enough, I barely ever touch that ratio. I am a bit of a spinner though, but still even on descent's you would probably bottle it before you felt the gears were limiting you. Once you are descending at those speeds you will most likely freewheel and try to get nice and aero.


 
Narr, Ive maxed at 47mph, I just run out of gears, anything 40+ any its just too high rpm, I'm looking for higher gears. I NEVER BOTTLE IT ARRRRRRRRRRR!!


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2012)

The input from the pedal's will have a minimal impact on speed at those speeds vs taking on a nice aero position.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

I can get a nice areo posistion and pedal, so does anyone know if your looking for higher gear is somthing you have to buy addtional or can you buy it striaght on the bike from new?


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2012)

Getting bigger gears for the descent, which is a short period of time vs the ascent, will cripple your climbing unless you end up with a very wide range cassette to accommodate both. In which case your gear spacing will be wide and a pain on the flat.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> Getting bigger gears for the descent, which is a short period of time vs the ascent, will cripple your climbing unless you end up with a very wide range cassette to accommodate both. In which case your gear spacing will be wide and a pain on the flat.


 
So maybe work on my cadance speed instead of worring about the high end gears?


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2012)

Just get into a good position and hold it, work on minimising speed losses in your cornering and you will get faster on descents, no point spinning like a madman, you wont be able to keep on top of it.

Just for interest, many pro's use compact's and big cassette's on the climb's, which means they are also running compacts on the descents!


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

But I like being a madman, thats how I have loads of KOM sprints and decents


----------



## rb58 (14 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Looking at some bikes £800-£100 and most have compact 50/34, is this the norm? I want somthing that has 52+ for some serious decent speed.
> 
> Would you have to alter the gears yourself?


This is normal. Most road bikes these days will have a compact double, which is probably the best compromise for mere humans. But, many will also offer the option of a regular double, which will be something like 52/39. Or if hills are a challenge for you, then a triple could offer you 52/39/30. Search the forum if you want to know the pros and cons of each, as it is discussed at length quite frequently..... Also, before you jump for a large chainring, read up about the efficiency of pedalling a higher cadence which might influence your choice.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2012)

If you want big gear's get them, by all means! Sound like you have made your mind up anyway.


----------



## Globalti (14 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt: Eek! Really sorry mate, one false apostrophe is bad but four in a row is too painful....!

"_pros use compacts and big cassettes on the climbs"._

... carry on!


----------



## GrasB (14 Sep 2012)

Assuming a high power cadence range of 95-135rpm in the nice tight range of an 11-23 cassette, 13-17t sprockets, we get the following speeds:
50t = 21.8-40.5mph
53t = 23.1-42.9mph
56t = 24.4-45.4mph
59t = 25.7-47.8mph

You should be able to high the high 140rpm for short perods but 135rpm is about what most people top out at for sustained periods. That's 47.9mph on 50/11, 53/11 50.7mph, 56/11 53.6mph & 59/11 is 56.5mph, from about 50mph looking to need about 600-800w to beat the aerodynamic disadvantage of peddling v's being in an aero position that you physically can't pedal in.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> Assuming a high power cadence range of 95-135rpm in the nice tight range of an 11-23 cassette, 13-17t sprockets, we get the following speeds:
> 50t = 21.8-40.5mph
> 53t = 23.1-42.9mph
> 56t = 24.4-45.4mph
> ...


 
Thankx, interesting stuff!


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

My current rust bucket has 52t and was wanting maybe a little higher of a gear thats all


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

Been looking at this http://www.evanscycles.com/products/cannondale/caad8-6-tia-2012-compact-road-bike-ec031475


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2012)

Looking at your data from another thread, if you are interested in increasing your average speed (I see that you are averaging like 15-16mph) you would be better off investing time into getting better at going up hills quicker (or money into easier gearing to get up them faster, exactly as a compact would offer) and on your sustainable flat speed than it would brief periods of high speed down a hill or a couple of hundred metre flat out sprint a few times per ride.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Been looking at this http://www.evanscycles.com/products/cannondale/caad8-6-tia-2012-compact-road-bike-ec031475


 
That is a nice bike. I own 2 Cannondale's myself and tbh, would be hard pressed to buy anything else!


----------



## youngoldbloke (14 Sep 2012)

"So far about 600 + miles, I have no idea what it did in its 18 years or so life before me." Quote from your earlier post, PA.
You seem to have fitted a hell of a lot into those 600 miles - 47mph, KOM sprints, descents, running out of gears - I don't know why your'e looking for another bike, sounds like you should be unbeatable on that one .


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> "So far about 600 + miles, I have no idea what it did in its 18 years or so life before me." Quote from your earlier post, PA.
> You seem to have fitted a hell of a lot into those 600 miles - 47mph, KOM sprints, descents, running out of gears - I don't know why your'e looking for another bike, sounds like you should be unbeatable on that one .


 
Ha ha, well, what can i say............


----------



## Peter Armstrong (14 Sep 2012)

Thing is, im not comfortable on this bike, not positioning, I mean I dont feel like me and my bike are "one". It creeks, and grinds, and the pedals wobbly, the brakes squeek, and it heavy! so I struggle up hills.I can feel its not smooth in the cranks, I could spend more money changing aload of parts but I think it will be better to just get a new one. I wanna keep the 52t I already have, not losing high end gears when buy a new one. I dont wanna be slower on my runs because my new bike dont have the gears.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Thing is, im not comfortable on this bike, not positioning, I mean I dont feel like me and my bike are "one". It creeks, and grinds, and the pedals wobbly, the brakes squeek, and it heavy! so I struggle up hills.I can feel its not smooth in the cranks, I could spend more money changing aload of parts but I think it will be better to just get a new one. I wanna keep the 52t I already have, not losing high end gears when buy a new one. I dont wanna be slower on my runs because my new bike dont have the gears.


 
You are missing the point! At least it seems to me you are. If you want to improve your average speed (top end speed is a different matter we can discuss that next), then you need to maintain higher speeds for longer period. This means less slowing for hills, faster flat speeds, possibly at the expense of a bit of top end speed on descents and sprints. You can easily see this for yourself. Sprint up to 30mph then stop at a traffic light, or drop to a cruising speed and watch the average drop on your computer! It doesn't take much riding below the high speeds to see the average crippled. You need to maintain high pace rather than yo-yo between sprints and then pootling at 15mph to get high average speeds and fast times over a certain distance. If you yo-yo all you do is have a few spikes of speed and then a lower than normal cruising speed because you are tired from the sprints.

As for top end speed, how often do you actually use the hardest gear at the rear? Especially in the small ring where the difference between a compact and double is most evident (hopefully nearly never)! as for the big ring, 4T on the front cog has less effect than 1 tooth at the rear, so going from 52T to 50T will not manifest itself very obviously even for top end sprinting for the normal rider.

*4 tooth difference in chainring example*
54:11 = 129 gear inches
50:11=119.5 gear inches

Difference = 9.5 inches

*1 tooth difference in smallest gear on cassette example*
54:11 = 129 gear inches
54:10 = 141.9 gear inches

Difference = 12.9 inches.

Switching your 52T for a 50T will lose you only 5.8 gear inches.


----------



## PpPete (14 Sep 2012)

Best plan might be to get a new bike with a 50/34 compact. Ride it. If you really spin out the the 50:11 at 135rpm (47 mph) then change the chainset or even just the rings to a 53/39 (and get a Racing Licence). You might need to move the FD up a bit and get a longer chain, but it's all simple stuff.
I like going downhill fast as much as the next guy, but beyond about 40 mph (125 rpm on my 53:13 top end) there really is no point pedalling any more.
As Rob3rt says.... far better to focus on keeping the speed high, staying aero as much a possible, getting the right line through bends, accelerating efficiently away from traffic lights and so on.


----------



## GrasB (14 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Thing is, im not comfortable on this bike, not positioning, I mean I dont feel like me and my bike are "one". It creeks, and grinds, and the pedals wobbly, the brakes squeek, and it heavy! so I struggle up hills.I can feel its not smooth in the cranks, I could spend more money changing aload of parts but I think it will be better to just get a new one. I wanna keep the 52t I already have, not losing high end gears when buy a new one. I dont wanna be slower on my runs because my new bike dont have the gears.


Where do you gain the most time?... on a theoretical 500m slope this is the difference that an extra 400w or so makes going down/up:
75km/h = 24s
80km/h = 22.5s

20km/h = 90s
25km/h = 72s

It'll be a lot easier to make those extra 400W at 100 rpm than 50 rpm.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (14 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> Assuming a high power cadence range of 95-135rpm in the nice tight range of an 11-23 cassette, 13-17t sprockets, we get the following speeds:
> 50t = 21.8-40.5mph
> 53t = 23.1-42.9mph
> 56t = 24.4-45.4mph
> ...



Most useful post I've read for a while!


----------



## Andrew_Culture (14 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> You are missing the point! At least it seems to me you are. If you want to improve your average speed (top end speed is a different matter we can discuss that next), then you need to maintain higher speeds for longer period. This means less slowing for hills, faster flat speeds, possibly at the expense of a bit of top end speed on descents and sprints. You can easily see this for yourself. Sprint up to 30mph then stop at a traffic light, or drop to a cruising speed and watch the average drop on your computer! It doesn't take much riding below the high speeds to see the average crippled. You need to maintain high pace rather than yo-yo between sprints and then pootling at 15mph to get high average speeds and fast times over a certain distance. If you yo-yo all you do is have a few spikes of speed and then a lower than normal cruising speed because you are tired from the sprints.
> 
> As for top end speed, how often do you actually use the hardest gear at the rear? Especially in the small ring where the difference between a compact and double is most evident (hopefully nearly never)! as for the big ring, 4T on the front cog has less effect than 1 tooth at the rear, so going from 52T to 50T will not manifest itself very obviously even for top end sprinting for the normal rider.
> 
> ...



Again, brilliant. I'm about to pick up a used bike with a 52t on the front, but the next bike I won't make such a fuss about getting 52t.


----------



## simon.r (14 Sep 2012)

I asked a question about maximum sustainable cadence a while ago, over in the fixed forum. Some interesting replies and some nonsense

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/whats-a-realistic-maximum-cadence.102591/


----------



## Peter Armstrong (15 Sep 2012)

Just been out, I maxed 49.9mph on a decent, yes I had to pedal on the decent to reach that , I couldnt reach that just in an aero position alone. Up hills I struggle, My low gears arnt low enough.

I Still switching my mind between, getting a new cassette with a bigger range and keep upgrading with cheap parts or save and get a new bike, Cheap £500 or expensive £1000 I still dont know


----------



## Peter Armstrong (15 Sep 2012)

I really fancy a 54/42/30 chain set, any ideas where i can get one?


----------



## black'n'yellow (15 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Up hills I struggle, My low gears arnt low enough.


 


Peter Armstrong said:


> Up hills I struggle, *I'm not fit enough*


 
fixed that for you.....


----------



## Peter Armstrong (15 Sep 2012)

Muppet I've got 52/42 with 6 gears on the back


----------



## vickster (15 Sep 2012)

Ebay? http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_n...de=raw&geo_id=32231&keyword=30+42+52+crankset


----------



## black'n'yellow (15 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Muppet I've got 52/42 with 6 gears on the back


 
and your point is..?


----------



## rb58 (16 Sep 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> I really fancy a 54/42/30 chain set, any ideas where i can get one?


Watch out for your knees. If you struggle up hills, I suspect you'll be doing some serious grinding on a great big gear like that, even on the flat. High speed on a descent stands for diddly squat in my book if you can't sustain it on the flat or hold a decent cadence and speed up a hill. Good luck to you if you can though.


----------



## Rykard (16 Sep 2012)

proportionally you will spend longer climbing and on the 'flat' than you will descending - so surely it makes more sense to try to make those areas quicker as it will offer more of a return?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (17 Sep 2012)

rb58 said:


> Watch out for your knees. If you struggle up hills, I suspect you'll be doing some serious grinding on a great big gear like that, even on the flat. High speed on a descent stands for diddly squat in my book if you can't sustain it on the flat or hold a decent cadence and speed up a hill. Good luck to you if you can though.


 
But that would have a lower gear range than my current set up 52/42


----------



## roseparkk (17 Sep 2012)

T.I.T.S


----------

