# What is the real speed difference between high to low end road bikes?



## bonzobanana (3 Sep 2021)

I'm sure similar threads have been posted before but I've always been curious about this but despite so much information about bicycles on the web this information is not clearly stated anywhere. I.e. different riders on different levels of road bike and expected speeds they would get etc. 

I saw this article;

https://cyclingtips.com/2020/04/the-top-20-fastest-road-bikes-in-the-world-according-to-strava/

plus this;

https://www.bikebiz.com/strava-reveals-uk-cycling-habits/

and I've also seen this video;


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow7MdsSVQuw


I've been left with an impression that there isn't much difference in reality but just wondered with so many people riding with Strava and having a higher spec summer bike and a lower spec winter bike if there is much user experience of the different speeds obtained with different level bikes. 

What would be a realistic difference between lets say;

1) The very cheap basic steel road bikes, typically 14 tourney gears using a freewheel, 52/34x14-28T about 13kg
2) Step up Claris road bike based on an aluminum frame, carbon forks and maybe 52/34x11-32T about 11kg - 4% faster than above?
3) Performance budget road bike - open mould carbon frame and forks, Shimano 105,52/34x11-32T about 8-9kg 2% faster than above?
4) High end road lightweight road bike with ultegra/dura ace less than 7kg 1% faster than above?
5) High end aero lightweight road bike with ultegra/dura ace less than 8kg 0-1% faster than above?

Where is the sweetspot where you get the most bang for your buck? Are my guesstimate percentages realistic or completely out?

I notice in the all-time fastest strava bikes there is a budget 105 aluminium road bike but its mainly sold in the relatively flat Netherlands. You wonder if all the fastest bikes are sold in the Netherlands. You also wonder if all the high end bikes have high performance riders too. Many people buying their first road bike would also be relatively slow and unfit and buying a low end bike I would of thought, generally.

I guess the best source of information would be people who have two or more different road bikes from different price points and how their times vary on strava but I can't see where you get that information or is it all a big secret the bike industry is suppressing somehow.


----------



## hoopdriver (3 Sep 2021)

It comes down to the engine driving it. If you put Mark Cavendish on my old school tourer, that old tourer if mine would be one hell of a fast bike, while if you put me on Cavendish’s bike you’d say it was a Halfords plodder…


----------



## DaveReading (3 Sep 2021)

Weight is (almost) everything. You can't escape physics: f = ma.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Sep 2021)

You don't necessarily buy a more expensive because it goes faster. You buy a more expensive bike because it has features that you want. (Note, _want_, not necessarily _need_). Such features could include (but not limited to):
- Comfort
- Looks
- Ergonomics
- Range of gearing
- Type of component (eg if you prefer disk brakes)
- Carrying capacity
- Reliability
- Swank factor

If you just want to go faster then you just need to pedal harder.


----------



## johnblack (3 Sep 2021)

I’ve an ally dale with 9 speed Sora and a couple of full carbons, one mech Dura ace and one Di2, the difference in response and the ability to hold higher power for longer is very noticeable, still like riding them all.


----------



## Ian H (3 Sep 2021)

"Professional road cyclist" suggests a race (pun intended) apart, whereas there is a continuum from local amateurs through 1st and elite categories toward earning money from racing.


----------



## Ian H (3 Sep 2021)

But if you're not racing, then other priorities will feature if you're using your bike(s) fully.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Sep 2021)

DaveReading said:


> Weight is (almost) everything. You can't escape physics: f = ma.


Up to a certain speed. And then drag is everything.


----------



## Ian H (3 Sep 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> Up to a certain speed. And then drag is everything.


Except comfort is important, especially over any distance.
And I'm not riding a 600k randonneur event in a aero-tuck position.


----------



## Arrowfoot (3 Sep 2021)

Personally I found that frame material ie carbon, steel, Ti , alloy etc have the least difference. But group sets made a lot of difference as they involve mechanical movement. If you are heavy into cycling or regular commuter and consider cycling as a pleasure, it does pay to invest to enjoy the rides. The 2K price bracket is fine and probably the starting point. If you bought something at 1K or slight more and you realised that you enjoy riding, you will upgrade as smooth shifting is highly noticeable.


----------



## Sterlo (3 Sep 2021)

Agree with @Arrowfoot, first bike (pre theft) was 105, got a full payout from insurance and upspeced to Ultegra, the difference is noticeable.


----------



## fossyant (3 Sep 2021)

There is a sweet spot where the components are sufficiently good enough to last, but that said, if you don't look after it, then it won't last anyway.

A grand up you'll get something good.


----------



## PaulSB (3 Sep 2021)

I own an 11 year old Dolan Dual (originally summer), a Cannondale CAAD10 (summer) a Cervelo C3(summer) and a Kinesis ATRV3 (winter/gravel). In descending order of speed:

Cervelo 24/25mph
Kinesis 21/22
Cannondale 18/19
Dolan 18/19 just!

The difference between my Cervelo, which today would be £5000+ and the Dolan is significant.

While I agree in motorsports one can buy speed I don't believe this is true in cycling. However I believe the better the bike the more of the rider's ability is transmitted in to speed and performance.


----------



## Ian H (3 Sep 2021)

No one has mentioned decent tyres, which can make a huge difference.


----------



## freiston (3 Sep 2021)

In terms of performance, once the engine is taken out of the equation (or given the same engine for all bikes), I dare say there's not much between really expensive and cheap but decent. Weight factors in acceleration, deceleration and climbing. Otherwise, inefficiencies will come from wheel/tyres/hubs, drivetrain (including gear changing), frame flex and wind-resistance (I think that just about covers anything significant). Talking specifically about the difference a groupset will make, then it comes down to drivetrain efficiency, I reckon. Assuming all bikes are well-maintained, correctly set-up and the pilot is good at making gear changes with minimum loss of momentum and maximising engine efficiency, then it really is down to how much energy is lost between the feet and the cassette. I'm sure there have been studies and stats gathered on this but I don't know of them but I dare say it's not going to be startling between Claris and Dura Ace/Ultegra.

The real test would be for a racing cyclist to use a cheap and an expensive bike on the same route(s) several times (to try to balance out any other influencing factors) and see the difference.

If the cyclist is not a racer (actual or wannabee - where small gains can be critical), then I would argue that the differences in terms of efficiency/performance between groupsets is small enough to not carry much relevance and other factors should take more consideration, like gear ratios (e.g. I dare say a lot of people would get more benefit out of a 25" over a 35" gear than a 129" over a 120" gear) and tyres (in respect of rolling resistance, comfort and suitability for riding conditions). The benefit of aerodynamics only really kick in at higher speeds - so unless you're a fast cyclist or pedal against a lot of strong headwinds, spending extra on aerodynamic components won't make a big difference. Weight might make a difference if you're doing a lot of climbing or can't maintain a constant speed but saving weight can get very expensive, especially the lighter you go. imho most cheap but decent road bikes are already fairly light and a lot of non-racing cyclist are already fairly heavy 😉 - any weight reduction has to be looked at in terms of total weight of bike, rider and luggage.

I am a slow rider and definitely not into racing, chasing PBs or Strava records. In terms of my performance, I don't think switching to a carbon frame with Ultegra goupset would make any difference that would be important to me - but then again, my road bike is a steel touring bike with mudguards, front and rear racks, a 20.8" bottom gear and dynamo lighting.


----------



## Venod (3 Sep 2021)

Sterlo said:


> Agree with @Arrowfoot, first bike (pre theft) was 105, got a full payout from insurance and upspeced to Ultegra, the difference is noticeable.



I used to run Ultegra and it was very good, but now I have 105 on 2 bikes and Tiagra shifters on another and I think they are just as good as Ultegra, may be heavier though.


----------



## Arrowfoot (3 Sep 2021)

PaulSB said:


> I own an 11 year old Dolan Dual (originally summer), a Cannondale CAAD10 (summer) a Cervelo C3(summer) and a Kinesis ATRV3 (winter/gravel). In descending order of speed:
> 
> Cervelo 24/25mph
> Kinesis 21/22
> ...


You make a material point. Manufacturers will design the bottom bracket and bottom tube typically of carbon material to be more stiff so the power transmission is maximised for each stroke. And without increasing weight. More expensive the bike, more likely it be faster for the additional treatment.


----------



## vickster (3 Sep 2021)

Steel or Ti Sram bikes are always quicker than Shimano whatever the material


----------



## Drago (3 Sep 2021)

I took my one and only KoM on a £1000 Tiagra equipped, alloy framed bike, that actually cost me 600 sheets.

Everyone up to number 12 behind me is a competitive cyclist, or a coach/trainer, and all set theirs on their high spec plastic bikes, all doubtless costing much more, allmof which put my Felt to shame on paper and cost. Nuff said.

I think the goalposts will be in a different position for every rider. Im a heavy lump, with the aerodynamics of a Volvo estate in reverse, and all the etap and Ti in the world won't change that, so once im on a bike that reaches a certain level of competence then my attributes likely counter the benefits that more expensive bikes bring. Thats my theory, and the fact that im no quicker on my more expensive (at retail prices), higher specced carbon Boredom reinforces my thoughts in that vein.

Conversely, a small, lighter rider may benefit more.

And then there's the trickle-down aspect. The Tiagra on my Felt is visually, and in operation, almost identical to the earlier generation 105 on my Pinnacle, which is 4 years older. That 105 is certainly no better, flasher, lighter or faster when removed in time by only a couple of years - in fact, for all intents and purposes it is the same. 

Therefore, its not even possible to say firmly that one spec level is the "sweet spot", as the next spec down is liable to be every bit as good as the comparator once the next update rolls around.


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Sep 2021)

It really does depend on the engine, more than the frame, groupset, wheels or anything.
I've done exactly the same ride on a carbon roadbike with handbuilt wheels, and a Brompton (of all things). When I did the roadbike ride, I was on the form of my life, and a good 15kg lighter than when I did it on the Brompton. And a good deal less hung over.
Carbon bike -120 minutes. Brompton - 150 minutes.
The ride was to this cafe up Mont Ventoux.


----------



## Ridgeway (3 Sep 2021)

Uphill, downhill, flat ???


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Sep 2021)

Uphill. Very, very uphill. But downhill on the way back to Sault.
I can attest that Bromptons are a bit scary at 48 mph.


----------



## Cycleops (3 Sep 2021)

Arrowfoot said:


> You make a material point. Manufacturers will design the bottom bracket and bottom tube typically of carbon material to be more stiff so the power transmission is maximised for each stroke. And without increasing weight. More expensive the bike, more likely it be faster for the additional treatment.


Agreed, but you have to be able to take advantage of it


----------



## Ridgeway (3 Sep 2021)

TheDoctor said:


> Uphill. Very, very uphill.
> I can attest that Bromptons are a bit scary at 48 mph.



I can imagine, back down to Maulacene on 16" wheels must be fun.....


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Sep 2021)

It was Sault. The easiest way up Ventoux, other than getting a bus.


----------



## faster (3 Sep 2021)

The difference in speed between road bikes (in good mechanical condition!) is almost entirely down to rider position (from both an aerodynamic and biomechanical perspective) and tyres.

The rest is all a percent of a percent type stuff, and a well set up cheap bike can still be very quick.


----------



## Ian H (3 Sep 2021)

TheDoctor said:


> It really does depend on the engine, more than the frame, groupset, wheels or anything.
> I've done exactly the same ride on a carbon roadbike with handbuilt wheels, and a Brompton (of all things). When I did the roadbike ride, I was on the form of my life, and a good 15kg lighter than when I did it on the Brompton. And a good deal less hung over.
> Carbon bike -120 minutes. Brompton - 150 minutes.
> The ride was to this cafe up Mont Ventoux.



Michael Hutchinson has written about the discomfiture of a roadman who was soundly outridden by Dr Hutch on his Brompton.


----------



## HLaB (3 Sep 2021)

I've never took my Triban 500 on the same route as more expensive road bike. On the flat bus way the Triban although didn't feel slow resulted in a speed I'd guess 1-2mph lower than my better road bike would have. Perhaps if hills added it would be a bigger difference but bang for buck, the Triban could be ahead. Although I'd choose the better road bike every time for a leisure ride.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (3 Sep 2021)

View: https://youtu.be/7trIdY1assg


----------



## Alex321 (3 Sep 2021)

It isn't quite what was asked, not being a comparison between two road bikes.

But a few weeks ago I went from riding a Boardman MX sport hybrid (48/36/26 chainset, 11-32 cassette) SRAM X5 groupset (equivalent of Tiagra at the time, Sora now) which weighed 13.9Kg, to a Cube Attain GTC race, a road bike with 50/34 11-32 Shimano 105 groupset, weight 9.4Kg.

And I reckon my speed has increased by around 10% overall - the weight difference (rider plus bike) is about 4-5%. Part of that is bound to be down to the difference in position, part of it will be 28m tyres instead of 38mm, and I'm sure some of it is down to the increased stiffness in the BB area.


----------



## mattobrien (4 Sep 2021)

I do very little in the way of unstructured cycling with the vast majority of my riding being training sessions. Depending on the session and weather I will take different bikes. When training on the road ine of the biggest factors that helps me is having electric gears. It makes changes quicker and more accurate and means I can better hit my target power numbers.
the only bike I train on without electric gears is my Cervelo P2, although being a TT bike it is lever shift rather than a road brifter so it is pretty precise. The P2 is a much slower bike than my P5 and that is largely down to aero and tyres used. I don’t have racing tyres in my training bike. The other factor that would make my P2 quicker is a bigger chainring, it’s currently on a 52 and I’d quite like to change to a 56. The P5 has a 58 and 60 depending on course that I’m riding on.


----------



## bonzobanana (4 Sep 2021)

Thanks for all the interesting responses and looks like Shimano 105 has run away with the best level of bike for overall mix of performance and value which I have to say I'm not at all surprised by. I was a bit surprised by how well the entry level bike has done. I was expecting Claris level to do better in comparison.


----------



## vickster (4 Sep 2021)

bonzobanana said:


> Thanks for all the interesting responses and looks like Shimano 105 has run away with the best level of bike for overall mix of performance and value which I have to say I'm not at all surprised by. I was a bit surprised by how well the entry level bike has done. I was expecting Claris level to do better in comparison.


Claris is pretty much entry level for modern roadbikes


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Sep 2021)

Alex321 said:


> It isn't quite what was asked, not being a comparison between two road bikes.
> 
> But a few weeks ago I went from riding a Boardman MX sport hybrid (48/36/26 chainset, 11-32 cassette) SRAM X5 groupset (equivalent of Tiagra at the time, Sora now) which weighed 13.9Kg, to a Cube Attain GTC race, a road bike with 50/34 11-32 Shimano 105 groupset, weight 9.4Kg.
> 
> And I reckon my speed has increased by around 10% overall - the weight difference (rider plus bike) is about 4-5%. Part of that is bound to be down to the difference in position, part of it will be 28m tyres instead of 38mm, and I'm sure some of it is down to the increased stiffness in the BB area.



You can get that 10% improvement just by changing to fast tyres like GP5000 from touring tyres. Pretty much all of the increase you’ve seen will be the tyres. Assuming your average speeds are in the 10-20 mph punter range.


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

Bit of an anomaly with this question? Some awesome frames (Colnago) come with quite low-end groupsets. The reverse is true with some dog rough frames adorned with 105/Ultegra?


----------



## bonzobanana (4 Sep 2021)

vickster said:


> Claris is pretty much entry level for modern roadbikes



Claris is typically with a freehub and cassette and carbon fibre forks but below that you have the freewheel based road bikes, much slower high gearing (freewheels typically start at 14T not the 11T of cassettes), they could be high tensile steel or more basic unbutted aluminium frames and steel forks. This sort of thing which is a sub £200 Argos bike;








I think a Claris road bike now would be £350 or more. There is the Carrera Virtuoso, not sure there is anything cheaper than that. I think the entry level Decathlon bikes use Microshift components which are a little cheaper and a bit more plasticky. Some Claris road bikes that were £550 pre pandemic like the Giant Contend are now more like £750 I think. So I see the Claris road bikes as a step up from the very entry level freewheel based road bikes. Even more so with the pandemic effect.


----------



## vickster (4 Sep 2021)

I said pretty much, there are few non bso options with a ‘lower’ groupset than Claris. Afaik anyhow, it’s not a market I pay much attention to nowadays. I use Sram, lowest available road groupset is 10 speed Apex, Tiagra equivalent


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

bonzobanana said:


> Claris is typically with a freehub and cassette and carbon fibre forks but below that you have the freewheel based road bikes, much slower high gearing (freewheels typically start at 14T not the 11T of cassettes), they could be high tensile steel or more basic unbutted aluminium frames and steel forks. This sort of thing which is a sub £200 Argos bike;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hate to admit it, but i quite like the look of that Argos bike! Not sure I would enjoy riding it up the Clwyds near me, its 12.6kg


----------



## freiston (4 Sep 2021)

bonzobanana said:


> Claris is typically with a freehub and cassette and carbon fibre forks but below that you have the freewheel based road bikes, much slower high gearing (freewheels typically start at 14T not the 11T of cassettes), they could be high tensile steel or more basic unbutted aluminium frames and steel forks. This sort of thing which is a sub £200 Argos bike;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like others, I would also consider (generally speaking) a new entry level road bike to be equipped with Claris (if the bike has a Shimano groupset); I would also expect it to have a freehub rather than a freewheel.

I would consider a new bike with freewheel and Tourney (or below) to be a sub-entry level budget bike: they will be built primarily as cheap as possible, often with gas-pipe frames and scant regard for their riding characteristics or quality but will be made to "look the part" to anyone not in the know.

I've got nothing against Tourney but I do consider it to not be in the same league as Claris and above. If you search for Shimano road groupset hierarchy, just about every result will show Claris as the bottom/entry level groupset and not even mention Tourney.


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

I put Tourney Revoshifts on the wifes bike. Pile of crap.


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (4 Sep 2021)

Of the seven (road) bikes I have used on strava since 2013, they have varied in average speed between 15 and 17mph. The fastest has been my carbon bike, that I have done over 30k miles on. The slowest, is the steel frame bike I have owned for 30 years. All of them (since 2013) have dura ace or ultegra of varying years (7800-9000) and I have always used Conti gp4000 or 4 season tyres whenever possible.
The fastest bike is the one I use the most, it has done long audax rides, commutes and everything in between. It also has had the most component changes. I think the only original parts left are the brifters, frame and forks! I have done 200mile rides on all of them with a similar average speed (between 14.5 and 15.5mph)


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

Pumpkin the robot said:


> Of the seven (road) bikes I have used on strava since 2013, they have varied in average speed between 15 and 17mph. The fastest has been my carbon bike, that I have done over 30k miles on. The slowest, is the steel frame bike I have owned for 30 years. All of them (since 2013) have dura ace or ultegra of varying years (7800-9000) and I have always used Conti gp4000 or 4 season tyres whenever possible.
> The fastest bike is the one I use the most, it has done long audax rides, commutes and everything in between. It also has had the most component changes. I think the only original parts left are the brifters, frame and forks! I have done 200mile rides on all of them with a similar average speed (between 14.5 and 15.5mph)


What's the saying? A bad workman blames his tools .... my average speeds are exactly the same for:
1. 8kg road bike 28c GP5000
2. 9kg gravel bike 32c Gatorskins.


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (4 Sep 2021)

Grant Fondo said:


> What's the saying? A bad workman blames his tools .... my average speeds are exactly the same for:
> 1. 8kg road bike 28c GP5000
> 2. 9kg gravel bike 32c Gatorskins.


 If I had recorded with strava back in the day, I think my steel bike would be the fastest, I managed a few sub 20 minute 10 mile TTs and all the relevant speed work that went with it.
I think the data may be skewed by the data (Difficult to compare 500 miles of data with 30k) and my fitness levels when I have owned certain bikes over that period, but I always "feel" fast on my carbon bike!
At the end of the day, does it matter? Just get out and ride, regardless of the price of the bike and components, or your average speed!


----------



## freiston (4 Sep 2021)

Grant Fondo said:


> I put Tourney Revoshifts on the wifes bike. Pile of crap.
> View attachment 607574


My folding bike came with a RevoShift - it was crap - I replaced it with a Tourney trigger shifter - much better


----------



## kingrollo (4 Sep 2021)

bonzobanana said:


> Thanks for all the interesting responses and looks like Shimano 105 has run away with the best level of bike for overall mix of performance and value which I have to say I'm not at all surprised by. I was a bit surprised by how well the entry level bike has done. I was expecting Claris level to do better in comparison.



Pre covid / brexit a bike with ultegra wasn't actually that much more expensive than 105


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

kingrollo said:


> Pre covid / brexit a bike with ultegra wasn't actually that much more expensive than 105


My (pre-covid) ultegra bike cost £500 less than my (pre-covid) 105 one


----------



## kingrollo (4 Sep 2021)

Grant Fondo said:


> My (pre-covid) ultegra bike cost £500 less than my (pre-covid) 105 one



Difference for me was £90. I went Ultegra.


----------



## TheDoctor (4 Sep 2021)

Grant Fondo said:


> I put Tourney Revoshifts on the wifes bike. Pile of crap.
> View attachment 607574


Been using a Revoshifter on my touring bike for fifteen years. Still works fine.


----------



## bonzobanana (4 Sep 2021)

Grant Fondo said:


> Hate to admit it, but i quite like the look of that Argos bike! Not sure I would enjoy riding it up the Clwyds near me, its 12.6kg



Yeah actually a nice looking bike and I'm sure a reasonable bike for commuting for most people, perhaps they want to have a low value bike due to possible theft or getting bashed about where its locked up. These type of bikes make a lot of sense for general riding. If its not low geared enough you can get one of those mega range freewheels, 14-34T which might help. I'm no bike snob I can see why it would be good for many people. Also when you look at the average price of a bike sold in the UK its only about £300 or so and that includes ebikes. Most of the market is at the low end although I guess that includes childrens bikes (not sure) which would skew the value downwards.

For me though the real road bikes of reasonable performance start with Claris or the similar Microshift type groupsets.


----------



## bonzobanana (4 Sep 2021)

freiston said:


> My folding bike came with a RevoShift - it was crap - I replaced it with a Tourney trigger shifter - much better
> View attachment 607576



I've got large hands I can't use revo shifters as my hands often end up doing ghost shifts which can be dangerous. I also have to switch to trigger shifters. I did try creating a gap between the revo shifter and the actual grip but it visually annoyed me because the brake lever was on the wrong side so you couldn't slide your hand across very well. There is a walmart road bike where they cut the drop handlebars in half and put revo shifters on and then use a metal rod to join the two parts of the handlebars back together again. Probably the worst implementation of revo shifters ever. I seem to remember reading someone had one side of their handlebars drop compared to the other because they hadn't secured the joining rod correctly and the stem must have been slightly loose.


----------



## T4tomo (4 Sep 2021)

bonzobanana said:


> .


You seem to be "grading" bikes by their Groupsets, when in reality the Groupset is relatively unimportant particularly in terms of speed of the bike.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Sep 2021)

Best upgrade for the money is fast rolling tyres


----------



## StuAff (4 Sep 2021)

At lower speeds, weight trumps everything else. Going uphill, at least at lower speeds, still weight. At higher speeds, aerodynamic drag is the key factor- but you've got to get to those higher speeds in order to benefit- or not- from any aero gains. An increase in speed of 25% requires twice the power output. Improve your position and fit lower-drag parts, and you'll still need twice the power to go 25% faster, but you will go faster on the same power output. The biggest factor by far in aero is not the frame, or components, but the rider. For all the talk about special chain lubes, jockey wheels, etc…by far the largest mechanical factor is tyre rolling resistance. 
Either that, or drop a lot of money on a velomobile and really, really lower your drag…


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

What about this 14.5kg beauty? The specification is hilarious


----------



## StuAff (4 Sep 2021)

Four nail stand horn handle? Hidden unlined bowl set tower mat brushed? Yer what?


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

StuAff said:


> Four nail stand horn handle? Hidden unlined bowl set tower mat brushed? Yer what?


Tourney shifter, wahay!


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

Please tell me no one has ever bought one for £1119.00


----------



## C R (4 Sep 2021)

StuAff said:


> Four nail stand horn handle? Hidden unlined bowl set tower mat brushed? Yer what?


What about positioning tower wheels? There's seven of 'em!


----------



## PaulSB (4 Sep 2021)

TheDoctor said:


> It really does depend on the engine, more than the frame, groupset, wheels or anything.
> I've done exactly the same ride on a carbon roadbike with handbuilt wheels, and a Brompton (of all things). When I did the roadbike ride, I was on the form of my life, and a good 15kg lighter than when I did it on the Brompton. And a good deal less hung over.
> Carbon bike -120 minutes. Brompton - 150 minutes.
> The ride was to this cafe up Mont Ventoux.
> View attachment 607440


Please could you explain as I've read this several times and don't get your point.

You were 30 minutes slower on the Brompton yet you state it depends on the engine. Surely if it depends on the engine your times would be much closer?


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

C R said:


> What about positioning tower wheels? There's seven of 'em!


I think the mandarin translation machine went beserk


----------



## Grant Fondo (4 Sep 2021)

C R said:


> What about positioning tower wheels? There's seven of 'em!


OOh hang on, found something cheaper AND it fits people from 5' 2" to 6' 4" !!
If I can hunt down some of those Yongfs wheels and race tyres, my winter riding will be improved no end


----------



## Alex321 (4 Sep 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> You can get that 10% improvement just by changing to fast tyres like GP5000 from touring tyres. Pretty much all of the increase you’ve seen will be the tyres. Assuming your average speeds are in the 10-20 mph punter range.


 
I have gone from Schwalbe Marathon Plus on the hybrid to Conti Grandsport Race on the Cube. Which are a couple of steps down (at least) from GP5000 I believe. 

Yes, my speeds are in that sort of range. The routes I rode regularly I varied between 15 and 16.5 mph average speeds, depending on how hilly (plus of course weather and my daily variations in strength played a part). The same routes vary between about 16.5 and 18 mph on the Cube.


----------



## bonzobanana (5 Sep 2021)

T4tomo said:


> You seem to be "grading" bikes by their Groupsets, when in reality the Groupset is relatively unimportant particularly in terms of speed of the bike.



Yes its a generalisation but it seemed the most logical way of creating four or five catagories. I realise you might get something like Shimano 105 with a huge range of different frames and wheels at different price points but there is a general banding I feel on which type of bikes commonly have which groupsets. You aren't going to get Ultegra on a very basic unbutted aluminium frame with steel forks or Claris on a super high end aero bike with the highest cost carbon fibre.


----------



## bonzobanana (5 Sep 2021)

Grant Fondo said:


> What about this 14.5kg beauty? The specification is hilarious
> View attachment 607643



I see in some GCN videos they have used a similar bike to show the bottom end of the road bike market so they keep their sponsors happy which means this must be a pretty terrible bike. The Carrera Virtuoso is probably the most popular road bike in the UK, its Halford's best seller and Halfords have about 40% of the market by volume (about 25% by value) but you would never know the bike existed by watching GCN. Saying that a video posted yesterday had the GCN crew running a bike shop and a Carrera bike did manage to sneak in as Hank was doing a bike fit and the customer had a Carrera bike possibly a Virtuoso.

I'm not sure its the same bike but I saw a video on youtube where someone I think in the Philippines bought a similar bike and basically it started rusting quite quickly with bubbles in the paintwork. It appeared the frame and forks hadn't been phosphate dipped which is common with many super cheap steel bikes nowadays and showed the bike came from a very basic quality factory. I believe some of the Argos bikes have had similar rusting issues.


----------



## rivers (5 Sep 2021)

I currently have 3 bikes- an aero road bike with the old 105 groupset (5800), a gravel bike with mostly new 105 (r7000), except for the cranks, and a TT bike with old ultegra (6800). They all weigh roughly the same. The TT bike is fastest- but it isn't due to the groupset. It's because it's a TT bike and made for speed. Add some deeper section wheels/disc cover and some fast tyres and it's a bit faster. Then the aero road bike- again tube profiles, my position,and tyre choice make it faster than the gravel bike. My gravel bike is also my commuting bike, so I have a second set of wheels with 32mm slick tyres. As I commute on it, the tyres are a bit more robust than on the road and TT bikes. So it's a it slower. Position wise, I am also a bit more upright and less aggressive. If I put faster tyres and adjusted my position so it was more aggressive, I could probably achieve similar speeds on the road and gravel bike for a similar power output. But I think the aero road would still be a bit faster, with its older groupset. And again, it's down to geometry and position mostly.


----------



## sasquath (5 Sep 2021)

Road test of 9k? Bike Vs £90 and Vs 1k bikes. Pretty much lines up with my expectations.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdb7KEc7xJI


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3HmVQCAjBE0


----------



## Dogtrousers (5 Sep 2021)

mattobrien said:


> I do very little in the way of unstructured cycling with the vast majority of my riding being training sessions. Depending on the session and weather I will take different bikes. When training on the road ine *of the biggest factors that helps me is having electric gears*. It makes changes quicker and more accurate and means I can better hit my target power numbers.


That's really interesting. Something I didn't know.

I've often wondered if electronic shifting actually had a performance advantage, rather than just usability and all round techno-coolness. In other words, when the pros swapped over to electronic gears did they do so enthusiastically for some real racing benefit, or did they do so just because the sponsors said. I guess it's the former.

I'm sure I'll get an electronic drivetrain sometime. But in my case it will just be for the love of techy toys.


----------



## FishFright (5 Sep 2021)

TheDoctor said:


> Been using a Revoshifter on my touring bike for fifteen years. Still works fine.



Maybe they were decent 15 years ago but the ones around nowadays are a brittle pile of pants, I replace loads at the bike recycling place I volunteer at.


----------



## Grant Fondo (5 Sep 2021)

FishFright said:


> Maybe they were decent 15 years ago but the ones around nowadays are a brittle pile of pants, I replace loads at the bike recycling place I volunteer at.


Yeah, they look like they come out of a christmas cracker.


----------



## DRM (5 Sep 2021)

I need a four nail stand horn handle in my life, as well as the seven positioning tower wheels, 


Grant Fondo said:


> OOh hang on, found something cheaper AND it fits people from 5' 2" to 6' 4" !!
> If I can hunt down some of those Yongfs wheels and race tyres, my winter riding will be improved no end
> View attachment 607653


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Sep 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> That's really interesting. Something I didn't know.
> 
> I've often wondered if electronic shifting actually had a performance advantage, rather than just usability and all round techno-coolness. In other words, when the pros swapped over to electronic gears did they do so enthusiastically for some real racing benefit, or did they do so just because the sponsors said. I guess it's the former.
> 
> I'm sure I'll get an electronic drivetrain sometime. But in my case it will just be for the love of techy toys.


I disagree completely, I have Di2 and whilst it is lovely to use and is (so far) incredibly reliable with no need to fettle or change cables it offers almost zero speed advantage. It can change a micro second faster and is does not tire out the fingers on a really long ride, but I would not say it makes me anything other than a tiny, tiny percentage faster. Fitness, weight and aerodynamics are the only way that happens.


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Sep 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> Interesting to see different viewpoints of the same thing.
> 
> As I say, when I get electronic gears, which I surely will one day - it will have nothing to do with speed.


It could do if your battery goes flat and leaves you in the big ring.


----------



## mattobrien (6 Sep 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> That's really interesting. Something I didn't know.
> 
> I've often wondered if electronic shifting actually had a performance advantage, rather than just usability and all round techno-coolness. In other words, when the pros swapped over to electronic gears did they do so enthusiastically for some real racing benefit, or did they do so just because the sponsors said. I guess it's the former.
> 
> I'm sure I'll get an electronic drivetrain sometime. But in my case it will just be for the love of techy toys.


I love electric gears, it means I just don't think about changing, if I'm in the wrong gear it's a fraction of a second away from being in the right one. It's no bother or effort, which when you ride menial gears it takes a little longer and you might not change it you're going to have to change back shortly afterwards. When trying to maintain a specific power output during an interval in a training session I find it an advantage. I wouldn't even consider getting a bike without electric gears moving forwards.


----------



## Blue Hills (7 Sep 2021)

mattobrien said:


> when you ride menial gears it takes a little longer and you might not change it you're going to have to change back shortly afterwards.


menial?
is this how you electrogods refer to us traditional types?


----------



## DaveReading (7 Sep 2021)

I often ride in menial gear.


----------



## rogerzilla (7 Sep 2021)

Getting the saddle height and setback right can unleash a huge amount of extra power. You can only do this once, of course, but it might explain why some bikes are "much faster". Otherwise, on the same tyres, they're all much of a muchness on a flat road. Weight comes into it on hills but there isn't a significant weight difference between my £850 bike and a £10,000 one - many £10,000 bikes are actually heavier if they have discs and a power meter.


----------



## mattobrien (7 Sep 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> menial?
> is this how you electrogods refer to us traditional types?


What an amusing typo/autocorrect. Much of what I do is menial, fortunately my cycling isn’t.


----------



## GuyBoden (11 Sep 2021)

Old blokes, who just pootle around the local area, don't really need carbon bikes with lightweight components, but if you want one, can afford one, then get one.


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (11 Sep 2021)

mattobrien said:


> I love electric gears, it means I just don't think about changing, if I'm in the wrong gear it's a fraction of a second away from being in the right one. It's no bother or effort, which when you ride menial gears it takes a little longer and you might not change it you're going to have to change back shortly afterwards. When trying to maintain a specific power output during an interval in a training session I find it an advantage. I wouldn't even consider getting a bike without electric gears moving forwards.



How is it any different from normal manual gear changes? You push a lever, it changes gear. Any loss of speed between swinging the gear lever across on manual brifters (about .25 of a second) and pushing the button will be lost by the time the chain derailed from one gear to another in the quarter of turn of the chain ring.


----------



## freiston (11 Sep 2021)

GuyBoden said:


> Old blokes, who just pootle around the local area, don't really need carbon bikes with lightweight components, but if you want one, can afford one, then get one.


That stinks of "attitude". Firstly, this thread is about what difference the _equipment_ makes. Secondly, you single out "old blokes who just pootle around the local area" as not needing lightweight carbon bikes (not only demonstrating, for want of a better word, prejudice but also implying that there is a _need_ for others who don't fall into the 'limited range old bloke' category - "need" is a very strong word and in all reality is probably only applicable to "real" racing cyclists. Thirdly, this isn't a thread about justifying purchases but about the differences between high and low end bikes (and how the rider and their requirements will affect the relevance of the differences).


----------



## faster (11 Sep 2021)

freiston said:


> That stinks of "attitude". Firstly, this thread is about what difference the _equipment_ makes. Secondly, you single out "old blokes who just pootle around the local area" as not needing lightweight carbon bikes (not only demonstrating, for want of a better word, prejudice but also implying that there is a _need_ for others who don't fall into the 'limited range old bloke' category - "need" is a very strong word and in all reality is probably only applicable to "real" racing cyclists. Thirdly, this isn't a thread about justifying purchases but about the differences between high and low end bikes (and how the rider and their requirements will affect the relevance of the differences).



Blimey - that's an over the top response to what was a fairly innocuous post.

Are you okay?


----------



## cougie uk (11 Sep 2021)

freiston said:


> That stinks of "attitude". Firstly, this thread is about what difference the _equipment_ makes. Secondly, you single out "old blokes who just pootle around the local area" as not needing lightweight carbon bikes (not only demonstrating, for want of a better word, prejudice but also implying that there is a _need_ for others who don't fall into the 'limited range old bloke' category - "need" is a very strong word and in all reality is probably only applicable to "real" racing cyclists. Thirdly, this isn't a thread about justifying purchases but about the differences between high and low end bikes (and how the rider and their requirements will affect the relevance of the differences).


I'm an old bloke with a Carbon bike or two. 

He's not wrong. We don't need them. But it's nice to have them. 

We all know that differences between bikes are a lot less than the marketing tells us. 

Chill out a bit maybe.


----------



## GuyBoden (11 Sep 2021)

freiston said:


> That stinks of "attitude". Firstly, this thread is about what difference the _equipment_ makes. Secondly, you single out "old blokes who just pootle around the local area" as not needing lightweight carbon bikes (not only demonstrating, for want of a better word, prejudice but also implying that there is a _need_ for others who don't fall into the 'limited range old bloke' category - "need" is a very strong word and in all reality is probably only applicable to "real" racing cyclists. Thirdly, this isn't a thread about justifying purchases but about the differences between high and low end bikes (and how the rider and their requirements will affect the relevance of the differences).


I am an old bloke, who just pootles around my local area, I don't really need a carbon fibre bike with lightweight components, but I have one. I'm still no faster.


----------



## freiston (11 Sep 2021)

GuyBoden said:


> I am an old bloke, who just pootles around my local area, I don't really need a carbon fibre bike with lightweight components, but I have one. I'm still no faster.


In that case, there may have been some dissonance between what you meant and what I understood lol. I'm an old bloke who slow rolls everywhere except for down hills. I've met a few young ladies (and folk of other age/gender classifications) who ride at similar speeds to myself - and some of them on carbon lightweight bikes. 😉


----------



## Venod (11 Sep 2021)

I'm an old bloke and I ride as fast as I can on Carbon, Titanium and Aluminium.
None of them are high end (whatever that means) the Carbon road, is no faster than the Ti all rounder, but both are faster than the Aluminium because that's a MTB.


----------



## pjd57 (11 Sep 2021)

I'm yet another old bloke.
3 bikes, none are carbon.
Hybrid....bog standard , 14 years old , but well looked after.
CX. Again , not expensive had it for 4 years , done thousands of miles on it.
Road bike. A Dolan, not top end of their range.

I would never describe any of my journeys as fast.
Does the bike make a difference ?

Probably a very slight one.
Maybe 1 or 2 MPH over the same route.


----------



## mattobrien (14 Sep 2021)

Pumpkin the robot said:


> How is it any different from normal manual gear changes? You push a lever, it changes gear. Any loss of speed between swinging the gear lever across on manual brifters (about .25 of a second) and pushing the button will be lost by the time the chain derailed from one gear to another in the quarter of turn of the chain ring.


Good question, it's more precise, faster and a generally nicer experience. It's probably easier to try it out and see how you get on, rather than me try to sell it to you. 

I suspect the people on here advocating electric gears have them, but also have or have had bikes with mechanical gears, so have experience of both and are able to a lived experience of both sides. But it's possible the people questioning the benefit of electrical gears over mechanical and whether or not it is worth it etc. very possibly don't have the experience of them.

Personally I prefer electric gears but everyone is different. Try them out and see how you get on.


----------



## fatjel (14 Sep 2021)

I have two bikes I use frequently a specialised Roubaix and a spa steel audax the specialised cost about £2000 more to build than the spa . I use a power meter and over an hours cycle the spa requires about 30 more watts.
obviously were I to pedal harder on the spa the low end bike would be quicker


----------



## freiston (14 Sep 2021)

fatjel said:


> I have two bikes I use frequently a specialised Roubaix and a spa steel audax the specialised cost about £2000 more to build than the spa . I use a power meter and over an hours cycle the spa requires about 30 more watts.
> obviously were I to pedal harder on the spa the low end bike would be quicker


This might be a daft question but do you travel the same distance over that hour for the Roubaix and the Spa? Is there much weight difference between you on the Roubaix and you on the Spa, does the route have much climbing and is the pace pretty constant or is there much gaining speed/losing speed? I don't use power meters or have much sense of how much effort a Watt is - would you describe it as feeling like a big difference? I have two bikes, a Jamis steel tourer and a Tern C7 folder (20" wheels). I never go as far on the Tern and I don't really notice any difference in effort except when the gear range on the Tern is not as high or as low as I would like. I usually ride the Jamis with a small bag on the back and a handlebar bag on the front, occasionally with panniers etc. and the odd occasion with no bags. I do feel the difference with no bags but there might be (at least in part) a psychological element to that because the bike feels so light when I'm lifting it in and out of the house. Obviously I feel a big difference when I'm fully loaded for a camping trip or coming back from the supermarket.


----------



## freiston (14 Sep 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> I get power measurements on my turbo. 30 watts is definitely significant (to me anyway).
> 
> I'd say roughly it's the difference between riding gently and riding briskly, or the difference between riding briskly and a hard but sustainable pace, or the difference between a hard but sustainable pace and a hard pace I can't hold for long.


Wow! It's a big difference then!


----------



## fatjel (14 Sep 2021)

freiston I tend to go out for the same ten mile ish ride most mornings so seems a reasonable comparison . The spa has mudguards rack lights and is a couple of kilos heavier because of that. The spa is my bad weather bike so subsequently I rarely ride the roubaix. When I do it feels significantly easier to ride and more comfy.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Sep 2021)

freiston said:


> Wow! It's a big difference then!



If you put in 160 watts on the flat you’ll get to about 17.2mph. If you put in 190 watts you’ll get to about 18.4 mph. That gives a 1.2mph extra for those 30 watts.


----------



## Alex321 (14 Sep 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> If you put in 160 watts on the flat you’ll get to about 17.2mph. If you put in 190 watts you’ll get to about 18.4 mph. That gives a 1.2mph extra for those 30 watts.


Which is about 8%, so quite significant.


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (15 Sep 2021)

mattobrien said:


> Good question, it's more precise, faster and a generally nicer experience. It's probably easier to try it out and see how you get on, rather than me try to sell it to you.
> 
> I suspect the people on here advocating electric gears have them, but also have or have had bikes with mechanical gears, so have experience of both and are able to a lived experience of both sides. But it's possible the people questioning the benefit of electrical gears over mechanical and whether or not it is worth it etc. very possibly don't have the experience of them.
> 
> Personally I prefer electric gears but everyone is different. Try them out and see how you get on.


I have done about 30k miles on my di2 equipped bike, I have some experience of it 
My winter bike has mechanical gears and I do not notice a drop in performance from di2.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Sep 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Which is about 8%, so quite significant.



7% but that’s by the by. I wouldn’t call 1 mph significant. Plus we have to ask what it causing the difference. It’s certainly not the gearing as per the OPs claim.


----------



## Dogtrousers (15 Sep 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> 7% but that’s by the by. I wouldn’t call 1 mph significant. Plus we have to ask what it causing the difference. It’s certainly not the gearing as per the OPs claim.


It's depressing isn't it. 30 watts represents about a quarter of my usual range of efforts (between gentle and hard, but not including "really pushing it" or "idling/freewheeling"). And it yields a measly 1mph increment. 

It's a significant increment in effort for an insignificant return.


----------



## Alex321 (15 Sep 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's depressing isn't it. 30 watts represents about a quarter of my usual range of efforts (between gentle and hard, but not including "really pushing it" or "idling/freewheeling"). And it yields a measly 1mph increment.
> 
> It's a significant increment in effort for an insignificant return.


You really do need to look at it as a % increase rather than thinking of it as "just" 1mph.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Sep 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's depressing isn't it. 30 watts represents about a quarter of my usual range of efforts (between gentle and hard, but not including "really pushing it" or "idling/freewheeling"). And it yields a measly 1mph increment.
> 
> It's a significant increment in effort for an insignificant return.



It is . I’ve noted when I’ve gone for it. You don’t really gain that much speed. Plus your fuel per mile is far far worse. Far better to keep the effort manageable. If the ride is of any length you’ll likely get there in a similar time having had to stop less to eat. Plus feel much better.


----------



## Dogtrousers (15 Sep 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> It is . I’ve noted when I’ve gone for it. You don’t really gain that much speed. Plus your fuel per mile is far far worse. Far better to keep the effort manageable. If the ride is of any length you’ll likely get there in a similar time having had to stop less to eat. Plus feel much better.


The reverse happens too I guess. If I was doing a 200k Audax on a lighter, racier, faster (possibly more expensive) bike the "free" speed that I've got for my money (let's say an extra 30 watts worth) isn't worth much in raw speed. That extra 1 and a bit mph would get me round - depending on how fast I was in the first place - about 30-60 mins quicker*. All other things being equal, like comfort and practicality, punctures etc.

Being a lazy rider what would probably happen is that I'd notice I was going a bit quicker on my new fancy bike and subconsciously back off the effort level to my usual speed so I'd get round in the same time.

* This could be the difference between "food left" and "no food left" at the finish, so could be significant in terms of free flapjacks.


----------



## fatjel (17 Sep 2021)

On a 2 or 300k audax the difference between the carbon verses steel bike is comfort related. 
The pain kicks in later on the more expensive bike. Which was the reasoning behind the build

On the mountain roads around here every kilo saved is very noticeable too

The power meter was for sure the least useful item I have ever bought for a bike. 
In my defence it was lockdown and I was very bored


----------



## Chislenko (17 Sep 2021)

If you go by my performance on my "good bike" this morning then the difference is........bu--er all 😟


----------



## Mo1959 (17 Sep 2021)

Chislenko said:


> If you go by my performance on my "good bike" this morning then the difference is........bu--er all 😟


Lol......yep, it's more how my legs are feeling that determines my speed rather than what bike I am on these days.


----------



## CharleyFarley (18 Sep 2021)

I'd guess that the most accurate way of comparing low end and high end bikes for speed would be on a dynamometer, if such a thing is made for bikes. (They're made for motorcycles.) A dynamometer, used indoors, would not be subject to weather conditions such as wind, or to gradients and road surfaces.


----------



## C R (18 Sep 2021)

CharleyFarley said:


> I'd guess that the most accurate way of comparing low end and high end bikes for speed would be on a dynamometer, if such a thing is made for bikes. (They're made for motorcycles.) A dynamometer, used indoors, would not be subject to weather conditions such as wind, or to gradients and road surfaces.


Isn't a smart turbo a bit like a dyno with added road load simulation?


----------

