# How does ageing affects your purchasing prospects?



## gavroche (31 Dec 2019)

Do you feel that, as you get older, it gets harder to justify spending a fair amount of money, new bike for instance, or other things that will not improve your performance due to your body not being as responsive as years gone by? I certainly do and often wish I had gone into cycling when I was much younger instead of starting at 60 and now being 69.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (31 Dec 2019)

For a long time now I've spent far more on comfort than speed. Mind you, that's easy enough to justify to myself, but more challenging to justify to my dependents!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (31 Dec 2019)

New or old bodies will respond equally to purchased goods. I don't see how that could be otherwise.


----------



## BoldonLad (31 Dec 2019)

gavroche said:


> Do you feel that, as you get older, it gets harder to justify spending a fair amount of money, new bike for instance, or other things that will not improve your performance due to your body not being as responsive as years gone by? I certainly do and often wish I had gone into cycling when I was much younger instead of starting at 60 and now being 69.



Cannot say I have noticed that. 

However, I tend not to look at expenditure in terms of "will it improve ... whatever", but, rather, I think, "if I don't spend it, the children will".

My normal reply to my wife, when she is pondering some purchase, is: "just buy it, if you don't, the children will have it spent, before the little curtains have closed, at the crematorium".


----------



## welsh dragon (31 Dec 2019)

I have had the same bike for nearly 4 years now and I don't have any plans to buy a new one soon. I am quite old school I suppose and like to get my monies worth out of something. I can't really justify to myself spending that kind of money again let alone trying to justify it to someone else.


----------



## Rusty Nails (31 Dec 2019)

I started cycling again 12 years ago after a gap of almost 40 years.

There are two conflicting issues over spending money on a new bike, the first being that I am from a family background where money was tight and I still find it difficult to spend more than I "need", and the second being that I have more money than I need to survive so why shouldn't I spoil myself on something that I enjoy. I like the look of the Merlin Malt G1 gravel bike but, ridiculously, I consider £699 a huge amount, and am hesitating.

I sometimes, like the op, wonder if I should have continued cycling from my early 20s, but on the other hand I played a lot of competitive sport until I was 60, making lots of friends along the way that I still have. If I had cycled I would not have done that to anywhere near the same extent. It does not pay to have regrets over what might have been.


----------



## Globalti (31 Dec 2019)

I don't mind spending money where it's needed but I have a strong suspicion of being ripped off, which is why I posted on CC about a month ago about our horror experience with a wierd man who turned out to be the self-appointed high priest of the world of HiFi bullshit.


----------



## Racing roadkill (31 Dec 2019)

Personally, I’ve never bought anything cycling related, based on perceived ‘performance enhancement’ only ever on how much easier it will make my rides. I’ve been cycling pretty much since I can remember, I’ve never wanted to ‘smash stuff’, ‘be the ball’, etc. etc. etc. I’ve pretty much grown up with pro cyclists I’ve had nothing but contempt for, as a lot of them have been proven to be cheating barstewards. I have never had any desire to be associated with most of them. However, nice light, well engineered bikes, do make my life easier, and without the pro riders, the tech would not trickle down. As I get older, I want my cycling life to be easier and easier, so I’ve no qualms about spending whatever needs to be spent, in order to achieve it. Any ‘performance enhancement’ is a secondary consideration.


----------



## derrick (31 Dec 2019)

The older i get the more i buy. I cant take it with me.


----------



## Venod (31 Dec 2019)

Rusty Nails said:


> I like the look of the Merlin Malt G1 gravel bike but, ridiculously, I consider £699 a huge amount, and am hesitating.



If you can afford it just buy it, I have just spent £1000+ on a new MTB which I took out yesterday and looks as if I have had it forever, mudfest is an apt description.


----------



## gbb (31 Dec 2019)

derrick said:


> The older i get the more i buy. I cant take it with me.


An old colleague of mine, now sadly departed used to have a saying...
'Live like a rich man.....dont die like one'


----------



## Saluki (31 Dec 2019)

In May I bought my Genesis and don’t regret a penny of it. I didn’t worry about my age when buying it.
its more comfy so I ride further and not faster. I am losing speed now but finding more stamina so I have the bike that is best for me. 
as I I’ve got older I think that as I have earned my money that I don’t feel guilty about spending on myself.


----------



## ianrauk (31 Dec 2019)

You can't take it with you. Money is for spending on nice things.


----------



## oldwheels (31 Dec 2019)

I rather fancy a trike which is for sale at Kinetics in Glasgow purely for forest tracks as it has hub gears which are not liable to damage as a derailleur would be. But is is around £3000 which I could afford but the money would be pretty well lost on my demise as my dependents would have difficulty selling for any reasonable price. Being realistic I have no idea what my useful lifespan will be but it must be getting near the end. So far I have resisted and kept well away from the place as if it is in front of me I think I would give in to temptation.


----------



## rogerzilla (31 Dec 2019)

There comes a point when you start to expose yourself to ridicule. I've seen overweight septuagenarians turning up for an evening "10" on £6000 TT bikes, which might enable them to go round in 28 minutes 30 instead of 29 minutes. To be brutally honest, no-one over about 35 has a hope in hell of winning a major stage race, so those MAMILs - or, as the Americans would have it, "dentists on Pinarellos" - are fooling themselves if they think they need such a machine. It doesn't do any real harm, though.


----------



## fossyant (31 Dec 2019)

BoldonLad said:


> Cannot say I have noticed that.
> 
> However, I tend not to look at expenditure in terms of "will it improve ... whatever", but, rather, I think, "if I don't spend it, the children will".



Or the council will when you have to go in a Nursing Home, god forbid.


----------



## fossyant (31 Dec 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> There comes a point when you start to expose yourself to ridicule. I've seen overweight septuagenarians turning up for an evening "10" on £6000 TT bikes, which might enable them to go round in 28 minutes 30 instead of 29 minutes. To be brutally honest, no-one over about 35 has a hope in hell of winning a major stage race, so those MAMILs - or, as the Americans would have it, "dentists on Pinarellos" - are fooling themselves if they think they need such a machine. It doesn't do any real harm, though.



Keeps the cycling market going though.


----------



## Smudge (31 Dec 2019)

I dont buy expensive high spec on anything, even though i could afford to if i wanted. I wont buy cheap crap, i just buy stuff that is at a certain quality level i think will serve its purpose for me, i dont need anything more. This goes for cars, motorcycles, cycles, watches, clothes, hifi, anything really.
It was different when i was younger. I always wanted the more expensive cool stuff...... but i'm long past all that.


----------



## rogerzilla (31 Dec 2019)

Cycling is one of those markets where there is a real sweet spot for price/performance. If you buy a light bike and put fast tyres on it (few bikes come with the best of tyres, even quite expensive bikes), that's as fast and/or efficient as you're going to get. Weight and tyres are the two important things. Other stuff might save a few grams, last longer, look nicer or be more convenient, but you really are into diminishing returns. Anyway, I'd rather have five different £1000 bikes than one £5000 bike


----------



## Ajax Bay (31 Dec 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> Weight [is one of the] two [most] important things.


Nope - well not the weight of the bike and its bits; and not your body weight either.


----------



## Cycleops (31 Dec 2019)

Smudge said:


> It was different when i was younger. I always wanted the more expensive cool stuff...... but i'm long past all that.


That's right, who are we going to impress?


----------



## rogerzilla (31 Dec 2019)

Ajax Bay said:


> Nope - well not the weight of the bike and its bits; and not your body weight either.


Go on, I'll bite. Why is weight not important?


----------



## lane (31 Dec 2019)

I don't justify it I lie about it.


----------



## Slick (31 Dec 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> Go on, I'll bite. Why is weight not important?


I spoke with a guy today who spoke at length on rigidity being much more important than weight.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Dec 2019)

20-25 years ago, I could afford to spend thousands of pounds on bikes, and did.

Now, in my cash-strapped mid-60s, I can't, so I don't! 

If I had the money I would probably update my collection of bikes one last time, and then make them last until my dotage, which is becoming scarily closer with every year that passes...


----------



## vickster (31 Dec 2019)

It's my money. I only have to justify spending to myself. I could stick more in a pension but that's really boring  I suppose I could go back to working 5 days a week but that's boring too  I'm fortunate in that I still earn rather more than I can justify spending on stuff to myself


----------



## rogerzilla (31 Dec 2019)

Slick said:


> I spoke with a guy today who spoke at length on rigidity being much more important than weight.


It's important to the extent that it reduces tyre scrub or brake rub.


----------



## cyberknight (31 Dec 2019)

getting older just means kids need more stuff so i cant afford or justify expense.


----------



## cyberknight (31 Dec 2019)

Slick said:


> I spoke with a guy today who spoke at length on rigidity being much more important than weight.


according to the blurb pro teams fork out aero is everything these days


----------



## lane (31 Dec 2019)

To me even a relatively expensive bike is good value. The frame on my bike is guaranteed for 10 years so if I divide cost by 10 it's very little cost per year. Hopefully it will last more than 10 years.


----------



## Slick (31 Dec 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> It's important to the extent that it reduces tyre scrub or brake rub.


He reckoned flex on the wheel and frame reduced the effectiveness of effort.


----------



## Slick (31 Dec 2019)

cyberknight said:


> according to the blurb pro teams fork out aero is everything these days


Very true, my discussion was more the importance of weight compared to rigidity.


----------



## youngoldbloke (31 Dec 2019)

Why do I find my 8.5Kg carbon bike easier to ride than my 12kg alloy one? 
When I bought the carbon bike I couldn't really justify it in terms of need or performance enhancement - though I need all the help I can get. What convinced me was my wife's comment "Go on, get it, it might well be last bike you'll buy..."


----------



## Stompier (31 Dec 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> There comes a point when you start to expose yourself to ridicule. I've seen overweight septuagenarians turning up for an evening "10" on £6000 TT bikes, which might enable them to go round in 28 minutes 30 instead of 29 minutes. To be brutally honest, no-one over about 35 has a hope in hell of winning a major stage race, so those MAMILs - or, as the Americans would have it, "dentists on Pinarellos" - are fooling themselves if they think they need such a machine.* It doesn't do any real harm, though*.



I'll go further than that - it doesn't do any harm at all. Seeing an overweight septegen..whatever suggests that the old fella is still keen on the sport and is happy to invest, so good on him for that. Most Porsche 911s I ever see are driven by bald blokes with beards in their 60s, but I doubt if they are aiming to become F1 drivers.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Dec 2019)

lane said:


> To me even a relatively expensive bike is good value. The frame on my bike is guaranteed for 10 years so if I divide cost by 10 it's very little cost per year. Hopefully it will last more than 10 years.


My CAAD5 from the early 2000s is still going strong. I have upgraded a few parts but the frame/fork are original.


----------



## roadrash (31 Dec 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> as the Americans would have it, "dentists on Pinarellos" - are fooling themselves if they think they need such a machine. It doesn't do any real harm, though
> [/QUOTE
> perhaps it is something they WANT rather than need, nowt wrong with that if they can afford it


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Dec 2019)

lane said:


> To me even a relatively expensive bike is good value. The frame on my bike is guaranteed for 10 years so if I divide cost by 10 it's very little cost per year. Hopefully it will last more than 10 years.



I haven't got anything less than 10 years old, in fact the average age of my bikes is about 25 years. My oldest bike is the lowest quality one, which would have been the cheapest of the bunch new. In other words, there is not much relation between price and longevity where frames are concerned, and all mechanicals are wearing parts.


----------



## lane (31 Dec 2019)

Yes true all mechanicals are wearing parts. I have found on some less expensive bikes I have purchased that I have had issues with some parts failing. And I am not saying that my frame will last longer because it costs more I am saying that even if it lasts ten years the cost per year is peanuts really in the scheme of things. I can also tell the difference on parts such as wheels and hubs compared to cheaper bikes. I am happy that I am achieving value for money over the longer term which I suppose is how I justify the cost to myself.


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Dec 2019)

If you want it, and you can afford it - buy it. Performance or otherwise be hanged.


----------



## rogerzilla (1 Jan 2020)

Slick said:


> He reckoned flex on the wheel and frame reduced the effectiveness of effort.


Frame materials are usually pretty good springs, for the small strains they see when riding. If you lock the brakes and stand hard on one pedal, you can see the frame twist. However, virtually all of the stored energy is returned to the crank when you stop pushing. What you don't get back is tyre scrub, which is significant in a frame with a very flexible back end, and quite audible when riding out of the saddle. A very stiff frame reduces this somewhat.

The old corollary to "frames must be stiff" is Sean Kelly winning sprints on his Vitus, which was about as noodly as you could get; aluminium tubes in a similar gauge to steel ones.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> Nope - well not the weight of the bike and its bits; and not your body weight either.


You've still not answered why not? How come I find my 8.5Kg carbon bike easier to ride than my 12kg alloy one? I think it becomes more and more important the older one becomes, and I would certainly pay more to get a lighter bike, all other things (groupset, wheels, tyres etc) being equal.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> You've still not answered why not? How come I find my 8.5Kg carbon bike easier to ride than my 12kg alloy one? I think it becomes more and more important the older one becomes, and I would certainly pay more to get a lighter bike, all other things (groupset, wheels, tyres etc) being equal.



How are you measuring 'easier to ride'? 3.5kg may well be detectable - especially uphill - but I'd be interested to know how 'easier' is being defined.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> How are you measuring 'easier to ride'? 3.5kg may well be detectable - especially uphill - but I'd be interested to know how 'easier' is being defined.


Yes, uphill it's very detectable! Easier = less energy expended. Basically the heavier bike requires more effort to ride at the same speed, and up hills - and no, I don't have figures to prove it but it is very obvious to my leg muscles.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> Basically the heavier bike requires more effort to ride at the same speed



I think there's more to it than that. Once up to speed, on the flat, the heavier bike should require no more effort to maintain speed than any other, lighter or otherwise. Uphill, you will be carrying 3.5kg more, which might have a marginal impact on your climbing speed for the same effort. You'll probably get it back on the downhills though.


----------



## Blue Hills (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> I think there's more to it than that. Once up to speed, on the flat, the heavier bike should require no more effort to maintain speed than any other, lighter or otherwise. Uphill, you will be carrying 3.5kg more, which might have a marginal impact on your climbing speed for the same effort. You'll probably get it back on the downhills though.


yep, I'm no physicist but can't see it making much difference if not going uphill or carrying it.


----------



## winjim (1 Jan 2020)

Slick said:


> Very true, my discussion was more the importance of weight compared to rigidity.


It's pretty easy these days to make a bike that comes in under the UCI weight limit so pretty much anybody can afford one and it's no longer a selling point.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> Not my experience, especially riding with a group, and as I said, as one ages and muscle strength inevitably drops I believe it is worth paying more for the lighter bike.



Muscle strength would have to weaken to dangerously low levels before it became a problem for cycling.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> I think there's more to it than that. Once up to speed, on the flat, the heavier bike should require no more effort to maintain speed than any other, lighter or otherwise. Uphill, you will be carrying 3.5kg more, which might have a marginal impact on your climbing speed for the same effort. You'll probably get it back on the downhills though.


Not my experience, especially riding with a group, and as I said, as one ages and muscle strength inevitably drops I believe it is worth paying more for the lighter bike.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> Not my experience, especially riding with a group, and as I said, as one ages and muscle strength inevitably drops I believe it is worth paying more for the lighter bike.



It doesn’t drop all that much if you remain active. A study from Kings College London showed long distance cyclists who rode regularly had the same muscle composition and immune function as 20 year olds. Some were in their 80’s!

What is considered an affect of aging is simply the accumulation of years of being sedentary. Use it, or lose it.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> Basically the heavier bike requires more effort to ride at the same speed, and up hills



Are you comparing bikes on like-for-like tyres though?
I have a Reynolds framed rigid steel MTB on knobbly tyres which is slower and harder work to ride on the same fairly flat route than a cheapo gas-pipe 3-speed that is several pounds heavier. If it was all about weight, the MTB would be faster, being lighter - but it isn't.
If I compare my heaviest and lightest bikes that are fitted with road oriented tyres, the differences aren't very big.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> Muscle strength would have to weaken to dangerously low levels before it became a problem for cycling.


Well it has become a problem for me - just trying to answer the OP's question 'How does ageing affects your purchasing prospects?'
I now have to ride a eroad bike, and lower weight was a serious factor in my decision to buy an Orbea Gain.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> Well it has become a problem for me - just trying to answer the OP's question 'How does ageing affects your purchasing prospects?'
> I now have to ride a eroad bike, and lower weight was a serious factor in my decision to buy an Orbea Gain.



ok, but it's not necessarily a generic issue, is all I'm saying. Clearly if you have some kind of muscle-related or functional problem then that's different.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> It doesn’t drop all that much if you remain active. A study from Kings College London showed long distance cyclists who rode regularly had the same muscle composition and immune function as 20 year olds. Some were in their 80’s!
> 
> What is considered an affect of aging is simply the accumulation of years of being sedentary. Use it, or lose it.


There are other reasons to lose muscle power, I'm 72 have been riding since I was 12. I would still consider myself more active than the average 70 year old. It doesn't always work.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> It doesn’t drop all that much if you remain active. A study from Kings College London showed long distance cyclists who rode regularly had the same muscle composition and immune function as 20 year olds. Some were in their 80’s!
> 
> What is considered an affect of aging is simply the accumulation of years of being sedentary. Use it, or lose it.


Does the study compare the cyclist's current muscle composition and immune function with their muscle composition and immune function 20 years ago?


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> Does the study compare the cyclist's current muscle composition and immune function with their muscle composition and immune function 20 years ago?



I think the point being made is that the reduction is minimal regardless. Presumably you have been diagnosed with some kind of muscular issue, which is probably a different scenario altogether.


----------



## lane (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> I think there's more to it than that. Once up to speed, on the flat, the heavier bike should require no more effort to maintain speed than any other, lighter or otherwise. Uphill, you will be carrying 3.5kg more, which might have a marginal impact on your climbing speed for the same effort. You'll probably get it back on the downhills though.



You don't get it back on the down hills due to wind resistance otherwise hilly rides would not take longer / be slower.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> I think the point being made is that the reduction is minimal regardless. Presumably you have been diagnosed with some kind of muscular issue, which is probably a different scenario altogether.


Is this the study? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43308729The BBC article refers to the immune system, no mention of muscle strength. Do you have a link to the original study? There is some online comment that there was some element of self selection in the group of riders examined. Not all cyclists are fortunate enough to be able to continue their riding as they would wish as they age.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> Is this the study? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43308729The BBC article refers to the immune system, no mention of muscle strength. Do you have a link to the original study? There is some online comment that there was some element of self selection in the group of riders examined. Not all cyclists are fortunate enough to be able to continue their riding as they would wish as they age.



I wasn't referring to any study - I think that was Mr Yukon.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

lane said:


> You don't get it back on the down hills due to wind resistance otherwise hilly rides would not take longer / be slower.



You will descend quicker with more weight (up to a point), which is what I was getting at.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

I think this is the study, and it does talk extensively 


Stompier said:


> I wasn't referring to any study - I think that was Mr Yukon.


Apologies - you're correct. I think I've found the study referred to and I think that when I was in my 60's I would have met the inclusion criteria: " The primary inclusion criteria were that males could cycle 100 km in under 6.5 hr and females 60 km in under 5.5 hr and that this had been done twice in the previous 3 weeks." It does look at muscle function.


----------



## Levo-Lon (1 Jan 2020)

I haven't bought a new bike for weeks...


----------



## Blue Hills (1 Jan 2020)

lane said:


> You don't get it back on the down hills due to wind resistance otherwise hilly rides would not take longer / be slower.


Time also depends on the nature of the downhills of course. I often ride in the lumpy NW - you have to brake on many of the downhills because of bends/dodgy surfaces. When riding there I do sometimes long for gently rollinh where you do get more of your climbing effort back.


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Jan 2020)

A lighter bike feels different and puts you in a different frame of mind. When I take my (steel, but not heavyweight) bike out for a quick unladen spin it's a quite different feel/ experience to when I've put on two water bottles and a rack pack and set out for a 100 mile ride.

Edit: but you never even come close to getting back on the downhills what you put in on the climbs. Life's not fair.


----------



## vickster (1 Jan 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> A lighter bike feels different and puts you in a different frame of mind. When I take my (steel, but not heavyweight) bike out for a quick unladen spin it's a quite different feel/ experience to when *I've put on two water bottles and a rack pack and set out for a 100 mile ride.*


That’s hardly loaded


----------



## StuartG (1 Jan 2020)

gavroche said:


> Do you feel that, as you get older, it gets harder to justify spending a fair amount of money, new bike for instance, or other things that will not improve your performance due to your body not being as responsive as years gone by? I certainly do and often wish I had gone into cycling when I was much younger instead of starting at 60 and now being 69.


Nope, the opposite. I returned to cycling when I was 59 on my ancient (1979) Dawes Galaxy. At 60 I replaced it with a Condor Fratello which was ideal for my type of riding and has done around 30,000 miles. On a whim last year at 69 I bought an ex-demonstrator Condor Super Accaicio for £1800. It's supposed to be a racer but with a rear mudguard blade and a Carradice Pendle it serves well as an ultra-light tourer.

While the Fratello is a beautiful bike the Accacio has taken at least 5 years off my age going faster, further and not fearing hills as much. £1800 is cheap for an extra five years of challenging rides!


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Jan 2020)

vickster said:


> That’s hardly loaded


Makes a fair difference. One oversize bottle, plus one small bottle plus a pack containing a ridiculous quantity of tools (see other threads) sandwiches, peanuts, snack bars, lock, waterproof, spare batteries, spare GPS, phone charger, keys, other random crap that has taken up residence in my bag ... I could go on.

Easily adds up to the difference between a "light bike" and a "heavy bike".


----------



## Ajax Bay (1 Jan 2020)

rogerzilla said:


> Why is weight not important?


(You actually suggested that "weight [is one of the] two [most] important things".) I didn't say it wasn't important; I merely opined that 'weight' wasn't one of the two most important things. There's design for a start: in particular clearances, and material, as well as 'rigidity' (which I thought was going to degenerate into a @Fnaar discussion, but it didn't).
Why is weight one of the two important things?


youngoldbloke said:


> You've still not answered why not? [less weight = bike easier to ride]


See answer above. Weight is a consideration, but it's well down the importance list (for me). And with your motorised assistance uphills, I wouldn't have though weight would be particularly important. When it matters (up hill) you have extra power to switch on.


youngoldbloke said:


> trying to answer the OP's question 'How does ageing affects your purchasing prospects?'
> I now have to ride a eroad bike, and lower weight was a serious factor in my decision to buy an Orbea Gain.


I suggest the main factor in this purchase was not 'how light is it?' The Orbea Gain is 12-13kg.
An Orbea Gain is a "versatile road-oriented e bike . . [with] a slightly racier geometry [and a] *neatly* integrated battery pack *hidden* inside the downtube, with [a discreet] control button on the top tube. There are no bulky components to 'take away from the aesthetics of the frame', so the Gain looks as good as it rides." "The X-35 motor is remarkably quiet" and gives up to 40Nm bonus torque (stomping on the pedals uphill normally might be about 100Nm - have not checked this (75kg rider, 175mm cranks)).
@youngoldbloke wanted a bike that looked like a 'racing bike' but gave you extra 'whats!?' uphill. And those were the "two most important things" (for him). In a few years, when I am 72 (as he is now) I'll likely be in the same boat, and make a similar decision (especially if it's also good value - not sure I could bring myself to pay £3000+ for a bike).


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Jan 2020)

I have only been riding an assisted bike for 16 months, so my comments regarding bike weight are based the many years experience of unassisted riding. 
Regarding the Orbea Gain - the road bike configuration was an important factor, as I have always ridden drop bar road bikes* , but it was very closely followed by weight. At the time I bought it, it was one of the lightest ebikes available. I would not have purchased it if it had been heavier. Up hill assistance is handy of course, but overuse will restrict your range, and being a relatively heavy bike I find it hard work to ride far unassisted.
*if that's what you mean by 'racing bike' - I always called the bike you raced on a 'race bike', Touring bikes had drop bars too.)


----------



## 12boy (1 Jan 2020)

I ride a bike for exercise and for the high. I have around 6 that I ride as my whimsy takes me, but they all serve a different purpose and/or have a different flavor. I can't recall ever buying a bike so my ride would be easier, but rather because I wanted to sample a different kind of riding. My neighbor and I ride together a lot and we were whining about how much harder riding is now that ten years ago but we realized ten years from now we'll wish we do what we can now, and we that we enjoy it at least as much now as then. The last 3 new bikes I've bought have been a Brompton, a Xooter Swift (another folder) and a 300 buck minivelo, none of which are easier than my Surly Steamroller or my estate sale Holdsworth Special, but like them are lots of fun. I am 70 now and at my last physical my Doc answered my question of "how long can I continue riding?" With the bad news of "Probably not more than 30 years". Of all the vices I've had riding a bike has been the best for me. It is like dope, though.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jan 2020)

youngoldbloke said:


> Not my experience, especially riding with a group, and as I said, as one ages and muscle strength inevitably drops I believe it is worth paying more for the lighter bike.


I'd agree with this 100%. I'm 65 and regularly ride with people 20+ years younger. On my summer bike keeping the pace and taking a turn on the front is no problem. On my winter bike I'm working throughout the ride and leading and maintaining the pace is very, very tough.

The bike makes a huge difference.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

PaulSB said:


> I'd agree with this 100%. I'm 65 and regularly ride with people 20+ years younger. On my summer bike keeping the pace and taking a turn on the front is no problem. On my winter bike I'm working throughout the ride and going leading and maintaining the pace is very, very tough.
> 
> The bike makes a huge difference.



What is the spec of your winter bike?


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jan 2020)

O


Stompier said:


> What is the spec of your winter bike?


I can't easily answer this as I'm not a person who retains all this knowledge. Secondly it's a bespoke bike built for club riding and touring. It's five years old.

My summer bike is a Cervelo C3 with upgraded tubeless carbon wheels. Before the wheel upgrade it performed better than my winter bike. Upgrading the wheels put at least 2mph on my average, descending is at least +4mph and significantly improved my climbing. On the climbing to the point I'm starting to challenge one of the club's best climbers - in our age range.

I can't give science to this, just what I experience every time I get on my bike. I'd never dispute the science but feel my personal, practical experience is more relevant to me as an individual.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

PaulSB said:


> O
> 
> I can't easily answer this as I'm not a person who retains all this knowledge. Secondly it's a bespoke bike built for club riding and touring. It's five years old.
> 
> ...



I just mean does it have mudguards, a rack, panniers, lights, touring tyres like Schwalbe Marathons, that kind of thing. There's lots of reasons why one bike might be slower than another, but weight usually has very little to do with it.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jan 2020)

gavroche said:


> Do you feel that, as you get older, it gets harder to justify spending a fair amount of money, new bike for instance, or other things that will not improve your performance due to your body not being as responsive as years gone by? I certainly do and often wish I had gone into cycling when I was much younger instead of starting at 60 and now being 69.


This is a question I have started to ask myself. My children know the house will be theirs but not to expect money in the bank. In other words at 65 I've reached the stage where I value enjoyment and time more than money and I am prepared to spend it.

To date every bike I've purchased has improved my riding. I'm now reaching the stage when I question if I can get improved performance? I know the bikes I ride today make me a better rider. If/when I look at a new bike one question to the LBS will be "Will this make me a better rider?" If the answer is "Yes" I'd make the purchase.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> I just mean does it have mudguards, a rack, panniers, lights, touring tyres like Schwalbe Marathons, that kind of thing. There's lots of reasons why one bike might be slower than another, but weight usually has very little to do with it.


Sorry misunderstood you. It has mudguards, I use the same lights on both bikes, the tyres are Gatorskins which I've ridden for years. I only do racks, panniers etc when I'm touring and performance is not an issue.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

PaulSB said:


> Sorry misunderstood you. It has mudguards, I use the same lights on both bikes, the tyres are Gatorskins which I've ridden for years. I only do racks, panniers etc when I'm touring and performance is not an issue.



Mudguards usually make excellent parachutes - it probably explains why you have to work harder on that bike to stay with the group.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jan 2020)

rogerzilla said:


> Anyway, I'd rather have five different £1000 bikes than one £5000 bike



Can I ask why? All my riding is on road and generally with groups. I have a winter bike, summer bike and one hanging on the wall I love too much to get rid of!! 

If I had five bikes I'd always find myself choosing the one I like most and leaving the others in the garage.


----------



## gavroche (1 Jan 2020)

PaulSB said:


> This is a question I have started to ask myself. My children know the house will be theirs but not to expect money in the bank. In other words at 65 I've reached the stage where I value enjoyment and time more than money and I am prepared to spend it.


Same here, all the kids know they can share the value of our house when we are gone and not to expect any money but the problem is that none of us know how long we are here for, so spending still has to be measured. Running out of money before our sale by date is not a prospect I fancy,


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jan 2020)

gavroche said:


> Same here, all the kids know they can share the value of our house when we are gone and not to expect any money but the problem is that none of us know how long we are here for, so spending still has to be measured. *Running out of money before our sale by date is not a prospect I fancy,*


Yes, this is also a factor for me when considering if I should make a major purchase - a bike or otherwise. For example I have the money to buy a new car. I would enjoy that but I don't need it so I'll stick with the one I have for as long as possible.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> Mudguards usually make excellent parachutes - it probably explains why you have to work harder on that bike to stay with the group.


Well again I don't do the science behind these things. I've read similar before but never met anyone who feels the same.

I fully accept mudguards etc. will add drag to an extent but I don't believe it's that significant.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

PaulSB said:


> I fully accept mudguards etc. will add drag to an extent but I don't believe it's that significant.



Depends how you quantify 'significant' I guess. It might be enough to make you feel you are working 'slightly' harder to achieve the same road speed, which is something you alluded to earlier.


----------



## Venod (1 Jan 2020)

Weight has everything to do with how easier a bike rides, if you have two cars with exactly the same engine and same bhp transmission etc, but one has a significantly lighter body, the lighter one is going to be quicker to get up to speed and once they are at the same speed the lighter one will use less fuel to maintain that speed, the same principle applies to bike and cyclist.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

Venod said:


> Weight has everything to do with how easier a bike rides, if you have two cars with exactly the same engine and same bhp transmission etc, but one has a significantly lighter body, the lighter one is going to be quicker to get up to speed and once they are at the same speed the lighter one will use less fuel to maintain that speed, the same principle applies to bike and cyclist.



Unless the body of one of the cars offers significantly more drag than the other.


----------



## Venod (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> Unless the body of one of the cars offers significantly more drag than the other.


Same drag just a lighter body, do you agree with the comparison?


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

Venod said:


> Same drag just a lighter body, do you agree with the comparison?


Not sure I do, to be honest. Weight - once underway - and assuming a level surface - should not be an influencing factor. It makes no odds on a bicycle, so I don't see why it would be any different for any other type of powered vehicle.


----------



## Venod (1 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> Not sure I do, to be honest. Weight - once underway - and assuming a level surface - should not be an influencing factor. It makes no odds on a bicycle, so I don't see why it would be any different for any other type of powered vehicle.


So if your saying a lighter car won't use less fuel than an heavier car, all other things been equal we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Stompier (1 Jan 2020)

Venod said:


> So if your saying a lighter car won't use less fuel than an heavier car, all other things been equal we will have to agree to disagree.



I'll wait for a physicist to come along and explain why Newton's laws of momentum and inertia don't apply in your example. Meanwhile, I'll keep an open mind.


----------



## 12boy (2 Jan 2020)

The weight that makes the most difference is the weight of the wheel and even more so the tire. I understand that 20 degree F is 25% denser than 70 degree F air, so a more aero position is more important, perhaps. In these parts the windiest months are winter months, another reason for a winter bike to allow for a less upright posture. I agree with both of the last 2 guys...in two identical vehicles the lighter takes more energy to move, especially when accelerating or climbing. Once up to speed on level ground not so much.


----------



## Ajax Bay (2 Jan 2020)

Venod said:


> once they are at the same speed the lighter one will use less fuel to maintain that speed, the same principle applies to bike and cyclist.


I'm with @Stompier here. Think you're not recognising the excellent efficiency of a bicycle compared to that of a car - which is where your comparison is flawed (or at least the difference is so marginal as not to be useful). This is CycleChat for goodness sake: why are you bringing motor vehicles into it?
Since the system weight is bike + rider, a difference in bike weight will mean a rather small %age difference in system weight.
Have a play with this 'Bike Calculator'.
A rider averaging 150w over 100km on the flat (and everything else kept the same) on a 9kg bike would complete 14 seconds faster than a rider on a 10kg bike (210:57 v 211:11). On that analysis is (bike) weight "[one of the two] most important factors"? I suggest not.
If one sets the amount of climb to 1% (rather flat for Devon), then the difference is greater: the rider on a 9kg bike takes nearly a minute shorter (shock, horror - the bike is sooo much 'easier' to ride - not).
The issue with all this is riders whose fitness and strength has reduced with age yet they want to keep up and ride with 'better' riders on the hills - a light bike may give them a psychological boost (hurrah and nothing wrong with that) - but it's in the mind, not the body. Just ride steady up the hills, put a bit more effort in on the flat and let the endurance developed by many miles over many years pull the younger guys in a few hours later. Fitting 5000s would be a good way of getting an extra 15w (as opposed to Gatorskins, say).


----------



## PaulSB (2 Jan 2020)

I'd better continue with my two pennyworth here. As I've said I cannot offer science only my practical 2/3 times a week experience.

I don't agree with the idea mudguards etc have sufficient impact to make a big difference. I'm sure science can be found to prove me wrong. At my level the science is largely irrelevant as we are not discussing marginal gains but the performance a summer bike will deliver over a winter bike and also whether simply buying a better bike does aid the rider.

If we use the example above that on both bikes once up to speed the effort required should be equal, I agree this is the case. This being on the perfect ride. It ignores that on most rides one is constantly having to get up to speed. At junctions, out of bends etc. on my winter bike I can find myself 10/20/25 metres off the back. My acceleration is not great but my better, summer bike overcomes this. On my winter bike I have to push to my limit to get back on - every time!! That is hard. The better bike delivers more of my effort in to forward motion.

I don't wish to offend those who can provide the science to back up their argument. I don't believe scientific numbers are important when I'm riding! What is relevant to me is the practical result of riding a better bike - I get more bang for my buck, my effort translates in to a higher pace without getting battered!


----------



## Venod (2 Jan 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> This is CycleChat for goodness sake: why are you bringing motor vehicles into it?



I thought this was a simple way of explaining things, scientific it isn't.



Ajax Bay said:


> A rider averaging 150w over 100km on the flat (and everything else kept the same) on a 9kg bike would complete 14 seconds faster than a rider on a 10kg bike (210:57 v 211:11). On that analysis is (bike) weight "[one of the two] most important factors"? I suggest not.
> If one sets the amount of climb to 1% (rather flat for Devon), then the difference is greater: the rider on a 9kg bike takes nearly a minute shorter (shock, horror - the bike is sooo much 'easier' to ride - not).



This is a more scientific aproach and proves my point that a lighter bike is easier to ride than an heavier one, although I agree its not a signifcant difference. and not the only factor to consider.


----------



## Twilkes (2 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> Depends how you quantify 'significant' I guess. It might be enough to make you feel you are working 'slightly' harder to achieve the same road speed, which is something you alluded to earlier.



Mudguards often decrease the effect of air resistance: https://road.cc/content/tech-news/2...udy-shows-optimum-drag-reduction-achieved?amp

https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-3-fenders-slow-you-down/


----------



## Sharky (2 Jan 2020)

Venod said:


> I thought this was a simple way of explaining things, scientific it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a more sientific aproach and proves my point that a lighter bike is easier to ride than an heavier one, although I agree its not a signifcant difference. and not the only factor to consider.


I've also heard a theory that a lighter bike is easier to fall off, as the centre of gravity of the bike/rider is higher.


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> Mudguards usually make excellent parachutes - it probably explains why you have to work harder on that bike to stay with the group.


While we're getting all scientific I'd like to note that the parachute effect of mudguards is the cube root of f-all. 

(But they are lethal, we already know that)


----------



## Ajax Bay (2 Jan 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> mudguards . . .
> (But they are lethal, we already know that)


Where is the dead rodent when you need it?


----------



## derrick (2 Jan 2020)

Sharky said:


> I've also heard a theory that a lighter bike is easier to fall off, as the centre of gravity of the bike/rider is higher.


No its the wind. I have to add weight on windy days.


----------



## ColinJ (2 Jan 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> Where is the dead rodent when you need it?


Wedged under the non-Secu-clipped front mudguard?


----------



## steveindenmark (2 Jan 2020)

The older I get. The more I know I can afford it.


----------



## derrick (2 Jan 2020)

I am waiting for the right colour scheme on a Cipollini.
Not had a new bike for a couple of years.


----------



## Nebulous (2 Jan 2020)

I’ve been fairly parsimonious for much of my life. Always looking for a deal and consequently I think we’ve done a lot with the money I’ve made. On taking up cycling almost 10 years ago at 48 I bought an Allez elite and considered that a self-indulgent purchase. An accident, which lead to some compensation meant I moved onto a Tarmac comp in 2015. To be honest, while it’s probably more bike than I need, it’s never quite excited me in the way the Allez did. It spends much of its time on a turbo. 

Taking an interest in audax led to a Genesis Equilibrium. It is a tool for the job, an endurance bike, and has needed a lot of fiddling. A new rear mech for a bigger cassette, guards, a new saddle, new wheels with a hub dynamo and better tyres. It’s getting there and practically probably not much slower than the Tarmac. Any losses in speed are made up for in improved comfort. 

With children self-sufficient and planning a wind-down to a pension we have more cash than before but that doesn’t mean I want to spend it. I don’t see a new bike anytime soon. I have found myself really impressed when I have relaxed the purse strings however. Decent bibs made a big difference, as did a £200 gore jacket. Everyone will have different ideas, funding levels, other commitments and need to make their own choices. I have found far more improvement than I expected moving from Lidl / Aldi gear to expensive stuff, but I’ve taken a long time to reach that conclusion.


----------



## Stompier (2 Jan 2020)

Twilkes said:


> Mudguards often decrease the effect of air resistance: https://road.cc/content/tech-news/2...udy-shows-optimum-drag-reduction-achieved?amp
> 
> https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-3-fenders-slow-you-down/



When you say 'often' - you mean a single study (unless there are others?), which doesn't even name the mudguards they tested?


----------



## Twilkes (2 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> When you say 'often' - you mean a single study (unless there are others?), which doesn't even name the mudguards they tested?



I mean often as in amongst the population of people who use mudguards - the other link shows the type of mudguards tested in a wind tunnel and explains why a mudguard that angles down over the top of the wheel can reduce drag, even if the rest of the mudguard can balance that out, and why motorbike racers have them when they're totally unnecessary for guarding against mud.

What is obvious according to common sense is often debunked by science, this is one of those cases.


----------



## Stompier (2 Jan 2020)

Twilkes said:


> What is obvious according to common sense is often debunked by science, this is one of those cases.



I'm a big fan of science. But in all seriousness, what you have posted there in its current form does not 'debunk' anything in particular.


----------



## Twilkes (2 Jan 2020)

Stompier said:


> I'm a big fan of science. But in all seriousness, what you have posted there in its current form does not 'debunk' anything in particular.



It debunks your parachute comment, and implies that the majority of mudguards will be net zero or reduced drag.

But I'm not going to argue the toss over things like this in 2020, I spent too much time doing that on forums in 2019 and I shudder to think how much better my garden would have looked if I hadn't.


----------



## Stompier (2 Jan 2020)

Twilkes said:


> It debunks your parachute comment, and implies that the majority of mudguards will be net zero or reduced drag.



I'm not trying to be difficult, but it doesn't 'debunk' anything. And the study's conclusions imply nothing of the sort. Unless I've missed some of the analysis - in which case, can you highlight the appropriate section that I've missed. The study's findings are clear enough, but let's not extrapolate something that isn't in there.


----------



## Twilkes (2 Jan 2020)

_Bicycle Quarterly_ did extensive wind tunnel research on the aerodynamics of real-world bicycles, they tested the aerodynamics of mudguards. The portion of the mudguard in front of the fork crown _reduces_ the drag. This is because the tire rotates at twice the speed of the bike, and the mudguard acts as a fairing that shields it. This works only if the mudguard extends beyond the top of the tire and drops down in front, like most standard mudguards. The portion behind the fork crown adds a little drag, so does a mudflap. The overall effect of the full mudguard and (small) mudflap neither increases nor decreases the wind resistance of the bike. A row of small cherry trees I'd have had, hand pickable, and moved the prickly rose bush to the front garden to leave a child-safe back garden for the toddler - as it is we missed a summer but plenty of trips to the park so it wasn't all bad.


----------

