Nigelnaturist
Guru
- Location
- Pontefract
So what your saying is that the defy over my viking I could expect 19-20mph+ avgs. as I am averaging 16mph on most routes I take these day.
Does how much you spend on a bike actually matter for most cyclists..?
- Thread starter Upstream
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AndyPeace
Guest
- Location
- Worcestershire
I think a well designed frame geometry/engineering would make a difference. I've only really put in short performance rides on my new Trek, but have hit a 19.5mph average (on a short loop) though that difference between my previous personal best (18mph on the Hybrid) is properly more down to gearing and power to weight. On straights and descents I can be upto 5mph faster than my hybrid, though that likely comes down to gearing (and it's level of efficiency) and (for me)roadbike positioning (which you already have). Interestingly my top speed is not that different (well not yet) which I'd suggest comes down to bike handling skills and confidence. I think in the comparison of a Defy and your Viking ( that you've adjusted to find a good fit for you...over time). I'd wager that you'd start off being 2mph or less better than you are now but would probably do more miles than you already do
I'd speculate further down the line ,with growing bike handling skills, the difference will be more significant...on the premise that a finely tuned frame is easier/more precise to use, allowing you finer/less fatiguing control over your bike.
Gravity Aided
Legendary Member
- Location
- Land of Lincoln
Components make a difference. Component levels get better as a bicycles quality rises, but there gets to be a point where the expense may be more easily solved with upgrades down the road. So buy a nice, light frame in the mid-range- the upper part of middle seems best. This will give you a good start . You may then upgrade as needs be. Anything less than upper middle level will probably not net you a frame that is worth upgrading when the time comes. A frame that fits you well, in the upper middle range, will serve you well, and will let you get well started, and do a good job as your extra bicycle when you decide you need something flashier.
the_mikey
Legendary Member
- Location
- South Gloucestershire
I am sitting on the fence here, I think some of those factors are important for sustaining an interest in cycling. I've only really enjoyed cycling since I've discovered that you can buy a good quality light weight bicycle made with parts that work well and are easily serviced/maintained. Before that I only ever had awful bikes that were heavy and impractical that I would never dream of cycling on for more than a mile or two. Where you draw the line regarding what is excessive cost and what is sensible is not so easy, as each person who rides will have different needs, but as the OP mentioned riding sportives, I would expect a bike between £400-700 would do it, bearing in mind the cheaper bikes tend to provide a good frame but some of the components fitted are rubbish, especially wheels.
vickster
Legendary Member
Having a nice bike (err bikes) means that I am much more inclined to ride more often and further. If honest, if I had a cheap, heavy bike I probably wouldn't ride it. It's my hobby and am happy to spend quite a large chunk of my disposable income on it. I would never have a £7k bike as I could never justify it to myself even though I could buy one if I wanted (I don't really give two hoots what others think). I'd also be concerned about it being nicked! Comfort, looks, reliability and weight are the key factors, not performance as I am the limiting factor ultimately
Andrew_P
In between here and there
No, you ride your new more expensive bike harder as it helps the self justification process
On serious note of course it will be different its a different quality bike but adding 4-5mph instantly would be a stretch IMHO.
Nigelnaturist
Guru
- Location
- Pontefract
@AndyPeace
@Andy Smith was comparing a TDF with a Defy so would be a similar change to what I would get. Though its cost me a fortune (relatively) as you say to get the bike setup, though most as been through necessity rather than a simply upgrade, components such as stem (threads stripped, hence new stem, and because a different size new bars), seat post, saddle. Wheels because my others gave up the ghost again not expensive ones (but every spare penny I have for 1 1/2 months).
The wheels gave an improvement, but the rest as really down to me getting fitter,
@Andy Smith was comparing a TDF with a Defy so would be a similar change to what I would get. Though its cost me a fortune (relatively) as you say to get the bike setup, though most as been through necessity rather than a simply upgrade, components such as stem (threads stripped, hence new stem, and because a different size new bars), seat post, saddle. Wheels because my others gave up the ghost again not expensive ones (but every spare penny I have for 1 1/2 months).
The wheels gave an improvement, but the rest as really down to me getting fitter,
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
My bike cost seven hundred quid, three years ago. It was a lot of money to me, but I made sacrifices. I'm thinking of buying another in the next year that might cost a bit more, purely because I like beautiful engineering. I have absolutely no illusions that it will make me a better or faster cyclist. BTW, my motor has been valued by the accountant at 28 quid. Will you give me a break?
Nigelnaturist
Guru
- Location
- Pontefract
I wouldn't ride it any harder, only to my physical abilities.No, you ride your new more expensive bike harder as it helps the self justification process
On serious note of course it will be different its a different quality bike but adding 4-5mph instantly would be a stretch IMHO.
HLaB
Marie Attoinette Fan
My mate is a phenominal cyclist (my excuse is he's half my age 
), and in a recent race somebody took his front wheel out, buckling the fork, etc so whilst he was waiting for the replacement he borrowed a 20year old bike and did some local TT's he aced them, sailing by folk on their £Xk bikes and Zipp wheels. He got his bike back for the NCRA road race the other night and won that but even then his bike does not compare moneywise to the others. It doesn't matter too much what bike if you have the engine and he does
), and in a recent race somebody took his front wheel out, buckling the fork, etc so whilst he was waiting for the replacement he borrowed a 20year old bike and did some local TT's he aced them, sailing by folk on their £Xk bikes and Zipp wheels. He got his bike back for the NCRA road race the other night and won that but even then his bike does not compare moneywise to the others. It doesn't matter too much what bike if you have the engine and he does 
I was told once that the difference between spending £500 and £1000 is phenomenal. The difference between spending £1000 and £1500, is trivial - at this stage you save mere grams in terms of weight and component quality is only marginally better.
I have to say that when I bought my current bike (BMC Streetfire) I test rode several bikes. two or three from the £400-£600 range. Compared to the BMC (which I paid about £1100 for) they were indeed not very good. I could feel that not all the power I was putting into the pedals was going to the wheels, an indicator that part of it was going into making the frame flex instead. Gear changes felt clunkier and there just seemed to be generally more resistance.
I'm not a bike snob - up to that point I'd been riding a 25 year old Peugeot racer, but even I in my limited road cycling experience at the time could tell the difference.
So yes - to me I would always spend at least £1000. However, I would draw the line at too much above that. I reckon if you're racing and you really, really know your bikes, and that every little improvement is in some way beneficial then you might want to spend 000's and 000's, but personally for me it simply wouldn't be warranted.
I have to say that when I bought my current bike (BMC Streetfire) I test rode several bikes. two or three from the £400-£600 range. Compared to the BMC (which I paid about £1100 for) they were indeed not very good. I could feel that not all the power I was putting into the pedals was going to the wheels, an indicator that part of it was going into making the frame flex instead. Gear changes felt clunkier and there just seemed to be generally more resistance.
I'm not a bike snob - up to that point I'd been riding a 25 year old Peugeot racer, but even I in my limited road cycling experience at the time could tell the difference.
So yes - to me I would always spend at least £1000. However, I would draw the line at too much above that. I reckon if you're racing and you really, really know your bikes, and that every little improvement is in some way beneficial then you might want to spend 000's and 000's, but personally for me it simply wouldn't be warranted.
Cycleops
Legendary Member
- Location
- Accra, Ghana
Lets face it you are not going to go much faster on a five grand bike than one costing a fifth as much, but you you might look and feel much cooler!
Nigelnaturist
Guru
- Location
- Pontefract
Vanity.
Gravity Aided
Legendary Member
- Location
- Land of Lincoln
And I remember when the dividing line was $250.00(159pds.), not 1000pds. Mile195 makes a great point that has always been true for bicycles-at some point in the price range, you face a law of diminishing returns. Then, it is up to you and your athletic abilities.
mattobrien
Guru
- Location
- Sunny Suffolk
I have now got two road bikes, a more and a less expensive one.
The more expensive one is faster over any distance, but the shorter the distance the less noticeable the difference. Over 20 miles you are probably only looking at around 0.5mph, so not a great deal and certainly not 4-5mph.
The more expensive bike comes into its own over longer distances. It is lighter and I believe that more of the power is transmitted from the rider into making you go faster. It is possible to cover relatively long distances at a pace that would not be achievable on the less expensive bike. It feels like you use less energy pedalling and have more left in the tank later on in longer rides, making a higher speed more sustainable.
Also being lighter, the more expensive bikes goes up hills quicker and saps less energy doing so, again making for a quicker overall ride.
At the end of the day I get more pleasure riding the more expensive bike than the less expensive one as the whole experience is nicer, but it is handy having both as the less expensive one is now equipped with mudguards and will be on duty for the winter / wet weather rides etc.
Each to their own though and a bike is better than no bike.
The more expensive one is faster over any distance, but the shorter the distance the less noticeable the difference. Over 20 miles you are probably only looking at around 0.5mph, so not a great deal and certainly not 4-5mph.
The more expensive bike comes into its own over longer distances. It is lighter and I believe that more of the power is transmitted from the rider into making you go faster. It is possible to cover relatively long distances at a pace that would not be achievable on the less expensive bike. It feels like you use less energy pedalling and have more left in the tank later on in longer rides, making a higher speed more sustainable.
Also being lighter, the more expensive bikes goes up hills quicker and saps less energy doing so, again making for a quicker overall ride.
At the end of the day I get more pleasure riding the more expensive bike than the less expensive one as the whole experience is nicer, but it is handy having both as the less expensive one is now equipped with mudguards and will be on duty for the winter / wet weather rides etc.
Each to their own though and a bike is better than no bike.
