MassiveD

I fall into the category of those who believe speed is pretty much the only thing that matters. If I didn't care about speed, walking would be a whole lot better method of getting around. My tire choice reflects that in that I run light 35mm slicks, even though they occasionally let me down.

A lot of these comments start out with a comment about some CF bike the respondent has stashed somewhere like a fine bottle of wine. They don't have the right geometry for other than head to head pack style racing. They are not designed for average NA stats, unless you weight what the average woman does, at a whopping 140#. For me they don't have the right personal geometry either, and the money would be better spent in the direction of a 56/59. But if you fit the racing bike you can tap into the undeniable Walter Mitty thing that the race bike allows. That is the real truth. People mostly don't make rational decisions, they make rational arguments to support irrational behaviours.

Obviously if you fell for the whole CF bikes are faster and more fun, you have to prove it when you ride them. So plaster a smile on your face and spin the pedals a paltry 10% faster.

What is undeniable is that if you ride heavy and lightest a lot, having two bikes set up for that makes more sense than trying to change a hauler into a sports car every time you want to smile a little. But what bike constitutes a real riding machine when set up for speed, for the average person, that is a whole other mater. The simplest answer is that unless you are real racer, then a real racing bike is not your best choice. It isn't a bike that makes you faster, it is a bike that harnesses your superior fitness and riding skills in a specific competitive environment.

Quarryman32

Considering making this my signature (attributed, of course)!

staehpj1

I have to ask what is wrong with that when it comes to something like bike touring? It is all about what you will enjoy. If that is a Walter Mitty dream, so what?

Lots of folks think that choosing to tour on a bike at all is kind of irrational, but some of us still like to do it.

Possum Roadkill

Short Answer (Assuming you already have a bike with a cycle computer on it):
When you finish your bike rides, which number on your cycle computer do you look at first, distance or speed?

Long Answer:
I'd guess that the difference between a racing bike and touring bike under the right circumstances could be as much as a couple miles an hour, but it is very dependent on the riding terrain. On flat ground, there shouldn't be any difference at all, except maybe a very minimal extra effort required for the initial acceleration. If you can't keep up with a fast group on the flats on a touring bike, a light weight carbon racer isn't going to help you. Hills are a different matters. This is where the bike is going to make a noticeable difference, even to someone that does not race. There is an old saying that has been circulating through bike shops for years though, "It's all about the motor." It's not uncommon to see someone on a heavier steel bike outperform someone on a light weight carbon bike.

I assume, since you've made it clear that you eventually want one of each you are trying to decide which to buy first. The majority of riders start with the light weight racer, however here is something important to keep in mind. You can not do loaded touring with a light weight carbon race bike. There most likely be no mounts to add a rack and you really don't want to put clamps around the carbon stays. You could attach a B.O.B. trailer, however, I would not recommend this. I wouldn't trust the rear triangle to hold up to this extra load and I bet it would void the warranty if the manufacturer found out how you were using the bike. You are also like to come across other minor issues like fitting fenders to the bike if needed. Although I have seen some fender sets that work well on racing bikes, you are probably not going to be able fit full fenders on the racing bike.

The disadvantages for the tourer would be that sometimes it would be noticeably slower and you would have to work harder if you were trying to ride with faster race groups. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I've seen guys show up on touring or cyclocross bikes to training rides and they usually do just fine. I own two tandems and the tourer is the current favorite. We usually ride it when the hills will not be too challenging or if we are not riding with a group.

If you want to participate in both activities right when you purchase the first bike, the tourer will handle both situations, although not ideally. The carbon racer will not. The carbon racer though would be fine for supported tours where you will not be carrying your gear and clothing yourself. I just completed such a tour and we took our lighter "racing" tandem as there were many long hill climbs (PAC Tour, Pacific Crest - 2015 | Technically Tom).

You need to answer some questions now to make the right choice. Do you want to tour right away? Supported or not supported? Are you going to be riding with faster a faster race club? Are you planning on racing or just riding with the faster race club because it's a good challenge and a way to get in shape fast?

chasm54

Profound observation. I understand that there is lots of psychological research that suggests that we do not decide consciously, we merely become conscious that we have decided. And then we make up a post-hoc account of the supposed rationale for our decision. Free will, anyone?