I rode a heavier steel cross bike last season as my regular road bike, but it had light weight wheels which helped greatly. The big drawback to that bike was the drivetrain. It was older and shifting just wasn’t what I expect now in my life.

My new bike beats that bike on all metrics—better weight, more aero, more efficient…but I’m really looking forward to a season with di2 105 shifting.

If the bike fits and the mechs feel good, the rest is gravy. You can fit tires appropriate to terrain and have a great day out there. A 5lb difference in weight is noticeable, but won’t ruin your day and won’t hold you back that much.

Pain and suffering make you stronger.
Seek that out Grasshopper.
The price is not paid in tender.

Me on rides: "A bike is a bike".
Me on the selling floor: "Yes, this bike will make you faster"..

No.

I call this "buying a little extra sleep". I think about it, but it works out to less than 5 minutes each way. A lot of my commute time is traffic lights and slow riding in traffic.

My sore quads after a fast and hilly ride are evidence to the contrary.

Didn't read all of this thread.
At a certain point I have found, IME, only two things that really matter (aside from being in shape and skilled):

1. Light wheels and high end tires
2. Having about the same gearing/setup (i.e 10, 11 or 12 speed) as your buddies in the peloton.

just my 2 cents :)
thanks

In terms of speed for a given power, assuming two bikes are similarly geared and aren't more than 2-3kg different in weight, and on basically flat ground, I've found that the biggest bang for buck improvment can be gotten by going to faster tires. I get about 2-3km/h faster on my 9kg Ti road bike than I do on my 11.5kg gravel/commuter bike, but the primary reason for this difference is the tires - the road bike is on 28C Vittoria Corsa Controls, while the gravel/commuter bike is on 36C Michelin Power Adventures, which are decently fast for gravel tires but not at all as fast as a dedicated road tire. When I had dedicated road tires on my gravel/commuter bike, it was significantly closer in speed to my road bike.

My 2 cents -

The leap from a big box store or $300 "euro" bike from the internet to a mid spec 105 bike is going to be a decent improvement. Add a good set of fast tires and wheels, another good leap...

Anything above that point is marginal.

This is a good comparison (£350 beater vs £12K superbike).


Both riders “felt” much faster on the expensive bike and it was between 1.5 and 3% faster over a short, flat race course. So around 5-10 seconds faster over a 5 min lap. This was at an average speed of around 42 kph, so relatively fast where aero gains would be significant.

it’s worth watching the video as it highlights how you can achieve most of the performance gains without spending anything like £12k. Start with tyres and clothing fit etc. Bikes are the ultimate in diminishing returns for cost.

So about at 10w+/- savings from the big box store bike to a superbike at 42kph/26mph. That speed equates to 330-350w power output - which the typical just above average joe rider can produce for about 4-6 min max.

The advantage of the superbike = about $1,000 per watt.

Edit - that $350 beater was a 2k+/- mid spec bike when purchased new. So the gains between the superbike and a big box store bike would be more...

And a decent set of tires/wheels on that CAD10 - say $1k worth of investment, would take the differences between the bikes down to almost nothing.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6a67373c36.png
This is the bike that I used to get back into cycling after 25 yrs of "living life". Most on the forum probably don't recognize it. An early '70's Peugeot UO-8, the basic 10-speed that started many a newbie cyclists on their journey into cycling.

Joined in on many a weekend group rides and got dropped till I "found my legs". Its only limitations were my limitations. At 20-22mph I could cruise along just fine. At 25mph I was hurting but could hold on. Above 25mph...I really have no desire to go that fast or the time to invest to aquire that sort of fitness.
ITs not about the bike.

The bike certainly makes a difference at the water cooler discussions. If you want to be the boss there, you better spend your life savings on a once in a lifetime wunder bike. It better have MEILENSTEIN LIGHTWEIGHT WHEELS on it also. Go big or go home!

This is the reality. A carefully selected cheap used bike (like the CAAD in that video) with quality tyres is not really at a huge disadvantage to a top-end racer. But the difference feels more than it actually is on the stop watch. Just like with lighter wheels. It feels like you are accelerating much faster, when in reality you are only saving a few hundredths of a second. In that video on a fast, flat course, pretty much all of that 5-10 second gain would have been from aero and almost nothing from acceleration.

Forgetting for a moment about a bike making you faster, it sounds as if you're appreciating cycling and your bike as the tool with which you pursue the sport. You will appreciate a more modern, precision machine. It will be a joy to ride! You'll have an even greater enjoyment of the ride and the bike. Many a nuance you'll feel that can't be measured.

Beauty! Back when 10 speed meant 10 speed!

The shifters are non-indexed, I presume? To me the integrated shift/brake levers and wider gearing is where the modern bike would beat the vintage bike in terms of riding efficiency. But as long as everything is working fine I could very much enjoy a ride on vintage steel.

Yes, but faster riding buddies would "force" you to ride harder too, so whether consciously or not, you are choosing the effort you ride at regardless of the bike.

This is what really attracts me to higher end bikes. Being fractionally faster is just a bonus.

A "better" bike is one with better frame geometry and that flexes less so more pedal power makes it to the rear wheel and that is more stable at speed on downhill sections. Better bikes have combo brake and gear shifters and hydraulic disc brakes and index shifting. You will not go faster as such but will have more fun when you can do more shifting as you ride.

One can buy for around $1,000 a lightweight well equipped carbon fiber bike on Craigslist. By now you have an idea of what frame size is best for you.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bid...718052946.html

I can speak only for myself: I would like a modern bike for comfort and safety, not for speed, because I know darn well I'm not going to be the next Lance, or even Jacques "Jonathan" Boyer.

IME, some bikes "feel" faster than others, but usually at the end of a ride I am not able to measure a significant difference.
However, I don't race. In a race the only real "measure" is your placing, so all things being equal (including fit) a lighter bike is an advantage in most cases.
Bike weight does make a measurable difference when you're accelerating: i.e. sprinting/accelerating out of a corner/climbing/etc. So if your rides involve a lot of climbing, corners, or sprints then a lighter bike will probably make a difference.
(Note: it's true that you're constantly "accelerating" even when you're riding at a constant rate of speed in the sense that you are counteracting the effects of air resistance and friction, but if that type of "acceleration" is affected by bike weight at all, the effect is small.)

In many cases, aerodynamic drag makes a much bigger difference than the weight of the bike. Focusing on being able to maintain a position on your bike to minimize drag, while maintaining your power output, will likely make a bigger difference than buying a lighter bike.
(Unless maybe you're doing climbing TTs at a speed that's low enough that the effect of lower weight is greater than the effect of lower drag.)

Cor
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...f1ba06d3ce.jpg
rect Size with minor adjustments.
Proper Gearing for your riding area.

Nor would you want to be. :innocent:

Just to clarify for anyone interested in real physics, this is NOT “accelerating” in any meaningful sense. You are applying a force opposing air resistance and friction, but at a constant speed the net force and therefore acceleration is zero.

As I'm sure many have already said, weight makes a difference proportional to your total weight (you and the bike) for climbs and to a very small extent on the flats since rolling resistance is proportional to weight. So, 2-3 lbs difference may only be <2% total weight. But weight does change the feel of the bike and riders are not machines and I believe feel matters.

The bike matters, but much more so once you plateau in your physical gains. And you will plateau and before that the gains will come very very slowly.
There is one place I think the bike really matters, it is the tires. If nothing else, get good tires like Continental GP 5000 and run tubeless if possible. The difference over even medium performance tires is not marginal. If you're already nearing the best you can do physically, it could represent the equivalent of months if not years of serious training. Does that matter? Perhaps not if you aren't competing. Even if you don't compete, but just want to go faster for fun, then it matters.

Beyond that, better bikes tend to be more comfortable. At least effort has been put into designing in comfort. A more comfortable bike tends to be a faster bike because you fatigue less during a ride. Be sure to get a pro bike fit to take advantage of this.

I have what by most anybody's standard is a very expensive bike, and I'm more than happy I spent the money. It's very much a law of diminishing returns as you spend more, but it puts a smile on my face just looking at it, and more so riding it.