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.

There is essentially zero speed benefit to tubeless. Some people like the puncture resistance benefit, but tubeless will not make you faster.

You can achieve very low rolling resistance with a non-tubeless clincher tire, and either a lightweight latex or TPU inner tube.

No posts from the OP for awhile...?
Here's my short answer, as a fellow "amateur" who is not quite as strong a rider as you.

Going from an old road bike to a newer one? Not much of a difference, except in climbing. Even then, are you counting a few pounds on the bike when your body is 30 lbs. overweight? That's where I am. I'm 30 lbs. overweight. Anything less than 5 pounds on a bike is not worth my considering, because the engine is too fat.

On the other hand, if you are riding a hybrid bike or a cruiser, and thinking of going to a lightweight road bike (anything under 25 lbs.) it is a monumental difference. Not only is there less weight to haul around, but there is a BIG aerodynamic advantage as well as the riding posture making better use of your weight and your Gluteus Maximus. (butt muscles)

Example: from the Trek line-up, I had a Verve 3, hybrid-comfort bike, around 30 lbs. As those bikes go, it was pretty efficient: slight forward lean, easy rolling tires. I joined an easy group ride with the slowest group from my club, 12-14 mph pace. Just a 5-10 mph wind and a few minor hills and I was WINDED to keep up with the very slowest rider on a proper road bike. I was catching the wind like a sail, with my arms spread wide, sitting up straight, with the flat bar.

The previous week, I was on my Domane AL3. It's a humble road bike by the standards of those here. 23 lbs. before adding a saddle bag, bottle cage & bottles, pump, etc. But I was easily one of the fastest that week, having to wait.

When I ride alone on my Domane, I'm in the 14-16 mph pace range. In a group, I'm in the 15-17 mph range. (drafting and taking turns pulling) Put me on a hybrid bike and those numbers go down to 11-13 mph (average) pace and forget the group because I can't keep up with the grannies on road bikes, hehehe.

SO. For your situation, where do you stand in your BMI? Are you overweight? Obese? I think not, if you're riding 17 mph. I also think you're on a road bike. How much weight would your upgrade save you? If it saves less than 5 lbs., it probably won't help much. You might notice a slight difference on climbs and acceleration from a stop, but that's it.

I think we need to know your BMI range and how much your bike weighs and whether it is a road bike or not.

It sounds like you're in good shape now. If you're in a healthy BMI and your road bike is old and more than 5 lbs. too heavy, an upgrade would be warranted, in my humble opinion. Reward yourself for all this great progress you've made!

Compare it to my case, I'll share it in all my shame, to try to help you:

I'm an American male, 5'8" tall, 190#. At least 30# overweight, to get to the top of the "Healthy" BMI range.
I'm on a 24# Trek Domane. Spending a bunch of money to shave 6 lbs. off the bike doesn't make ANY sense for me. I need to shave my body fat down 30# first, before I even THINK of trading dollars for ounces.

How does that compare to YOUR situation?

When I went from a 70's Schwinn Super Sport to a ~88 Trek 560, the difference felt monumental. That was shedding 5+ pounds and introducing a drastic frame geometry change. I'll never forget the feeling when I first pressed the pedals on the Trek - it was like the bike leapt forward.

I expect, that once up to speed, there would be little difference between those two bikes on flat ground. But that feeling was worth a lot, in terms of flat out enjoyment.

No upgrade since then has given me that feeling of a quantum leap. It was purely subjective, since I had no data, but was an unforgettable moment. Whether the OP has anything like that depends on the starting bike.

I don't pretend to be a physicist (though I did get a perfect score on my freshman physics final (cough, cough) - more than 40 years ago...), but you're absolutely correct as far as my understanding goes.

That's why I put acceleration in quotes. I agree that could be misleading to anyone interested in the actual physics.

The cyclist applies force over time to counteract the acceleration (negative value) due to the forces of air resistance and friction in order to maintain a constant velocity, but the cyclist is not accelerating.
(force over time is, evidently, "impulse" - I had to look it up, I don't remember that term from freshman physics)
(not sure "air resistance" meets the physics definition of "drag")

This is an older steel bike, 20 years old. It weighs 18lbs 4oz as it sits with heavy wheels and saddle. Something like this would serve the op well.

Steel isn’t only for boat anchors.


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...bf234da50.jpeg

That is a very odd way to put it. An actual physicist or (in my case) engineer would talk about resistive forces, not resistive accelerations. Acceleration is only relevant when the mass you are considering is actually accelerating ie the applied force and the resistive forces are not in equilibrium. So first you work out the net force acting on the mass and then you calculate the resultant acceleration from F=ma. At constant speed, net force and acceleration are zero.

It does.

Newton is rotationally accelerating in his grave....

Pro cycling's no longer obsessed with bike weight, but seems that too many BFers are still slow on the uptake. Recommending anything with round tubes and shallow rims and thinking it'll make a difference over another round-tubed and shallow-rimmed bike, just... no.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...72167f3387.png
Analysing nine years of GCN pro bike checks: here's why bikes are getting heavier

It doesn't matter what you ride...... that you're riding at all........ weeeeee ! .......now that's something wonderful to behold !

As I age I find flexibility, strength and weight to be the biggest factors for cyling. It's not the wheels or the frame or the disc brakes or anything else. If I want to brake faster, lose some weight. If I want to climb the hill faster? Lose some weight. If I want to rid longer distance with comfort, work on my mobility. It's almost entirely on my body.

That said, cycling is a hobby and the bike is part of it and fun. Have fun, ride what makes you happy. But don't be under any delusions that unless you're already the perfect specimen, the biggest improvement will be you, not the bike.

Yes, pros are riding faster than ever before, and it's because they are riding heavier bikes. Nothing else has changed in recent years that could possibly explain the speed increase.

Makes perfect sense.

Yes you are correct that using lightweight tubes there is minimal increase in rolling resistance over tubeless, though there is still an increase. With more typical butyl tubes the increase in rolling resistance is significant and it will make you faster. If I ran light-weight tubes only, I would flat on about every other ride. I may not live in the goat head capital of the world, but it's at least a contender. So, to run tubes, I need heavier tubes, Slime or equivalent, and tire liners or foam inserts, which I do run on some bikes. But tubeless is still most efficient and pretty close to flat-proof.

Not true in all cases. A Grand Prix 5000 clincher with a latex tube has a slightly lower rolling restistance than a Grand Prix 5000 Tr tubeless, according to bicyclerollingresistance.com.

I'm not sure what you're seeing on their website. Here's a plot from their article on running GP 5000 S TR tubeless and with various tubes. But again, I agree that the difference between some of these is, as shown, only a fraction of a watt and not reason enough to run tubeless. But in my original post I simply said "If nothing else, get good tires like Continental GP 5000 and run tubeless if possible." I certainly wasn't claiming that running tubeless was going to make a huge difference. More of it's just that much better, for efficiency as well as flat prevention.

Though as shown below, it could amount to about 5 W total from two tires between tubeless and the worst tubes they tested. I'll take a 5 W improvement when I can get it, especially when I get near flat-proof protection.

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...eless-vs-tubes



https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e02333f6dc.png