Differences between mid range road bike and high end?
04-06-15 | 04:23 PM
#76
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,123
Likes: 4
From: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
.jpg)
Looks like a race bike to me. I know the Zipp 404 is a racing wheelset.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
04-06-15 | 04:26 PM
#77
Banned
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
These people's egos are so heavily invested in their toys, they can't comprehend realistic criticisms of bicycle equipment.
Last edited by sam_cyclist; 04-06-15 at 04:30 PM.
04-06-15 | 04:29 PM
#78
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,682
Likes: 4
From: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
04-06-15 | 04:29 PM
#79
Banned
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
What are the odds of being dropped if the riders are of roughly equal ability, but your friends have a bike that's 2 or 3 lbs. lighter? If they are saving 5 seconds on a half hour climb, the chances are nil.
04-06-15 | 04:36 PM
#81
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,682
Likes: 4
From: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
If one is having trouble hanging onto a pack with their friends then increasing their fitness level is probably the best bet. I doubt getting dropped on rides is why people buy very expensive bicycles, though some may use that excuse to justify it in their own minds. Most people do it because they simply want to have a cool bike. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest here.
04-06-15 | 04:37 PM
#82
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,682
Likes: 4
From: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
04-06-15 | 04:54 PM
#83
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
its not just expensive bikes that people lust after, just off the top of my head, golf clubs, jewelry, headphones/speakers, watches, purses, shoes, tv, even clothes.
everyone knows that what they get in return for their cash isnt even close to being proportional, but thats ok, as long as you can afford it and it makes you happy.
a 6k bike will have marginal improvements over a 1500 bike, which is easily taken away by an extra bottle of water or a flappy jersey, but if it makes you feel good and gets you to ride more then why not?
everyone knows that what they get in return for their cash isnt even close to being proportional, but thats ok, as long as you can afford it and it makes you happy.
a 6k bike will have marginal improvements over a 1500 bike, which is easily taken away by an extra bottle of water or a flappy jersey, but if it makes you feel good and gets you to ride more then why not?
04-06-15 | 04:57 PM
#84
~>~
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,929
Likes: 187
From: TX Hill Country
Every season he arrives at Starbucks w/ the "latest trick set-up", lately a Team Shy Pinnaliaed-Specerello replica with every possible nano-technology dood-dad & gimcrack installed.
The conundrum for the Captain is what to do w/ a hopelessly obsolete "previous trick set-up" machine from last season.
Since we ride the same frame size he routinely tries to foist it off on me, which inevitably leads to an extended test ride.
My CF Merckx w/ 6700 components and C-24 CF wheels is a very nice bike and suits me perfectly well, however it is not in the same league as the Team Shy replica which just does everything that a high performance bicycle does just that much better. Worth the $,$$$ since my days racing are long past? Not quite yet.......
-Bandera
04-06-15 | 05:07 PM
#85
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
From: Edmonds Wa
Bikes: 2014 Felt F2 2015 Specialized Tarmac Sport
My first road bike was about $800 in 94 and it was agreat bike. Bought an entry level Redline with sora in 2010. For about the same money, bigest POS I ever rode. In fact bike geometry did not match anything Redline had published and it matched up to two different frame sizes partially. I then spent $1300 on an aluminum framed Felt with 5700 105. Really nice bike.great ride shifted awsome and was pretty light. Best bike I ever owned.
I came into some money last year and was able to get a bike and carbon wheels (MSRP for both bike/wheelscombined would be in the range targeted here) and it is an incredible bike. Will I race it? Never. Am I faster? Doubtful. I enjoy every minute I get to ride it and think about riding it when I am not. Do I feel better than any one riding a bike with a cheaper price tag? No.
I bought it for me and I can feel a difference. Just like when I was a kid riding BMX, a $100 huffy is not the same compared to an $800 Hutch, GT or Redline. Just because a person does not race has nothing to do with the equipment they buy. If that were the case Chevrolet would not sell Corvettes or need to build any for the mid life male. I like to ride and what I chose to ride is insignificant in the big picture.
I came into some money last year and was able to get a bike and carbon wheels (MSRP for both bike/wheelscombined would be in the range targeted here) and it is an incredible bike. Will I race it? Never. Am I faster? Doubtful. I enjoy every minute I get to ride it and think about riding it when I am not. Do I feel better than any one riding a bike with a cheaper price tag? No.
I bought it for me and I can feel a difference. Just like when I was a kid riding BMX, a $100 huffy is not the same compared to an $800 Hutch, GT or Redline. Just because a person does not race has nothing to do with the equipment they buy. If that were the case Chevrolet would not sell Corvettes or need to build any for the mid life male. I like to ride and what I chose to ride is insignificant in the big picture.
04-06-15 | 05:15 PM
#86
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,201
Likes: 289
From: Vancouver, BC
I also corrected your incorrect statement that lighter weight isn't faster.
The OP didn't ask why people bought expensive bikes he asked what the advantages are. The advantages are they are lighter which will make you proportionately faster up hills. Save 1% in weight, go 1% faster. Simple isn't it?
04-06-15 | 05:17 PM
#87
Old Fart
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 3
From: Bumpkinsville
Bikes: '97 Klein Quantum '16 Gravity Knockout
Techno weenies are some of the most insecure people on the planet. They are going ballistic in the disc brake threads, throwing tantrums like crazy if you criticize disc brakes.
These people's egos are so heavily invested in their toys, they can't comprehend realistic criticisms of bicycle equipment.
These people's egos are so heavily invested in their toys, they can't comprehend realistic criticisms of bicycle equipment.
04-06-15 | 05:28 PM
#88
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,201
Likes: 289
From: Vancouver, BC
If one is having trouble hanging onto a pack with their friends then increasing their fitness level is probably the best bet. I doubt getting dropped on rides is why people buy very expensive bicycles, though some may use that excuse to justify it in their own minds. Most people do it because they simply want to have a cool bike. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest here.
04-06-15 | 05:49 PM
#89
The Recycled Cycler
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 1
Bikes: Real Steel. Really. Ti is cool, too !
That's me, almost. 59 and riding moderately priced bikes with some bling because the bling is gone in my legs, but it's still fun to ride and look good doing it, even if I'm a lot slower than I was 40 years ago. My newest is a Serotta with Columbus tubing from early 90's. Still a sub-$1,000 bike but chicks at SAG stops are always commenting on my "lugs" lol
To answer OP's question ( and this thread did seem to get a bit hijacked) the higher the price the more aero/lighter/better components. It's those variables. The degree to which these variables change after the $3K mark is marginal - the curve flattens out pretty quickly.
To answer OP's question ( and this thread did seem to get a bit hijacked) the higher the price the more aero/lighter/better components. It's those variables. The degree to which these variables change after the $3K mark is marginal - the curve flattens out pretty quickly.
04-06-15 | 06:00 PM
#90
Banned
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
I've answered the OPs question numerous times in this thread you just don't understand or haven't been listening.
I also corrected your incorrect statement that lighter weight isn't faster.
The OP didn't ask why people bought expensive bikes he asked what the advantages are. The advantages are they are lighter which will make you proportionately faster up hills. Save 1% in weight, go 1% faster. Simple isn't it?
I also corrected your incorrect statement that lighter weight isn't faster.
The OP didn't ask why people bought expensive bikes he asked what the advantages are. The advantages are they are lighter which will make you proportionately faster up hills. Save 1% in weight, go 1% faster. Simple isn't it?
But what if your rides don't have many climbs? Or they are very short? What if a 3-5 second advantage is not noticeable on a 1 or 2 or 3 hour ride?
What if you run over a pebble on a $13K bike which throws you off your line when you climb? Perhaps you throw an f bomb, lose your concentration, and get thrown off your line. Oh well. That 3 to 5 second advantage is lost.
The difference in performance is so trivial (only on long climbs), so difficult to notice, and so easily negated, at such astronomical cost, it's not worth it.
What it boils down to is bragging rights and ego. Nothing wrong with that, though, if that's your thing.
This is a theoretical advantage only, with no real world, actual performance measurements to back it up.
An errant gust blows your way? Performance advantage gone. You swerve a bit to avoid a pothole on a climb? Momentum lost. You have to descend to actually get back home? Advantage lost due to lighter weight.
04-06-15 | 06:08 PM
#91
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,201
Likes: 289
From: Vancouver, BC
The 1% advantage is only an advantage on very long climbs. When racing. Maybe.
But what if your rides don't have many climbs? Or they are very short? What if a 3-5 second advantage is not noticeable on a 1 or 2 or 3 hour ride?
What if you run over a pebble on a $13K bike which throws you off your line when you climb? Perhaps you throw an f bomb, lose your concentration, and get thrown off your line. Oh well. That 3 to 5 second advantage is lost.
The difference in performance is so trivial (only on long climbs), so difficult to notice, and so easily negated, at such astronomical cost, it's not worth it.
What it boils down to is bragging rights and ego. Nothing wrong with that, though, if that's your thing.
This is a theoretical advantage only, with no real world, actual performance measurements to back it up.
An errant gust blows your way? Performance advantage gone. You swerve a bit to avoid a pothole on a climb? Momentum lost. You have to descend to actually get back home? Advantage lost due to lighter weight.
But what if your rides don't have many climbs? Or they are very short? What if a 3-5 second advantage is not noticeable on a 1 or 2 or 3 hour ride?
What if you run over a pebble on a $13K bike which throws you off your line when you climb? Perhaps you throw an f bomb, lose your concentration, and get thrown off your line. Oh well. That 3 to 5 second advantage is lost.
The difference in performance is so trivial (only on long climbs), so difficult to notice, and so easily negated, at such astronomical cost, it's not worth it.
What it boils down to is bragging rights and ego. Nothing wrong with that, though, if that's your thing.
This is a theoretical advantage only, with no real world, actual performance measurements to back it up.
An errant gust blows your way? Performance advantage gone. You swerve a bit to avoid a pothole on a climb? Momentum lost. You have to descend to actually get back home? Advantage lost due to lighter weight.
04-06-15 | 06:23 PM
#92
Administrator
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,655
Likes: 2,703
From: Delaware shore
Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
Or just a lack of understanding of electronic
Last edited by StanSeven; 04-06-15 at 08:22 PM.
04-06-15 | 06:25 PM
#93
I'm doing it wrong.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 2,814
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
High end bikes are generally lighter, yes. It has not been my experience that higher end shimano component groups shift better. I have tiagra 10. I also test rode 105 10, 105 11 and ultegra 11 multiple times. I did not notice a difference in shift quality among these groups.
I test rode high end spesh roubaix bikes but didn't feel like the ride was especially plush. Maybe a hair more "comfortable" than alu.
I don't think you get more "attention to detail." You get more carbon, which is lighter. But you also have to be more careful with torque, and these components can shatter rather than bend.
Several of the carbon bikes I test rode also had odd creaks and noises which was very annoying.
Carbon wheels are LOUD. And they brake poorly.
The industry gives you a fractionally lighter bike. But for me, it's not worth it. I don't want noisy, poor braking rims. I don't want to have to use a torque wrench every time I adjust a seatpost or saddle, or install pedals on carbon crank arms.
Plus, if I want to save some weight, I can buy a pair of lightweight wheels, and save a pound and a half off the bike for only $350 or less.
Take it the other way: if your bike is heavier by a few pounds, it will be a superior training bike, since you will have to work a little bit harder. But training for a race is really not an objective for 99.99999% of bicyclists.
Even for those who purchase $6K+ bikes, the majority will never enter a sanctioned race.
I test rode high end spesh roubaix bikes but didn't feel like the ride was especially plush. Maybe a hair more "comfortable" than alu.
I don't think you get more "attention to detail." You get more carbon, which is lighter. But you also have to be more careful with torque, and these components can shatter rather than bend.
Several of the carbon bikes I test rode also had odd creaks and noises which was very annoying.
Carbon wheels are LOUD. And they brake poorly.
The industry gives you a fractionally lighter bike. But for me, it's not worth it. I don't want noisy, poor braking rims. I don't want to have to use a torque wrench every time I adjust a seatpost or saddle, or install pedals on carbon crank arms.
Plus, if I want to save some weight, I can buy a pair of lightweight wheels, and save a pound and a half off the bike for only $350 or less.
Take it the other way: if your bike is heavier by a few pounds, it will be a superior training bike, since you will have to work a little bit harder. But training for a race is really not an objective for 99.99999% of bicyclists.
Even for those who purchase $6K+ bikes, the majority will never enter a sanctioned race.
I ride with an older lady who bought a project one Trek Madone (now at least 5 years old) and spent considerable money to get it light, as light as she could. It's a very, very light bike; carbon everywhere with Sram Red. The reason she did that is to use the bike in her advancing years so it would be easier to get up hills and go a bit faster for her. I'm sure it works for her...she is still riding and happy, which is what this is all about anyway. It's totally worth it for her to spend the scratch on a lighter, "faster," better performing bike. She is certainly not a racer, nor has any aspirations to enter a race but is still a happy "high end" race bike customer.
I'm not a carbon fan, so I'm not going to go out defending the material...but it seems to make fine bikes and wheels. I went aluminum for my wheels and I stop fine.
The industry gives you a fractionally lighter bike. But for me, it's not worth it. I don't want noisy, poor braking rims. I don't want to have to use a torque wrench every time I adjust a seatpost or saddle, or install pedals on carbon crank arms.
For some it is though.
04-06-15 | 06:28 PM
#94
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,770
Likes: 369
From: Orange County, CA
The aero and/or weight advantage will always be there. While descending, your drag coefficient matters more than your weight.
The 1% advantage is only an advantage on very long climbs. When racing. Maybe.
But what if your rides don't have many climbs? Or they are very short? What if a 3-5 second advantage is not noticeable on a 1 or 2 or 3 hour ride?
What if you run over a pebble on a $13K bike which throws you off your line when you climb? Perhaps you throw an f bomb, lose your concentration, and get thrown off your line. Oh well. That 3 to 5 second advantage is lost.
The difference in performance is so trivial (only on long climbs), so difficult to notice, and so easily negated, at such astronomical cost, it's not worth it.
What it boils down to is bragging rights and ego. Nothing wrong with that, though, if that's your thing.
This is a theoretical advantage only, with no real world, actual performance measurements to back it up.
An errant gust blows your way? Performance advantage gone. You swerve a bit to avoid a pothole on a climb? Momentum lost. You have to descend to actually get back home? Advantage lost due to lighter weight.
But what if your rides don't have many climbs? Or they are very short? What if a 3-5 second advantage is not noticeable on a 1 or 2 or 3 hour ride?
What if you run over a pebble on a $13K bike which throws you off your line when you climb? Perhaps you throw an f bomb, lose your concentration, and get thrown off your line. Oh well. That 3 to 5 second advantage is lost.
The difference in performance is so trivial (only on long climbs), so difficult to notice, and so easily negated, at such astronomical cost, it's not worth it.
What it boils down to is bragging rights and ego. Nothing wrong with that, though, if that's your thing.
This is a theoretical advantage only, with no real world, actual performance measurements to back it up.
An errant gust blows your way? Performance advantage gone. You swerve a bit to avoid a pothole on a climb? Momentum lost. You have to descend to actually get back home? Advantage lost due to lighter weight.
04-06-15 | 07:16 PM
#96
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 265
Likes: 29
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Bikes: All-City Big Block, Giant Bowery, KHS Flite 100
This definitely has some differences in the "feel". I don't think there have been many testers out there yet for this to talk about it though. Exciting that maybe even 1500$ road bikes of the future may benefit from this sort of progression of engineering. Bikes are evolving you know. New technology is new technology and you get what you pay for when you pay for it. Some people argue its better to wait while others may be impatient and want the newest cutting edge stuff as soon as they can get it.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team...-paris-roubaix
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team...-paris-roubaix
Last edited by Wallonthefloor; 04-06-15 at 07:19 PM.
04-06-15 | 08:04 PM
#97
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Clarksville, TN
Bikes: Dogma 60.1 SuperSix Evo HM
If you think a high end bike is only good for a few seconds you have not done a back to back comparison. I once rode 24 miles on a SRAM Force 22 equipped 17.5lbs bike, went home took a 30-40 mins break and rode the same route on a 15lbs SRAM RED and finish 9min faster...that's a big difference. And I ride the same route 4-5 days a week.
All the doctors that I know that ride, only 5, all have $8k+ bikes and all of them race at least once a year...go figure.
All the doctors that I know that ride, only 5, all have $8k+ bikes and all of them race at least once a year...go figure.
04-06-15 | 08:30 PM
#98
Senior Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 239
Likes: 6
From: Hobart, Australia
04-06-15 | 08:36 PM
#99
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,682
Likes: 4
From: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
as far as purchasing expensive items is concerned, i've found it advantageous get into that sweet zone where "buyer's remorse" is only experienced before the purchase.
beware, it can snowball... before you know it, you're doing all your Christmas shopping at "Dollar General" and "Dollar Tree". not good.
beware, it can snowball... before you know it, you're doing all your Christmas shopping at "Dollar General" and "Dollar Tree". not good.
04-06-15 | 08:41 PM
#100
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,726
Likes: 1
From: Northern San Diego
Bikes: mid 1980s De Rosa SL, 1985 Tommasini Super Prestige all Campy SR, 1992 Paramount PDG Series 7, 1997 Lemond Zurich, 1998 Trek Y-foil, 2006 Schwinn Super Sport GS, 2006 Specialized Hardrock Sport
Back to the OP's original question, something I posted on a similar thread a couple of weeks ago:
I think there's certainly a knee in the cost curve, and a $3000 bike might correspond to a $40-50K automobile, while a $7000 bike corresponds to an over $100K automobile. The fact is, you can get a pretty high performance car for not much more than $50K (such as a Vette, a BMW M3, a Boxter, a loaded Mustang with a 5 Liter engine etc). At $100-120K, you get more REFINEMENT
and customization, but not all that much more outright performance than the best of what's out there for half as much.
With bikes, the improvements are pretty easy to see running up the curve from $500 or so up to $2K. From $2K to $4-5K, the improvements continue, but they are much less dramatic. And beyond $5K, there's a lot of bling and refinement and customization, but very little added underlying performance that one can wring out with the incrementally more dollars spent.
From $500 to $2K, the main difference is going to be moving from aluminum frames up to Carbon or possibly some other exotic material (like Titanium, but that's probably more like $2500-3K minimum). The other difference, within a given type of frame, is going to be the class of components, and wheels. But the performance gains of more costly components are subtle, as are the weight savings. A $500 wheel set will be lighter than a $200 wheel set. A $1000 Wheel set will be lighter yet. But it may not be stronger.
Moving to Carbon from Aluminum, IMHO, the difference is not so much in performance, but rather, in comfort at a given weight and performance level. At $4-5K, the bike will outperform a $2K bike, but not by that much, and mainly the differences are due to shedding a couple of pounds, and providing a more precise feel - plus, at the upper end, you get digital shifting. Beyond $5K, it's almost entirely about feel, and the psyche of the rider.
I think there's certainly a knee in the cost curve, and a $3000 bike might correspond to a $40-50K automobile, while a $7000 bike corresponds to an over $100K automobile. The fact is, you can get a pretty high performance car for not much more than $50K (such as a Vette, a BMW M3, a Boxter, a loaded Mustang with a 5 Liter engine etc). At $100-120K, you get more REFINEMENT
and customization, but not all that much more outright performance than the best of what's out there for half as much. With bikes, the improvements are pretty easy to see running up the curve from $500 or so up to $2K. From $2K to $4-5K, the improvements continue, but they are much less dramatic. And beyond $5K, there's a lot of bling and refinement and customization, but very little added underlying performance that one can wring out with the incrementally more dollars spent.
From $500 to $2K, the main difference is going to be moving from aluminum frames up to Carbon or possibly some other exotic material (like Titanium, but that's probably more like $2500-3K minimum). The other difference, within a given type of frame, is going to be the class of components, and wheels. But the performance gains of more costly components are subtle, as are the weight savings. A $500 wheel set will be lighter than a $200 wheel set. A $1000 Wheel set will be lighter yet. But it may not be stronger.
Moving to Carbon from Aluminum, IMHO, the difference is not so much in performance, but rather, in comfort at a given weight and performance level. At $4-5K, the bike will outperform a $2K bike, but not by that much, and mainly the differences are due to shedding a couple of pounds, and providing a more precise feel - plus, at the upper end, you get digital shifting. Beyond $5K, it's almost entirely about feel, and the psyche of the rider.