Performance gains are relative and marginal, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because it's measured at 300 watts doesn't mean there aren't any gains at 200 watts.

Honestly if you're just riding along solo and don't care about performance, then none of this really matters and you are probably wasting your money buying bikes that are performance oriented. If you race or ride in fast groups or chase Strava KOM's/etc, then you already know that these things can be the difference between a pack finish and podium, or finishing the ride with the group or getting dropped.

I've only seen a couple real world 40km tests with ~25-40s time savings for aero vs non aero frames and cockpits (identical tire, tube/tubeless, rim profile, etc, wheelset combos). Manuf marketing depts, otoh, triple or quadruple frame timing cda figures in their own tunnels. Unlikely gap but not a surprise. Even TourMag in Germany, who publishes some of the more substantial aero bike reviews, lacks the resources to report frame cda values with standardized equipment. Good stuff either way though:
https://www.tour-magazin.de/rennraeder/aero/
If you can't read German, there's Google Translate for websites... that c68 at 4800 euro is a comparative bargain.

Agreed. There are marginal gains - I guess the talking points are the $$$$$ required for those marginal gains. It costs a metric crap ton of money to get a slight advantage in chasing KOM's, or to win a local crit. And while there are marginal gains in flat land speed, there are marginal losses in climbing bikes.

Where it really costs a crap ton of money - getting kids into the higher levels of the sport. Kids with talent and no money are screwed.

Is that price model sustainable? Is that price model turning away new riders, young riders?

A top quality road bike - with pedals and some carbon fiber, can cost more than a Honda CBR600R street bike. No matter how you shake it - that's insane.

100% agree. The cost of entry into bike racing is too high, and is definitely a barrier for many.

I'm sure someone will say the bike doesn't matter, the athlete does. Just get out there and race on whatever you've got, etc. I get it, you can race on anything, but equipment starts to change the game pretty quickly in bike racing. If you're giving up 20-30 watts to the person next to you just because you didn't want to, or don't have an extra $2k to buy the latest wiz bang aero whatever, you're basically resigned to a lower level of competition. This becomes especially apparent for junior racers.

You're conflating "cost of entry" with "cost of owning the best equipment."

I'm not necessarily talking about "the best equipment", I'm talking about mid-level and used equipment that doesn't immediately put someone at a disadvantage. The vast majority of Cat 5 and junior crit racers at my local races are on carbon wheels, for example. I guess we could argue about how much advantage that really gives them, but the reality is that anyone who shows up for one of these entry-level races and isn't on carbon wheels is immediately at some level of a disadvantage. Plenty of people see that and make the upgrade before they even try their first race, so that's a "cost of entry" for most.

Sure, some people choose to spend more than they need to when they start racing. But, they could start without those upgrades, and they would be just as competitive. (The difference in fitness levels at CAT 5 greatly exceeds the difference in equipment.)

Fully agree. I had to switch from 2300 EUR – 6.7 kg bike in 2015 to 3800 EUR - 7.7 kg bike, both non “aero”. The price now for an equivalent 6.7 kg bike (yes, including the compulsory electronics and more carbon) would cost close to 9000 EUR.
For sure, I will highly enjoy my new acquisition (and its electronic toys), despite the downgrade. But I cannot stop observing that the actual prices are insane, and I could never justify such investment if it did not come mostly as insurance compensation for the old, damaged bike.
Users get no performance gain for the huge increase in prices. On the contrary, there is a substantial downgrade at least in weight, for most brands. At most, users get some electronic toys and I guess that a substantial proportion of the price increase goes directly to the extra profit of the producers. I am wondering where this market will be 2-3 years later. Now… I am already out of it.

My wife only allows me to complain about the price of something once. After that, she cuts me off with "Stop! You sound like an old man!"

Maybe you just chose the wrong bike for your priorities - which appear to be tightly focused on weight. Although I think it's fair to say that a UCI legal 6.8 kg bike with electronics, disc brakes, aero frame and wide rubber is inevitably going to be more expensive than the previous generation of lightweight bikes with rim brakes, narrow tyres, non-aero frame and mechanical group. But outside of dedicated hill/mountain climbs, weight is really not very important at all within the range we are talking about. Club racers can be highly competitive on 7.7 kg bikes in the vast majority of events. It's far more important to have good overall aero and the right tyres.

I didn't target aero, as it goes higher in price. Weight in my benchmark was without pedals. No aero, 8 kg with pedals – not quite special, I’d say. That's why one would be surprised to find out that the price is substantially higher than in the past - this is just the evolution of the market.

The premise of this thread is comparing a bike that has 12sp electronic shifting to a bike that had 11sp mechanical. One can debate the value of this as an "upgrade", but this plays a major factor in the cost increase being cited.

There's been an avoidance of specifics in this thread, but I'll give a few examples to show my point:
2023 Specialized Roubaix Comp w/ SRAM Rival AXS = $5200
2023 Specialized Roubaix Sport w/ 105 mechanical = $3500 (This bike is identical to the SRAM Rival AXS model in all aspects aside from groupset).

Electonic shifting adds a whopping $1700 to the price.

For a 2015 comparison, the Specialized Roubaix SL4 Elite Disc (w/ SRAM Rival mechanical and hydro discs) = $2800 MSRP, which is roughly equivalent to $3500 in today's dollars. This is the same cost as the current bike with 11sp 105 mechanical.

I'm not going to hunt down weights, but I would be shocked if that 2015 Roubaix was any lighter than the 2023 model. My guess is that both are in the 19-20lb range.

This is pretty common with lots of youth sports and activities. I spent a bunch of years dishing out top-end race bike money every year for my daughter to play travel softball.

Interestingly, in the UK you can currently buy a 105 mech disc group for around £450 and Rival AXS at around £1200 (including power meter). 105 Di2 is also around £1200-1300.
So entry-level electronic shifting currently adds around £750 to a mechanical build - but you do get a power meter thrown in. From the above example it sounds like the cost difference on a complete bike is a lot higher, at least for now.

My 2022 Canyon Endurace with Force AXS, Quarq PM, DT Swiss carbon wheels and integrated carbon bars was £4500, which I thought was very reasonable for the spec. There's also a Rival build now with alloy wheels for £3300. There is currently no mechanical group option with my SL Frameset, but I recall the previous Ultegra mechanical build with alloy wheels was around the £3k mark.

I suspect this is 11 speed 105....in other words the old/obsolete version..... it looks like future 105 groups will be Di2 only and cost 3x as much. I hope they wise up and come out with a mechanical version but I am not holding my breath. And asking for a mechanical version that supports rim brakes would be perfect, since I am dreaming maybe ask for that too.

omg cables!
 

My 56cm 2015 S-Works SL4 with Sram 11 speed mechanical weighs 15.2-lbs. I think that was the last year of rim brakes and no FS for the Roubaix. IIRC, the newer Roubaix S-Works frameset I looked at was right around 500g heavier with the Future Shock and beefier construction for disc (1488g for f/f/hs for 2015 rim vs 1995g for 2022 disc). Add an additional 2-lbs for disc rotors, bolts, etc (or 2.5-lbs if below Ultegra level). Always amazed how quickly those grams add up. Love my aero disc build for crits and flatter routes, but the zippy feel of my Zertz-infused weight weenie Roubaix on rides with 5k ft + of elevation is hard to beat... even if doing so actually only saves a minute or two of actual climb time over the entire loop.

Lately have seen good prices on Dura Ace 9100 mechanical. I'd take that any day over a Rival level AXS 12 electro build.

Sagan's 2023 Roubaix with 11sp mechanical :roflmao2:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d52c31fff4.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...318d052ff1.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...41192b1b14.jpg

That would be a good thing, Campy does it with Record 12 speed

Dura Ace is a much better choice than Sram at any level,quality,finish and function

Would love to see more wind tunnel reviews like this comparing different models/brands. Manuf marketing claims have just become so convoluted, with new frames becoming 10% lighter, faster and stiffer year after year. Not entirely sure who this guy is but he references German TourMag stuff so he's tracking aero-bike-review-world to some extent.

(body position adjustment for easy 70w savings)

(Madone SLR less aero than the Giant TCR Advanced with same wheel/tire combo?)

If cyclists + apparel, etc = 80-85% of drag, pretty hard to dispute that developing the wherewithal to hold the aero hoods/bent elbow position for extended periods of time is far more important than whether or not your cables are concealed or cockpit integrated. Though in the case of the cabled-Giant, it required less wattage than the Madone to maintain the target speed so who knows what that's about :fred:

Nero podcast briefly discussed Arthur's tunnel test yesterday... and how I learned of it:


I've seen a few research papers that cite 15-20% (depending on a few factors) as total-rider-less bike drag (with 75-80% of this attributed to the wheelset/tire combo), whereas manuf often bump total bike drag up to 25%. So if aero tubes, integrated cockpits + aero bars, concealed cables, etc, amount to a max of 25% reduction of a bike's overall (~15-20%) drag... then something like the most aero UCI legal frameset in existence (Simplon Pride 2) could potentially save (for a 350w effort) a max of around 17.5w over a non aero frame, and realistically maybe 5-8w over a something semi-aero. That's a number that I find believable... and certainly compelling for those with higher power outputs and cash to blow on max marginal gains.

350w x .2 = 70w total bike drag
70w x .75 (wheelset, tires) = 36.75w
70w x .25 (frameset, components) = 17.5w

I have a Trek 5200 that I bought in 2001 and a new bike would provide zero gains in performance. The new bike would have disc brakes but for a non-tandem road bike they provide no real gain over the side pull brakes on the Trek. Having 18 speeds is not a hinderance in any way. The only gain with a new bike would be wider rims so I could use wider tires than the 23mm on the Trek.

The big gain over the past 50 years has been combination brake shifters which provide a significant improvement over shift levers on the downtube or at the ends of the handlebar drops. Disc brakes have advantages on mountain bikes and tandem road bikes but no on standard road bikes, even for touring. Clincher tires are easier to patch but they weigh a good deal more as do the rims needed than with the sewup tubular tires and their rims.

Electronic shifting is a good marketing ploy and it does eliminate a shift cable run but it also means one more battery to maintain. As someone is already having to charge their smartphone and their earpods and their Wahoo or Garmin unit, a Garmin Varia radar, as well as the battery on my e-road bike, the last thing I want is another device that needs a battery to function.

Did David Arthur have a stroke? Legit question- I used to occasionally see his fairly worthless videos a few years ago before he went off on his own and he spoke clearly.
That Canyon vs Giant video was a mess of mumbles. It's like if I were the presenter, and nobody would want that.

No idea, don't know much about any of these so called "independent" YT cycling personalities

5 is an okay number of devices/batteries, but 6 is just ridiculous. Understood.

Or, there's an option like this...
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/...AC_SL1001_.jpg

I have never understood the charging argument. I have the three types of cord I need at my desk and I swap things that need charging out during the day 2 days per week. 0 effort to remember and 0 extra time taken because I’m already sitting there anyway.

I charge
Garmin
Bone Conduction Headphones
Varia Radar
Headlight
2 SRAM Batteries
Garmin watch (I also run)
Phone (though this doesn’t count IMO)

the only thing I have to do is watch for lights to stop blinking

The only problem with that is the weaksaucitude.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...452b135f98.jpg

https://satechi.net/products/6-port-...40197715492952