Given a choice of modern wide tubeless clinchers or brifters, I would choose the tyres every time. For me tyres offer the biggest gains over the last 50 years, especially on less than perfect roads. But since this is an hypothetical choice I happily take all the marginal gains of modern tech. It’s all been good for me.

I smirk when I see the Trek ad for the emonda. They sell it as a climbing machine. My Rival version is 19 pounds. Although it is a little portly, I still enjoy riding it. On the cooler days, the shifters are supreme when wearing gloves. It is a nice machine for longer rides. The older madones with rim brakes would be better if seconds mattered.
My madone is 17 pounds. Di2 is nice; I set mine up so you really only need to use the right shifter. It changes the front ring as needed. I guarantee the frame is as rough as my aluminum cannondale.

Marketing, marketing marketing. How else can they sell new bikes. We might as well face one thing; might as well have a durable good in the garage since the value of our money is evaporating on a daily basis.

Sorry I'm partial to Trek. My local dealer is about as trustworthy as you will find.

In all fairness, the Edmonda can be a pretty light climbing bike when it isn’t configured with the world’s heaviest group set.

I agree, tomato. That group is heavy, but still nice to have the gearing when my old legs are cranking up the big hill. Overall, I can’t really complain, SRAM does have some nice options. A pound here or there is probably cheaper to deal with by adjusting my food intake. I’m just a little surprised how bike weights have increased over the years.

Because bike weight is not as super-critical as some people tend to think and as long as the pro race builds can still get down to the UCI minimum then it doesn’t matter at all.

Weight has crept up with disc brakes, aero tube profiles, aero wheels, electronic shifting and wider tyres. But overall I prefer the improved ride and functionality.

Low weight now comes at a higher cost, but I don’t need a sub 7 kg build, even for epic mountain days. My second tier Canyon build is still well under 8 kg and my daily weight fluctuation is 1-2 kg, so the difference is in the noise. Would I swap the modern tech for a 1 kg weight saving? Certainly not.

I do not really agree. If we do the mats, some huge mismatches come to our attention:

2600 EUR: 2015 Canyon middle tier, SRAM Force 22, 6.8 kg: See here (I bought from another brand, 6.65 kg, 2300 EUR)
3200 EUR: The same 2015 Canyon middle tier bike, adjusted for inflation to 2023 See here
+400 EUR: add increase in price in 2023 from moving to disk brakes and electronic shifting
Result: 3600 EUR – cost of Canyon middle tier in 2023, with disk brakes and electronic group set, 700 grams heavier.

However, the market price in 2023 is 5000 EUR for Canyon middle tier, Ultegra DI2 (SRAM Force AXS equivalent), 7.48 kg See here
It shows an unjustified increase of 1400 EUR. In fact, this unjustified increase is even bigger, because carbon parts that account for 60-80% of costs are very much labor intensive, and labor (salaries) cost increase was much lower than inflation.
And… Canyon is still on the lower price tier on the market. If somebody makes similar calculation for bigger players (Trek, Bianchi, Specialized, etc.), he or she might come up with bigger figures and with a few hundreds grams heavier bike.

That is why I say the price evolution is insane and the outcome (increase in weight with almost zero advantages) is not a healthy evolution.

I'm not sure which part of my post you don't agree with as I wasn't commenting on price other than the fact that a super lightweight spec is now more expensive.

Canyon still offer a mechanical ultegra spec bike with alloy wheels for Euro 3200, which is pretty good value. The disc brakes make it heavier than the 2015 model, but it's not a big deal really. The Euro 5k models have pretty high end carbon wheels and integrated cockpit, which also pushes up the cost. Canyon prices have been stable since at least 2019, so it's not a 2023 thing. In fact they are fractionally cheaper than last year.

Your example is interesting to me. A normal evolution would be: 6.8 kg in 2015 plus 0.5 kg for switching to disk brakes minus 0.2 kg from technological improvements over 8 years to 2023 – all above lead to estimated 7.1 kg. But the 2023 model (from your example) weighs 8 kg. Whatever relevant examples I took (even those with carbon wheels and handlebars), the norm is now a material increase in weight which is not covered by the substantial weight change from switching to disk brakes. Of course, a small decrease in performance from this extra weight is not a big hit for the casual cyclists. But this general downgrade also comes with a significant increase in price for all levels, well above the inflation and the extra costs of disk brakes (and electronic group set, where is the case).

I am not making a case of this, I am only commenting facts on a forum, after a long period of hunting for a bike (which I already bought).

P.S.: The bike in your example is somehow theoretical, because if you try to buy, you find out that it is not really available. Therefore, its listed price might be older and lower than actual reality.

The other reasons for weight increases are well documented. I don't think anyone is going to argue that a 6.8 kg bike is now far more expensive if you want all the mod cons. My Canyon is around 7.5 kg, but I value the disc braking, more aero wheels, wider tyres and electronic shifting. If you don't value those things then you are better off with an older bike.

Canyon is often out of stock as they produce in batches. That bike build may well be obsolete now, but the price wouldn't have increased this year based on their other models. Mine is actually Euro 100 cheaper than it was in early 2022. My 2019 Canyon mtb is also the same price today with a similar build.

lol I'm thinking of putting 35c tires and making a tubeless setup on my road bike and go even more modern!

at 150-155lbs i bet i could go sub 50psi, and really not care at all at the 2 extra lbs my modern bike carries because of sram axis group and disc brakes. i'm kind of LOVING this plush ride even with stock 32c tires + tubes.

at least I have the option to do that with my modern bike, with my old bikes it would be hard to jam a 30c tire into ultegra/durace/sram force/red brake calipers.

I remember when running 25c GP4000 was the plushest i could go with my old 10speed sram red and this new stuff at 32c is so much more comfortable.

I have a decent 11-speed 105 bike with rim brakes, bought in 2017, with a few upgrades, < 18 lbs. without pedals, lights, or water bottles. Toward the end of 2022, I looked for a new road bike with disc brakes, e.g., Canyon Endurace CF SL, but at my budget could not get one much lighter than my current bike. So I decided to forget about weight and bought a gravel bike instead.

I'm still living that 10sp on 25mm tires life. I've tried to hack it by using wider rims so now those 25mm tires measure out to 26-27mm 😁 I've got gravel bikes (on the CX/all-road end of the gravel spectrum) that are 3lbs heavier and even with 32mm open tubular slicks they are subjectively and objectively slower (like 2mph average speed slower - but that's also partly because I don't enjoy pushing myself as hard on the heavier bikes). It would be great to have a road bike that can run 30mm slicks and still be super light.

So you don't feel slower, or the heavier weight doesn't bother your enjoyment of the ride on your modern wider tire electronic shifting bike?

I'm also running 25s. 5'8ish and 200lb ish. Multiple road bikes. At one point, I had the same brand of tire in 23s-32s on various bikes. For me, I repeat, for me, there's not much of a difference in ride feel on paved/road surfaces. Might be different on rougher surfaces. The 25s are usually the cheapest size within a particular model's range. The 32s felt the most sluggish within the range.

2 mph slower average is a massive difference. Certainly not attributable to 3 lb weight or equivalent 25 vs 32 mm tyres. They certainly wouldn't be racing Paris-Roubaix on 32 mm tyres if they were 2 mph average slower on pavement!

For reference I gained about 10 lb in weight over the winter and I'm about 1 kph slower on alpine climbs at the same power. On flatter terrain I can't see any difference in average speed. Bike weight is over-rated when talking about differences in groupsets and tyres. Got to put things in perspective.

My Aeroad with di2 and 60mm DT Swiss carbon hoops at 17.9-lbs = 12-14s slower up a 1.9 mile local climb than my S-Works Roubaix weight weenie build at 15-lbs. Not a huge margin, but I definitely prefer the feel of the Roubaix for hilly stuff. I'm no pro, so the marginal performance gains from aero is purely for entertainment.

[QUOTE=runningDoc;22874288I remember when running 25c GP4000 was the plushest i could go with my old 10speed sram red and this new stuff at 32c is so much more comfortable.[/QUOTE]

Well and they didn't even make the S in 25c then. You were assumed to not be serious if you wanted that size.

Mine, until I put the rear wheel back on.

Up till 2020, I was running 25s at 120 psi, and feeling like a fat slob for running 25s at all, because everyone ran 23s! Turns out I stopped paying attention to new bike tech in about 2008, so when I started looking again, I was ASTONISHED to find that 25s at 120psi were now Old And Busted and 28s at 80 or less were The New Hotness. But only one of my bikes comfortably takes 28s. So I run 25s at 90/95 (I weigh about 200) guilt-free!

it was over a decade ago when I bought Continental GP4000S in 25c size with even a reflective strip on the sidewalls!

build thread on bikeforums from 2012 : https://www.bikeforums.net/13888605-post62.html


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8295/7...ee673d1b_b.jpg

I loved those tires. in fact i still have spares in storage. I'm angry they don't make the GP with reflective sidewalls anymore since they are so much safer to ride around with the reflective rings in the city.

I regret selling that RB-1. it was so versatile and even had fender mounts. After going full weight weenie on it (it even got a threadless fork) it was only 17+ lbs with a full steel frame and fork.


its been OVER a decade since i've bought a new bike, hell it was over a decade since I really even been on bikeforums since then and a new bike I bought last march is a SCOTT addict 10 (endurance model), with Sram rival electronic group set, and hydraulic brakes (and 32c tires), last January I bought a used Scott Addict from 2018 and became a real believer in the advantages of hydraulic disc brake modern bikes because that also came standard with same 32c tires, hydraulic disc brakes, 11sp ultegra, and a very plush comfortable ride that also was fast.

https://i.imgur.com/dwzACpRl.jpg

i'll deal with the weight penalty (which if you throw money at it can be mostly solved) because this current setup is versatile (the addict 10) has fender mounts, can accept up to 35c tires, and even if its fat tubed carbon modern bike, its even more comfortable than the steel RB-1.

I don't feel any slower with the 32c tires on the road bike, but then again I have to admit I went from 215lbs to 155lbs since the last time I was really riding a road bike a lot. So the 60-ish lbs weight loss has to factor in a ton.

I did remember that SRAM Red 10sp era rim brakes were able to clear big tires and even fenders for my rb-1 inside the brake caliper but it was the squeezing in of the tires through the brake pads that was the problem. I think i could probably get 30c tires into the sram red rim brakes but at that point you have to deflate the tires to get them to squeeze through then re-pump them to proper PSI. Also I that kind of tight squeeze made changing tires/getting flats tricky because I'd forget and just fix a flat with the wheel off the whole time then have to do the whole song and dance of deflating the tire to get into the brake caliper again after.

I never understood casual riders’ obsession for wide tires (except for selected cases of riding on bad roads). I think that, statistically, professionals mostly ride 25 mm tires on normal roads, and they would prefer 23mm if they made shorter rides (as casual riders do). They may go 28+ on special roads, but they always have the entire system (tire / wheel / bike) tuned for aerodynamics and bike weight still remains around the minimum accepted. By contrast, when moving to 28-32mm tires (and sometimes wider rims), casual riders’ bikes are not tuned for aerodynamics and furthermore, the bike weight increases – thus, lower performance.

With regards to claimed better performance of the wide tires, the articles I read always mix performance, rolling resistance and supposed "necessity" of comfortable low tire pressures (like we always ride on bumpy roads). I rode over 40 thousand km with 23mm tires at 90-100 PSI, on average quality roads, and I never experienced problems. Maybe 25 mm would be a better choice if I were a pro, riding each time 2-3 times longer courser than I do. But really, I am just a casual rider and I think that trying to mimic pros’ setups would be incomplete, inadequate and would only harm my performance.

28 mm is now what the pros race and 30-32 mm for Paris Roubaix. The plus point for us casual riders is that they are more comfortable and have more grip. My Canyon Endurace wheel set is optimised around 30 mm tyres and they are both fast and comfortable. My local roads are a mixed bag and I really appreciate the extra tyre volume. I run them at around 4-4.5 bar, as do the pros. It’s all changed over the past few years.

But to turn your question around, why would a casual rider be obsessed with very narrow, high pressure tyres? I could understand pros tolerating them IF they were even slightly faster, but even the pros are moving to wider, lower pressure tyres. I would have thought it would be a no-brainer for the average rider. It was for me anyway.

I don't disagree that weight alone would not explain the difference. The only bikes in my stable that can fit wider tires are my gravel bikes (albeit, they are similar to regular road geometry apart from the slightly longer chainstays), so I'm not comparing the same performance road bike with wide vs skinny tires. But I suppose that is the unanswered question in my mind: how would my nice road bikes ride with slightly wider tires (though several have noted here that they would be just as fast and nice riding even if with a slight weight penalty).

This is an interesting data point and it speaks to the paradox I had pondered previously: when you're riding the segment, you may not feel (or miss) that 12s time difference, but you'd definitely feel the subjective difference of the lighter bike. And that may be why weight matters to so many of us despite what the speed/power data show.

I think it depends on the condition of your local roads. If the roads you ride are super smooth pristine tarmac, then it probably wouldn’t make much difference. But if they are rougher then it could be the best upgrade you could possibly make, both for speed and compliance.

Tyres make a lot more difference to the ride quality than say frame compliance. I currently run tubeless 30 mm Conti GP5000S TR on my main road bike at relatively low pressure (<4.5 bar), which I find ideal for fast century rides on mixed roads. Along with a compliant carbon seat post and bars, the ride quality is excellent and I’m faster than ever on routes I’ve ridden for years. On smoother roads, maybe slightly narrower tyres would be fractionally quicker, but that’s a moot point for me.