jonathnr

Hi everyone -

I just started cycling a few months ago, (fun!) and am thinking about buying a new bike. i've read a lot of threads, but still can't figure out some basic things about bikes, so thought I'd post. Any tips appreciated!

I'm switching to cycling from distance running/sprinting, and am assuming it will take a few years to get in the best cycling shape I can reach, so I'm assuming buying a top end/high end bike today would be overkill and a waste of money, and is only really necessary if you move to racing, or just want a fantastic bike! I'm mostly into speed, so a lot of the other performance dimensions of bikes are secondary in my mind. Therefore I'd like to either:

1. train on my 1997 lemond reno for a few years until my need for speed demands I buy a new bike.
2. buy a lower-level bike (2008 lemond reno) today that is "upgradeable"
3. buy a lower-level bike (2008 lemond reno) and buy a better bike in two years if I need one

Ok, so here are some of my questions:

Am I thinking about this issue the right way, or am I a newbie idiot? (feel free to be honest!)

What's the best approach, assuming all options are affordable?

How much faster is a 2008 lemond reno (or similar bike) than a 1997 lemond reno?

What's the performance difference (speed) between the various bike categories? bicycle magazine has categories like "entry-level", "recreational," "enthusiast." but I can't understand how much speed you gain by moving up categories. I'm basically assuming there is not a great speed difference between the lower-level categories, and that a lot of the performance improvements are related to comfort/components, but I have no idea what I'm talking about!

For those of you who progressed from training to recreational racing: what approach would you take to buying a bike(s) if your goal was to move from entry-training to recreational racing over the course of a few years? When/how would you move to buying that sweet bike?


Thanks in advance for your help!

Jon

DrPete 

The only speed that Bicycling Magazine is discussing with the terms entry-level/enthusiast/recreational is the speed at which you can empty your wallet.

Cdy291

Answer: Almost zero

You are the engine. The bike is just a tool for you the engine to put power to the ground in forward motion. I bet there wounldn't be more than a 1/10 of a mile per hour difference between a $700 and a $7,000 road bike.

jonathnr

Thanks for the quick response! Are you saying my 1997 lemond is basically as fast as any other bike out there?

RideCO

+1

DitmarsNY

I have an 89 Italian Steel road bike and a Cervelo. Tons of difference in ride feel, but none in speed

sac02

Very strictly speaking, no, there will be little to no difference in speed between the bikes you've mentioned. If your older bike is heavier it will go uphill slower, but functionally there is absolutely nothing wrong with your current bike. However, more modern bikes do have certain features that an older bike will lack, Things like brifters instead of downtube shifting, carbon (debatable), ergo bend or wing-top bars, etc. While these things by themselves will not make you faster, they may make you more comfortable with the bike - which will lead to longer and/or faster riding.

My personal recommendation is for you to ride the bike you have for now. You said in your post "1. train on my 1997 lemond reno for a few years until my need for speed demands I buy a new bike" I think that is to narrowly defined of an option. I think you should ride your current bike for an unspecified amount of time - either until you feel that a new bike would enhance your riding in some way, or if you just want a new shiny bike (nothing wrong with that). The time frame could be a few months, years, or never, it's up to what you think would be right for you.

I guess the moral of my story is: since you're just getting into cycling and already have a bike, ride what you have until you know enough to know what you want.

Mac

Machka 

If you were talking about a difference between a 40 lb knobby-tire mtn bike and your 1997 Lemond, there might be a few km/h difference in speed ... but I doubt there'd be any difference between one Lemond and another.

The differences between the categories you mention have nothing to do with speed, but rather with components, materials, price, frame geometry, etc., etc.

Hickeydog

Ride the 1997 Lemond for a year. Heavily. Then go to your LBS and look around for something nice, but not too pricey, like, say, less than 2k. Find a few bikes that you like. Take them out for a long test ride (10-20 miles). Buy the bike that you like the best and keep the 1997 Lemond for your "beater" or winter bike.

And if you do feel like you need a new bike, option 3 is the way to go. Get a bike and ride the crap out of it for a few years and tehn you have a really good idea of what you want your next bike to be.

bostongarden

I ride a 1992 RB-1 with the original 600 stuff and bar-end shifters and I seem to hold my own, e.g., placing in races...I was a track guy through college (sprints, javelin and few other events now and then when I toyed with the decathlon), then converted to 10Ks and marathons...then got into cycling and liked it...but, it was not until last year, when I came back after a long time away, that I loved it...my first bike was a Trek 1400 with 105 and then 3 years later the college (grad school) team issue was the RB-1, which I love...I don't know your budget...so, all else being equal, I say get a good bike if you know you that will stick with it for a while, otherwise jam on the Reno a bit and see where you are after a few months to a year...

bostongarden

+1 ... I don't have my RB-1 with me at the moment, so, I've been riding my Bridgestone MB-3 with knobby tires and pedals with straps and a rack , and I have hung in there just fine with any road bike rider that I have encountered (which has surprised me!!!!)

CharlieWoo

What is the speed difference between running shoe categories?

bostongarden

Clever question...I believe that the type of shoe on the foot can matter...some examples: when I was throwing the javelin, the boots with spikes helped with traction, plant and ankle stability...when I sprinted, spikes and lightness in the shoe were also key...

Industrial

To a point. A pro cyclist on your bike (assuming it fits) would beat me on any bike without a motor over a normal ride. I can beat my friend on a $4000 CF bike while riding my 6-speed 22 year old univega road bike with 22 year old deore level components. The engine means alot.

Now if you were racing in a timed event where every second counted against people that have trained as hard or harder than you...then you start to really worry about lighter, stiffer, more aero, more expensive bikes. Still some people blessed with certain genetics will blow you away on an old steel bike at many levels of competitive riding.

jonathnr

Thanks for the great advice everyone. I really appreciate it!

umd

There are differences between bikes that can be important if you can take advantage of them. However, you have to be racing or riding at a relatively high level to realize these difference..

cuffydog

I have been wondering the same thing: I ride a custom steel hybrid, about 25 to 27 lbs (not sure), with 26 inch wheels and 1.5 inch "urban" tires. If my average speed is, say, 16 mph, will a 19 lb road bike with 700c wheels and 23c tires automatically increase my average speed because of rolling resistance and lower weight, or will it be a negligible improvement in speed. (I know that the rule of thumb is that I'll go up hills quicker on the lighter bike, but hills are not a problem on my hybrid, which has mtn bike gearing. In any case, I'm more interested in what happens on the flats.)
Thanks!

umd

That statement makes no sense. A lighter bike would allow you go up hills quicker; mtb gearing allows you to go up hills easier, but slower.

ericm979

Yes.

The speed difference between road bikes is small.

Up hills, a lighter bike is slightly faster. Lightening yourself (losing fat) is much more effective, and you shouldn't even think about bike weight affecting your performance until you're well below 10% body fat (for men).

On the flat, aerodynamics plays a role. But there, aero wheels are worth more than an aero frame. Worry about that if you are an enthusiastic time trialist.

Position on the bike also affects aerodynamics. If for example your frame is too long and you can comfortably handle a lower handlebar position with a shorter frame, you will get a small aerodynamic benefit from the lower bars.

A hybrid usually has a more upright position and the bars put your hands out into the wind,and both create more aero drag. But even then the difference is not that great. The biggest benefit of going from a hybrid to a road bike is comfort from having more than one positon for your hands.

Industrial

On flats if you can maintain an aero position you can pick up alot of speed compared to a flat bar bike. I'll pick up 1-3mph just transitioning from the hoods to my drops if I'm already up to 15-18mph.