The £3K training bicycle

fred246 · 19 May 2017 at 6:33AM

I was in the gym a few weeks ago. A bloke was trying to tell his friend that it was essential to pay £3k for a 'training bike'. Only an idiot would spend less etc etc etc.
It sounded silly because
1.You felt that if a bike shop had charged him £3K for a £200 bike he would have been happy.
2.My dad used to tell me about his fastest pigeon. It would fly around with a ball of poo and sawdust on its bottom. While it was training he would leave it there. When it was due to race he would knock the ball off with a stick and it would fly like a rocket. Surely a rubbish bike is the best to train with?
Anyway while researching the benefits of bicycle commuting I came across this article in the BMJ which I found interesting.
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801
Obviously for a competitive cyclist top kit IS essential but does it make much difference otherwise?
Cycling is all about pushing pedals. The chain then pulls a wheel. To roll well the wheel must be ROUND.
To make it ROUND I:
1.Pump up my tyres until they are rock hard.
2.Tension my spokes.
3.True my wheels to perfection.
To help everything turn I
1.Lubricate the chain and hubs.
2.Install a solid low friction bottom bracket
3.Grease my pedals and attach my feet to them.
Surely doing all these things to my cheapish bike is more important than spending a fortune on the latest cycle technology?

elverson · 19 May 2017 at 8:07AM

A £3,000 bike will probably be better quality and will ride faster than a £300 bike. Will it make you 10 times fitter or go 10 times faster? Probably not.

The number of times I've seen someone riding an expensive bike with a horrendous squeaky chain - the phrase "all the gear, no idea" comes to mind

thescouselander · 19 May 2017 at 8:38AM

Actually I find it's faster to go with lower tyre pressures as the tyres ride the small bumps in the road better. I pump mine up just enough to prevent pinch flats which is about 90psi for me.

As for the bloke bragging about his "training" bike it's quite easy to take the p***. I remember telling a bloke in work his £8000 bike was only mid range. Top end bikes go for over £12000 as I pointed out.

brat · 19 May 2017 at 8:49AM

The cycling media talk a lot about frame stiffness, ride comfort, positive power transfer, aero etc, and each one of those is important for getting the absolute best from your ride.

Extra bike weight will demand a few more watts to propel it forward, but on the flat it's probably a fairly insignificant amount.
I have a 9kg 'winter/training' bike and a 6.5kg fair weather bike. I always ride tempo/threshold, which is wrong for training, but I ride to keep fit, not to race. On my heavier bike I probably lose about 20 seconds overall on a flattish 30 mile (90 min) circuit, but if I was to compare the times over the hilly routes, the difference would be more significant.

Most decent cyclists I talk to have previous mountain bike experience. These bikes are much heavier, perhaps twice the weight of a road bike, and their power/weight ratio reflects that previous discipline.
For me, I like a firm stable bike with positive power transfer and good brakes. I was much more weight-weenie conscious than I am now.

Two of the important attributes for competitive cycling are to have a good power/weight ratio and to have good sprinting wattage that you can sustain.
Perhaps as important for the amateur/hobby cyclist is value for money, reliability and component longevity. The top end groupsets will inevitably compromise robustness for weight, so they should really only be the groupset of choice for serious racers.

When I changed up from a £900 cyclocross with cable discs to a £6,000RRP top end road bike, the difference was amazing. It made me want to cycle more, because it felt so good to ride, also probably because of the financial commitment I had made to my hobby.

So a nice bike can help on a few different levels. But for exercise, you'll always be able to push 500 watts against any set of pedals, so your capacity to become fitter is not dependent on the quality of the bike. Your desire to use it more often may be the defining factor.

thescouselander · 19 May 2017 at 8:59AM

As I said, a £6000 bike is mid range, not top end.

brat · 19 May 2017 at 12:04PM

thescouselander wrote: »

As I said, a £6000 bike is mid range, not top end.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but £6,000 is pretty much top end in most people's eyes. It certainly was 4 years ago when my bike was new. Mid range would probably be about £1200 to £2500.

I actually only paid £2,500 for the bike because it had been raced for a season before I bought it.

thescouselander · 19 May 2017 at 1:06PM

brat wrote: »

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but £6,000 is pretty much top end in most people's eyes. It certainly was 4 years ago when my bike was new. Mid range would probably be about £1200 to £2500.

I actually only paid £2,500 for the bike because it had been raced for a season before I bought it.

The point is when being a bike snob there's always someone with a bigger wallet and there are always more expensive machines available.

Its quite easy to find bikes over £10,000 which puts a £6000 bike near the median price which makes it very much mid range from a purely objective point of view. Also if you look at a race like the TDF most bikes will cost over £6000 and many towards the £10,000 mark.

http://www.cooksoncycles.co.uk/product/bikes/road/mens/monda-slr-10-race-shop-limited-1479200-2017/?gclid=CjwKEAjwr_rIBRDJzq-Z-LC_2HgSJADoL57HcVViJE1NhMKUV-QBQ6QVf-f_EnvL7_P1odiKc0u4rRoCburw_wcB

https://www.lakes-cycles.com/bianchi-specialissima-cv-super-record-eps-11sp-carbon-road-bike?gclid=CjwKEAjwr_rIBRDJzq-Z-LC_2HgSJADoL57HvhTH5LsAu89rMXb6oJYoQvxJrlb8ZKI-J7FRgh00JxoCZlvw_wcB

brat · 19 May 2017 at 1:44PM

Ah, it's your one liner put down for bike snobs. I see.

Meanwhile I'll ride on content in the newly acquired knowledge that the bike Peter Sagan rode in the 2013 tour was very much a mid-range effort. Maybe that's why he didn't win! Shame on you Cannondale!

https://coresites-cdn.factorymedia.com/rcuk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SaganCelebration.jpg

andygb · 20 May 2017 at 12:33PM

Forget all the bike snobbery, this bike would be good enough for racing and training.

https://www.cyclerepublic.com/boardman-elite-air-9-0-mens-time-trial-bike-2016.html?gclid=CMvf54Ov_tMCFVRAGwod-LwGrQ

I have raced on the track and road, and as long as the bike is reasonably light, the wheels well built and the tyres inflated to the correct pressure, the rest is down to the rider.
As for aerodynamics, the rider is the least aero part of the combination.

Mr_Singleton · 21 May 2017 at 9:26AM

thescouselander wrote: »

As I said, a £6000 bike is mid range, not top end.

If you want to be an ****** about it then your £12k bike is an el cheapo compared to say a Litespeed Blade at £32,000 which is chicken feed compared to the Cervelo Chrome at £122,000 or if that's too cheap for you then how about the Trek Madone Butterfly at £385,000.

*******

Mr_Singleton · 21 May 2017 at 9:43AM

[QUOTE=andygb;72577808https://www.cyclerepublic.com/boardman-elite-air-9-0-mens-time-trial-bike-2016.html?gclid=CMvf54Ov_tMCFVRAGwod-LwGrQ

I have raced on the track and road, and as long as the bike is reasonably light, the wheels well built and the tyres inflated to the correct pressure, the rest is down to the rider.[/QUOTE]

Am surprised that nobody has mentioned a quality 'bike fit'

I'd also agree that Chris Froome riding a £500 bike would beat me up Mount Ventoux even if I was on my S-Works.

Spend what you have and can afford and enjoy your cycling.... it's of no concern to you what the other person can afford or what they are riding.

The £3K training bicycle

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free