# Is a carbon bike really faster?



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

Hello everybody.

My last few rides have been with the local cycling group on what's called the "hay ride". This is a pretty aggressive ride with several sprint points and I found myself pushing my bike harder than I ever have before.

Just for reference, I ride a double-butted TI frame with Neuvation or Aksium wheels. I've never been on a carbon race bike.

So, I was talking with some folks and they said that when they upgraded to a quality carbon bike, they were SOOO much faster. 

Then I spoke with others (older folks) who said the only thing they found that made them faster were light wheels with sew-ups.

Do you really loose that much energy from a bike if you're not a pro cat1 racer? I'm not even sure what flex feels like, but there's a good chance i've been feeling it all along. This ride I've been doing (now my favorite ride) is worth upgrading my rig for -- but only if it keeps me in the top four finishers (which I already am). Now, I want to be that guy who makes a brake away at the last mile and no one can catch up. I think I'm there, but who knows.

So, for people that actually have upgraded from AL/Steel/TI to carbon, is this something I'd notice?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

might as well scream fire in a movie theater...


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

When it asplodes it can go hundreds of miles an hour.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

If you don't have a real Carbon Fiber bike, you might as well just stay on the sofa. Anything else is just so...... non-CF? 

4, 3, 2, 1.........


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Is wool better than cotton?
Is a Mercedes better than a BMW?
Is an iPhone better than a Blackberry?
etc,etc,etc,etc,,,,,,,,,,,,,

There is nothing about carbon fiber, as a material, that makes it faster.... There are too many variables that come into play.


This might sound harsh but they guys that won the sprints would of won them riding your Ti bike...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Take the guy's comment that carbon made him faster with a grain of salt. Carbon quality can vary. Some are lighter and some are stiffer, but unless you are dealing with a lot of specifics, probably not much value to his comments. Also, since carbon is more expensive, you may find that cheaper carbon bikes aren't much lighter because the components may be downgraded to save $.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

As a means of testing you hypothesis, that CF bikes are faster:

I'd suggest going out and spending $15,000 on a plastikwunderbik, and then seeing how 
badly you still get beat....and for kicks seeing what you buds tell ya then.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*yes, it is*

4.1% faster to be exact. I am not sure whether these guys really believed that or if they were pulling your leg. I suggest training harder, dropping them, and telling them Ti is faster


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*your answer at the bottom*



aaronis31337 said:


> Hello everybody.
> 
> My last few rides have been with the local cycling group on what's called the "hay ride". This is a pretty aggressive ride with several sprint points and I found myself pushing my bike harder than I ever have before.
> 
> ...


no...


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Yes. For sure.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

DaveG said:


> 4.1% faster to be exact. I am not sure whether these guys really believed that or if they were pulling your leg. I suggest training harder, dropping them, and telling them Ti is faster


that's only during daylight-savings time...before that it's only 3.7%


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

South of he equator it is. Unless you are already south of the equator. Then no.
Want to ride faster? Get this guy to chase you.


----------



## lemonlime (Sep 24, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Yes. For sure.


^^this^^.

When I switched from aluminum to carbon fiber, I took 12% off my PR for a 40km loop I ride regularly.

I also switched to a diet high in beets, so that could have helped too.


----------



## Midwest Playa (Sep 12, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> Yes. For sure.



Its all about the weight shaving in the end a lighter bike is going to have an edge and keep in mind the wheels play a major role IMO. Now Does it have to be a carbon bike? I dont think so but if you look at a pro caliber bike used by the big boys its a carbon frame because thats where you are going to shave most of the weight. Thats why everyone else chooses to go with a carbon frame. I am a big fan of Carbon Frame myself plus its easier to throw on top of my car rack.lols:thumbsup: 

MidwestPlaya

2009 Canondale SuperSix
2008 Specialized Tarmac
Reynolds DV3KT Wheels
Mavics SL Ceramic speed bearings
GiroProlight Helmet/LAS Helmet
Jawbones Transitions Sunglasses
Assos Apparel


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

Dave Hickey said:


> Is wool better than cotton?
> Is a Mercedes better than a BMW?
> Is an iPhone better than a Blackberry?
> etc,etc,etc,etc,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ...


1. Yes wool is better than cotton.
2. No, BMW is better.
3. iPhone.

Seriously, to the OP, there is sooooooo much varation between carbon bikes, weave, layup etc.

Titanium can be built into a really, really nice bike. So can steel or aluminun. I don't know the brand or model of your bike, but I'd randomly guess that a wheel upgrade would make more of a difference than an "upgrade" to carbon, and it would probably be significantly cheeper.


----------



## andresmuro (Dec 11, 2007)

aaronis31337 said:


> Hello everybody.
> 
> My last few rides have been with the local cycling group on what's called the "hay ride". This is a pretty aggressive ride with several sprint points and I found myself pushing my bike harder than I ever have before.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between being and feeling faster. People with new bikes always feel faster. Their feeling increases proportional to the expense. 

However, there may be some advantages to getting a new bike. It may be lighter, it may fit better, it may feel stiffer at the bottom bracket, bars/stem. It may be more comfortable. If you happen to put these things together, you may end up getting a bike that you enjoy riding more and that is more comfortable over a long period. Ultimately you may feel faster and in a long group ride perform better overall. In other words, instead of hanging on for dear life for the entire ride, you may take some turns on the front, sprint up a short hill, etc. 

However, it is not just the carbon that will make someone faster and the difference won't be such that people with other materials will notice. 

I ride a lugged steel frame with average components. My bike with H20 bottles, a tool bag and a pump weights around 28 pounds. I regularly go on group rides with people who have spent quite a bit on the latest bike. They all say that they feel much faster. However, it is not as if they ride far ahead of me and they drop me all the time. In fact, they seem to ride just as well as before they change bikes. 

Ultimately, if you have a bike that fits you well, is comfortable and rides well, you will not travel much faster, changing bikes unless: you use aerobars, you get very aero or you somehow increase your ability to produce more wattage. 

Now, going up a hill with a 15 lb bike vs a 28 lb pound will make some difference. But from a 20 lb to a 15 lb bike, the difference will be hardly noticeable.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Midwest Playa said:


> I dont think so but if you look at a pro caliber bike used by the big boys its a carbon frame because thats where you are going to shave most of the weight. Thats why everyone else chooses to go with a carbon frame. I


Um. No.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Being a 300 pound lard-arse, I was never able to manage more than a 14mph average on my steel or aluminum bikes. When I got my Scott CR-1 though, I suddenly could fly up hills and increased my average speed to 27.3mph. In an emergency, the carbon fiber frame can be used as a floatation device. In a sunny location, it can be used as a weapon. Just aim a magnifying glass at it, amplifying the sun's energy, and watch the flesh wounds happen as it asplodes.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

I've been riding a 20lb steel bike (both frame/fork are steel) for many years. Used to it, it fits, I like it. 

I recently built up a CF frame/fork out of curiosity (17lb). It fits, it's comfy. Similar wheels to the steel bike. Saddles are the same, as are pedals, bars, tape, and tires/tubes. Saddle/bb/hoods are the same on both bikes. 

No change in speed from one bike to the other. They "feel" differently. They handle a bit different due to different geometries. But speed differences? Nope.

Both are fairly high end bikes.


----------



## Midwest Playa (Sep 12, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> Being a 300 pound lard-arse, I was never able to manage more than a 14mph average on my steel or aluminum bikes. When I got my Scott CR-1 though, I suddenly could fly up hills and increased my average speed to 27.3mph. In an emergency, the carbon fiber frame can be used as a floatation device. In a sunny location, it can be used as a weapon. Just aim a magnifying glass at it, amplifying the sun's energy, and watch the flesh wounds happen as it asplodes.



HAHHAHHAHAHAH I like your prospective Platy I can relay to you because I am a clydesdale myself and I need all the weight shaving I can get I dont care if it cost me $100 per gram.lols

Everyone has their own opinion in the end its all about can you afford the Carbon Frame?? And if the answer is yes Just like my uncle NIKE said Just Do it. I dont care what any steel or alluminum owner say A Carbon Frame is Da Bomb. End of Story.LOLS:thumbsup:

MidWestPlaya
Carbon Frame Lova lols


----------



## Midwest Playa (Sep 12, 2008)

JoelS said:


> I've been riding a 20lb steel bike (both frame/fork are steel) for many years. Used to it, it fits, I like it.
> 
> I recently built up a CF frame/fork out of curiosity (17lb). It fits, it's comfy. Similar wheels to the steel bike. Saddles are the same, as are pedals, bars, tape, and tires/tubes. Saddle/bb/hoods are the same on both bikes.
> 
> ...


Joel

I know you are smarter than that. You are trying to tell everyone here that you can travel the same distance and same time between the 20 lb steel bike and the 17 lbs carbon bike?? and no diffrence?? hmm you must have robot like legs and have cruise control that when you set it at a certain speed it does not matter how heavy the bike is.

Platy get rid of that Scott Frame and go back to a steel frame.LOLS

MidwestPlaya


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Midwest Playa said:


> Platy get rid of that Scott Frame and go back to a steel frame.LOLS
> 
> MidwestPlaya


I sell Scott. I have to ride a Scott.
I also sell Gunnar. I'll be ordering a Gunnar frame soon. I also already have a 1970s Stella (steel) and a 1999 Marin something-or-other (steel).
I've started lusting after a steel DeRosa, too. And since I also sell DeRosa....


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

A lot depends on the gel coat of the carbon frame. If the catalyst isn't within a .5% ratio of the set point, the frame will have a higher coefficient of drag and you'll probably actually go slower. If the manufacturer gets it spot on, and the paint is black with red accents, it is typically 3-4% faster than a comparable steel frame.


----------



## andresmuro (Dec 11, 2007)

Midwest Playa said:


> Joel
> 
> I know you are smarter than that. You are trying to tell everyone here that you can travel the same distance and same time between the 20 lb steel bike and the 17 lbs carbon bike?? and no diffrence?? hmm you must have robot like legs and have cruise control that when you set it at a certain speed it does not matter how heavy the bike is.
> 
> ...


Suppose that you weigh 150 and you ride a 17 vs an 20 lb bike. The difference in weight is 1.8%. 150+17 = 167 or 150+20= 170 167 is 98.2% of 170. 

all things being equal, ie, wind, drag, clothes, water bottles, position, geometry, etc. a naked 150 pound cyclist will have a 1.8% performance difference by switching from a 20 to a 17 pound bike. The question is feeling this difference between two bikes and know that it is the frame and not something else. I doubt that human beings are able to detect the difference in performance, much less, know that it was the weight of the bike and not the clothes that you wear, the meal you had last night, or the weight of the water bottle. 

An easy comparison is to ride on a bike with two full water bottles and w/o them. I doubt that people can feel the overall performance difference.


----------



## procarrier (Mar 10, 2010)

*Dunno yet, but we will see hopfully this...*

week. The first road bike I got on was a GF arc pro last summer. Found out that cycling was cool, and upgraded to a P1 madone 5.9 with race lite wheels, and SRAM force group. It should be here this week, and hopfully there will be a big difference in the upgrade.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Whatever the material, a 1 kilogram frame will make you measureably faster if you weigh 75 to 90 pounds. If a person weighs over 150, the total bike/body weight becomes so high that even a 1 to 1-1/2 pound increase in frame weight, means little.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

andresmuro said:


> Suppose that you weigh 150 and you ride a 17 vs an 20 lb bike. The difference in weight is 1.8%. 150+17 = 167 or 150+20= 170 167 is 98.2% of 170.
> 
> all things being equal, ie, wind, drag, clothes, water bottles, position, geometry, etc. a naked 150 pound cyclist will have a 1.8% performance difference by switching from a 20 to a 17 pound bike. The question is feeling this difference between two bikes and know that it is the frame and not something else. I doubt that human beings are able to detect the difference in performance, much less, know that it was the weight of the bike and not the clothes that you wear, the meal you had last night, or the weight of the water bottle.
> 
> An easy comparison is to ride on a bike with two full water bottles and w/o them. I doubt that people can feel the overall performance difference.


Exactly. And I weigh 146 .

Yes, I'm telling you that I don't notice a difference between the 2 bikes. My records from the Garmin I use bear it out. The steel frame is plenty stiff, as is the CF frame. Once you add in the water bottles, saddle bags, and everything else, the difference isn't there.

The only time I notice a difference is climbing. My CF bike has a compact, my steel bike has 53/39. Lower gears helps! But no other difference can I detect.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

andresmuro said:


> Suppose that you weigh 150 and you ride a 17 vs an 20 lb bike. The difference in weight is 1.8%. 150+17 = 167 or 150+20= 170 167 is 98.2% of 170.
> 
> all things being equal, ie, wind, drag, clothes, water bottles, position, geometry, etc. a naked 150 pound cyclist will have a 1.8% performance difference by switching from a 20 to a 17 pound bike. The question is feeling this difference between two bikes and know that it is the frame and not something else. I doubt that human beings are able to detect the difference in performance, much less, know that it was the weight of the bike and not the clothes that you wear, the meal you had last night, or the weight of the water bottle.
> 
> An easy comparison is to ride on a bike with two full water bottles and w/o them. I doubt that people can feel the overall performance difference.


Errm,, I CAN really feel the 2 bottles when I going uphill


----------



## Lifelover (Jul 8, 2004)

aaronis31337 said:


> Hello everybody.
> 
> My last few rides have been with the local cycling group on what's called the "hay ride". This is a pretty aggressive ride with several sprint points and I found myself pushing my bike harder than I ever have before.
> 
> ...



I'm a pro racer and I'm here to tell you that Carbon is faster.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

In regards to riders not being able to feel the weight of about 2 water bottles, us climber folk sure can, then again I'm 120lbs.  I certainly noticed when I switched to my race wheels and dropped my gear bag for races. My race bike should be ablut 4lbs lighter than my usual road bike, but I'll refrain from any comments until I can clock it up a hill.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Lifelover said:


> I'm a pro racer and I'm here to tell you that Carbon is faster.


Well thats all I needed to hear.


----------



## f3rg (May 11, 2008)

Carbon is waaaay faster.... at breaking.

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nvk63bmVpck&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

A from Il said:


> Well thats all I needed to hear.



Good enough for me....I'm selling all my steel bikes and buying a carbon bike


----------



## JimP (Dec 18, 2001)

Dave Hickey said:


> Good enough for me....I'm selling all my steel bikes and buying a carbon bike


Hey Dave,

When's the garage sale start??

Jim


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

andresmuro said:


> Suppose that you weigh 150 and you ride a 17 vs an 20 lb bike. The difference in weight is 1.8%. 150+17 = 167 or 150+20= 170 167 is 98.2% of 170.
> 
> all things being equal, ie, wind, drag, clothes, water bottles, position, geometry, etc. a naked 150 pound cyclist will have a 1.8% performance difference by switching from a 20 to a 17 pound bike. The question is feeling this difference between two bikes .


It's not even close to 1.8% because the air resistance and rolling resistance account for about 90% of the resistance (I'm guessing). The 3 lb total system weight saving would be a 0.18% advantage on the flat. You will notice it on the hills though, especially if you are responding to accelerations on the hills


----------



## Buzzard (Sep 7, 2004)

Lighter is faster - in general. It's physics. Even if the difference is miniscule. If you accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

Dave Hickey said:


> Good enough for me....I'm selling all my steel bikes and buying a carbon bike


Sounds like a good sale...I'm also willing to help clean your garage of that useless parts cache. 

How about this bike?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Buzzard said:


> Lighter is faster - in general. It's physics. Even if the difference is miniscule. If you accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.


Uh yea...it ain't just weight it is aerodynamics. and the bike is the LEAST important element in either case.


----------



## Buzzard (Sep 7, 2004)

Marc said:


> Uh yea...it ain't just weight it is aerodynamics. and the bike is the LEAST important element in either case.


I agree 100%, but you're introducing new variables into the equation. If you normalize ALL other variables and accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.

Not that I have to qualify that statement, but I believe you can normalize all other variables with today's carbon technologies. Maybe I'm wrong. What did I miss?


----------



## koyaanisqatsi (Aug 5, 2009)

*Imho, No!*



aaronis31337 said:


> Hello everybody.
> 
> My last few rides have been with the local cycling group on what's called the "hay ride". This is a pretty aggressive ride with several sprint points and I found myself pushing my bike harder than I ever have before.
> 
> ...


I have limited experience with a carbon fiber frame. And that frame/bike is a road bike rather than a pure race bike. My pure race bike has a steel frame, is heavier, and yet is faster. As people have noted, there are too many variables in the total bike.

Weight is your enemy on ascents, probably your friend on descents. Weight, especially rotational weight is your enemy when you accelerate to a sprint speed. Aerodynamics are important all the time in riding. I think the main place carbon frames may provide a benefit a real benefit is ride quality. Steel frames can beat you up a bit on long rides, causing fatigue. I just bought a Lynskey Titanium frame and it is very rigid. Weather hasn't permitted me to ride it on the road. But a short test ride of a Lynskey last fall was very, very rough on smooth streets...I felt every (I mean every) road imperfection. However, two customers in the shop told me all the roughness goes away at speed on that frame. They said they did not know why it was so. I don't know about Neuvation and have no opinion. How's the ride for you? If it beats you up on long rides, maybe you should consider a different frame. If you want weight reduction, try lighter wheels...that's rotational weight (you have to move it linearly and rotationally). You might have very experienced, knowledgeable rider (racer) or an honest LBS check out your bike as is and suggest weight and aerodynamic drag reductions. I suspect that they will allow you to become only marginally faster. Make sure your bike fit and riding form is proper. 

A carbon fiber frame just won't make that much difference either. Yeah, every pro I've seen in the Euro-races seems to be riding carbon fiber frames. But they don't have to pay for their bikes, probably ride it for one season only. Carbon fiber frames are a tad fragile and most manufacturers don't offer much of a warranty.

So why did I order a 2010 Pinarello Dogma 60.1? Good question.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Midwest Playa said:


> Joel
> 
> I know you are smarter than that. You are trying to tell everyone here that you can travel the same distance and same time between the 20 lb steel bike and the 17 lbs carbon bike?? and no diffrence?? hmm you must have robot like legs and have cruise control that when you set it at a certain speed it does not matter how heavy the bike is.
> 
> ...


There's a place for the likes of you. Please stay there.


----------



## Starter (Jan 7, 2009)

Great video. That guy is bonkers. 

The common sense science featured in that video is exactly why I'm switching from carbon to ti... I know that "graphs and numbers" science tells us that carbon is stronger than alloys, that the material's only weakness is potential sudden failure if the structure is already damaged... But I gotta be honest, I've never really bought that. Because I know if stood on the seatstays of my carbon frame, which is fairly new and has no damage, it would still break. My alloy frames would not. 

People will say standing on a seatstay is an unfair assessment of a frame material's strength, because the frame is not designed for that sort of stress. Fair enough, but it _does_ show that the material can fail catastrophically simply by having stress applied, without prior damage. Stress that steel and aluminum can endure. Translate that over to an area on the frame that _is_ stressed during regular usage of the frame... All the graphs and numbers in the world aren't convincing enough- alloys are just stronger, period.

I'm not saying people shouldn't ride carbon. I've ridden many carbon bikes without incident. But lately it's been so easy to build a sub 6.8kg bike, that frame material is becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of weight... Carbon isn't _that_ much lighter than quality alloy or ti... Even some of the new steel frames are coming in at right around the Kilogram mark. You're saving most of your weight in the wheels and components. So with weight becoming less of a factor, what other qualities does one buy a frame for? Ride quality is certainly nicer on steel or ti. Getting an extremely stiff bottom bracket and stays is no longer an issue thanks to the shaped tubes of many of the new steel and ti bikes. Durability is not even a contest... At least not when one goes by common sense science- numbers and graphs would have us believe otherwise.

My reasoning is why not have a sub 15lb bike that you never have to worry about? Just because I've never had a failure on a carbon bike doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. I ride with a slew of folks around the SoCal area, and I've heard about and seen tons of carbon failures... I know alloys can fail too, but you just don't see or hear about them that much.

As for pros riding carbon... Ridiculous. Pros ride what they are required to. Carbon is _the_ material for high end bikes right now, and pros ride what the manufacturer wants to sell. Many people still think there are huge strides to be made in alloys... Not just Lynskey, big names like Pinarello. He tried to push the magnesium Dogma for years- it's his belief that alloys are still largely unexplored and hold huge potential for new frame super materials... Unfortunately, the market didn't agree, and they were forced to redesign the Dogma in carbon. If I had to guess, I would say the majority of the pros, if given their absolute druthers, would probably be on either shaped ti, or some of the new super light steels. The ride is just out of this world.

I think most of the people who talk about carbon having a fantastic feel came into cycling during the dark ages of the 90's and early 2000's... When steel was mostly out, aluminum ruled, and the technology for building an aluminum frame was still at a point where even most high-end bikes were very harsh. Carbon came along and offered a suppleness approaching steel, with a stiffness approaching aluminum. Unfortunately, just as carbon was becoming the standard, that's when many breakthroughs in alloys started happening... Look at Deda U2- that stuff is incredible, but it dropped just when most manufacturer's high-end lineups were going fully carbon. Who's going to buy a 3k alloy frame that's not ti? When everyone is screaming that carbon is the greatest stuff ever? U2 builds a sub kg frame, stiff where it needs to be, and supple. Literally, you were seeing 890g U2 frames when the lightest carbon frames were not yet below the 1kg mark. _And_ it could survive a crash. Sure, it wasn't crazy durable like steel or ti, but it beat carbon on that front. Still, nobody bought it.

My feeling is that while carbon is at the height of it's powers right now, of course a new material will come along. Maybe it will be some new ceramic. Maybe it will be some strange plasticized alloy. Whatever it is, it would be nice if it took a page out of steel or ti's playbook, and brought durability and impact resistance back to the game... Not ever worrying about your frame is a good thing.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Buzzard said:


> accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.


I'll accept the premise that carbon _can_ be lighter...But it isn't always the case. 

There is a misconception out there today that, just because a bike is made from carbon, it is better, lighter, stiffer, more compliant, than a bike made out of other materials...

Carbon _can_ be a great material for a frame....but not necessarily so...


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

aaronis31337 said:


> Hello everybody.
> So, for people that actually have upgraded from AL/Steel/TI to carbon, is this something I'd notice?


Rode steel and aluminum for years up until 2008. Then a mix carbon fork [alloyed steering tube] and rear carbon seat and chain stays [Trek 2100]. Loved the vibration reduction on carbon. I was told that if you ride a full carbon frame and fork it gets better.

I bought a Cannondale Super Six 2008 model in 2009 February. Been riding it for 9,000 miles so far. It's a 58 cm frame [actually a 57 cm] and everything including cranks and seat post are in carbon. I commute. The ride is great. It's smooth. Vibration is reduced considerably over aluminum and steel. Handling is great too. But the geometry is not like the other bikes I've owned so this may have allot to do with the over all feedback of the frame set. I also lost 40 lbs riding it too. That's a 16 lb bike and I just lost 2.4 times its weight. 

Speed? Go for rotational weight reduction in wheels, tire pressure and stuff like that before hunting for grams in frames. Healthy piss before mounting helps too.


----------



## Hippienflipflops (Aug 21, 2007)

seriously.... loose? seriously?


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

A from Il said:


> South of he equator it is. Unless you are already south of the equator. Then no.
> Want to ride faster? Get this guy to chase you.


I feel faster already


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

That video proves nothing except if you ride a carbon bike stay away from ABBA listening crazy German mother fluckers! Hillarious! I have to go back and watch that again.


----------



## Lifelover (Jul 8, 2004)

A from Il said:


> Well thats all I needed to hear.



We are talking about sail boats and F1 cars aren't we?


----------



## mafpolo (Oct 10, 2008)

*Rocket Ship*

I switched from a Canondale Alumi bike - 22 pounds to a Kuota KOM at 14.8 pounds. I am faster (average speeds are higher, climb speeds are faster), but I am a crappy rider relative to my group (so I bought my improvement).

The Kuota uses a cf manufacturer that supplies cf for some of the F1 cars (ooohhh), but many of the tubes are squarish, so it is stiff as hell and HURTS LIKE HELL.

Some bumps convert my nuts to tonsils (good thing tonsils are gone, or no room for the nuts).

If I were man enough to be fast on what I had - I'd stick there. Maybe one day if I spend enough $$, I can be up front.

I have figured out that money can compensate for a lot of things. Money won't buy you love, but it will buy you affection so close that you'll never know the difference.

p.s. The 22 pound bike met with an SUV, and their insurance company bought me the Kuota. The Kuota hurts me more than the SUV. I guess they're laughing now.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Drop a steel frame and a carbon frame from the highest buildings roof that you can get on and the faster frame will hit the ground first.


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

I love this. Some pretty good answers compared to the umpteeenth time that this has probably been posted.


----------



## rdalcanto (Mar 2, 2008)

It depends on the riding you do. If your rides are pretty flat, you will be better off getting lighter wheels that you can accelerate faster for sprinting. If you regularly ride up big mountains with 5-12% grades, you WILL notice a difference between a 20lb bike and a 15lb bike over 30-60 minutes of continuous climbing - it may be 0.5 or 1.0 mph, but when you are at your threshold for that long, with little drafting advantage, and trying to stay with another rider, that 0.5 mph is everything.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

Here's a sure fire test to determine which bike is faster. This test is absolutely accurate and foolproof.

Take a bike with a CF frame, one with a steel frame, one with an alu. frame, and one with a Ti frame. All of the components can either be identical or those of your choosing.

Line all the bikes up in a perfectly straight line against your house or garage. Go inside and eat lunch, then watch TV for an hour. Come back outside and look at the bikes. The one that's ahead is the fastest.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

No, the carbon fiber bike is not faster. 

But how come I bought a carbon bike and my top sprinting speed is up by 7 mph.
So much so that people cannot believe my sprinting speed. 
Go figure.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

Mental perception and that psychology applied to the ride. That belief/confidence motivates that wee bit more to preform better on it. Fitting aside, if you believed that your $5K+ CF bike built with RED, Dura Ace or Super Record was a horrid contraption, your mental state would turn in equally dismal performance.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> Being a 300 pound lard-arse, I was never able to manage more than a 14mph average on my steel or aluminum bikes. When I got my Scott CR-1 though, I suddenly could fly up hills and increased my average speed to 27.3mph. In an emergency, the carbon fiber frame can be used as a floatation device. In a sunny location, it can be used as a weapon. Just aim a magnifying glass at it, amplifying the sun's energy, and watch the flesh wounds happen as it asplodes.


^ this :thumbsup:
.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Mr. Versatile said:


> Here's a sure fire test to determine which bike is faster. This test is absolutely accurate and foolproof.
> 
> Take a bike with a CF frame, one with a steel frame, one with an alu. frame, and one with a Ti frame. All of the components can either be identical or those of your choosing.
> 
> Line all the bikes up in a perfectly straight line against your house or garage. Go inside and eat lunch, then watch TV for an hour. Come back outside and look at the bikes. The one that's ahead is the fastest.


This was my signature over at BF for a long time; or rather a shorter version of it - fully attributed to you, of course.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

aaronis31337 said:


> Then I spoke with others (older folks) who said the only thing they found that made them faster were light wheels with sew-ups.


I'm guessing they didn't go out and buy just a frame. So along with the new carbon bike probably came new and better wheels, tires, crankset ect. Also, maybe, along with getting a higer end bike usually comes a fairly decent fitting and who knows if they had that before. That could make a slower bike faster.
I don't doubt these people are faster with their new carbon bikes but it's definitely not a simple case of it being because it's carbon.


----------



## BikeFixer (May 19, 2009)

Do i Phones also make phone calls??


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> Being a 300 pound lard-arse, I was never able to manage more than a 14mph average on my steel or aluminum bikes. *When I got my Scott CR-1 though, I suddenly could fly up hills and increased my average speed to 27.3mph. * In an emergency, the carbon fiber frame can be used as a floatation device. In a sunny location, it can be used as a weapon. Just aim a magnifying glass at it, amplifying the sun's energy, and watch the flesh wounds happen as it asplodes.


My Scott CR-1 makes me go faster too. my average speed increased and going up hills does not hurt as bad as it did when I was riding my fuji, But I feel that "Bike fit" and along with my rims has a lot to do with the performance enhancement .

However there must be something going on with these Scott CR-1 bikes that enhances performance, too many of us are experiencing the same output while riding them.

just my 2 cents worth...:thumbsup:


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I've been eating a lot of cheese lately, swiss mostly but also some cheddar and provolone, and my belly fat is just melting away.


----------



## Buzzard (Sep 7, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> I've been eating a lot of cheese lately, swiss mostly but also some cheddar and provolone, and my belly fat is just melting away.


I love swiss cheese!


----------



## Buzzard (Sep 7, 2004)

Come to think of it...I never met a cheese I didn't like.


----------



## WaynefromOrlando (Mar 3, 2010)

Completely not scientific, but I transitioned to a carbon bike (Motobecane Immortal Pro) a few months ago and the first time I rode it was like slipping on a banana peel, like in FLYING MY TAIL OFF ASPLODING down the road. Suddenly I was not only keeping up with the aero line, but now I was having a hard time NOT leaving them when I was breaking the wind.

Not sure if its the bike or just how it makes me feel (Bright yellow vs. rather faded metallic blue), or the upgraded components (Ultegra vs. old school Deore), but in the end, isn't every new bike purchase as much about emotion as it is performance?


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> I've been eating a lot of cheese lately, swiss mostly but also some cheddar and provolone, and my belly fat is just melting away.


This will make you belly fat melt away even faster.

http://www.boerengoudseoplegkaas.nl/uk/


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

rogger said:


> This will make you belly fat melt away even faster.
> 
> http://www.boerengoudseoplegkaas.nl/uk/


probably more effectively than stroopwafel


----------



## BikeFixer (May 19, 2009)

WaynefromOrlando said:


> when I was breaking the wind.


Breaking wind in the peloton is bad etiquette


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

Thanks Martin


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

Buzzard said:


> Lighter is faster - in general. It's physics. Even if the difference is miniscule. If you accept the premise that carbon is lighter...then yes, carbon bikes are faster.



Well, not really. It's the flex I was concerned about. Is the stiffer frame really add up to a faster performance -- even for non racers like myself?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Buzzard said:


> Come to think of it...I never met a cheese I didn't like.


Have you ever seen that yellow plastilina that the americans call "cheddar"


----------



## neilg1 (Sep 23, 2009)

My 2 cents on this as an avid, non-competitive cyclist with a CF bike:
My CF bike climbs like a goat compared to my old metal one. I notice a huge difference going uphill.
Ride is much more comfortable. The bumps on the road smooth out beautifully. I have no idea if this can be backed up by any facts, but I feel like I waste less energy stabilizing myself and absorbing bumps in the road on this bike. I feel like I can go much further before I fatigue.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

neilg1 said:


> My 2 cents on this as an avid, non-competitive cyclist with a CF bike:
> My CF bike climbs like a goat compared to my old metal one. I notice a huge difference going uphill.
> Ride is much more comfortable. The bumps on the road smooth out beautifully. I have no idea if this can be backed up by any facts, but I feel like I waste less energy stabilizing myself and absorbing bumps in the road on this bike. I feel like I can go much further before I fatigue.


Everyone of us who one rode a steel or alu bike and then switched to a good quality Carbon bike has had the same experience.

The anti-carbon opinions you are reading is just people justifying their different choice.

It is ia fact, a lighter and stiffer frame will be faster, all else equal ( including the lardass rider).

If they come out with a frame made with unobtanium that is lighter and stiffer than a carbon frame that would be then faster. 

end of argument


----------



## Buzzard (Sep 7, 2004)

aaronis31337 said:


> Well, not really. It's the flex I was concerned about. Is the stiffer frame really add up to a faster performance -- even for non racers like myself?


I would say it's an _especially_ moot point for non racers like yourself - unless I'm misinterpreting your response.

But what the hell do I know? I was merely approaching the question from the standpoint of physics. I was attempting to make the point that if you normalize for all other variables, including stiffness - and I believe you can with today's carbon technology (more or less)...then yes, carbon bikes are faster. But I'll say it again; you must first accept the premise that carbon is lighter. Which, as several have pointed out, isn't necessarily the case.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> It is ia fact, a lighter and stiffer frame will be faster, all else equal ( including the lardass rider).


That doesn't rule out steel, Al, Ti, bamboo, etc. It's all in the tube design and geometry. I happen to have a fairly stiff steel framed bike. Pretty similar in feel to my CF framed bike. As I said before, the extra 3 pounds on the steel bike aren't noticed.

Depends on what you came from and moved to. It's more than the frame. Wheels and tires can make a significant difference.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

This is why a multitude of bikes are purchased. That search for the just right ride to performance. You'll get close whether you are 100% happy and bike lust leaves your mind is up to you.


----------



## Buzzard (Sep 7, 2004)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Have you ever seen that yellow plastilina that the americans call "cheddar"


Yep.

This household consumes about a pound a week - conservatively :thumbsup:


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Everyone of us who one rode a steel or alu bike and then switched to a good quality Carbon bike has had the same experience.



I have two carbon LOOKs hanging in the garage....My steel bikes see 99% of my ride time.. I guess I'm not "everyone"


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

I have an aluminum bike and a carbon bike frame.. I'm way faster on the aluminum bike.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

aaronis31337 said:


> So, for people that actually have upgraded from AL/Steel/TI to carbon, is this something I'd notice?


I noticed that I feel the fastest on my 20 pound lugged steel Colnago MasterXLight.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

terry b said:


> I noticed that I feel the fastest on my 20 pound lugged steel Colnago MasterXLight.


Downhill.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Coolhand, 


Thanks for your intervention on the now closed thread.... your well balanced post rounded and centered the debate very well.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Coolhand,
> 
> 
> Thanks for your intervention on the now closed thread.... your well balanced post rounded and centered the debate very well.


Although I disagree with the premise that steel is dead. Cycling being cyclical (pun intended), it's about time for something new (or old) to be "The" thing to own again. Steel bikes, contrary to the belief of some, are making a comeback. Raleigh has introduced the Record Ace and the Clubman. They have started - just recently - offering their less expensive comfort bikes in steel, rather than aluminum.

DeRosa is doing pretty well with their steel models.

Steel is making a comeback. Will it be the new "It", or will Ti regain it's position? Will there be a new material that instigates the upcoming lemming march? I'd say it's too soon to tell. But steel isn't dead by any means.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

I can usually feel the difference between 1 full water bottle and 2 full bottles. However as soon as I get rolling I forget the bottles are even there. 

The only reason I would care about a fully carbon bike is if was way more comfortable. If I did get a fully carbon bike that was more comfortable I'm sure I would "feel" much faster.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

terry b said:


> I noticed that I feel the fastest on my 20 pound lugged steel Colnago MasterXLight.


That's exactly what my steel bike is! Good choice :thumbsup:


----------



## GirchyGirchy (Feb 12, 2004)

This topic is such complete idiocy. People have their opinions (otherwise known as "facts") and will argue them to death no matter what. For 99.99% of the people on here I doubt it really matters how fast they can go. Most would probably be the fastest on something they're most comfortable on, be it carbon, Al, steel, Ti, bamboo, or elephant dung.

It always makes me think of the religious nutjob on the college campus preaching his foolish little heart out.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2010)

GirchyGirchy said:


> *This topic is such complete idiocy*. People have their opinions (otherwise known as "facts") and will argue them to death no matter what. For 99.99% of the people on here I doubt it really matters how fast they can go. Most would probably be the fastest on something they're most comfortable on, be it carbon, Al, steel, Ti, bamboo, or elephant dung.
> 
> It always makes me think of the religious nutjob on the college campus preaching his foolish little heart out.


 

Someone finally said something smart, and something I agree with ...........................


----------



## Nigol66 (Mar 22, 2010)

I"ve been riding a Claud Butler for 25 years (steel frame) which weighs about 31lbs. My average speed is about 17.2mph. I have just bought a Moto Ti and get it this weekend so I'll see how much difference there is. 

I agree with a lot of comments on here. Its not just the bike, its you! try changing you diet, get more sleep (huge effect), train better, drink more water etc etc.... you're the machine not the bike. Sure the carbon maybe a little lighter but if you're not eating and sleeping right it won't make a difference ----- oh, and don't forget the weather! we all know that wind, rain and temprature make a huge difference too....

Ride hard and ride fast....and leave nothing on the bike!


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

As many more learned than I have posted, speed is a combination of things. The bike a part of that and by far the greatest point of input to speed is the person riding the bike.

I have an Argon 18 "Platinum" - it is made from some kind of you-beaut HM carbon, not Platinum. It was a warranty replacement for an Argon 18 "Titanium", which was manufactured out of Ti. I think the specs show the two frames had identical geometry and they certainly feel the same to me, in terms of geometry. The Ti frame might have been 100g heavier but I honestly could not tell.

I have had the same wheels (CXP33s on Ultegra hubs - I weigh anywhere between 96 and 110 kg), same groupset (10sp Ultegra) and same everything else. I rode both bikes over the same terrain, and raced the same races. I have had comperable levels of fitness. My findings:

* The Ti frame was more prone to flex than the Cb frame.

* The Cb frame damps vibration differently to the Ti frame. I find the Cb frame is, on dead roads, more "buzzy" than the Ti frame was but the Cb frame seems to be better over the larger bumps. That said, in a 107 km state open race (which I raced once on the Ti frame and later on the Cb frame) the Ti left me in far better shape than the Cb one did.

* The Cb frame is stiffer around the BB than the Ti frame was, and this seems to make me sprint better on the Cb frame than I sprinted on the Ti frame but, oddly, I seemed to climb better on the Ti frame which had this nice springiness than seemed to give something back.

Having had that experience, I am happy riding my carbon Argon but dearly miss my Ti Argon, and would like my next bike to be a non-Chinese manufactured Ti frame. That said, if finances do not permit me to purchase the dream bike I'd happily ride a Giant or something like that. There are no bad top end carbon bikes - they are all pretty good.


----------



## T-Doc (Apr 4, 2002)

a CF bike can be engineered to be light and stiff....two criteria that racers want in their frames. Is it faster? Only if the motor makes it faster. FWIW, I train on steel and race on CF. they both feel fast to me depending on the wheelset, but definitely the CF feels more responsive. What really made me faster was training with power and a coach for three years and losing 30lbs...much more important than frame material IMO.


----------



## shortyt (Mar 22, 2009)

Yes its faster, at draining your wallet. I think the wheel set was noticed by me as making me feel faster. Not sure if I actually am faster though.


----------



## MCAddictR3 (Feb 24, 2010)

*Amazing Performance Bump*



PlatyPius said:


> Being a 300 pound lard-arse, I was never able to manage more than a 14mph average on my steel or aluminum bikes. When I got my Scott CR-1 though, I suddenly could fly up hills and increased my average speed to 27.3mph. In an emergency, the carbon fiber frame can be used as a floatation device. In a sunny location, it can be used as a weapon. Just aim a magnifying glass at it, amplifying the sun's energy, and watch the flesh wounds happen as it asplodes.


With all due respect, if you are a 300 pound cyclist that was able to improve to an average speed of 27.3 with only a change in bike then I'm sure that Scott would want to design an international marketing campaign with you & team Radio Shack will be calling  I have competed in races where top finishing cat 1-2 bikers did not have that average. I will chalk up this post to a parody and leave it at that since thankfully the rest of it has funny potential.:thumbsup:


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Still going??????


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

MCAddictR3 said:


> With all due respect, if you are a 300 pound cyclist that was able to improve to an average speed of 27.3 with only a change in bike then I'm sure that Scott would want to design an international marketing campaign with you & team Radio Shack will be calling  I have competed in races where top finishing cat 1-2 bikers did not have that average. I will chalk up this post to a parody and leave it at that since thankfully the rest of it has funny potential.:thumbsup:


You really were unsure at all that it was a joke? Wow.


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

MCAddictR3 said:


> With all due respect, if you are a 300 pound cyclist that was able to improve to an average speed of 27.3 with only a change in bike then I'm sure that Scott would want to design an international marketing campaign with you & team Radio Shack will be calling  I have competed in races where top finishing cat 1-2 bikers did not have that average. I will chalk up this post to a parody and leave it at that since thankfully the rest of it has funny potential.:thumbsup:


27.3 mph = 43.68 kph? 300 pound + ~136 kg? Perhaps the average was gained predominately down hill?:thumbsup: 

I did wonder how a CR1 would hold up that kind of mass. I weigh less than 136 kg (110kg)and when I rode a CR1 it was, to be impolite, in need of an overdose of ******.


----------



## CoLiKe20 (Jan 30, 2006)

the 300pound rider was a sarcastic comment. a joke.


----------



## Balderick (Jul 11, 2006)

Yeah - I got it. Carbon frames make really bad flotation devices.


----------



## ArmySlowRdr (Aug 7, 2004)

Holy resurrection !

But I recently got a custom Tommasini Tecno steel--it is 20 pounds.

Not sure what the carbon Orbea Orca weighs. But my average speed went down at least a mph on the Tommasini. And I am more comfortable on the Orca.

Oh well I have a nice, expensive custom bike to admire...but it is certainly not going anywhere fast. LOL.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ArmySlowRdr said:


> Holy resurrection !
> 
> But I recently got a custom Tommasini Tecno steel--it is 20 pounds.
> 
> ...


I don't mean to be snarky at all, really, but what did you expect when you got a heavier bike? You are talking something like 5 pounds difference? Did you think that added weight would make you faster? Different materials have, to greater and lesser extents based on design, advantages and disadvantages. I think steel bikes are often gorgeous and the Washoe, at 17lbs (56) with 105 group would be on my list if I had the scratch ATM. If you are after an aesthetic, ten surely consider steel. Maybe a ride quality difference, but not necessarily. Durability difference? Maybe, maybe not. But if performance is your ultimate goal, then why would you stray from the frames winning at the highest levels? It makes no sense...

5 year thread dredge? Why not just start a new thread?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

On a flat road, doubt it would be so significant. Is it an otherwise all things being equal comparison? Filled water bottle is 2 pounds.


----------



## ArmySlowRdr (Aug 7, 2004)

2.14256 lbs heavier is all. I googled "is a steel bike necessarily slower than a carbon bike" and this thread came up. Yes I didn't really expect it to be faster. But I did think I'd enjoy it a bit more. I do get a few old farts occasionally enthuse over it at t-shirt rides, but that's about it. At any rate I always wanted beautiful custom steel italian bike so no huge complaints. But after a few more rides I am going to switch back to the Orbea, at least for a while.


----------



## ArmySlowRdr (Aug 7, 2004)

Well to be fair I have yoyo'd on the diet yet again and am probably 20 pounds heavier..haha. So maybe there is no difference. However I just do not seem to be able to take hills with the same enthusiastic drive. Maybe I will see if there is a gearing difference on cassette. Orbea just plain feels "snappier".



Trek_5200 said:


> On a flat road, doubt it would be so significant. Is it an otherwise all things being equal comparison? Filled water bottle is 2 pounds.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Different bikes for different purposes. My main bike is a carbon colnago but I just got a Titanium gravel bike for off road and winter riding, two situations where speed is not my main goal. The c-59 is more of a climbers bike. And whether I go 17 vs 18 mph or 20 vs 21 mph on a flat is of little significance to me.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

ArmySlowRdr said:


> Well to be fair I have yoyo'd on the diet yet again and am probably 20 pounds heavier..haha. So maybe there is no difference. However I just do not seem to be able to take hills with the same enthusiastic drive. Maybe I will see if there is a gearing difference on cassette. Orbea just plain feels "snappier".


OK. Bike is 2.5 pounds heavier. Rider is 20 pounds heavier for 23 pound gain. Now the 1 mph penalty makes sense.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ArmySlowRdr said:


> 2.14256 lbs heavier is all. I googled "is a steel bike necessarily slower than a carbon bike" and this thread came up. Yes I didn't really expect it to be faster. But I did think I'd enjoy it a bit more. I do get a few old farts occasionally enthuse over it at t-shirt rides, but that's about it. At any rate I always wanted beautiful custom steel italian bike so no huge complaints. But after a few more rides I am going to switch back to the Orbea, at least for a while.


Dude... Can you read? In my quick Google search, your Orca is nearly 15lbs. That's a really light bike. Why on earth would you want to go and spend a sh*t load of scratch to get a bike that's 25% heavier? Um, duh? It's slower... Really? Let me tie a boat anchor to my bike and wonder why it's slower? Are you just leaking money? This is one of the most idiotic posts I can remember. 

So, let me summarize... "I went and spent a crap pile of money on a custom steel bike that outweighs my current race level CF bike by about 5 lbs. and I'm slower on the new bike?" Um, duh? You must have money to just throw away. So go ahead and throw... That's your privelage... But don't come asking why you screwed the pooch. It's a completely dumb ass notion in the first place.


----------



## ArmySlowRdr (Aug 7, 2004)

I can read fine. I also can google search and have my own digital scale.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ArmySlowRdr said:


> I can read fine. I also can google search and have my own digital scale.


Excellent! Did you do any of that BEFORE buying a boat anchor disguised a bike?


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

ArmySlowRdr...Most likely your slower because of two differences between the bikes: tires and position. Each one by themselves could easily account for 1 mph difference. Frame material probably had virtually nothing to do with what you observed. I very much doubt 2.5 pounds on relatively flat roads would account for more than 0.1mph. Maybe less...JMO


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I have a real nice steel bike. 3 y/o custom build bike that I paid plenty for. I love the bike but I believe a Dura Ace Tarmac or similar bike would be faster. However ultimate speed is not what I am after. For me I want to have fun, to be safe, to have a reliable bike that handles well, soaks up the rough road in stride, descends well and has fender clearance. I bought all of that. This morning I did the local 14mi TT and got a PR on my steel bike. Not once out there riding did I wish I had bought more speed.  I am 20th overall on the segment now. I feel good about that being a retired guy. I have no KOM's. 

I guess my advice is if you are wanting to buy speed on your next purchase then look at a Dura Ace Tarmac or similar bike. 

Yesterday I went to the Specialized Headquarters because they have a museum of Specialized bikes. They were so gracious to me when I walked in. Friendly and a nice guy came down from upstairs and showed me the entire facility. Knocked my socks off. I used my brand new Specialized water bottle that they gave me for free today. I wish I could go hang out there and learn about the wind tunnel and the bike fitting area. 

The guy that built my Lighthouse 3 years ago has his picture in the museum in a few different places. He was the first bike designer and frame builder for Specialized.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

Lol. There are no chumps on this or any Internet forum who could beat any top 100 pro cyclists in the last 75 or so years riding the best carbon bike. 
I, like many ride a $10k bike as I have some disposable income. I know for a fact I'm no faster on this whip than my circa 1998 Bianchi aluminum bike.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Steel only adds two pounds over carbon.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

PBL450 said:


> Dude... Can you read? In my quick Google search, your Orca is nearly 15lbs. That's a really light bike. Why on earth would you want to go and spend a sh*t load of scratch to get a bike that's 25% heavier? Um, duh? It's slower... Really? Let me tie a boat anchor to my bike and wonder why it's slower? Are you just leaking money? This is one of the most idiotic posts I can remember.
> 
> So, let me summarize... "I went and spent a crap pile of money on a custom steel bike that outweighs my current race level CF bike by about 5 lbs. and I'm slower on the new bike?" Um, duh? You must have money to just throw away. So go ahead and throw... That's your privelage... But don't come asking why you screwed the pooch. It's a completely dumb ass notion in the first place.


You need to do some research on the actual impact a few pounds has so maybe you can stop sounding so foolish.

And why someone would want a steel bike over a carbon bike shouldn't be any mystery. Sorry it didn't quite work out for this guy but loads of people prefer steel (or ti) to carbon.


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

My main road bike is a carbon frame with Ultegra parts and light wheelset, maybe 16lbs with pedals. One of my favorite steel bikes is a mid 70's Bottecchia with Campy parts and a nice mid level Campy wheelset, maybe 20lbs or more with pedals. I've weighed all my bikes a few times just to see the difference but never recorded data (I always have around 6-8 bikes).

I can tell you that sometimes actual weight does not always correlate to how light the bike "feels" or how light the bike rides. My Bottecchia accellerates quickly and rides a lot lighter than my Colnago Master Olympic.

I have some Strava PR's on all three, but my post is worthless without pics.







Some bikes have an amazing feeling and some bikes feel like turds. Weight is only one of the many variables that contribute to the overall ride. I think a lot of us think of bicycles as living entities with their own individual personalities, at least I do!


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

According to Wiki the fastest recorded speed of a Paris Roubaix winner was in 1964 by Peter Post on an old school steel bike. It would have been a 5 speed. His average speed was 28mph. 2nd and 3rd place was on a carbon bike and the 4th fastest of all time was in 1948. 

In 2016 with the most modern bicycle technology and training programs in the history of cycle racing they could not ride faster then Peter Post on an old school clunker from 68. Who knows why. Maybe in 68 it was downhill all the way or they had a tail wind in every direction like on Candy Rock Mountain. I don't know but the bottom line is 28mph average speed is still holding after all these years. 

I have a better steel bike then Peter Post had back in the day. Lucky me. However I am a lot slower and I am good with that also. I bet I am better at Ping Pong.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> You need to do some research on the actual impact a few pounds has so maybe you can stop sounding so foolish.
> 
> And why someone would want a steel bike over a carbon bike shouldn't be any mystery. Sorry it didn't quite work out for this guy but loads of people prefer steel (or ti) to carbon.


Time saved from weight loss on bike -

Tech FAQ: Does bike weight matter? - VeloNews.com

By your post then, a heavier bike could make you faster? That is the implication you make by saying making a bike lighter causing reduced performance is foolish. 2 pounds matters as much as climbing performance matters to a rider. It seems to matter in most racing? I said that there are many reasons to want other frame materials. Because there are, so nice original thought there... OP said 20lb bike, my search on his weight came back at 15lbs., a 5lb. Difference. Likely also insignificant in your eyes I suppose. I guess the people who make their living riding these things share your opinion as well, a few extra pounds is no big... And I sound foolish?


----------



## Doug B (Sep 11, 2009)

DaveG said:


> 4.1% faster to be exact. I am not sure whether these guys really believed that or if they were pulling your leg. I suggest training harder, dropping them, and telling them Ti is faster



Of course everyone knows that 73 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot with no supporting data.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

PBL450 said:


> And I sound foolish?


Very foolish. You're imposing your reason for buying a bike on others. No doubt the steel bike is slower... and if the motivation for buying it was to increase speed you might have a point. All we can do is consider the motivation of the OP rather than yours... if only you had some idea of what that was.



ArmySlowRdr said:


> At any rate I always wanted beautiful custom steel italian bike so no huge complaints.


He does mention that it's slower but that hardly requires your continued "snark". (btw, every time you say "not to be snarky but" it's the same as a person who says "no offence but" and then offends someone... you've used "snark" in your post more than 40x by my estimation). He also stated that he has a digital scale & states that the weight difference is 2lbs but you continue to ignore that and have decided that the weight posted on the net is the weight you'll use... gee, posted weight is never wrong.

I have little use for steel bikes but would love to try a Dario Pegoretti bike. If I bought one & stated that I was surprised that it was a lot slower than my Trek and you sh%t all over me the way you did on this thread, I'd tell you to GFY.

So yes, you sound very foolish. Snarky too. And you hate that.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

PBL450 said:


> Time saved from weight loss on bike -
> 
> Tech FAQ: Does bike weight matter? - VeloNews.com
> 
> By your post then, a heavier bike could make you faster? That is the implication you make by saying making a bike lighter causing reduced performance is foolish. 2 pounds matters as much as climbing performance matters to a rider. It seems to matter in most racing? I said that there are many reasons to want other frame materials. Because there are, so nice original thought there... OP said 20lb bike, my search on his weight came back at 15lbs., a 5lb. Difference. Likely also insignificant in your eyes I suppose. I guess the people who make their living riding these things share your opinion as well, a few extra pounds is no big... And I sound foolish?


yes, you do.

nice try at putting words in my mouth though.

And you still need to get a clue on what your talking about if you think a couple pounds can be responsible for being slower in a significant/noticeable way.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> yes, you do.
> 
> nice try at putting words in my mouth though.
> 
> And you still need to get a clue on what your talking about if you think a couple pounds can be responsible for being slower in a significant/noticeable way.


Did the links open? You said go do some research, so I posted some credible sources, do you disagree as to the credibility? That's fair. It's a matter of how much that performance difference matters to you... Lighter bikes will be "faster" but how much and how much it matters to the rider/consumer is the question, improved performance is a inarguable fact when climbing. How do I not have a clue when I posted sources? And I read them, unlike what your post indicates. I'd love to see you do some research and post the speed advantages of heavier bikes vs lighter bikes, especially on climbs. That would be worth reading. It's the 2nd ask. I'd love to see something like a Nibali quote where he is wishing for a heavier bike on stage 19 of this years Giro. Instead you have a guy like Thomas who leaned out too much for TDS and lost power and resiliency. But weight is clearly irrelevant, even just a few pounds. Haha. 

Weight is is an absolutely critical factor in cycling performance, period. Fortunes are spent, eating disorders and born, seemingly minuscule weight advantages are seized.... But it's all foolish. Maybe it is, but I'm in the majority and you are clinging on to some archaic archetype that you like. That's fine, it's actually wonderful, but it's meaningless in realation to performance. 

You like the look, the ride, the aesthetic, the nostalgia of a steel bike or whatever, that's great. This is the third time I have said so. But to diminish the importance of weight flies opposite to the performance potential of a bicycle. That is all.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

Faster yes. a lot faster no.

OK I am guessing here.

Just built my new bike today. It is titanium. I have been riding mainly an older S Works Tarmac CF bike the last year. I like the SW but it has some shortcomings.

Returned from the first ride on my new bike a couple hours ago. This ti bike feels good, climbs pretty well. And in fact the Ti bike is substantially less flexy when out of the saddle climbing hard. But also, the Ti bike has a teeny amount less power transfer in those 'micro power bursts' I think. Like when accelerating out of a corner or keeping up with surges in a group ride. However this is so complex. The two bikes I am comparing here have completely different wheels and tires. The fit is a bit different. The geometry is a bit different. And the ti bike I have has non butted tubes, with all up weight a couple pounds more. 

So I guess what I am saying is ... maybe the CF bike is faster, but it would not take much to have a ti bike that at least seems just as fast, and perhaps measurably as fast too.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

PBL450 said:


> Did the links open? You said go do some research, so I posted some credible sources, do you disagree as to the credibility? That's fair. It's a matter of how much that performance difference matters to you... Lighter bikes will be "faster" but how much and how much it matters to the rider/consumer is the question, improved performance is a inarguable fact when climbing. How do I not have a clue when I posted sources? And I read them, unlike what your post indicates. *I'd love to see you do some research and post the speed advantages of heavier bikes vs lighter bikes*, especially on climbs. That would be worth reading. *It's the 2nd ask. I'd love to see something like a Nibali quote where he is wishing for a heavier* bike on stage 19 of this years Giro. Instead you have a guy like Thomas who leaned out too much for TDS and lost power and resiliency. But *weight is clearly irrelevant*, even just a few pounds. Haha.
> 
> Weight is is an absolutely critical factor in cycling performance, period. Fortunes are spent, eating disorders and born, seemingly minuscule weight advantages are seized.... But it's all foolish. Maybe it is, but I'm in the majority and you are clinging on to some archaic archetype that you like. That's fine, it's actually wonderful, but it's meaningless in realation to performance.
> 
> You like the look, the ride, the aesthetic, the nostalgia of a steel bike or whatever, that's great. This is the third time I have said so. But to diminish the importance of weight flies opposite to the performance potential of a bicycle. That is all.


Now you're being outright dishonest. Generally you shouldn't try to accuse people of saying something when what they said is right there in black & white. 
No where did I say a heavy bike is faster. I mean really??

What I said/implied is that a couple pounds isn't going to slow someone down by a noticeable amount. And the people claiming to be slowed down are talking very noticeable amounts. And you think that's definitely due to a couple pounds, you are wrong. End of story.

here you go, knock yourself out: Analytic Cycling, Interactive methods for estimating cycling performance. You'd have to be pretty darn perceptive to notice the type of speed change caused by a few pounds. And since when is cycling only up hill? So don't forget to add the gains going down.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Just for fun let's turn this part of the thread around a bit...



> I recently got a Trek Farley --it is 25 pounds.
> 
> My average speed went down at least 2-3 mph on the Farley. Oh well I have a nice, fat tire bike to admire...but it is certainly not going anywhere fast. LOL.





> Yes *I didn't really expect the Farley to be faster*. But I did think I'd enjoy it a bit more. At any rate I always wanted a beautiful fat tire bike so no huge complaints.


IOW, didn't buy it for speed... bought it for other reasons... didn't expect it to be faster. It isn't.


----------



## ROAD&DIRT (Mar 27, 2009)

Come on really... Its not the bike that make you go fast... its the rider, however to each there own. If you want to buy all that carbon stuff and believe its making you faster, then who are we to tell you different... believing is power, spend away and go as fast as you want. :thumbsup:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I think the issue here deals more with what kind of riding we do. For many folks, flats represent the boredom we suffer to get to the climbs and descents. Also, many never get too old to attempt to beat our riding partners or our personal bests on our favorite climbs. Those individuals see significance in 30 seconds on a one hour climb.

My point is that what is important varies by individual motivations.


Jay Strongbow said:


> Now you're being outright dishonest. Generally you shouldn't try to accuse people of saying something when what they said is right there in black & white.
> No where did I say a heavy bike is faster. I mean really??
> 
> What I said/implied is that a couple pounds isn't going to slow someone down by a noticeable amount. And the people claiming to be slowed down are talking very noticeable amounts. And you think that's definitely due to a couple pounds, you are wrong. End of story.
> ...


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Agree. I just want to make it to the top of the climb without dying. A few seconds doesn't matter to me


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

ROAD&DIRT said:


> Come on really... Its not the bike that make you go fast... its the rider, however to each there own. If you want to buy all that carbon stuff and believe its making you faster, then who are we to tell you different... believing is power, spend away and go as fast as you want. :thumbsup:


hey no need to 'come on really' me. I am selling the carbon bike, sticking with metal frames. I have 6 bikes and only one is carbon. This particular carbon frame (07 S works Tarmac) has too much whippiness for my own situation. But the straight gauge Ti feels more 'dead' to me when doing micro accelerations compared to the Carbon. and it is a pound or two heavier, but with several benefits over carbon (scratches not a worry when packing the bike, ride in rain and mud and gravel without concerns, easier to clean, very solid feel). Everything is a compromise, really.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think the issue here deals more with what kind of riding we do. For many folks, flats represent the boredom we suffer to get to the climbs and descents. Also, many never get too old to attempt to beat our riding partners or our personal bests on our favorite climbs. Those individuals see significance in 30 seconds on a one hour climb.
> 
> My point is that what is important varies by individual motivations.


"You must spread reputation around before giving it to SwiftSolo again."


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Now you're being outright dishonest. Generally you shouldn't try to accuse people of saying something when what they said is right there in black & white.
> No where did I say a heavy bike is faster. I mean really??
> 
> What I said/implied is that a couple pounds isn't going to slow someone down by a noticeable amount. And the people claiming to be slowed down are talking very noticeable amounts. And you think that's definitely due to a couple pounds, you are wrong. End of story.
> ...


I'm not being dishonest at all... In fact, if you left "foolish" out of your first post I'd agree with you. And your bail-out chute reply is accurate. But... Adding that foolish changes the meaning of your reply to imply dramitacally, preposterous, obviously, and the like. It's your writing, so you know... Once you do that you make the implication (and I've already been through this) that the notion of being heavier being slower is so ridiculous as to be a fools folly. So much so, in calling the idea foolish, you imply the opposite must have credibility. "Why the idea is so erroneous it is foolish." Had you said, the gains in speed for a couple of pounds are generally irrelevant, I'd pretty much agree, depending on your riding... But adding "foolish" changes the meaning of your reply. Hence, if it's so foolish, show me the counter? Perfectly legit given your adding that foolish. Without that your point is accurate. 

Grand Tours are not won on descents... They are won on climbs. The Giro was a perfect example... Nibali reached down into a place only great tour champions have, a place of pure pain and he stayed there long enough to win the hardest climbing grand tour in the world. Dude will take every single gram of help he can get. (He will slo take a car pull, but that's a different thread) 

I don't one disagree with your general point, I completely disagree with your addition of the foolishness of adding weight being negatively correlated with overall pace. Not just for GC riders... But as Swift says so well, each of us trying to PR or win a group sprint or whatever...


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

I think titanium builders like Moots, Seven, or Firefly are designing bikes specifically for people that want the smooth comfortable ride titanium has a reputaion for. 
Titanium could be made rigid or harsh. That's not what the people buying it want. So the builders design their bikes to fulfill the buyers expectations of plush.
Meanwhile people who buy carbon Pro Tour replicas want bikes that are super stiff and have razor sharp handling. They want the bike to surge forward at every pedal stroke. So builders put out exactly those bikes.
Self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> I think titanium builders like Moots, Seven, or Firefly are designing bikes specifically for people that want the smooth comfortable ride titanium has a reputaion for.
> Titanium could be made rigid or harsh. That's not what the people buying it want. So the builders design their bikes to fulfill the buyers expectations of plush.
> Meanwhile people who buy carbon Pro Tour replicas want bikes that are super stiff and have razor sharp handling. They want the bike to surge forward at every pedal stroke. So builders put out exactly those bikes.
> Self fulfilling prophecy.


Yeah, that makes sense... My CF Scott Foil is twitchy and super stiff, in fact it's crazy stiff. Handling is razor sharp... Cutting. No help with road surfaces... But it accelerates quickly and handles very precisely. Nothing smooth and chill about that bike.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

PBL450 said:


> Grand Tours are not won on descents... They are won on climbs. The Giro was a perfect example....


Grand tours are certainly lost on descents. This years giro being a perfect example. 
Il Falco might disagree with you that you cannot win a GT on your descending. Having a huge lead entering the next climb is an advantage not to be ignored. 
Don't ignore the energy a rider like Nibali saves on the descents compared to the competition either.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

den bakker said:


> Grand tours are certainly lost on descents. This years giro being a perfect example.
> Il Falco might disagree with you that you cannot win a GT on your descending. Having a huge lead entering the next climb is an advantage not to be ignored.
> Don't ignore the energy a rider like Nibali saves on the descents compared to the competition either.


Agreed.... You can lose a race anywhere. Fishing for a gel on a descent being one of many places... Sagan is a fabulous descender but he won't win Le Tour, why? Because he's too heavy. Lo Squalo won the Giro by going to a a deep dark painful place great champions have and suffering on incredible climbs. Stages 19 and 20 were just a incredible to watch! No doubt every part of a race can hurt you and recovery is crucial.


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

A carbon bike is faster...to the garbage heap. The only reason why you're feeling slower than normal is because you're now riding in a group with people of better fitness levels. You are being pushed harder and your lower fitness level is being exposed. Stop blaming your bike and train harder. 

Oh, and upgrade the Aksiums.


----------



## Aadub (May 30, 2015)

My gut weighs more than the difference between my carbon bike and my steel bike.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Just for fun I plugged in some numbers into analytic cycling to see how much weight would need to be added to the bike system to slow the rider down 1mph while maintaining the same power. This assumes the same frontal area, drag coefficient, air density and Crr:

On a flat road a rider and bike weighing 75kg (165lbs) pushing 330W = 27.78mph. To go 1mph slower the rider and bike would need to weigh 143kg (315lbs). 

While not perfect ^^^ I think it's safe to say that the 2 pound difference from the steel to the carbon bike isn't the reason for the slower speed. At least on flat roads. 

So to be fair I calculated a 10% climb (5.74 degree slope). At 75Kg 330W=14.3mph. It took 83Kg at 330W to go 1mph slower. That's 17.6 pounds. 

I think for those that really pay attention, perhaps train and race etc...to be truly 1mph slower requires an amazing amount of weight change and/or power change for any number of conditions. Like I said before, what ArmySlowrdr observed probably had very little if anything to do with steel v. carbon (2 pounds). Position on the bike can have a huge affect on muscle recruitment and aerodynamics. Tires, tubes and how they are inflated can also make noticeable differences in speed. But this whole back and forth about a couple of pounds as it relates to ArmySlowrdr is just useless distraction from what is really going on. Peace


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

woodys737 said:


> Just for fun I plugged in some numbers into analytic cycling to see how much weight would need to be added to the bike system to slow the rider down 1mph while maintaining the same power. This assumes the same frontal area, drag coefficient, air density and Crr:
> 
> On a flat road a rider and bike weighing 75kg (165lbs) pushing 330W = 27.78mph. To go 1mph slower the rider and bike would need to weigh 143kg (315lbs).
> 
> ...


Thats hilarious. Jay and I both posted data that's every bit, or more, reliable than what you posted. Looks like you neglected to read the thread... Why bother, you make the point clearly that you race, so no one else's opinion or data matters, you are cooler and more macho and more knowledgeable. You just went and took similar data and used it to mkae a more dramatic statement, that's the thing with data... You hype it but we are long past that... You added absolutely nothing but pure narcissism. Oh, and those complete idots that race, like GC contenders, weight matters right? Right? Say it doesn't... Wiggo is going into track at 170 and says in TdC that he's at least 12 lbs overweight to road race... He won Le Tour at 158. How is it that those idiots know so so much less than you do. They only win world tour races at the very highest level? But you know better?


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

I admit that when I first started cycling more consistently 5 years ago, I was on the carbon bandwagon; ie, carbon or bust. But as I have become a stronger rider over the years, I honestly feel like I can ride any bike material and still perform well...as long as the bike fit me well and equipped similarly. This year, I purchased my first non carbon bike....a no. 22 Reactor Ti bike. Although I still have two SW TArmacs, I choose to ride the Ti bike almost every time now. Initially I noticed what I thought was a decrease in responsiveness with the Ti bike...but I think that was just that it felt different. Now I really don't notice much difference at all, and definitely no drop in speed and/or performance. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

Pros actually often don't know the weight of their bikes, and they are often a pound or two over the UCI minimum. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMsgzD-JFQs. 12 pounds of body weight is a lot more than that though.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

cobra_kai said:


> Pros actually often don't know the weight of their bikes, and they are often a pound or two over the UCI minimum. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMsgzD-JFQs. 12 pounds of body weight is a lot more than that though.


Thanks for posting that vid. Interesting to see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

PBL450 said:


> Thats hilarious. Jay and I both posted data that's every bit, or more, reliable than what you posted. Looks like you neglected to read the thread... Why bother, you make the point clearly that you race, so no one else's opinion or data matters, you are cooler and more macho and more knowledgeable. You just went and took similar data and used it to mkae a more dramatic statement, that's the thing with data... You hype it but we are long past that... You added absolutely nothing but pure narcissism. Oh, and those complete idots that race, like GC contenders, weight matters right? Right? Say it doesn't... Wiggo is going into track at 170 and says in TdC that he's at least 12 lbs overweight to road race... He won Le Tour at 158. How is it that those idiots know so so much less than you do. They only win world tour races at the very highest level? But you know better?


Good lord PBL! You sure make a lot of asinine remarks. 

I do happen to think weight matters. I do worry about marginal gains. More aero and rolling resistance and training load issues than weight of the bike though. I've learned being lean is probably the single most important (and hardest) aspect to cycling performance and I obsess over that as well. I worry and pay attention because I'm NOT that fast or accomplished when it comes to bike racing. 

But, I know that 2 pounds doesn't equal 1 mph slower for anyone anywhere. That is the only point I wanted to illustrate since that was the heart of what ArmySlowRdr wrote. Stop trying to tell everyone the opposite. It's insulting and goes against the nature of RBR IMHO. 

I think it is you who needs to read a bit more carefully. You might learn something. Then again maybe not.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

woodys737 said:


> Good lord PBL! You sure make a lot of asinine remarks.
> 
> I do happen to think weight matters. I do worry about marginal gains. More aero and rolling resistance and training load issues than weight of the bike though. I've learned being lean is probably the single most important (and hardest) aspect to cycling performance and I obsess over that as well. I worry and pay attention because I'm NOT that fast or accomplished when it comes to bike racing.
> 
> ...


What specifically is asinine or untrue? We've long been over the "how much and does it matter to what degree" stuff. It matters. I am telling people the opposite of what? That 2 pounds matters vs it doesn't matter? Did you read the thread? I posted links myself that show it's not that dramatic. Thank you for confirming that? What do I need to read more carefully, please be specific, because I don't follow your point, if there is a cogent one? What should I read more carefully? Again, specificity, please... 

Look, I agree completely with the heart of your reply here... But you criticize me and agree with me in the same 3 paragraphs. So, whatever... I leave y'all with this: 
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/04/chris-froome-tour-de-france-data


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

PBL450 said:


> Look, I agree completely with the heart of your reply here... But you criticize me and agree with me in the same 3 paragraphs.


A) He didn't criticize you, he disagreed with you. He supported his disagreement with details showing how much more weight than 2lbs it would take to slow someone down by 1mph. Most here have commented that weight causes a loss of speed but that 2lbs causes a virtually indistinguishable loss of speed. He showed the details. You take every disagreement as an insult and come out swinging, attacking the poster instead of refuting what was said. Was he wrong that it would take a much larger weight increase than 2lbs to cause a 1mph loss in speed? We'll never know what you think as you're too busy insulting him.

B) Your entire diatribe on this thread is senseless since the poster who bought the steel bike never said that increased speed was his reason for making the purchase. It's just another example of someone placing their priorities on top of those of another & then attacking that person for not having the same priorities.

C) You're an absolute a$$hole and should never, ever criticize anyone on this or any board again for aggressive, personal attacks.


----------



## redcolnago (Jul 12, 2015)

*Wow!*



DaveWC said:


> A) He didn't criticize you, he disagreed with you. He supported his disagreement with details showing how much more weight than 2lbs it would take to slow someone down by 1mph. Most here have commented that weight causes a loss of speed but that 2lbs causes a virtually indistinguishable loss of speed. He showed the details. You take every disagreement as an insult and come out swinging, attacking the poster instead of refuting what was said. Was he wrong that it would take a much larger weight increase than 2lbs to cause a 1mph loss in speed? We'll never know what you think as you're too busy insulting him.
> 
> B) Your entire diatribe on this thread is senseless since the poster who bought the steel bike never said that increased speed was his reason for making the purchase. It's just another example of someone placing their priorities on top of those of another & then attacking that person for not having the same priorities.
> 
> C) You're an absolute a$$hole and should never, ever criticize anyone on this or any board again for aggressive, personal attacks.


Wow....you should go on every forum to straighten out people who need to be straightened out...lol

ps..I found the info in the thread on how much weight you would actually need to add/lose to see a 1 mph difference in speed very interesting. My friend was bugging me to dump my 11 steel Colnagos, Pinarellos. Bianchis etc for carbon. I was stupid enough to require the info in this thread to realize that I don’t need to switch to carbon....lol 

I should have realized that I dropped my friend on his carbon bike a number of times last ride (at the end of the ride aI had to say “Where were you?”). This is also despite the fact he rides 6 000 km a year vs my 3 000. In addition I pass everyone on carbon bikes anyway. Also...no-one talks about rolling terrain.....lighter weight doesn’t help you there and so many rides are rolling terrain (unless you are riding the rockies every day...lol). I also don’t think most carbon bikes are as aero as my bikes.


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

cool story bro


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

This is one of the weirdest thread dredges I've ever seen and based on the last few posts from a couple years ago I can't imagine people want to carry this on again. A vote here for locking the thread...


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

DaveWC said:


> A) He didn't criticize you, he disagreed with you. He supported his disagreement with details showing how much more weight than 2lbs it would take to slow someone down by 1mph. Most here have commented that weight causes a loss of speed but that 2lbs causes a virtually indistinguishable loss of speed. He showed the details. You take every disagreement as an insult and come out swinging, attacking the poster instead of refuting what was said. Was he wrong that it would take a much larger weight increase than 2lbs to cause a 1mph loss in speed? We'll never know what you think as you're too busy insulting him.
> 
> B) Your entire diatribe on this thread is senseless since the poster who bought the steel bike never said that increased speed was his reason for making the purchase. It's just another example of someone placing their priorities on top of those of another & then attacking that person for not having the same priorities.
> 
> C) You're an absolute a$$hole and should never, ever criticize anyone on this or any board again for aggressive, personal attacks.


C is hilarious. You go Dave. Give it to him.
OP...choose whatever frame material you like. 5lbs diff generally only matters if climbing and not that much.

What I have learned riding with a thousand fast guys is...a fast guy on any frame material which beat a slightly slower rider on any other material. Can't buy game...or its in the fractions of improvement.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

11spd said:


> C is hilarious. You go Dave. Give it to him.
> OP...choose whatever frame material you like. 5lbs diff generally only matters if climbing and not that much.
> 
> What I have learned riding with a thousand fast guys is...a fast guy on any frame material which beat a slightly slower rider on any other material. Can't buy game...or its in the fractions of improvement.


While it is true that the engine is the most important aspect it is highly unlikely that the OP will see this as this was a necro from 2010, with the previous activity happening in 2016 but the OP himself hasn't been active since 2012.


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

taodemon said:


> While it is true that the engine is the most important aspect it is highly unlikely that the OP will see this as this was a necro from 2010, with the previous activity happening in 2016 but the OP himself hasn't been active since 2012.


I guess I should have read the thread. :wink5:


----------



## redcolnago (Jul 12, 2015)

*Lock them all and throw away the keys*



11spd said:


> I guess I should have read the thread. :wink5:[/QUOTE
> 
> If you close all the threads the guys who think they are brilliant because they like to point out a thread is old will have nothing to do with their lives. The guys who never read a whole thread before commenting will still be with us.


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

redcolnago said:


> 11spd said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I should have read the thread. :wink5:[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## redcolnago (Jul 12, 2015)

ROAD&DIRT said:


> Come on really... Its not the bike that make you go fast... its the rider, however to each there own. If you want to buy all that carbon stuff and believe its making you faster, then who are we to tell you different... believing is power, spend away and go as fast as you want. :thumbsup:


Not sure where the recent replies went...

Did find an interesting article *Bike weight and the myth of ‘fast’ bikes...in Velonews I think.*

The author of the article calculated that on a one mile climb ( 7% grade I think ) you will be seven seconds faster on a bike that is 3.5 pounds lighter. That is for a light cyclist where a drop of 3.5 lbs would be more significant than for an average sized rider. He then says that if you lose body weight insteWad you will not just be lighter, but more efficient too. Ps...Wouldn’t a guy on a 3.5 lb bike be faster going down the other side


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

redcolnago said:


> Not sure where the recent replies went...
> 
> Did find an interesting article *Bike weight and the myth of ‘fast’ bikes...in Velonews I think.*
> 
> The author of the article calculated that on a one mile climb ( 7% grade I think ) you will be seven seconds faster on a bike that is 3.5 pounds lighter. That is for a light cyclist where a drop of 3.5 lbs would be more significant than for an average sized rider. He then says that if you lose body weight insteWad you will not just be lighter, but more efficient too. Ps...Wouldn’t a guy on a 3.5 lb bike be faster going down the other side


Yep. Which means the heavy bike may get to the top 7 seconds later, but will make it up on the downhill.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Has that been tested on Mt Wilson?


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

Fredrico said:


> Yep. Which means the heavy bike may get to the top 7 seconds later, but will make it up on the downhill.


I know you are kidding about making it up on the downhill. Weight is much greater penalty up hill than benefit downhill. But as discussed, even 5 more pounds uphill for an amateur cyclist isn't a huge deficit.

General difference between an aluminum and carbon bike is about a lb and sometimes even much less depending on what frames are being compared.

Aluminum frames have improved dramatically in the last 5 years even getting better all the time. I ride one on my back up bike and love it.


----------



## redcolnago (Jul 12, 2015)

11spd said:


> I know you are kidding about making it up on the downhill. Weight is much greater penalty up hill than benefit downhill. But as discussed, even 5 more pounds uphill for an amateur cyclist isn't a huge deficit.
> 
> General difference between an aluminum and carbon bike is about a lb and sometimes even much less depending on what frames are being compared.
> 
> Aluminum frames have improved dramatically in the last 5 years even getting better all the time. I ride one on my back up bike and love it.


Hi...are you kidding about downhills?...I am not kidding..on every downhill I will zoom past my friend on his carbon bike and he’s pedaling away and I am just coasting. (I am heavier than him)..I don’t want to use my brakes to stay even with him. If he was making 7 seconds up on me on the uphill from having a carbon bike he’s losing at least that on the downhill. It is very noticable on rolling terrain....I go down the hills faster and use that momentum to zoom up the hills (old school?).

Ps...on uphills my friend is not getting to the top ahead of me anyway...I guess if he was any faster uphill because he is lighter and because his carbon bike is lighter I must be working harder to keep up. I don’t notice the extra effort and I guess I must be in better shape because of it. His 20-30 lbs of body weight is helping him more than the 3lbs his bike is saving him according to the Velo article anyway. I guess riding up a mountain in the rockies would be different.


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

redcolnago said:


> Hi...are you kidding about downhills?...I am not kidding..on every downhill I will zoom past my friend on his carbon bike and he’s pedaling away and I am just coasting. (I am heavier than him)..I don’t want to use my brakes to stay even with him. If he was making 7 seconds up on me on the uphill from having a carbon bike he’s losing at least that on the downhill. It is very noticable on rolling terrain....I go down the hills faster and use that momentum to zoom up the hills (old school?).
> 
> Ps...on uphills my friend is not getting to the top ahead of me anyway...I guess if he was any faster uphill because he is lighter and because his carbon bike is lighter I must be working harder to keep up. I don’t notice the extra effort and I guess I must be in better shape because of it. His 20-30 lbs of body weight is helping him more than the 3lbs his bike is saving him according to the Velo article anyway. I guess riding up a mountain in the rockies would be different.


You got to understand about your friend...I have watched him ride. He is afraid of high speed. He drags his feet on downhills. Check out the toes of his shoes.
So, don't read too much into his results.
Remember, a single swallow, doesn't a summer make.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Aerodynamics will probably play a bigger part in downhill speed than weight, both in the actual profiling of the bike's tube shapes, aero wheels, and most important, the riders position on the bike. I usually make it downhill much faster than bigger heavier guys, even ones who can drop me on climbs.


----------



## redcolnago (Jul 12, 2015)

taodemon said:


> Aerodynamics will probably play a bigger part in downhill speed than weight, both in the actual profiling of the bike's tube shapes, aero wheels, and most important, the riders position on the bike. I usually make it downhill much faster than bigger heavier guys, even ones who can drop me on climbs.


My former pro race mechanic friend says its my super smooth campy super record (technically called record I think) hubs...but maybe he is pulling my leg.

Your point about aerodynamics is very important..don't they say that aerodynamics is far more important than weight? I think that my steel bikes with thin tubes and 20 mm sometimes 23 (hard to find 20 now...lol) tires is far more aero than carbon bikes. Some of my bikes do have slightly aero rims steel rims...90s models I think.. 

The only rider I have had trouble keeping up with was a young competitive trinathlete on his tri/aero bike on rides into a strong wind. After awhile I tried tucking in behind him, but he blocked almost no wind...it as like he was laying flat on his bike.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Aerodynamics has come a long in bikes from when they first starting making aero bikes. It might still be a relatively minor aspect compared to a good aerodynamic position on the bike but given a equal positioning an aero bike with aero wheels can save you as much as a claimed 2 minutes over 40km. An aero frame isn't the most cost effective way to save time as you can get much better bang for your buck from a skin suit and aero helmet but if you are looking for every little advantage it adds up.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

jetdog9 said:


> Has that been tested on Mt Wilson?


Indeed it was! The tubular tires kept top speed below 48 mph as much as I tried. On clinchers, I'v gone into a full tuck and increased descending speeds up to 2 mph, like 43-45 mph. That's about the difference between climbing at 9 mph, switching over to a lighter bike and doing it at 10 or 11 mph. Al least that's my reading riding two bikes, one 24 pounds, the other 22 pounds. The two pound difference makes the difference climbing, not so much descending, as 11spd notes. 

Heck, maybe the reason I pass riders on descents is not the inertial mass of my 10 pounds of fat and 5 pound heavier bike, but the Campy wheel bearings, true tires, and aerodynamic tuck? :idea: I think gravity plays a role here. Not sure why.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

redcolnago said:


> *My former pro race mechanic friend says its my super smooth campy super record (technically called record I think) hubs...but maybe he is pulling my leg.*
> 
> Your point about aerodynamics is very important..don't they say that aerodynamics is far more important than weight? I think that my steel bikes with thin tubes and 20 mm sometimes 23 (hard to find 20 now...lol) tires is far more aero than carbon bikes. Some of my bikes do have slightly aero rims steel rims...90s models I think..
> 
> The only rider I have had trouble keeping up with was a young competitive trinathlete on his tri/aero bike on rides into a strong wind. After awhile I tried tucking in behind him, but he blocked almost no wind...it as like he was laying flat on his bike.


The ex-pro mechanic is right! :thumbsup: The cup and cone Campy Super Record bearing were car quality. Still riding two bikes on those bearings. They've never worn out. I used to yell, "Campy bearings!" to my ride mates when scooting past them on the downhills. They all thought I was joking!


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

taodemon said:


> *Aerodynamics will probably play a bigger part in downhill speed than weight*, both in the actual profiling of the bike's tube shapes, aero wheels, and most important, the riders position on the bike. I usually make it downhill much faster than bigger heavier guys, even ones who can drop me on climbs.


Physics supports what you write in bold. When racing friends down the hill and most of us have, its a combination of weight and aerodynamics. There is a reason the best riders in the world descend the Alps when sitting on the top tube...it is a much more aerodynamic position. That said, I can descend pretty fast because my mass does a good job of overcoming wind resistance. I am 6'1" or Froomes height but weigh 180# or about 25 lbs heavier. If getting flat backed on a descent I can beat a lighter rider down the hill with the same aerodynamics as myself. A smaller and more aero rider however will subtract some of my weight benefit which overcomes air resistance. The bowling ball fell faster in the following video because its mass overcame it drag coefficient which negates its rate of descent.

Galileo's famous experiment recreated. y = 1/2 a * t^2 in a vacuum taught in introductory Physics class for those who enjoy math.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyeF-_QPSbk


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm curious at what point weight would be a bigger factor than aerodynamics, especially in like materials, as in bowling ball vs smaller bowling ball, human vs human in similar position/bike setup. Adding weight typically adds size likely increasing area affected by wind resistence. Obviously in humans it would be different since when we add weight we don't necessarily grow in size equally in all directions the way a larger vs smaller bowling ball would be. But could this mean that there is an ideal weight/height range factor that plays into being better descenders? I know Nibali is 5'11', Sagan 6', Froome 6'1" and typically the small climbers like Quintana at 5'6" don't descend well. I don't know much about cycling history but have there been good descenders that were unusually short or tall?


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

taodemon said:


> I'm curious at what point weight would be a bigger factor than aerodynamics, especially in like materials, as in bowling ball vs smaller bowling ball, human vs human in similar position/bike setup. Adding weight typically adds size likely increasing area affected by wind resistence. Obviously in humans it would be different since when we add weight we don't necessarily grow in size equally in all directions the way a larger vs smaller bowling ball would be. But could this mean that there is an ideal weight/height range factor that plays into being better descenders? I know Nibali is 5'11', Sagan 6', Froome 6'1" and typically the small climbers like Quintana at 5'6" don't descend well. I don't know much about cycling history but have there been good descenders that were unusually short or tall?


I think you understand the dynamic pretty well. Descending a mountain, isn't a free fall. It about riding skill. This was proven in the TdF a couple of weeks ago repeatedly. Also brake type has nothing to do with descending speed. Fastest guy was on rim brakes. There is no perfect equation. I will tell you the fastest skiers down the hill are big strong guys, largely due to their mass but also their power off their inside ski. 

Thing to consider is, in pro cycling, there is a bigger difference going up the mountain than going down it. Why so many sprinters got dropped in the mountain stages...the heaviest guys...not because they can't descend which including Sagan, is one of the best descenders in pro cycling.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

11spd said:


> I will tell you the fastest skiers down the hill are big strong guys, largely due to their mass *but also their power off their inside ski*.


Damn. I admit I've not skied competitively for a long time but, this can't right. Maybe maybe maybe on super flat sections especially with soft snow they pressure both skis 50/50. And that's saying 50/50 for the complete arc. They still probably pressure the outside ski more initiating etc...the steeper the section and harder the snow/ice even more so. So acceleration is developed more with the outside ski. With newer skis initiating the arc is wicked easier but, hips are still doing the same thing for the most part from what I can feel and what little world cup I watch.


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

woodys737 said:


> Damn. I admit I've not skied competitively for a long time but, this can't right. Maybe maybe maybe on super flat sections especially with soft snow they pressure both skis 50/50. And that's saying 50/50 for the complete arc. They still probably pressure the outside ski more initiating etc...the steeper the section and harder the snow/ice even more so. So acceleration is developed more with the outside ski. With newer skis initiating the arc is wicked easier but, hips are still doing the same thing for the most part from what I can feel and what little world cup I watch.


You are technically correct Woody. I wrote inside ski and should have written inside edge of outside turning ski. The stronger skier who can hold the inside edge of the outside turning ski can ward off centrifugal force and accelerate down the hill fastest.
I know because I wasn't that guy. :wink5:


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

11spd said:


> You are technically correct Woody. I wrote inside ski and should have written inside edge of outside turning ski. The stronger skier who can hold the inside edge of the outside turning ski can ward off centrifugal force and accelerate down the hill fastest.
> I know because I wasn't that guy. :wink5:


Ok yep. I thought maybe that's what you meant. Thx


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

woodys737 said:


> Ok yep. I thought maybe that's what you meant. Thx


Thank you for setting the record straight. Many fond memories of sunny days out on the slopes. Used to live to ski.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

11spd said:


> Thank you for setting the record straight. Many fond memories of sunny days out on the slopes. Used to live to ski.


Me too. It was arguably too much of my life for many years. Don't think about it so much now. Living in the desert makes that easy I guess, but when I left it I was wicked burned out. My only regret is my kids didn't really get to have a chance to ski much.


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

woodys737 said:


> Me too. It was arguably too much of my life for many years. Don't think about it so much now. Living in the desert makes that easy I guess, but when I left it I was wicked burned out. My only regret is my kids didn't really get to have a chance to ski much.


Burn out is a real phenomena for sure. I used to try to play everything. Was pretty good at most things but not great at any. I grew up swimming competitively and then turned to golf and played in high school and college. I played a ton of tennis and when the winter hit, I was on the slopes. A sports junkie basically.

Oddly, I am old now and what do all old people do? They play golf. I played so much golf...so many thousands of holes of golf and got so burned out on it, I have no desire to play any more. Not a bit. I used to live to play golf.

I love cycling and swimming...what I do for recreation today. I too have moved to a warm climate and never see snow and really have no desire to vacation cold and ski.
I think about it but prefer to be warm Woody. 

Cheers brother.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

speed of a bike is determined by the power of the rider's legs, and the capacity of is or her lungs, not the material of the frame which merely sits between the wheels and the rider and performs no moving function


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Trek_5200 said:


> speed of a bike is determined by the power of the rider's legs, and the capacity of is or her lungs, not the material of the frame which merely sits between the wheels and the rider and performs no moving function


I’m pretty sure engine being the most important factor has been mentioned at least once already. That said the same rider on a lighter and/or more aerodynamic frame will typically be faster than if he was riding a heavier round tube bike. Are the difference enough to warrant buying a carbon frame? That part depends on the priorities of the individual cyclist.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

11spd said:


> Physics supports what you write in bold. When racing friends down the hill and most of us have, its a combination of weight and aerodynamics. There is a reason the best riders in the world descend the Alps when sitting on the top tube...it is a much more aerodynamic position. That said, I can descend pretty fast because my mass does a good job of overcoming wind resistance. I am 6'1" or Froomes height but weigh 180# or about 25 lbs heavier. If getting flat backed on a descent I can beat a lighter rider down the hill with the same aerodynamics as myself. A smaller and more aero rider however will subtract some of my weight benefit which overcomes air resistance. The bowling ball fell faster in the following video because its mass overcame it drag coefficient which negates its rate of descent.
> 
> Galileo's famous experiment recreated. y = 1/2 a * t^2 in a vacuum taught in introductory Physics class for those who enjoy math.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyeF-_QPSbk


Interesting video. The feather and ball fell at the same rate--in a vacuum! 

Much different when the air pressure is put back in. Now descending a mountain pushes at 35 mph into this wall of air. So its logical to conclude a heavier weight has inertial mass that overcomes this wall of air. The ball cuts through the air; the feather floats away in the updrafts. So all things equal, the heavier mass will descend faster. as a few of us have observed. . 

This could be the reason some riders experience the sensation of accelerating on high altitude descents a bit faster than in the thicker air at sea level. I found some truth to that coming off the top of Mt.Wilson. There was noticeably less air resistance that gradually went away in the lower altitudes.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

taodemon said:


> I’m pretty sure engine being the most important factor has been mentioned at least once already. That said the same rider on a lighter and/or more aerodynamic frame will typically be faster than if he was riding a heavier round tube bike. Are the difference enough to warrant buying a carbon frame? That part depends on the priorities of the individual cyclist.


what are we talking about 200 grams? you'll never notice it. its the difference between taking a dump or having less water in your bottle. i dropped 10 pounds in the month of july. now that's noticeable....and i felt it, also saw it on my numbers.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Trek_5200 said:


> what are we talking about 200 grams? you'll never notice it. its the difference between taking a dump or having less water in your bottle. i dropped 10 pounds in the month of july. now that's noticeable....and i felt it, also saw it on my numbers.


I think taodemon is spot on. Carbon frames are faster more due to being able to tube shaping v. straight round tube bikes we rode in the 80's and prior. Whether it is noticeable or not is another story. I agree 10 lbs off the body is noticeable. Been there. Not the point however. As much as people don't want to admit it, engineers have been able to make bikes measurably more aero and lighter. Both equal more speed. Not much but, again measurable.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

woodys737 said:


> I think taodemon is spot on. Carbon frames are faster more due to being able to tube shaping v. straight round tube bikes we rode in the 80's and prior. Whether it is noticeable or not is another story. I agree 10 lbs off the body is noticeable. Been there. Not the point however. As much as people don't want to admit it, engineers have been able to make bikes measurably more aero and lighter. Both equal more speed. Not much but, again measurable.


If you drop a Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL6 and my 1974 Schwinn Varsity off the Empire State building, I believe my Varsity will hit the ground first, thus proving carbon is slower


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

woodys737 said:


> I think taodemon is spot on. Carbon frames are faster more due to being able to tube shaping v. straight round tube bikes we rode in the 80's and prior. Whether it is noticeable or not is another story. I agree 10 lbs off the body is noticeable. Been there. Not the point however. As much as people don't want to admit it, engineers have been able to make bikes measurably more aero and lighter. Both equal more speed. Not much but, again measurable.


Exactly. Also, dropping 10lbs might not be feasible for everyone depending on what weight they are at to start with. Cycling has already brought me back down to my high school weight. While another 10lbs might be possible, it would require a lot more time than my current 5k miles/year of riding takes while also drastically reducing my calorie intake, and part of my reason for cycling is that it allows me to keep eating a lot of those foods that otherwise had added 15-20lbs or more before I was cycling.:thumbsup:

I just dropped 200 grams going from one carbon frame to another carbon frame. I did it for the aero improvements, the weight just happened to be an added bonus. Aluminum frames have gotten pretty good though with some even adding some aero elements but still fall behind carbon in both aspects. But again, it all depends on what features or aspects you personally care about and are willing to pay for. 

None of this will keep a much stronger rider from dropping me on a long climb, but it does make me faster than if I was riding a non aero 20lb bike. 

There is no shame in riding a non carbon frame if it makes you happy or if you feel they aren't worth it.


----------



## redcolnago (Jul 12, 2015)

taodemon said:


> I’m pretty sure engine being the most important factor has been mentioned at least once already. That said the same rider on a lighter and/or more aerodynamic frame will typically be faster than if he was riding a heavier round tube bike. Are the difference enough to warrant buying a carbon frame? That part depends on the priorities of the individual cyclist.



5 lbs Lighter is only seven seconds faster only for very light riders up a a fairly steep one mile hill and is slower downhill. Turns out my friend with the carbon bike only weighs ten pounds less than me and his bike a further 3 or so pounds less than my steel bike. Sitting in the same positions on downhills on our last ride I rocketed past him coasting on every downhill no matter the slope and he would have to pedal away to keep up with me. To me he used a lot more energy to keep up with me on downhills than I use to get up hills faster than him. I think you said you get downhill faster than heavier riders...I don’t think you are talking about coasting faster than them...I think you must be using your riding skills...say like not using your brakes etc.

Ps....I would like to see a test showing how a 2018 carbon pinarello with fat tubes and 25 mm tires is a lot more aero than say my 1978 Pinarello with its skinny steel tubes and 20 mm tires. When I look at carbon bikes they don’t look more aero than an old steel bike. I could see how an aero carbon bike is more aero than a standard carbon bike, but how much more aero is it really than a thin-tubed steel bike?
ps2...I have noticed that carbon bikes are noisy...lol....all kinds of creaks while going along and even the shifting is noisy...lol


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE_GKePa3CQ

This is a video from the old generation venge vs a steel bike. The old venge was 50s faster than the steel bike using the same aero wheels on both. 

The new pinarello F10 is faster than the old venge (for reference new venge supposedly is around 50-60s faster than the old venge over 40km). I'm not an aerodynamics specialist but I believe it is more about what the tube shapes make the air do as it passes over the frame and leaves behind the frame then the width of the profile cutting through the air.

As for skills descending this happens on straight descents where no braking or skill necessarily is required.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Interesting video.
But, luddites and specialized.
So, video will be given less weight than unsubstantiated subjective opinions.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

crit_boy said:


> Interesting video.
> But, luddites and specialized.
> So, video will be given less weight than unsubstantiated subjective opinions.


I'm sure the testing is very similar to what all the other brands do for their aero bikes but not all of them seem to make these videos or at least not videos as easily found through google.


----------



## redcolnago (Jul 12, 2015)

taodemon said:


> I'm sure the testing is very similar to what all the other brands do for their aero bikes but not all of them seem to make these videos or at least not videos as easily found through google.


...yes, very interesting..think it said thirty seconds over 40km. A commentor below the video asked how much effort it would take to make up that 30 seconds. I assume size of the rider would impact that 30 seconds. I would assume a taller or wider rider would get less help percentage-wise from an aero frame...just guessing that.

found this comment on a ‘study’ of a 5 km climb in Bicycling...

“He posited a 5 kilometer, 7% grade. That's a good, stiff climb. The legendary Stelvio climb averages 7.5%. He further assumed a rider who can kick out 250 watts. A 160 pound rider (WHO’s 160?) will take 19 minutes and 21 seconds to get up the hill. Every 5 pounds added make the trip up the hill take 30 seconds longer.

That means each added pound adds 6 seconds to the time it takes to get up this hill. That is only 6 seconds on a stiff, 20 minute climb.

So, given our roughly 4-pound range from a full steel bike to a super-light carbon or aluminum bike, the time difference up this hill would be 24 seconds from best to worst.

But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to 15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy. 17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5 to 2 pounds.

The performance advantage of a lighter bike is greatest when the hill is steepest. What happens as things flatten out? Then, as the speed of the bike increases, the resistance comes from the wind, tire rolling resistance, bearing drag, etc. Those 6 seconds/pound grow ever smaller.”


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

redcolnago said:


> ...yes, very interesting..think it said thirty seconds over 40km. A commentor below the video asked how much effort it would take to make up that 30 seconds. I assume size of the rider would impact that 30 seconds. I would assume a taller or wider rider would get less help percentage-wise from an aero frame...just guessing that.
> 
> found this comment on a ‘study’ of a 5 km climb in Bicycling...
> 
> ...


Or reversed with 4 more pounds of inertial mass! . Not to mention the soul Tullio Campagnolo infused in every one of his ball bearings! :thumbsup:

So there ya go, mathematical proof that a 4# heavier steel behemoth from the ancient '80s can keep up with, or possibly pass, a gossamer carbon mount under a heavier rider. Been there and done that hundreds of times. And then there was this retarded kid who time trialed his 35 pound mountain bike for 5 miles at 25 mph on the MUT. 

How the bike handles, how it responds, is always what separates art from pretension. Weight is a minor part of the equation, as the math shows. 

Yes, shave off weight much below 18#, the frame can't handle the abuses of hard riding and fail structurally. Gravel bikes are weighing 24# for a reason. Reviews don't even mention it.


----------



## Mackers (Dec 29, 2009)

So what you're saying is that if I put enough heavy stuff on my bike to get to 18 pounds I'll be safe?

Who knew....


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

If 15lb bikes didn't fail structurally and couldn't handle the abuse imagine how much more they would be used by pro racers. Oh wait...


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

redcolnago said:


> But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to 15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy. 17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range.


Whatchu talking about? ut:


----------



## AndreSF (Sep 23, 2013)

mendo said:


> ... a wheel upgrade would make more of a difference than an "upgrade" to carbon, and it would probably be significantly cheeper.


^^^ this ^^^

Wheels and tires will make way more of a difference than the frame material, but there's so much more to it than the material to determining how a frame performs. The geometry can affect climbing, descending and power transfer.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

aaronis31337 said:


> Hello everybody.
> 
> My last few rides have been with the local cycling group on what's called the "hay ride". This is a pretty aggressive ride with several sprint points and I found myself pushing my bike harder than I ever have before.
> 
> ...


https://youtu.be/V4JAvQCp8ww


I think this link sums it up quite well. 

The answer is a unequivocal “no”. They are not “that much” faster.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> https://youtu.be/V4JAvQCp8ww
> 
> 
> I think this link sums it up quite well.
> ...


^This!^ There is no way getting a different bike is going _actually make you faster_...no matter what people 'feel' it's not going to happen.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

taodemon said:


> If 15lb bikes didn't fail structurally and couldn't handle the abuse imagine how much more they would be used by pro racers. Oh wait...


Frames start to lose structural integrity on bikes lighter than 18#. The tubing breaks in a crash quite readily. If you've got a follow vehicle with another free bike, that's not an issue.

Nice stiff wheels transfer energy to the road better than cheap wheels, and tires soften road shocks, but the frame holds rider and bike together whacking up the hills and battling up to 50 mph headwinds, and responds faithfully to the commands of the rider. 

I know this from changing components on an old steel frame to a new steel frame, hand brazed just for me. It accelerated effortlessly and climbed like a bandit, on the same wheels and tires. The previous frame handled reasonably well unloaded, but went flippy loaded up. The new frame was a little stiff unloaded, but was still as responsive loaded as unloaded. Put a stiff pair of wheels on a flippy frame and the ride will still be flippy. I did that first before changing the frame.  

The frame is the heart of the bike. It makes all the difference in the world, but isn't easily measurable like tire pressure. Riders don't feel it until the going gets high wattage, 350+. For lots of recreational riders that hardly ever happens.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> ^This!^ There is no way getting a different bike is going _actually make you faster_...no matter what people 'feel' it's not going to happen.


Oh stop! Someone has to say it, the material used to make the bike frame is the only real determinant of the riders speed. Everyone knows this. Components are irrelevant. Even the rider is irrelevant. It’s the frame material that matters and when it’s carbon fiber it’s automatically faster! I think we can consider the issue closed.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

PBL450 said:


> Oh stop! Someone has to say it, the material used to make the bike frame is the only real determinant of the riders speed. Everyone knows this. Components are irrelevant. Even the rider is irrelevant. It’s the frame material that matters and when it’s carbon fiber it’s automatically faster! I think we can consider the issue closed.


Ok, you're right.


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

PBL450 said:


> Oh stop! Someone has to say it, the material used to make the bike frame is the only real determinant of the riders speed. Everyone knows this. Components are irrelevant. Even the rider is irrelevant. It’s the frame material that matters and when it’s carbon fiber it’s automatically faster! I think we can consider the issue closed.


You are right of course. :wink5:
I have two bikes of similar geometry both drop bar. One is my go fast bike and has a lot of carbon including handlebars and cranks...but not wheels. Other is Aluminum and I use it for light touring and keep a rack on it.

Honestly, on the flat....the bikes vary in weight by about 5 lbs...both with Campy and Campy wheels, there is almost nothing between them in spite of the rack on the back no doubt catching some wind. I ride it with platform pedals and what I really enjoy is...keeping up with full kitted riders on their all carbon bikes with $2K deep section wheels. They hate the fact that I can keep up rack and all...lol.

If I deny all the blather on the web about carbon having a better ride, I may even prefer the ride of the Al bike. I truthfully love the feel of it. It feels a bit more springy and alive. If I kitted it like the carbon bike which probably weighs 400g or about a lb heavier on frameset, I am sure there would be nothing between the bikes. One frame costs $1K more than the other. Modern Al is outstanding and only difference if choosing the latest Al frames compared to carbon is about 200g or so or less than 1/2 of pound. Modern Al frames are sometimes lighter than older carbon race frames. They all have carbon forks of course.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

redcolnago said:


> But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to 15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy. 17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5 to 2 pounds.


Note--the comment was not about durability of a light bike, but about handling. Anyone who has moved from an old school steel frame (say 21+ pounds) to a new carbon in the 16-18 pound range) must have noticed the difference in handling.

For sure turn-in is faster (I think a function of moment of inertia because of lighter weight), you are more sensitive to buffeting in cross-winds--there are a bunch of changes, and not all of them favorable. (This was noticeable on the two Colnagos with identical geo/trail etc--and they are not known as twitchy or quick...)

In pretty close succession I moved from a conventional all steel (Reynolds 531), to a Colnago Tecnos (lighter steel with carbon fork), to Colnago CT-1 (titanium, carbon stays and fork) and more recently to an all carbon frame. The group/wheels stayed the same as I "upgraded". 

No question that at the lightest end of the spectrum (all carbon) there are changes in how the bike tracks, absorbs road irregularities and responds to things like cross winds. (It is not a weight-weenie build, so I think I am at around 18 lbs on a L frame.) I remember actually being surprised at how much "lighter" or how much movement I could feel in cross winds with the CT-1 for example. Now with my Look 585, I am more used to that handling so I am no longer surprised by it, but you do have to adjust your riding habits. Better dampening on broken pavement from the carbon definitely goes on the plus side...

Whether or not the sweet spot for weight is to do with durability, handling or some combination of both, I don't know although personally I think it is a combination. I found it interesting reading about Dario Pegoretti's design philosophy for the Falz carbon fork--'not the lightest' he says, because he had other considerations for handling and durability...


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

11spd said:


> keeping up with full kitted riders on their all carbon bikes with $2K deep section wheels. They hate the fact that I can keep up rack and all...lol.


Thread drift////I always wanted to show up at the local fast group ride with all the team kitted out guys (I'm one of them) in a tee shirt and cut off jean shorts and mix it up. Maybe a tuxedo jersey or even a cookie monster jersey. 

while riding a local poser ride with guys who just started riding in the 2010's (so they know it all) we passed an older gent just flying up a gentle grade on an older metal bike with maybe OP's, platform pedals, no helmet, just tee shirt and baggy shorts. Some in the group made comments abou the no helmet or the bike or the lack of kit, whatever. Us older wankers had nothing but, praise and admiration for this old dude. He was clearly on the poorer side of the tracks and just out doing what he loved and doing it well. No doubt he couldn't afford all the latest BS us poser, kitted out morons had to have. Such a great lesson if you are open to it. I don't know. Maybe I saw myself in the guy as that's the way I started. Point is I never understand why humans look down at someone who doesn't fit their mold. Ride what you got is what counts.


----------



## 11spd (Sep 3, 2015)

woodys737 said:


> Thread drift////I always wanted to show up at the local fast group ride with all the team kitted out guys (I'm one of them) in a tee shirt and cut off jean shorts and mix it up. Maybe a tuxedo jersey or even a cookie monster jersey.
> 
> while riding a local poser ride with guys who just started riding in the 2010's (so they know it all) we passed an older gent just flying up a gentle grade on an older metal bike with maybe OP's, platform pedals, no helmet, just tee shirt and baggy shorts. Some in the group made comments abou the no helmet or the bike or the lack of kit, whatever. Us older wankers had nothing but, praise and admiration for this old dude. He was clearly on the poorer side of the tracks and just out doing what he loved and doing it well. No doubt he couldn't afford all the latest BS us poser, kitted out morons had to have. Such a great lesson if you are open to it. I don't know. Maybe I saw myself in the guy as that's the way I started. Point is I never understand why humans look down at someone who doesn't fit their mold. Ride what you got is what counts.


I'm the fully kitted out rider on carbon bike too, but I also have a casual side when I ride to the beach with my rack in tennis shoes. I catch fast guys all the time on the trail and ride along. The bike matters a little but not that much. Unless racing and sprinting and hill climbing, I am about as fast on platform pedals as well.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> ^This!^ There is no way getting a different bike is going _actually make you faster_...no matter what people 'feel' it's not going to happen.


Total nonsense. My aero road bike is demonstrably faster than my other road bike. 

As evidenced by actual data.

And if you want to get into how different positions due to a different bike affects speed (e.g. a tt bike will actually make you faster), then we can go even further.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> https://youtu.be/V4JAvQCp8ww
> 
> 
> I think this link sums it up quite well.
> ...


Really? And you got that...how?

Because all I heard was "that's probably worth a good 15-20 seconds, and more aerodynamic is probably worth 5-10 seconds".

So wtf kind of test was that, where they do it, and then guess at the results? 

The answer to your link being in any way useful is an unequivocal no.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Frames start to lose structural integrity on bikes lighter than 18#. The tubing breaks in a crash quite readily. If you've got a follow vehicle with another free bike, that's not an issue.


Where are you getting this information from? You may want to put the pipe down.

The only instance I have heard of this was the Scott carbon bikes when they were 13 lb bikes due to a very light built frame. 

Carbon is stronger than you think. I have seen riders hit by cars where the bike fared way better than the rider. But yes, when carbon does brake it is a catastrophic failure.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

carbon is just a material. materials don't make bikes faster


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Yea, but I think carbon cranks definitely are!


----------

