Maelochs

Also think hard about what "Luddite" means.

I have been watching the Tour Down Under ... and seeing a fair number of riders with discs. Two pounds of dead weight? Not on any racing bike---simply wouldn't happen. And there is some climbing in even the sprint stages, so it isn't like Marcel Kittel with a disc Venge because weight doesn't matter much to a sprinter.

Q-factor? I have widened the q on one of my bikes for greater comfort. I have wide hips.

Too many cogs? A 2x11 has fewer gears than a 3x8 and a Lot more usable ratios---few to no no duplicates.

1x? If you have 12 in back and one up front ... you probably have the same range as an old 3x8 with less weight and easier set-up and maintenance.

Low spoke-count aero rims are heavy? Not in the real world. Seriously. I own some. I have a few wheel sets at or just under 1600 grams ... and my aero rims under 1500. Also .... none of my other low-spoke-count rims have exaggerated aero profiles. This is another "reject progress" viewpoint. Rejecting progress is fine except when it also means rejecting reality.

Weight: Look at how many people who argue weight doesn't matter ... and ride light bikes. I ride a range of bikes. I like light bikes. i have a few heavyweights ... and i enjoy them. i would prefer that they were all lightweights. Check out his thread, by a guy agonizing over the choice who finally got a light bike: (https://www.bikeforums.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=20747586)

Fat tires? Even the pros have found that wider tires at lower pressure are actually faster. Everyone knows they are more comfortable. Maybe if certain biased posters put big, heavy, fat tires on heavy wheels in place of lightweight, skinny tires on lightweight wheels, there might have been a perceptible loss in acceleration ... but you can talk to the unbiased, open-minded cyclists here who are Not defending any particular cycling ideology and most will say 28s or 25s are more fun to ride---just as quick and more forgiving---than the old, rock-hard 23s.

Some stuff, like through-axles---you don't need them unless you like to huck four or fourteen-foot drops. Tubeless? can save you some hassle because you don't have to change a tube when you puncture, and you can run lower pressures, but not essential.

Anyone paying $250 for a cassette or $75 for a chain needs to find better places to shop.

Otherwise ... a new bike will almost certainly be slightly better than the old one if you shop wisely. If your new bike comes from Walmart ... but I think we can assume that we are talking about a rider with decades of experience who would only buy a bike in some ways better than he had, wondering how much of an improvement he would notice.

Thing is, as rational as we can be, we are not at heart rational creatures.

I bet you like the new bike because it is new, it is in new condition, and it does everything incrementally better than the old one. I have bought a bunch of bikes and always loved them for what they were. I enjoy all my bikes, even my $500 Dawes from BikesDirect.

However, another rider could get the same bike and worry non-stop if the incremental improvements "justified" buying the new bike, and never enjoy it and in fact come to hate it. Seems irrational to me, but well within the capacity of human beings.

The OP knows himself and has to decide, not so much based on the "performance" of the new bike---the first thing the second ride on a new bike teaches you, is that the rider has not changed---but based on his own personality. Is he going to be able to enjoy the new bike as itself, not in comparison to some other bike? Or is the new bike going to be an endless source of worry as he tries to measure things which cannot be measured and compare things which cannot be compared?

Easy for me, but everyone is different.

HTupolev

Data is admittedly sparse, but most indications are that current road q-factors are wider than optimal for the average rider. That's opposite from what would be most convenient: it's much more practical to widen a narrow-q bike as needed than the other way around.

That's not always true, and is nearly never true if the 8-speed is employing an intermediate stepping scheme (which is a lot harder to do with 11-speed). I just built up a 3x8 for a touring build, worth about 18 practical unique ratios.

Maelochs

I have 22 usable ratios on my 22-speeds.

You did half-step chainring gearing, i assume, on the triple? I had that for a long time on my Cannondale ... it gets you more usable ratios but necessitates a lot of shifting and an intimate knowledge of the available ratios .... since I had downtube shifters ... ugh. i went to brifters but also to a normal triple (48-38-28.) Possibly if I had brifters which shifted as well as 5800 or 6800 Shimano for triples (Shimano doesn't make them) I could go back to half-step gearing---otherwise I have some 3x9 Tiagra shifters and a 4703 triple crank i might install.

Optimal would be 3x11---because the big benefit of 2x11 is he same a the mid-ring of a good triple---you can do almost all your riding just shifting in back, which is a lot quicker. Modern derailleurs can handle a really wide range of chainrings, so a 50-34-22 should be completely doable---or 53-39-28, or whatever. With a 32- or 34-tooth big cog you could haul a load up any incline ans till cruise at 33 mph at 90 rpm if you had the legs for it.

As for q-factor, I haven't heard about many injuries due to it---and I find when I have problems with heel strikes it is because i tend to twist my feet and have a lot of float in my pedals.

Others' mileage is guaranteed to vary. If you are liking your old-school bikes, that is great. I wouldn't go back to downtube shifters for any reason. Disc brakes are really nice in the rain---I have used steel rims with rim brakes in the rain back in my major commuting days ... instant secure braking is a pure joy. But indeed, stuff is not better just because it is new.

No really looking to argue. mostly, though, having been riding for while, I find most of the new stuff useful ... and none of it is mandatory. I cannot say everything news is better or even necessarily good, nor can i say the old stuff was all good--or bad.

Jim from Boston

I want a new bike but how do I justify?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnelson17

I've only been road riding for about 8 years and for the last 7 of them I've had a 2006 Specialized Roubaix Expert. It's been great for me: comfortable and gets the job done. However, it's been a while with my Roubaix and I can't help but look longingly at new bikes at shops and online.

? In other words, what would a new bike have that I absolutely need? =) I realize that some people would say that wanting a new bike is enough reason to buy, but my mind doesn't work that way. I honestly don't know how much better new bikes are than they were 12 years ago...

Quote:

Originally Posted by datlas

The benefits you would get would be quite modest, but they are real. That said, it's really an economic and philosophical decision that you should decide for yourself.

My advice is to go to the LBS and test-ride a few bikes that fit your budget and decide what's right for you.

One additional benefit of getting a new bike is you could relegate your old bike to beater duty for crappy weather and/or backup when main bike is in need of repair.

I was forced to buy a new bike after an accident, and I had entertained such considerations as you describe. I have previously posted about the benefits:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston

…For years, I rode a steel Bridgestone RB-1, costing about $650 down from about $800 as an end-of-year model when I bought it in the early 1980’s. I came to learn it was considered a classic.

After the introduction of carbon fiber bikes, I always wondered if the premium prices of CF, which I considered to be about $2000 was worth the presumed enhanced riding experience.

The Bridgestone was totaled in 2012 in an accident from which I was not sure I would ride again. Well I did, and decided to get a CF. My trusted mechanic said here’s the bike you want, knowing my riding style. Well the MSRP was $8000, but he got it for me at half off…

Personally, I can afford it, and it was an offer I could not refuse. Cycling is that important to me and I’m fortunate to be able to continue the lifestyle, so that puts it in perspective for me…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston

…My average speed stayed the same, but I thinkI was hampered by injuries from the accident, and I believe the new bike compensated at least to maintain my average speed. I did note that I was more inclined to sprint (successfully) to beat traffic lights before they turned red.

I further craved the smoothness of the ride, including the shifting,making cycle-commuting more pleasurable. Of greatest benefit, while long (greater than 40 mile) rides took the same amount of time as before, I felt much less tired at the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowan

… Performance in this context does not mean outright speed because that is down to the person riding it and their strength and endurance.

But rather is in the quality of the shifting, braking, ride, handling through corners and over rough surfaces, aerodynamics and (dare I say it) comfort.

Good point about relegating the old bike to beater status. Personally though, I had bought my beater as a lesser but good quality bike, to spare the carbon fiber one.

HTupolev

1.5-step, actually. A front shift is 3/2s of a rear shift. 50-40-28 with a 12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32 cassette. The intermediate steps have a bit of unevenness, but it's reasonable across most of the range.
This wasn't really planned out. The crankset was laying around, and I bought a suitable cassette when throwing everything together.

With the right modern triple FD, the shifts between the 50T and 40T chainrings are nearly as crisp as a rear shift. So sometimes when I want a big shift, I just shift the front. If I want a medium-size shift, I can just shift the back. And if I want a tight shift, I can get it with a double-shift.

It does necessitate a lot of shifting, but I'd disagree about the intimate knowledge of available ratios. Because there's a patterned relationship between the gears, I don't need to know anything about any particular gear combination. All I need to know is that a front shift is 3/2 as big as a rear shift. And that becomes intuitive pretty quickly.

By contrast, with my Emonda's 2x11 (Shimano standard 50-34 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28), the gear steps are inconsistent and the gears don't relate to each other in a patterned way. So I *do* know weird details that are specific to particular gears. For instance: if I'm in the 50-15 and I want a lower gear, but I don't want to drop all the way to the 50-17, I know that I can shift to the 34-11 for a smaller ratio change (although I don't actually do this very often).

I'm not overly fond of DT shifters, but I'd argue that half-step is actually less of a compromise with them than with most other shifter types.

The big annoyance with half-step on most shift interfaces is that, when making a double-shift, you need to access both shifters. So with brifters or bar-end shifters, you need to move both hands to a position that they can shift from (if they're not already there). So a double-shift can be more disruptive to your posture on the bike than a single shift.

This compromise doesn't exist with downtube shifters, because your hand can shift both shifters with the one arm movement.

I haven't either, but I'm more thinking of feel and efficiency. Dave Mayer's description of "it's like riding a horse" is a good description, even if it's an exaggeration. I'm personally not overly bothered by modern road cranks, but I think I prefer a bit narrower.

Incidentally, the 3x8 I just built up isn't particularly low-Q. I err'd a bit wide on the BB spindle... there's lots of room to bring things closer in if I decide I want to change it..

jamesdak 

I gave up trying to justify a new bike purchase years ago!

dougphoto

If you have the money for a new bike it means you need a new bike, otherwise why have money?

TheLibrarian

unless you're religious about cleaning, lubing and maintaining it a new bike will just be smoother.

mstateglfr 

How many mm wider are you referring to?

Maelochs

Lies! Lies! it's all Lies!

Actually i wanted to say how much I am enjoying a discussion with someone who has a different point of view and is actually discussing, sharing information, and not trying to convince me. I love this stuff, and learn from it. Thanks.

Dave Mayer

Also think hard about how to avoid being a gullible early adopter, and slave to the sorry bike industries attempts to churn sales through fads/trends and misguided developments.

To put all of this in context, put yourself back to 1972, walking into a bike shop. The hard sell you would receive is that everyone had to have a newfangled '10-speed'. Narrow fast tires and lightweight. And yes, everyone bought one of these, most of which got hung up in rafters until the baby-boomers owners got shipped out to a care home.

In 1986, everyone had to be on a mountain bike. For all kinds of riding, including street riding. Shops of the time told you straight to your face that road bikes were dead dead dead. And they were... by 1990, you could not give away a used road bike.

1992: Full suspension mountain bikes. They are like mountain bikes - but even moreso! Shops will swear that you need a 45-pound pogo-stick rig with 8" of travel front and rear to tootle to the coffee shop on Sunday morning.

2000: road bikes. They are back, largely driven by Lance. Everyone wanted to be Lance. To this day, pickup-truck hillbillies yell out of their window: "where are you going so fast Lance?".

2006: Fixies. Thank God this fad flamed out quickly. The only good thing was it cleared out the vast inventory of old road bike frames - purchased in 1972.

Now: we all need to be on gravel endurance bikes with disk breaks and 24 speeds. Or 1 x drivetrains with massive pie-plate cogs at the back. Because we are too proud to use a triple crankset, and we are now all a lot fatter and softer than the general population of 1972.

OK... what will it be in 5 years? In all of this time, the general riding public would have been best served by a simple hybrid with slick tires, no suspension, and a triple crankset.

Dave Mayer

Look at someone walking - from the front. Note that in turn, each foot is placed directly under the center of mass of the body. So ideally, the Q is zero.

We are well beyond this now. Ever ridden an old track bike with 110mm stay spacing? Super narrow Q. It is a great experience. Now ride a full-suspension rig with fat tires. With every pedal stroke the bike rocks inefficiently side to side. So with wide Q, what should be pedaling energy being translated into forward motion, gets translated into useless side to side motion.

mstateglfr 

Sorry, i meant how many mm wider are the cranks you are complaining about versus the cranks that were being used? I know the answer, just looking to have that incrementally small number posted here for discussion. Its interesting how such seemingly small differences cause such large discomforts.

Dave Mayer

No. You imply that we should just buy something new, and then run it into the ground due to lack of basic maintenance. And then again buy something new. If you are riding good miles, this means replacing their bike every 6 months, when the chain is stretched out.

New is not always smoother. For example, when Shimano moved their shifter cables under the handlebar wrap, it introduced more tight bends and friction. Plus a rash of broken cables requiring fishing out from the shifter bodies. All things being equal, new Shimano shifters are not as 'smooth' as the older ones with the exposed shifter cables.

Internal cable routing. Besides being a hellish %$(*^!! PITA to set up, this has introduced more cable friction than the older exposed routing.

Disc brakes: everyone we see in our shop complains about pads rubbing, and most have bent rotors. Not smooth.

Maelochs

This has devolved into an ego-war. Facts are out the window, and people are deliberately misinterpreting posts to "win" an internet debate.

You guys have fun.

Trsnrtr

Correct. And, since the OP never posted again, we can surmise that he either got the info he needed or the egos sickened him and he left the board.

Jim from Boston

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maelochs

This has devolved into an ego-war. Facts are out the window, and people are deliberately misinterpreting posts to "win" an internet debate.

You guys have fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trsnrtr

Correct. And, since the OP never posted again, we can surmise that he either got the info he needed or the egos sickened him and he left the board.

Well, don’t close the thread on that account.

bikejrff

Same for new wheels.

GrizzlyPeaks

Maelochs

I don't need any more bikes ,... but hey, since you mentioned it .... maybe I need some new wheels?

Nachoman

Impressive.

TheRef

Seattle Forrest

I think the TL;DR is that anyone who doesn't ride a bike just like mine is an inferior human being.

Maelochs

Dude, this is Bicycle Forum, not Wisdom Forum.

Get a bike and start hating. It's what's for dinner.

Clipped_in

Actually, I want a new bike that has thru-axle, hydro disk, 12 speed Shimano. ...So it's going to take a couple of years. Still not sure how many rings I want up front, but that may get settled in the interim.