Erich_E

Genuine ignorance here!

How much faster could could an average cyclist, or a pro expect be riding a top of the line carbon bike as compared to something like a touring style, say for instance a Jamis Aurora Elite like I have.

On the race style bike would gains be expected after a certain level of fitness, or after longer rides, or after you're able to maintain a higher average speed? Where does the benefit come in on a high end bike? Other than the obvious "looks factor", like a Ferrari vs station wagon. ha

Thanks for any info.

02Giant 

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

brianmcg123

African or European woodchuck?

02Giant 

North American, I am thinking the OP is from the US...

rm -rf

Advantages of a lightweight carbon racing bike?

Lose some weight. The Jamis page says the Aurora is 28-29 pounds. A racing bike, with pedals, bottle cage, etc, might be 16 pounds. That's 9% lighter (bike+rider) for a 160 pound rider. On a reasonably steep hill, where wind resistance isn't a big factor, the lighter bike will be about that same percentage faster.

Quicker handling. The racing wheels are lighter, the tires grippier, and the bike geometry is handling oriented, instead of stability oriented. Thin, supple tires have less rolling resistance. The Jamis Elite has the very nice Clement Xplor USH 35c tires, but those are designed for multi-surface riding.

Usually a more aero position.

How much faster? It's complicated. And even a half mile per hour bump would have the racing bike a full mile ahead after a two hour ride. That's a lot.

big chainring 

I ride vintage bikes from the '70's. I frequently jump into weekend group rides where the speeds top 25mph. My bikes weigh 25 pounds or more. 40 year old parts and wheels. It's not the bike that let's me down, it's my fitness.

wphamilton

The top of the line carbon race bikes are designed to facilitate the rider's production of power while in the most aerodynamic position. The average cyclist can't do that well, not from the perspective of the pro and top amateurs. So if you instantaneously transformed the bike under an average cyclist (who is riding as hard as he could) to one of those, his speed gain would be little to none.

Retro Grouch 

It's not about the bike.

Once you get over around 12 or 15 MPH, most of your power goes to overcoming the air resistance of your torso. Unless a rider drastically changed their riding position at the same time as they acquired the new bike, I'd guess 1 or 2 MPH would be it.

spdracr39

None. Zero. Zip. For an average rider it's not the machine is it the 100% rider.

Flinstone

1 or 2 mph from what? You think average joe will get that much aero advantage? You'd need half your time climbing pretty steep(but less steep for average joe) hills to gain that from weight itself. 1 or 2 sounds pretty unlikely to me for most riding. The best way for an average joe to go faster, other than riding more, is to get a recumbent, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Flinstone

Ah.. I see the OP did say compared to a "touring style" bike. Indeed, anyone who gets reasonably fit can get some aero advantage from a road bike. Yes, maybe 1 or 2 mph isn't absurd. You don't need an expensive carbon bike to get that advantage though. Any drop bar road bike that lets you get more leaned over than your touring bike will accomplish that.

jefnvk

Unless of course one is not on a closed course, and then all those half MPH gains are lost waiting for lights and traffic.

Or, from my anecdotal experience: I did an organized ~30ish mile group ride with a dozen and a half folks a few weeks back, on a 40 year old bike pushing 35#. I finished in the group of four in the front, with two CF bikes and an older steel Bianchi. I am in no way a racer, or even all that fast, have little doubt the riders on the two CF bikes I finished with could have taken off and left me at will, but others on CF bikes also finished a few minutes behind me.

An "average" cyclist is not racing, is generally not on a closed course where minuscule advantages add up big, and IMO are generally limited far more by the engine than the frame.

Oldguyonoldbike

There's more involved than just weight and aerodynamics. In fact, there are so many factors that generalizing is pretty pointless. Nevertheless, I'll offer some anecdotal info.

I have two steel racing bikes, one twenty years old and the other thirty years old, and an eight-year-old carbon fiber racing bike. The level of equipment and the range of gears is similar on all three, as is the fit and rider position. The steel bikes weigh roughly 22 lbs. each and the carbon bike weighs 18 lbs. I am a relatively fit 54-year-old who has never raced and has no intention of ever racing. I do, however, track my rides on Strava. My maximum speeds are usually slightly higher on the steel bikes, in particular on the 20-year-old Colnago with 20-year-old equipment. On rides up to about 25 or 30 miles, average speeds are similar, but a little faster (up to approx. 0.5 mph) on the carbon fiber bike. The longer the ride the bigger the difference in average speed (up to a little more than 1 mph).

I chalk the difference up to two things: weight and frame flex. At least for me these come into play as increased effort, especially if hills are involved, and as a result I tire more quickly and then slow down when riding the heavier, flexier steel frames. The OP, though, asked about a Jamis touring bike. I would expect the same effects, increased by the greater rolling resistance of the plusher tires and the aerodynamic drag of a more upright riding position. On the other hand, the Jamis has lower gearing and is surely much, much more comfortable than a racing bike. Riding cross country or commuting on damaged urban roads I'd take the Jamis in a heartbeat over a CF racing bike.

John_V 

You can't put a Focus engine in a Ferrari and expect it to be just as fast. Work on the engine and the speed will come.

Hypno Toad

You gave all the flamers on BF something fun for their Friday entertainment!

I have something that might lend some insight into your question (without all the snarky comments) - I started this thread earlier this year:

https://www.bikeforums.net/general-cy...ead-sorry.html

digibud

I disagree that there would be no difference. If that were the case the pro peloton would be a mix of steel and carbon and aluminum frames and my personal experience does not agree. I have steel, alumninum and carbon bikes including touring, fat, mountain and road bikes. My road bike is an SWorks Roubaix. My touring bike is a Salsa Fargo. I'm easily 2-3mph faster on the Roubaix with the same effort. I never have 25mm tires on the Fargo and it is much less aero and doesn't put me into nearly as aero position. The aerodynamics alone are meaningful in terms of effort and the weight is a huge factor when you find yourself climbing a 10mile hill. It's true that weight doesn't mean much once you're up to speed but it's huge when climbing and touring bikes don't concern themselves with aerodynamics at all which is a meaningful thing. I would struggle to keep up in a group on anything but my road bike. Losing weight is always the key to cycling success but when the question is "all other things being equal", a lightweight carbon bike with good quality road wheels and tires will always be a better bet than a touring bike.

jefnvk

I don't think there are a lot of "average" cyclists in the pro peloton, though. In any case, comparing the speeds of a steel fatter tired touring bike to a carbon race bike is a bit silly, what is the actual speed differential between your CF race bike and a similar level steel race bike?

DrIsotope

We all saw the story about the guy who finished Stage 1 of the Tour of Gila on an '80s Stumpjumper, right? Bike don't matter much. Some folks take longer than others to realize you can't buy fast.

CliffordK

I've been changing from vintage racing steel to modern-ish CF (well, a bit of a mix there, the frame may be close to 20 years old, with newer components). Also from 32/36 spokes down to 16/20 oval spokes. I have a few more upgrades in progress.

It is hard to get a good comparison because each bike is quite different. And I managed to hurt my elbow a month ago which is taking a while to recover.

But, I'm now in the process of going around and snagging some of my Strava PRs. In some cases, pushing them up by 1 MPH or so. I've snagged a couple of "just riding along" PRs. I also snagged one hill climb KOM that had been eluding me, and think I can push it up a bit more once I get back to 100%.

I've never been a real fast rider, but I did push an 11 mile ride up from 19 MPH to 20 MPH.

My conditioning may be improving, so it may not be a perfect comparison. But the new-ish bike feels very nice. I'll have to get the old one back on the road sometime.

Anyway, 1 MPH at 20 MPH for a standard road bike wouldn't be unreasonable. Or, even 1 MPH at a lower speed for hills.

Go for a full aero triathlon bike, and who knows? Maybe a bit more at 25 MPH?

CliffordK

Finishing doesn't mean he was competitive... even before the crash. No doubt he had an extra adrenalin boost, and he only rode the bike for about 4 km.

CliffordK

Oh, also, keep in mind that one isn't necessarily just upgrading a single component.

Better frame (lighter)
Better Wheels
Better Tires
Aero positioning?
Stiffness?

DrIsotope

He finished the stage 155 out of 180. Quite good, considering the off, and the fact that the very end of the day has some of the steepest grades found in the entire stage. And I mean, c'mon. This picture is fantastic.

rm -rf

My favorite photo is his finish line bike throw. Yeah!

digibud

My grandson, a highly competitive xcountry skier can seriously kick my butt when he's on a mtn bike and I'm on my Roubaix. It has something to do with me being old and fat and him being young and super fit. However, if there were two of him, the one on the Roubaix would win a road race every time. And if he raced a steel frame bike against himself on a carbon frame on anything but flat ground, the carbon frame would win every time too. That's about all that I'd grant but beyond that, high end carbon frames typically also have high end lighter, better wheels so while it's true that it's much more about the rider than the ride, and the best place to drop weight is off the body not the bike, all other things being equal, a light high end carbon bike will still outperform a heavy steel bike simply because it's lighter. Not by much. Not much at all. But when you throw in better wheels and figure in climbs and such, I'll go for a lightweight carbon frame for any road race or fast group ride every time because I can use any little advantage I can get .

intbiker

The biggest thing that stands out to me is aerodynamics. And if the rider doesn't properly utilize the better positioning on the better bike, then I would think the real-world gains would be pretty small. I can tell a big difference when I use my aero bars, even though I have somewhat knobby tires. I can usually go about 2 kph or so faster when I use them. The position isn't even that extremely aggressive. My two cents...