genejockey 

For example, it's a lot easier to load my 17 lb CF Canyon in the trunk than my 25 lb Lotus Classique.

koala logs

Concave back posture forces the core muscles to work a lot harder. Concave back posture is only good when you're sitting at your chair in front of your computer when you're not doing anything intense for your core muscles. It can help keep your core muscles strong.

BUT if you're doing any intense workout for a prolonged period like riding your bike up a long climb in the mountain, or riding FTP for one hour, keeping your back in a convex shape reduces the workload of your core muscles. It makes you more efficient and helps avoid lower back muscle pains/injuries. Pros almost universally have convex back when riding. They need it with the high power output they make. There's only quite a few exceptions where their back is almost straight and more of these are among women. Very few among men. None are concave. And flexibility exercises that Pros do seems to discourage concave back posture.

Also in my experience when doing maximum resistance training on the bike, if I managed to get my lower back concave, I'll be experiencing pain in that region as well. I did have strong tendency to get my back concave before and has caused problems with my back quite often enough. Focused training on the convex back posture and reducing reach to make the transition easier solved all the back problems I used to have.

The only articles I saw recommending concave back for riders are for recreational riders who don't make a lot of power or for women who only weight so little that it wouldn't be a problem. StargazeCyclist happens to be featherweight at only 53 kg. Concave back might actually work for him without problems, at least until he starts laying down serious power on the pedals.

70sSanO

In the mid-1980's Bernard Hinault was the villain for me. But no one could deny his determination and utter ruthlessness on the bike. When the peloton was stopped by protestors who glued themselves to the road in this year's TdF, it did make one wonder what Hinault would have done.

A few years ago I saw a video for a new Look bike. It featured Hinault and the bike was an ebike. Never in my wildest dreams would I ever have expected to see Hinault pedal/peddle a motorized bike. There are cyclists who aren't worthy to even carry Hinault's chamois cream let alone compete against him in his prime, that would rather die than ever own an ebike.

I don't own an ebike. I've never ridden one. I still get out a few times a week, though the miles are less, and do short spins on a wind trainer in-between. My main aversion to getting an ebike was I want a sub 25lb, closer to 20 would be nicer, and I want a bike I can ride unassisted without a lot of extra drag and a more natural addition of assist. I may never get one, but I can't deny the innovation benefits.

As I age I have come to realize the one race that everyone loses is the one against time.


John

mschwett 

you can pretty much get that now if you want, just a hair heavier. specialized creo. 26lb at the top of the line, zero drag (other than the weight hahaha) when unpowered. rides like a heavy (but nice) road bike. did thousands of unpowered miles on mine.

terrymorse 

The Scott Addict eRide is even lighter, at 10.75 kg ( 23.7 lbs).

Swap out a few bits, and it becomes even lighter still.

70sSanO

mschwett and terrymorse thanks for the info. It is good to know that there are lower weight and low drag e road bikes out there.

My old Cannondaleis on the low 20’s so there won’t be much if any noticeable weight change, plus upgraded wheels will bring it a bit lower.

I’m no different than most in that I see it coming but a part of me doesn’t want to quite let go. I think the day will come when it’s time.

John

mschwett 

true! but for a true “no drag” experience mid-drive is probably preferable. fully disengaged, no spinning the (relatively heavy) motor around. there’s actually an even newer, lighter mahle rear hub drive that will probably see bikes like the addict e-ride down in the 21-22lb range.

ofajen

I have a friend who uses the Swytchbike system on her commuting bike, and she loves it.

Sorry, my memory was off regarding weight. The heavier hub in the replacement front wheel and the control unit each add three pounds for a total of six pounds when in use and three pounds with the power pack removed. The hub is claimed to be disconnected when not driving and add no drag.

Otto

70sSanO

I’ve read there is a FAUZA mid drive motor/battery that is removable so it is possible to take 5lbs off the bike.

For riding the flats, no big headwind, where no assist is needed it sounds like a nice option.

John

koala logs

For me it's real problem with my given weight 124 lbs and carrying a 34 lb bike around on the stairs or w/e, lost balance and nearly fell down a flight of stairs one time.

I never took kindly at weight weeniesm (mostly because I can't even afford a $1000 bike) but it seems at my weight, a lightweight bike actually matters and makes a huge difference even if I'm not racing. I tried a friend's $2000 carbon bike and the difference is night and day for me!

beng1

Pssssssssst. The title and start of the thread asks if new equipment is a bad investment for those not pushing a competitive edge, for the average consumer. To clear things up for you, a "competitive edge" means that YOU are capable enough physically to win competitive bicycle races, so that the only thing holding you back from winning might be not having as new equipment as the other top finishers. So you putting up a comparison between a new and old bicycle is completely irrelevant.

For 99.999% of those who ride bicycles and who do not have a "competitive edge" where equipment is keeping them from winning road-races or time-trials, they will still not win no matter if they are riding the same equipment as the Tour De France winner, so dumping the cash into that is a waste of money unless they are okay with spending one or two thousand dollars for each mph gain they get, and still losing anyway.

But you did mention "coolness" which is a completely different subject, unless of course your "competition" is as a hipster having the most expensive bike you don't have the physical fitness to truly make use of on your weekly slow-roll with all of your hipster buddies you ratchet-jaw with as you putt along at 15mph.

tomato coupe

We'd all be so much better off if we still rode a Schwinn Varsity, drove a Ford Pinto, had a rotary-dial phone, and watched black and white television. Anything new is just a bad bargain.

Branko D

But you can get a CF aero frame with something like 105 and discs for 3000 Eur (or USD); my local shop charges that much for a Giant Propel Disc which is a first rate race bike.

Now go buy a steel frame - nothing fancy will
​​​​cost you 1500 Eur (case in point; last year I built a bike around a Ritchey Swiss Cross frame which cost me 1400 Eur), 500 Eur for a wheelset and tires, 820 Eur for a 105 groupset, 200 Eur for finishing kit... that's 3000 Eur.

Are you comparing used bikes to new ones? Sure. A used CF racing bike is thousands of dollars cheaper than the latest new steel Colnago built with old style components because used stuff is cheaper.

genejockey 

Oh, honey, no! That's not how this works at all!

Are you new to the internet that you don't understand how forums work? Someone starts a topic. Other members post comments responsive to that topic. If the thread continues on, other posters will inevitably post issues that are related, but not directly. As time goes on, if the thread keeps going, the discussion will inevitably drift farther from its origins. That's how internet forums work. I hope this helps!

What if they just want to go faster on a more comfortable, more aerodynamic, more efficient bike that handles better on descents, with better brakes allowing them to carry more speed closer to a corner before braking, so they can go faster overall? Does none of this matter unless one is not only in a formal competition with other riders, but also only if one is likely to score a podium spot? What a miserable, joyless world that would be!

Coolness does not require competition with anyone else. I don't buy and fix up bikes I think are cool to impress strangers. I do it because the bikes themselves are sweet machines, beautiful pieces of engineering that are also a blast to flog through a couple of sweaty hours on the road. The beauty of a well-designed, well built bicycle is one of the joys of this sport, and if you can't appreciate that, or feel some need to piss on others' appreciation of that, well.... That's on you.

livedarklions

Y'know this "unless you're" or "if you're" really isn't disguising your repeated personal insults and accusations, right?

WhyFi

My bike is faster, safer, and more comfortable than yours. Oh, and I look *much* cooler than you. Deal with it.

genejockey 

I found his total failure to even approach understanding who I am, while attempting to insult me really funny. He has NO IDEA who I am, and why I ride the bikes I do, but that doesn't stop him trying to say things he thinks will put me in my place. As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon!"

badger1

qft

tomato coupe

Except, of course, when you're racing against other cyclists that don't know you're racing. That's waaaaaay cool.

Eric F 

Psssssst. YOU still don't get it.

There are a lot of people - including myself and most of the people I ride with - who have been riding long enough, at a high enough level, to recognize and appreciate the difference between good gear and mediocre gear. I'm definitely not as fast as I used to be, and I'm riding a bike that is a higher quality and way more expensive than the ones I used to race and win on. I'm at a point in my life where I can afford some of the toys I used to only dream about, but I'm still young and fit enough to be able to enjoy them at a high level. I have no desire to race for anything more than the occasional city limit sign or hilltop when I'm riding with my ex-racer-boy friends, or maybe try to set a new PR on a ride segment, but riding a pro-level road-rocket excites me every time I ride it, and my motivation to ride is higher because of that excitement. That is enough to justify me spending my own money any way I damn well see fit. I could buy cheaper tires that don't puncture as easy and would probably last longer. That would be the economical choice. However, I can feel the difference in the quality of the ride when I'm rolling on lightweight, high-TPI pro-level tires, and I recognize how well they grip while cornering at the limits of my comfort zone. Because those details matter in my cycling experience, they justify the cost to the one person that it matters to. Me.

Your continued insistence that spending money on high-end bikes is a waste brings me back to my previous question that you did not answer...are you willfully ignorant, trying to justify your own preferences/limitations, or just a troll?

Mojo31

Have you checked the price of a rotary dial phone?

My daughter just bought an older house with a wall mount and jack for such a thing. I thought it would be a cool house warming gift to get her an old rotary phone for the wall since she is a cell only yute. But, nope, folks are selling working models for well over $200!

tomato coupe

That's only because The Pros Closet is buying them all up.

ZHVelo

Do you not understand why people spend money?

Apple's entire existence as a brand is based on this.

Heck, there are brands that sell limited editions products that go for two, three, four times the original price in resale just because people want those things. And you wonder why people who have cycling as a hobby are keen to spend money on gadgets to do with cycling?

There are still plenty of bikes around 1k, there is second hand, if people want to not spend a lot, they could. The fact that expensive bikes are being bought is proof that you are wrong.

Eric F 

Beng has made his position very clear. If you buy a bike that was made in this century, and are not capable of racing and winning at the highest levels of competition, you are a sucker, a poser, and a fool.

Mojo31

People will often act in such a way in order to elevate their own sense of self-esteem when they cannot get the stuff or do the things that they secretly want.

No money for Hawaii? Just tell everyone that they are a fool for going since you can get the same experience on the shore of the local lake.

Can't afford the nice, carbon bike? No problem, just postulate that the same pleasure can be derived from riding a 20 year old bike that you bought for $50 ten years ago, and everyone should be happy doing the same.

Etc., etc.