Harold74

Come on now. Of course races are primarily between athletes. I'm not disputing that. I would simply like them to be as close to 100% about the athletes as possible. And having reduced financial barriers to entry for folks wishing to get into racing appeals to me as well.

Yes. And I speculate that the reasons for that are:

1) The UCI weight limit which helps to standardize things a bit. I assume that was done as a safety measure to keep riders from trying to compete on 2lb bamboo bikes etc.

2) Racers do spend top dollar for the top dollar bikes so the field becomes level in that respect. I simply wish that aspires weren't forced to do this in order to compete.

Ouch. Color me wounded.

Seriously? You're telling me that you do not think that the primary reason that competitive cyclists are willing pay $10K+ for carbon bikes is because they offer the stiffness and weight reduction that allow them to compete with other folks with carbon bikes? Color me skeptical.

Harold74

I just have. I see nothing there that would make me regret any of my previous statements. All I see is me expressing the limits that I apply to myself based on my own perception of value. Can you be more specific? What do you think that I missed in your comments?

joesch

Im pretty much the same.
I could buy a new aero racing machine but a 10+ year old racing machine is just as good for my purposes and I have a stable of old great classics including SS & gravel/mtn bikes.

Eric F 

You don't need a $10k+, carbon fiber, disc brake, e-shift bike to race. Thousands of amateurs race - and win - every weekend on bikes worth a fraction of that. Top racers aren't top racers because of the bike they ride. Top racers get to ride top bikes because they are top racers. Yes, some amateurs are fortunate to be able to spend a lot of money on their racing equipment. Some make do with what they can afford on more limited budgets.

You're guessing.

The UCI imposed a minimum weight limit when bikes under that limit were considered unsafe. Not long after that, pro teams were adding things like power meters to bring the bikes up to the weight limit, because top-level, standard-production bikes were easily and safely built to be under the limit.

Top level racers aren't buying their own bikes. As noted above, amateur racing can be done very successfully on less-than-premium equipment.

You're guessing.


You're making assumptions and speculations that aren't based on facts or experience.

You're guessing.

You said before...
This isn't just about competitive cyclists. In your own words, this is ANYONE who rides a CF bike. I know of dozens of examples from my own friends and acquaintances, as well as my personal experience, that provide contrary examples to your assumption.

One more time...you're guessing.

tomato coupe

I quoted your statements where you advocate applying your self-imposed limits on others in the cycling world. I can't get anymore specific than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harold74

I wish that UCI imposed bike MSRP limits. Wanna ride in a UCI event? Do it on a bike that retails for $1,500 or less.

Everyone has their own limits, but it's pure nonsense when you start advocating that your limits should apply to others.

genejockey 

Counterpoint to "Socially irresponsible" - people who build expensive things also need money to live on. Plus there's something to be said for continually striving to improve on what already exists.

But I totally get not wanting to pay more than a certain amount for a particular thing, and being willing to buy it used. You can get some really nice stuff that way.

Rick_D

IMHO you absolutely owe it to yourself to try a modern, light, aerodynamic road bike to see what the experience is all about. If your heart leaps with joy then it's worth budgeting and shopping for one that works for you. It helps to have a proper bike shop where you can find out.

I don't own a 21st century CF road bike and occasionally ponder what it's like to ride something ten pounds lighter than my old steel things. Am almost scared to try. I have recently upgraded to a new CF hard tail mtn bike and am boggled at what the collection of new technologies does for the riding experience, compared to what was cutting edge in the '90s. Night and day, and as one result I'm riding more often.

Our streets are such crap I do wonder if I'd use a modern roadster as much.

Best of luck to you!

genejockey 

I got a new CF road bike with disc brakes and all a couple years back. It's a blast! It's my fastest bike - multiple rides on the same routes with all my bikes, and invariably it's the fastest. Not my favorite, but it's probably tied for second with two other bikes that outweigh it by at least 2-3 lbs, and are easily a quarter century older.

Harold74

You're guessing that I'm guessing. Repeatedly. And I feel that is presumptuous, unkind, and the path to lousy discourse.

I don't feel that I need to have been a pro racer myself in order to express my opinions on things.

I don't feel that we're serving OP's interest with any of this at this point. I'd be happy to continue this line of conversation if you wish it. If you do wish it, however, I'd prefer to do that via PM.

Harold74

I made several statements expressing my personal option that I feel that it is a bit silly for any bike to be worth more than $1500. That is my opinion.

Nowhere did I say that I expect others to adopt my opinion.

You've been putting words in my mouth with this stuff about my trying to apply my personal limits to others.

This, too, is not serving OP's thread. If you wish to continue this conversation, I'd prefer to do that via PM.

tomato coupe

I did not -- I quoted you verbatim.

Eric F 

This is a public discussion forum. You are absolutely free to express your opinion. Other users of the forum are also free to express alternate/contradictory opinions, and/or provide additional information that may or may not support your opinion. So far, you haven't presented anything to support your opinions except more opinions, wishes, and off-target assumptions. When you include "I think...", "I presume...", "I speculate..., "As far as I can tell...", and follow it up with things that simply aren't true, and/or are clearly assumptions not based on facts or experience, it says one thing. Can you guess what that is?

EDIT: You don't agree with my opinion or information? Fine. Show me how I'm wrong. Bring facts or experience. I know some things about some things, but there's lots I don't know, and I'm always hungry to learn something new. There's been quite a few folks on this site who have expanded my knowledge and understanding of this sport we all love.

rsbob 

Speaking of Bianchis; I have an 82 Trofeo del Mundo (Columbus) and a 2020 Infinito CV aero (endurance) and they are both comfortable long-distance haulers, but the 6 lb penalty (and high gearing) of the Trofeo, makes the Infintio the hands down winner Spring-Summer-Fall. I have taken more PRs and several top 10 fastest on it than I can count. The Trofeo is the winter bike since it is wearing fenders.

When I ride the Trofeo, I get plenty of Nice Bike by the old timers and ignored by the younger set. When on the Infinito, exactly the opposite. Funny how that works.

genejockey 

I get the most comments on my Battaglin, which is steel, and red with bright alloy and white bar tape. It sparkles in the sun. the Ritchey gets compliments from the cognoscenti. The old bikes get compliments from older riders on newer bikes.

I've only gotten two comments on my Canyon. One was complimenting the color (matte electric blue), and the other was from a guy that I caught and dropped, and then dropped again at 3 stoplights in a row ( not intentionally, just having a great leg day) who grumbled something that made me suspect he thought it was an e-bike.

TMonk

ive been racing bikes for nearly half my life (im pushing on 37). Harold74 the bike really doesn't make that much of a difference. trust me on that one. the cheapest stuff (tires, tubes) make the biggest difference. as long as you are on fast tires and tubes and have a good position on the bike, you're not going to be held back significantly. after that point its all legs and execution.

aliasfox

My Bianchi is less than 2lbs heavier than my Lynskey, most of that coming from the fancy wheels. Being a triple, the Bianchi actually has a slightly lower granny gear, so she's not giving up too much from a numbers perspective, making this an almost fair fight. That said, the 19yr old Bianchi was ~$1,500 back when I picked her up in 2005 (leftover from the previous year), and if we factor in bike-flation, maybe she would be considered solidly midrange, too.

Eric F 

That sounds about right. If I recall, top-end CF (Colnago C40, Time VX, etc.) frames were over $2k, and complete top-spec bikes were starting to push above $5k. In '97, I paid $1200(ish) for and Ultegra-equipped LeMond - my first real road race bike.

TMonk

RE: the OP topic. I guess I'm on my first modern "high end" bike, a 2022 TCR pro, ultegra Di2 12 speed, disc brake. Previously I was on a 2013 TCR advanced ISP, 11sp mech and rim brake. I guess that was an even higher end bike back in it's day. The new bike isn't any faster but it is very, very easy to ride. Great choice for long rides and routine training. Amazing bike.

I mostly race on a ~2016 (I think) Venge Expert, with 11 speed mechanical sram and rim brake. It was a shop bike for our elite team back when shops were still doing that, in the pre-COVID supply chain era. I bought it at cost after the season for about a grand. It's a total POS compared to my Giant (both the old and the new one) but it goes fast and does what I need it do. I race it anytime the course doesn't feature a lot of climbing (its heavy).

Race what you can afford to replace!

Eric F 

Yep! My primary race bikes (crits for me, mostly) were decent, but not great, aluminum frames, built with good parts (usually a DA/Ultegra mix), and wheels that suited the course. It was intentional. My 2003 Time VX Special Pro rode better, and was a little lighter, but it was my pride and joy that I had worked hard to buy. No way I was going to risk that frame in a crit. If I wrecked an aluminum frame, so be it. Zero times did my aluminum-framed bike hold me back from the limits of my athletic abilities. Zero times was I beaten because the other guy was on a CF bike.

If I was racing today, my approach would be similar, but it would probably be a not-quite-top-level CF frame rather than aluminum. EDIT: This is if I was paying out of my own pocket, with my modest income. I would always be down for riding a high-end bike provided by the team.

genejockey 

That's about right. When I built the Battaglin in 2007, it was because I couldn't afford a Merckx MX Leader, which would have been around $2K for the frame (same as their top CF frame) and $5K built up with Record. So I bought a used MAX frame for 1/3 of that, and had it repainted, then built up with Chorus for about $2700 total.

TMonk

EricF another good reason for chosing CF is that it's repairable (unlike Alu). A decent off-brand CF frame isn't too much anymore. Alu is almost like a novelty choice at this point. Having said that I've had several Al machines over the years including a couple CAADs. Those are good bikes.

Carbonfiberboy 

Most anything carbon that fits you, made after around 2000. My experience riding my 2000 carbon is that I don't notice any particular difference between the comfort and performance of my bike and that of others. Of course the newer it is, the nicer the wheels and tires might be and the easier to find drivetrain parts when they wear out or to trade them out for something different. New bikes might be lighter, but the cost of lighter runs around $1000/lb. for a new bike and it's way cheaper to just eat a little less for dinner.

SoSmellyAir

Speaking of cheap stuff, let's add a waxed chain to the mix. But only Gulf wax; no fancy blends from Silca or Molten Speed Wax.

tFUnK

Maybe a bit late to this discussion but here's my perspective anyway:

First road bikes were steel, purchased used: Lemond Tourmalet and Specialized Allez from the early-mid 90s. They were fine bikes but felt uninspiring and heavy.

Those were replaced with a Cannondale 2.8 R900, also early 90s model, but it rode so much nicer despite the commentary regarding "crack and fail" and "harsh/stiff" ride - it was so light and smooth. It was a 92 or 93 model but it was their top end race bike then - I rode it from 2008 to 2012 and I did my first century on it, along with unsanctioned fast group rides and crit training rides. It was dated for sure but still plenty of bike for me.

Got bit by the carbon bug at some point and picked up a Giant TCR carbon (mid 2000s model) used - this was back in 2011. It was smooth but not faster or nicer than the old Cannondale. Main differences were 10 speed drivetrain and clearance for 28mm tires, vs. 8 speed and 25mm (maybe) clearance on the Cannondale. During this same time I also got bit by the Ti bug and picked up an old school GT Forte - that was my favorite bike among the bunch but mainly for aesthetic reasons, though it was also smooth and light (but not as light as the other two).

Fast forward a few years, which included a couple of relocations (ie, forced downsizing), I was mainly riding a Tricross Sport (which also served as a commuter) as well as the aforementioned GT Ti, and both of those bikes, albeit slightly dated and mid-range at best - both bikes were more than adequate.

But once I got a new job, my eyes were back on carbon (mid 2010s at this point). My buddy picked up a used BMC SLC01 and that opened my eyes a bit more. I picked up a BMC Racemachine which was the second tier race bike, and it was so fast, smooth, and comfortable.

Around this time (late 2010s), circumstances led to me acquiring a Guru Photon. It came with racing carbon tubulars and weighed 13lbs. Riding that thing felt like riding on air - that was my first and only "weight weenie" bike. It's lighter than the BMC but less comfortable - maybe due to the integrated seat post that was trending back in the early 2010s. It no longer weighs 13lbs as it's now fitted with deeper carbon clinchers. Still a nice ride though, and I'm not sure anything newer or more high end today would be noticed by me.

So I guess I've ridden some "top end" bikes in their day, but I've always gotten them used and have not ridden anything modern/brand new. My newest bike is a 2015 Trek Boone which is a nice carbon CX/gravel bike but not top end. It has disc brakes and internal cables but even fitted with carbon wheels it sits 2-3lbs heavier than my carbon bikes. Perception-wise, the BMC and Guru felt pretty high end to me, certainly a noticable jump from anything else I've ridden prior. Looking at the local used market near me, a nice bike can be had for under $1k, and a terrific bike can be had for around $2500, if you don't mind riding tech from 5-10 years ago. Some of those who have ridden 2023 models vs bikes from the 2010s may have already chimed in on whether the differences are "worth it".

seypat

It amazes me how people talk about how great new bicycle technology is and how much fun it is to ride ride one of those bikes. But give them the same bike with some E assist and suddenly it's blasphemy. A 13, or 8, or 3lb bike(if we ever get there) that shifts itself would be okay, but God forbid if we make that bike a little easier to pedal. What do you think the rest of the technology does?
I think back to those Trek? commercials a few years ago with Jon talking about "a little mo." Everyone's happy with a little more as long as it doesn't appear they're getting any help actually turning the pedals.