£2000 vs £5000 and above Carbon bike performance

[bpsmith]

Thing is, a £2000 aero bike with an 18st mamil on board would not be as aero as a £5000 non-aero bike with a 10st racer on it. The rider and the position accounts for much more of the aero profile than the frame itself.

Not even if 6'8" and built proportionally like Chris Hoy?

 

[outlash]

AFAIK, the difference between the Cannondale Supersix Evo frame and the HiMod version is about 250g. Build them both up with identical parts and the only real weight difference will be in your wallet.

 

[vickster]

AFAIK, the difference between the Cannondale Supersix Evo frame and the HiMod version is about 250g. Build them both up with identical parts and the only real weight difference will be in your wallet.

Don't think there's a £3k price difference between the frames though?

 

[PaulSecteur]

A chap on YouTube...

This one?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihfp8hF3JYc


If what he says is true then the difference between a decent budget and bling bike isn't that large, so a good carbon and a great carbon would be less of a difference.

 

[mattobrien]

AFAIK there aren't many £5k frames, in fact the Cervelo RCA frame set at £6.5k is the only one I can think of.

In reality a lot of bikes in a range often have the same frame and it is the components that increase the price as the range move up the scale, so it is mostly likely any comparison would be between different manufacturers or different types of bikes, endurance, aero, lightweight etc, making a speed comparison tricky.

It would be great to have a way of accurately putting out a stable 200watts on a range of bikes in a test across an identical course to then actually be able to measure impact on speed. But as has been said, speed is achieved by factors other than solely power and aero, such as the riders ability to put down power potentially influenced by the comfort of rider, over both short and long term. I guess this is why a fact based comparison isn't as easy and it often comes down to weight and a load of bulls#%^ bingo when it comes to reviews.

Anyway, this is Cyclechat, where the cheaper the faster and anyone spending more than £50 on a bike is a mug with more money than sense

 

[oldroadman]

Past a certain price point, the only difference is in the rider and their fitness/ability. Subtle differences in handling might be detectable. For me the best handling frames were always Italian, and that makes a difference in competition when descending , but that's about it (and the frames were Columbus or 753 or equivalent, built by proper craftsmen to measure).

 

[Dave7]

Well I must admit to being surprised by the ignorance shown here....and I'm relatively new to proper cycling.
Speed is nothing to do with the frame material or style..............its all about the colour!!
e.g. I was choosing a new jacket last week and the guy in Cycle-house told me I will definitely go faster in the red one than the black one. Its only common sense that the same principle must apply to the actual bike.
Isn't it

 

[vickster]

AFAIK there aren't many £5k frames, in fact the Cervelo RCA frame set at £6.5k is the only one I can think of.

In reality a lot of bikes in a range often have the same frame and it is the components that increase the price as the range move up the scale, so it is mostly likely any comparison would be between different manufacturers or different types of bikes, endurance, aero, lightweight etc, making a speed comparison tricky.

It would be great to have a way of accurately putting out a stable 200watts on a range of bikes in a test across an identical course to then actually be able to measure impact on speed. But as has been said, speed is achieved by factors other than solely power and aero, such as the riders ability to put down power potentially influenced by the comfort of rider, over both short and long term. I guess this is why a fact based comparison isn't as easy and it often comes down to weight and a load of bulls#%^ bingo when it comes to reviews.

Anyway, this is Cyclechat, where the cheaper the faster and anyone spending more than £50 on a bike is a mug with more money than sense

Sigma have a few in the 5k ballpark if you filter price high to low. I expect with Parlee for example a custom paint job ups the price

http://www.sigmasport.co.uk/bikes/road-bikes#,p:1,c:Bikes 11 > Road Bikes & Framesets > Road Bike Framesets

 

[mattobrien]

Sigma have a few in the 5k ballpark if you filter price high to low. I expect with Parlee for example a custom paint job ups the price

http://www.sigmasport.co.uk/bikes/road-bikes#,p:1,c:Bikes 11 > Road Bikes & Framesets > Road Bike Framesets

Faster with a custom paint job too I'd imagine

 

[vickster]

Faster with a custom paint job too I'd imagine

Yep certainly if not black

 

[Hacienda71]

Yep certainly if not black

That is where Wiggins and Froome went wrong on those black Pinarellos

 

[Kajjal]

This one?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihfp8hF3JYc


If what he says is true then the difference between a decent budget and bling bike isn't that large, so a good carbon and a great carbon would be less of a difference.

Had quick look and could not find it but similar.

 

[vickster]

That is where Wiggins and Froome went wrong on those black Pinarellos

Yep indeed

 

[phil-b]

it is a question of value for money. The expensive bikes are only marginally better but they are still better. If you are buying your own bike you probably want the biggest bang for your buck. If you are riding in a Grand Tour you will just want the best.

 

[mustang1]

Difference between my low end aluminium road bike and mid range carbon bike is in comfort. I would never have believed anyone who told me carbon frames ride so smooth until I went out for a test ride.

I only test rode the carbon to prove to myself its not that good. I ended up buying it in the spot!