Are cheap bikes harder to ride

[Ming the Merciless]

Sorry what’s a manual bike? Never heard the term in 50 years of cycling. Something new in bike design I take it!

 

[rogerzilla]

However fit you are, there is some technique involved in climbing. Start the hill at a pace somewhat slower than you would naturally try to ride up it. It should feel as if you're not trying hard enough. All hills feel deceptively easy at the start but then you start to tire and, if you went off too fast, you'll have to slow to a crawl or even stop.

If you feel like you have spare energy about 2/3 of the way up, you can press on a little. But you'll rarely reach the top of a hill and wish you'd gone harder at it.

 

[Reynard]

agree totally with your post, apart from the bit about the fens, which might give the impression that the flatness makes the rides easy. One of my most hellish rides (admittedly fully loaded) was across those hellish flatlands into the damn wind - I may never return. (or not going the same way)

edit - realise that I have used the same word twice in one sentence - bad style - but i plead forgiveness/understanding - it was hellish.

Hmmm, good point. Maybe I should have said that it's a different kind of difficult.

With the wind, you just find a comfortable (!) gear and just ride within yourself at a constant pace. There's no point fighting it, although sometimes I've been left wondering what the hell I'm actually doing out there on a bicycle. Whereas hills, the hard bit for me comes from a) not being able to judge the gradient and gears simply because I'm not used to it, and b) having to constantly vary the pace and tempo as the gradient changes, which is what makes it so much more tiring.

Guess the reverse is true as well. It's all about what you're used to.

Heavens, the wind does as much damage to the peloton on the TdF on those ultra flat coastal stages as does the gradients in the mountains!

 

[wafter]

However fit you are, there is some technique involved in climbing. Start the hill at a pace somewhat slower than you would naturally try to ride up it. It should feel as if you're not trying hard enough. All hills feel deceptively easy at the start but then you start to tire and, if you went off too fast, you'll have to slow to a crawl or even stop.

If you feel like you have spare energy about 2/3 of the way up, you can press on a little. But you'll rarely reach the top of a hill and wish you'd gone harder at it.

Pacing is certainly key.. I could never do hills until I get a heart rate monitor which gave me a figure to maintain rather than speed, with which I evidently always aimed too high given what I was used to on the flat. The HRM is great as I can just tell myself that as long as I keep it at around 80% of max I'll get to the top of anything eventually

 

[roubaixtuesday]

boardman team carbon vs mates bike trek emonda slr 6

The difference between these is negligible unless you're an elite professional athlete. It's you not the bike. Sorry.

If it's any consolation (probably not...) I'm sure I'd be be slower than either of you, regardless of bike.

 

[12boy]

Yesterday for a change of pace I enjoyed a short ride with some 10% grades on my Brompton which weighs about 25 lbs, I'd guess and a low gear of 36 gear inches. There was a sweet little crosswind to cool me off and the the climb had 3 blocks of flat and about 4 miles of climbing of 973 feet. This was an effort in some places but not too bad, although some lower gearing would have been nice. I have done that same ride ride in a headwind with that bike and it was so much harder and slower. I think of 20 mph headwinds as giving the opportunity to ride up hill on level ground. My point here is its not just weight, fitness and gearing... aerodynamics are important too, as an upright position can be a lot more work than bent over, so being to sustain a more aero position comfortanly can be useful.

 

[ChrisEyles]

Never ridden a properly expensive bike, but on the range of £100 - £500 bikes I've ridden, the biggest speed difference from kit alone seems to come from decent tyres, followed by comfortable/aero riding position (which needn't cost anything, though a lot of really cheap BSOs are designed around an upright riding posture). Much as I love them, adding panniers adds a noticeable amount of air resistance resulting in lower average speeds.

Lighter wheels/frames feel nippier when accelerating which is nice, but I don't think they make a massive difference to my average speed for a given perceived level of effort.

Generally I've been really pleased with Shimano gear from Altus through to Alivio, and even Tourney performs perfectly well (although occasionally I've found they can be trickier to set up). Going up the groupset hierarchy costs quite a lot for what I'd consider to be relatively small performance gains.

Sorry I'm rambling... as others have mentioned, rider fitness is the key thing!

 

[chris-suffolk]

... the biggest speed difference from kit alone seems to come from decent tyres...

Lighter wheels/frames feel nippier when accelerating which is nice, but I don't think they make a massive difference to my average speed for a given perceived level of effort.

Yes, have to agree with both of these. Switching to lighter wheels, and better (lighter) tyres on my already reasonably light carbon road bike - I found it made about 1/2 to 3/4 of a gear difference and an average speed increase of about 2 mph for the same effort. Bike feels nicer to ride. Downside is cost, as none of this comes cheap!!

As to hills, agree with above - find a gear that will get you to the top, and stay in it unless the gradient changes markedly up or down. Gradient marker posts (as found on most alpine climbs) also help, especially on a 10 mile 10% hill !! Great to count them off towards the top.

 

[cyberknight]

The difference between these is negligible unless you're an elite professional athlete. It's you not the bike. Sorry.

If it's any consolation (probably not...) I'm sure I'd be be slower than either of you, regardless of bike.

on the flipside when i ride my commuting bike im a good 2 mph slower average than my best bike .

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

When it comes to getting up hills the three most important factors are fitness, all-up weight and gearing.

The biggest one in my book is the standard of maintenance, not the price of the bike. I run a couple of what were very cheap bikes when new, an old Apollo MTB and a Puch 3-speed. There is no significant difference in the amount of effort needed to ride these bikes compared with my expensive when new bikes, so long as you compare like for like as regards the type of tyres fitted.
However, my bikes are maintained so the things that need to be kept lubricated are lubricated, the wheel bearings are not over-tightened, the back wheels sit square in the frames and roll freely - not skewed to one side so they scrub, the brake blocks don't drag on the rims, and I don't ride around with half flat tyres. All these little things are the difference between a bike that rides easy and a bike that rides like a dog - and they have nothing at all to do with how much the bike cost when new.

 

[Lozz360]

Sorry what’s a manual bike? Never heard the term in 50 years of cycling. Something new in bike design I take it!

I think the OP was referring to a manual bike being his/her non electric assist bike. A conventional bicycle in other words.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I simply call the human powered variety proper bikes!

 

[ChrisEyles]

I simply call the human powered variety proper bikes!

Yep! Now I feel very faintly non-PC 😂

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Now I feel very faintly non-PC 😂

Don't worry about it. I'm completely non-PC, in fact more anti-PC - and it's a good feeling to have. 👍

 

[swee'pea99]

Whether your bike is a lump of iron or plastic carbon fibre you still have to pedal your own weight up the hill and that's likely to be far heavier than the bike.

The biggest weight of a bicycle is it's rider.

Makes good sense, but the odd thing is it just doesn't tally with the riding experience. The difference between my carbon & steel frames - both good - is probably 5kg or less, which you'd think would make not a lot of difference to the total weight: 80kg v 85kg maybe. But going uphill on the carbon is a lot easier than on the steel. I've never really understood it, but it definitely is the case.

The only other thing I'd say is that while fitness is obviously the single most important factor, being in the right gear makes a helluva difference. When I see people struggling on a hill they're almost always in too high a gear. 'Spin don't grind', as they say - and they're right!