I'm not aware of claims made by the industry but my experience is this. When I was training for the 312 I wandered in to my LBS one day. Ian, who I'd discussed 312 with a lot, saw me and immediately said "I know how we can make you go faster." Speed was very important for this event. He went out the back and presented me with a set of carbon wheels running Continental GP5000 tubeless. I took him at his word and bought them. Cost a small fortune.
The result has been tremendous with +2/3 mph on the flat and +4/5 mph descending. The descending I know for certain as my house is at the bottom of hill which I used to freewheel down at 21/22, I'm now at 25/26 with the wheels being the only variable. The flat is harder to measure accurately, I know though I'm better on the front and stick with the group average easily.
I should add this is on a Cervelo which cost £3000 so the impact may be far greater than on an entry level machine.
That's a massive increase in speed / reduction in aero drag from just wheels alone (the aero presumably being the dominant factor-over the tyres' superior rolling resistance, given the speeds involved). I'd love to experience similar myself but sadly don't think I'll ever get the opportunity!
When the glossy cycling magazines started labelling them as such.
Indeed. As much as I like worthwhile tech and meaningful progress; IMO it's ridiculous that you can spend £13k on a road bike when compared against other similarly-priced engineered products and the the work that goes into them (motorbikes for example).
Manufacturers aren't stupid and can see the opportunities in exploiting growing weath disparity and tapping those with far more money than they know what to do with and hence have no interest in a product's intrinsic value... and of course the magazines are here to push that agenda.
A number of people are saying Shimano 105 is the point beyond which the gains start to diminish as the cost gets higher.
This gives me a warm feeling because that's what I have on my bike. So I congratulate myself on having spent just the right amount. No silly money wasting for me. It feels true too: How could I possibly improve on the nice shifting of my 105 setup? Anyone spending more than I did must surely have More Money Than Sense. What a sensible chap I am.
However, I bet I'd feel differently if my bike had Di2 or eTap. That's why I don't want to try electronic shifting. Ignorance is bliss.
Granted in addition to the minimal mass savings electronic shifting is the only tangible benefit offered by the groupsets positioned above 105; personally it doesn't float my boat but that's just me. Note also that the quest for mass-saving sometimes brings compromises in terms of component strength and longevity too; further adding to the cost.
According to this
Road.cc article, based on a typical setup and RRPs a complete 105 R7000 groupset costs around £723 and weighs 2780g, while the Ultegra R8000 equivalent costs £1133 and weighs 2589g. That's about a 57% increase in price for a mass reduction of around 7%, or over £2 per gram of mass saved.
Of course on the positive side those of us who are happy to eat further down the trough eventually get the trickle-down benefits of the advances at the top end paid for by those willing to spend the extra
I have 5 bikes that all fit me.
but I did this a while back I bought a Raleigh MTB it was a Y-frame in alloy just loved it but the components were crap to say the least, firstly the chainwheel buckled on the second day out and the shop would not replace it as they said I had damaged it.
