pepecat
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Dodging the Buzes in Brum
I was reading this months Cycling Plus, which had some interesting stuff in it, but this month, as always, i was somewhat irked by all the product reviews.
They're all so bloody expensive!!!! The cheapest base layer reviewed was £35!! Sorry, but mine cost about half that. And as for the bib shorts.......
I feel like emailing them and suggesting they do a 'cycling on a budget' issue...
Anyhow, it got me wondering. Apart from the differences between carbon, aluminium or steel frames, is there REALLY that much difference to be gained from all these fancy componants? Really??? What makes wheels costing £500 better than the ones that you got with your bike?
Or between shorts costing £35 or £250??
I have a beginner level bike (trek 1.2 wsd- £550). I haven't changed a thing on it yet - have some look pedals to go on but they were second hand. And it's fine for me. I cycle about 3 times a week, doing a sportive this summer.......
i don't really see what the fuss is about with new bits of 'stuff'......
Ok, i guess I'm going to be shot down in flames here..... and yes, I'm a girl, so don't get all the techy stuff that blokes seem to love, but come on, there can't be THAT much difference in components........
Cars, i get - engine size, aerodynamics, horse power, braking, etc etc etc, I can see how all those can have an effect on performance. But the basic frame shape of a bike is the same whether you have a cheap thing like mine or a trek like the tour riders use. There's not so much scope for change on a bike. It's a pretty basic shape as it is. I would have thought it's more about the engine (the cyclist) than the actual bike. You could stick me on andy schleck's bike, and i still wouldn't be able to ride better than i do now, i don't think.
But feel free to put me right on this one - i'd love to 'get' what all the fuss is about.....
They're all so bloody expensive!!!! The cheapest base layer reviewed was £35!! Sorry, but mine cost about half that. And as for the bib shorts.......
I feel like emailing them and suggesting they do a 'cycling on a budget' issue...
Anyhow, it got me wondering. Apart from the differences between carbon, aluminium or steel frames, is there REALLY that much difference to be gained from all these fancy componants? Really??? What makes wheels costing £500 better than the ones that you got with your bike?
Or between shorts costing £35 or £250??
I have a beginner level bike (trek 1.2 wsd- £550). I haven't changed a thing on it yet - have some look pedals to go on but they were second hand. And it's fine for me. I cycle about 3 times a week, doing a sportive this summer.......
i don't really see what the fuss is about with new bits of 'stuff'......
Ok, i guess I'm going to be shot down in flames here..... and yes, I'm a girl, so don't get all the techy stuff that blokes seem to love, but come on, there can't be THAT much difference in components........
Cars, i get - engine size, aerodynamics, horse power, braking, etc etc etc, I can see how all those can have an effect on performance. But the basic frame shape of a bike is the same whether you have a cheap thing like mine or a trek like the tour riders use. There's not so much scope for change on a bike. It's a pretty basic shape as it is. I would have thought it's more about the engine (the cyclist) than the actual bike. You could stick me on andy schleck's bike, and i still wouldn't be able to ride better than i do now, i don't think.
But feel free to put me right on this one - i'd love to 'get' what all the fuss is about.....