I’m a newbie. I ride a $500 Giant FCR3 women’s road bike, and I average 14-15 mph. Last month at a race, I passed a few people who were riding bikes much more expensive than mine. From this, I deduce that for a certain level of cyclist, it doesn’t really matter what type of road bike one rides.
I’m curious about something. Is there a speed at which one “maxes out” one’s low-end road bike and must get a high-tech road or tri bike in order to go faster? How fast does one’s average speed need to be for the high-tech bike to make a noticeable difference?
It makes a difference at 0 m.p.h. I mean, a more expensive bike is much better when you’re sitting still, chatting with all the people on your tri-club group ride about how amazing your chopper is.
I recall a famous cyclist once said “It’s not about the bike”. My own opinion of importance for TT/tri:
Engine (rider)
Position
Equipment
You must have a nice engine…
And of those things - #2 can be addressed by frame geometry and cheap bikes can get you where you need to be as easily as expensive bikes. For #3, after a frame (which may or may not be expensive) gets you the best position, more money does pay off - integrated aero bars vs. clip-ons and more aero wheels. The other bits and pieces are in the noise.
SaraJean - The other poster is right, engine then position.
That being said, once you reach a certain price point on bikes, it becomes an issue of diminishing returns. You will no doubt be faster on your Giant than you will be on a $99 Walmart special. So, there’s a certain quality/price point you need to be at so that the bike isn’t a total hinderance to your ability. I think you’ve hit that point with your bike. Any more $$ spent will result in small, incremental gains in speed. Some people are willing and able to spend the $$ for those gains. Or, maybe they don’t care about the speed gains and since they can afford an expensive bike, that’s what they ride. Remember, there’s always the bling-bling factor.
my personal view is that you can be limited by the way you are fit on the bike, but the bike itself can go as fast as you want it to.
(ie. Do you think that a 3000$ bike will go downhill better/faster at 70km/h? Will your FCR top out at 30km/h on a 10% decline? No. Its all free-fall anyway, if you’re not balanced/positioned well on the bike (ie.too much weight in front) etc. yes, the bike will feel like crap, but both are perfectly capable of hitting 70km/h. )
If you’re itching to upgrade, the only thing I might recommend is getting a road handlebar for your bike (since I know FCRs have straight/top bars). Being able to get lower (if your core can handle it) will help you A LOT. (Think drag) Plus it’ll give you more hand positions… (ie. when you get tired its nice to move around your hands)
I know a guy who 2nd placed in his first IM in Montreal with his crap ~800$ bike. Mind you, a fancier, lighter bike may help you get “free” speed but its still up to you.
I concur with the last post but I would have 2 and 3 as one.
Position is related to equipment. If you have the right equipment, then your position most likely will be better. I think they go hand in hand.
I used to race on a Giant TCR ZERO. I had it set up with a zero offset post and was pretty low in the front. This bike cost me a lot more than my Cervelo Dual that I ride now but I am more forward on my Dual and lower in the front.
With the right equipment you can achieve the right position for triathlon.
Hey you probably passed me! Some days kids on trikes past me. We once rode for an hour, the workout was to see how slowly we could ride before we fell off, havent had so much fun on a bike since!
I think that you need to define expensive, and I think that you also need to define ‘difference’.
I believe that you can find a really nice setup, good for thousands of miles a year, with comfort and low service needs for under $2,000. Expensive, well kinda. I think though, the $2K is about the breaking point between a good bike, and I’m racing for the podium or “I like nice things”.
Money is part of the impossible triangle of Cheap, Light and Durable. You can have any two but not all three.
So to answer your question, speed is a relative factor for bike cost (unless it is really hilly where you live and then a nice light climbing machine will make a big difference). What the money gets you is lasting durability, bling, and reduced weight.
All else being equal, a well maintained inexpensive bike will be just as “fast” as an expensive bike, with the same general type of wheels and tires (e.g. 32spoke clinchers with brand x tires).
More expensive bikes generally have components that work a little better, are easier to maintain, adjust and stay in adjustment better, are lighter and more durable. They are not “faster” just because they cost more.
Certain expensive bikes will be faster than other expensive bikes though, because they have a more aerodynamic wheelset, more aero frame, etc. But the benefits do not magically kick in at any speed. They make as difference for a 15mph rider just like they do for a 30 mph rider.
the point of diminishing returns seems to be about $2000 … bikes below this price leave a lot to be desired; bikes above can be better, but only marginally so.
“expensive” on its own does nothing.
a $500 bike can be a very good bike. a $2500 dollar bike can be a very bad bike.
other people have talked about fit and position.
i’ll say that some equiptment, once you learn how to use it, really can make you significantly faster. Basically, clipless pedals w/biking shoes, and aerobars. Toe clips also help, but less than clipless pedals. But some people don’t like riding with aerobars, as it’s harder to handle the bike that way.
when climbing, it’s nice to have a light bike.
as for the “max-out” speed, i don’t think there’s a number you can put on it. If you’ve gone from not biking to biking, and are trying to ride fast, you should be getting faster. If you’re not, have your LBS check out your bike to make sure that nothing mechanical is slowing you down.
If you’re spending a lot of time on your bike and enjoying yourself, and have some money, there’s nothing wrong with getting a new bike. But don’t let people tell you that there’s somethign wrong with your bike just because you “only” spend $500 on it.
-charles
It is about the engine and fit. As long as you’re comfortable you can do just as well on a less expensive bike. This year I put together a Giant TCR composite. The last two years however, I raced on a 2003 aluminum Giant OCR1 w/triple chainring. With that bike I won my AG championship in 05, and was usually fastest or almost fastest bike split in my AG. I’m going to IM Canada in a few weeks and I’m seriously thinking about taking the OCR and leaving the TCR at home.
My experience: For the last 10 years I rode a nice Bianchi road bike ($800). It was fitted for me and I added clip-on aerobars. I used it in Sprint and Oly races. My average race pace was 18-19 mph.
This year I bought a Cervelo Dual ($2000). With similar training to previous years (no where near ideal), my average race pace is now 20-21 mph. So I “bought” 1-2 mph or 3-4 minutes in a sprint for 2 grand.
Is that worth it? For me it is. Can a great rider still pass me on a Huffy? Sure. Could I get that same speed on the road bike if I trained more. Absolutely. Would I spend 4 grand on a bike to get another mile or 2 per hour faster? No. Price, speed, engine, fit, and what it is worth to you all play a role in your decision.
