April 1st bike industry BS chat.
He's discussing something that doesnt excist
Yes there's always releases of the shiniest latest and greatest but no once have I interpreted it the way Joe is implying
He shoots.
He misses.
Does "shiny thing" always make us faster, no. But if it wasn't for development we'd all be riding rigid 26ers with 1.9" tyres.
I'm not sure what the link to April fools day is.
Also, I'm not sure many people are buying a bike for the reason he thinks, generally it's because they become uneconomical to repair so get replaced due to our throwaway culture, or we just fancy a change or something new and shiny. Is it ever really just because you think it'll make you faster? Nobody I know buys a bike for that reason, especially not mountain bikers.
Excellent video, more brands should be open about this point of view as it's extremely pertinent, anyone that plays guitar also should take this view point!
The slight flip side is if you get super excited to ride your bike when you've bought a new bit of kit then there's nothing wrong with buying stuff you don't 'need', even more so if that makes the difference between riding and not riding. However like the video says people should understand that most of the time the bit of kit won't give them any more performance, maybe just a bit of inspiration.
New bikes and bits might not make you any better or faster, but they often make it more enjoyable, which for most people is the point. One he seems to have missed.
New bikes and bits might not make you any better or faster, but they often make it more enjoyable, which for most people is the point.
A fair point.
He’s making a good point. We’ve all done what he’s talking about.
When a group of cyclists get together and talk it’s usually about equipment, not technique. Proper training and practise would improve our riding, but it’s easier to buy a new set of wheels.
Weight is another - we all know those who will spend hundreds, thousands even, to save a few ounces. Cutting out a few biscuits would make a bigger difference, but that takes a bit of discipline.
I could buy the best bike in the world and it wouldn’t make me a much better rider. If I got out and trained more it would improve my skills vastly.
I’d still like the best bike though 🙂
Does “shiny thing” <em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">alwaysmake us faster, no. But if it wasn’t for development we’d all be riding rigid 26ers with 1.9″ tyres.
instead we are riding rigid 29ers with 1.9" tires and drop bars ?
I completely get what Joe is saying, but..... Part of bikes is the 'affordable' Ferrari thing. The sport/activity is comparatively easy and affordable to gain equipment that only pros use in other mechanical sports.
Shinny things don't make us go any faster, but that not the entire point.
The best upgrade to your riding £ for £ will always be a skills day, no matter what level of rider you are. After that it's just time in the saddle and practice.
Is this not just a rehash of the old Patagonia advertisement “Don’t buy this coat”
They sold loads of those coats they told people not to buy.
Scotroutes made me laugh. I've only just (partially) departed the world of 26'' two days ago, now in 29 and 27.5 land.
I can’t see a lot wrong with what he’s saying.
generally it’s because they become uneconomical to repair
When? Barring catastrophic failure I've never owned a bike that was beyond economical repair. Especially one for mincing about the countryside rather than commuter abuse.
Does “shiny thing” always make us faster, no. But if it wasn’t for development we’d all be riding rigid 26ers with 1.9″ tyres.
but developments made the bikes better. He mentions that better parts make bikes better, but that doesn’t make you a better ride. It may make you able to descend faster or remain comfortable for longer, but you are not necessarily any better at riding bikes. It’s a few hours since I watched his video, but I’m sure he is talking about being a better rider not riding faster.
what he is saying is what makes you a better rider (as most people know) are skills training, physical conditioning, diet, sleep and not new components.
but developments made the bikes better.
👏
And better bikes make us faster, more capable, more confident, more comfortable etc. That's why folk buy "better" bikes. I don't know anyone who expected to be a "better" rider because they bought a new bike or component. As far as I can see the whole premise of the video is based on an incorrect assumption about why folk buy new bikes.
I think you’re wilfully missing the point he’s making.
edit:
That point being that if you work on yourself you will be faster, more confident and all that a modern bike will make you over a 30 year old bike (or even 5 year old).
I think you’d be surprised how many people buy a new bike or fork thinking that it will make them better.
I know of a shop who had to politely tell a customer that they wouldn’t be refunding his new bling custom build on the basis that he got his arse handed to him by his mates on its maiden ride…
Another point he’s making is that if you buy a well made durable bike that works well and you look after it you won’t need a new bike because the anti squat is 4% improved.
im sure there are many folk trading in their old Specialized Epics for the new one because it’s better and they hope that they will be better when they ride it.
The bike industry needs to stop forcing obsolescence onto bike owners.
I've got shut of 2 bikes recently. Both 26". Both 3x chainsets. One 8 speed one 9 speed. Both road style QR hubs. Both 1 1/8" headsets. 1 rim braked.
Try getting a replacement suspension fork that's 1 1/8" head tube, 9mm QR, 120mm travel. Not a chance
"Don't buy upgrades, ride up grades"?
“Don’t buy upgrades, ride up grades”?
+1, but I'm too poor to have alike button.
Also, I’m not sure many people are buying a bike for the reason he thinks, generally it’s because they become uneconomical to repair so get replaced due to our throwaway culture
Also not convinced.
My road bike is achingly old fashioned now, if it was any older it would have a quill stem (the previous model did). Every few years it needs a major overhaul because something breaks or wears out and that precipitates stripping the whole thing and finding loads of notchy bearings and suspiciously worn parts. And every time it gets cheaper because NOS Dura Ace 10s no longer exists or the supposedly proprietary (it was not 24mm in the same way DUB is not 29mm) cripplingly expensive FSA BBs end up in the bargain bin (£30 for a £260 BB!).
Obviously if I wanted to justify a new bike then ...... it really needs new aero wheels, and there's no point buying rim brake carbon wheels now as they'll be too narrow so won't be future proof, and really I should upgrade to 24-speed dura ace as 10s isn't available anymore, and that means discs anyway, which means a new frame, and, and ......
People might tell themselves that it was "uneconomical to repair" to justify something new and shiny, but it's probably very rarely the case. And then there's the triggers broom defense. My singlespeeds have always shared parts going back at least a decade. But I'm fairly sure there's no original parts left, and only the bottle cage remains of the 2nd iteration 😂. All the bikes/parts were sold on though so are probably still being ridden.
I do have a new-ish FS bike though, I needed a break from niche bikes for a bit!
The bike industry needs to stop forcing obsolescence onto bike owners.
If enough people were still willing to buy those items at sustainably profitable prices the brands would still range them.
No wheel or fork brand is going to spend good money putting 26" wheels or straight steerer forks back into production if they had to sell the last batch at a loss to get shot of them.
My road bike is a 500 quid decathlon one, once the wheels die and the groupset needs replaced it'll cost 80% of the original purchase price to replace those elements, or I could just replace the whole bike and take advantage of every component being new for slightly more money which makes a lot more sense.
My full suspension bike has had new wheels, a new drivetrain, suspension rebuilds, new brakes, new rotors, several dropper posts, and the the rear shock is a size that basically isn't available anymore. The forks are non-boost spacing 180mm fox forks which also don't seem available now either new or used, and even if they are they're close to £1,000.00 so the bike will likely get replaced at that point.
Does that explain?
I don't really see the problem, every time I buy a new bike my old one either gets sold or given to someone for whom it's an upgrade and carries on being ridden.
With the exception of a broken SS Cannondale frame, don't think I've binned a bike since the 80s.....
Do people really buy a bike/kit as they think it’ll make them a better rider?
I tend to buy something I think will feel better/different…not sure that’s the same thing.
Do people really buy a bike/kit as they think it’ll make them a better rider?
Pretty sure I'd be faster uphill on a chipped e-bike....
Having worked in a bikeshop for ~5 years, I can 100% say that people bought lots of bikes and kit to be faster (usually road), or perhaps perform better on more difficult terrain (progressive geo etc). I always used to advise people straight up, that its a case of diminishing returns, so a new rider upgrading from a 400 quid hardtail with cable discs and a junk fork, to a 1200 pound hardtail will be lots faster. But going from the 1200 hardtail to a 2.5k hardtail ain't going to make anything like that difference.
Going from a 4k roadbike to an 8k roadbike will make naff all difference.
Building in obsolescence is part of the industry. But so is innovation. Are my boost forks noticeably stiffer...not in my less than capable hands. for the majority of riders is 1x12 objectively better than 2x10..... Probably not. But are droppers helpful, and is modern geometry more confidence inspiring...absolutley.
Obviously calling something 'enduro' makes you go faster tho.
Having worked in a bikeshop for ~5 years, I can 100% say that people bought lots of bikes and kit to be faster (usually road), or perhaps perform better on more difficult terrain (progressive geo etc).
Exactly. That's not the same as saying that they thought it made them a "better" rider.
I think there are two viewpoints here. The first is that the bike-buying public are naive fools being manipulated by some nefarious bike industry into parting with their hard-earned cash for no benefit. The second is that folk actually just want to have more fun and will upgrade to bikes and components designed to let them do so. Of course, for folk who believe in #1, it's just other people that are fooled, not them.🙄
I think there are two viewpoints here.
I think there's probably more, and some of them may not be so ridiculous!
Going from a 4k roadbike to an 8k roadbike will make naff all difference.
This has to be the most clear-cut case of diminishing returns in the industry IMO.
Once you have Ultegra (or is it 105 these days?), decent wheels and a carbon frame what is there to improve?
At least in MTB you can target specific parts of the bike which could significantly change the ride feel, e.g. posh suspension.
But TBH my Starling isn't particularly faster with it's EXT shock than with a RockShox Deluxe. It's slower uphill actually.
I think I've said it before but I reckon the 80/20 rule generally applies, ie, you can get 80% of the perform by spending 20% of the price.
Of course, you have to define what you mean by performance before you can decide whether that is the case or not.
I think people don't always know exactly what performance improvement they are looking for when they buy a new bike but I'm fairly certain spending 5 times the cost of your current bike is unlikely to make you 20% faster.
I think I’ve said it before but I reckon the 80/20 rule generally applies, ie, you can get 80% of the perform by spending 20% of the price.
I would have been doubtful about that in the past, but with top-end bikes passing £10k and discounts aplenty again... yep.
The bike industry needs to stop forcing obsolescence onto bike owners.
I’ve got shut of 2 bikes recently. Both 26″. Both 3x chainsets. One 8 speed one 9 speed. Both road style QR hubs. Both 1 1/8″ headsets. 1 rim braked.
Try getting a replacement suspension fork that’s 1 1/8″ head tube, 9mm QR, 120mm travel. Not a chance
I'm not sure about enforced obsolesce being a choice. I think it's the diffusion of "standards" that often makes it difficult for providers to, well, provide for smaller markets. There's now a bewildering array of BB, Axle and Headset and wheel sizes along with 3 different disc brake "standards" and two rotor types - the number of possible combinations is almost endless. Perhaps like the EU enforcing USB C, we could see something similar for the bike industry in years to come.
a level further down the rabbit hole.
Who says faster is better?
Faster is less time spent riding, and more time waiting?
better to be steady slow and get more riding in?
Faster is less time spent riding, and more time waiting?
Or more distance covered in the same elapsed time.
This has to be the most clear-cut case of diminishing returns in the industry IMO.
Once you have Ultegra (or is it 105 these days?), decent wheels and a carbon frame what is there to improve?
Read the blurb and most of the gains (usually measured in watts) of things such as aero frames, wheels, bars etc take place at speeds well beyond what mere mortals can achieve. Road uberbike frames are often available in a lower grade carbon which weighs not a lot more at half the cost (eg Specialized SL8, Cannodale SuperSix etc).
105/Ultegra/SRAM Force are all sorted groupsets, top end stuff is really just minor weight saving and cafe bragging rights.
Read the blurb and most of the gains (usually measured in watts) of things such as aero frames, wheels, bars etc take place at speeds well beyond what mere mortals can achieve.
Yep, I think it was a podcast discussing the new Giant TCR where they said something like "Giant say it saves 4 watts at 50kmph" 😀
Similar with all that internal cabling, which I just think creates an odd-looking bike with an ugly stem.
I guess roadies need something to spend their £££s on though.
You dont need to buy that other brands fancy shiny bike
Translates very obviously to
Buy my bike instead.
Nice idea, but dont kid yourself that its some sort of selfless act. We all watched it. It got some hits. It pushed 'Starling Bikes' to the front of our mind again.
What i want to know is... why doesnt his bike have a mech or chain on it 😀
Once you have Ultegra (or is it 105 these days?), decent wheels and a carbon frame what is there to improve?
Arguably Claris/Sora/Tiagra is already diminishing returns. It shifts just as quick, there's just less clicks.
Yep, I think it was a podcast discussing the new Giant TCR where they said something like “Giant say it saves 4 watts at 50kmph” 😀
Slightly counter intuitively, that makes it better for slow people than the pro's.
If something saves a pro 1 minute over 2 hours. Then although the percentage saved drops with speed, the absolute value goes up.
Road bikes are settling out again, the difference over the last 20 years is measurable (I now have to pedal to keep up on descents with my chunky round tubes, exposed cables and shallow, narrow, rims). The difference between an Emonda ALR (maybe with Chinese carbon wheels) and the absolute best though is probably quite narrow.
Similar with all that internal cabling, which I just think creates an odd-looking bike with an ugly stem.
And I definitely disagree with that 😂, old road bikes, and to only a slightly lesser extent MTB's are a rat's nest of cables. Why isn't it the norm for brakes/shifters to exit along the bar? Doesn't need to go full internal (although it'd be nice) but just not flapping out in front would be an improvement.
Slightly counter intuitively, that makes it better for slow people than the pro’s.
Not if the improvements are mostly aerodynamic drag.
Air resistance increases with the square of speed so if you are saving 4W at 50kph then you are most likely saving 0.5W at 25kph.
I'm with joe on this and that's probably because in some ways he's talking about me in this.
I bought my Starling Swoop back in 2016 and it's still going well. It's a little behind in standards being a 142 rear and the geo is slightly dated compared to the brand new stuff as the back end is a little short (by 5mm) and the seat tube is 1 degree slacker than the current bikes but other than that, my custom geo bike falls bang in the middle of the small and medium sizes of the current Swoop model.
It's in now for a refurb where it's gaining newer multi cable guides and a shiny new paint job and when it comes back it'll look pretty much as good as new and very current. It's previously been back for repairs and this will be it's 3rd paint job. Try doing that with the latest carbon wonder thing.
i bought it as a "bike for life" and so far it's pretty much lived up to that. I don't see any advantage to "boost", certainly not for a 27.5 bike and I can (and do) simply slam the seat forward on the rails to make up for the seat angle. The bike's brilliant and way better than me. This summer I'll be spending money on servicing stuff and riding, with a bit of coaching thrown in if I can afford it.
Of coarse joe is saying "buy Starling" in a round about way but it's not a bad message and equally applies to any of the other UK steel frame manufacturers.
Air resistance increases with the square of speed so if you are saving 4W at 50kph then you are most likely saving 0.5W at 25kph.
I did say it was counter intuitive.
If you're a pro then you're always riding into a headwind at 50kmh, there's much less of a yaw angle.
All these U-sectioned rims and Kamm tail frames are of maximum benefit when there is a significant yaw angle.
Your average sportive plodder (or even a fast club rider) doing <20mph on a breezy day spends far more time in a far more angled apparent crosswind than a pro doing pro speeds.
"Faster riders generate more drag", Jean-Paul adds, "because drag is proportional to the square of velocity. But faster riders are also on the course for less time, and experience a narrower range of yaw angles. Through our simulations, we see that slower riders actually save more absolute time. They're out on the road for longer and can therefore benefit from the bigger aero gains for longer."
www.road.cc/content/feature/why-riders-you-need-get-more-aero-213876
@Mark, pasting links seems to be broken? it I paste that as https://road.cc....... it pastes it as the title of the website but without a hyperlink? e.g :
h t t p s : / / road.cc/content/feature/why-riders-you-need-get-more-aero-213876
without the spaces becomes:
Why riders like you need to get more aero and wheel weight doesn't matter | road.cc
I agree and disagree with what he's saying. Some changes in MTB tech are/have been ground-braking and will have made us all faster (if you've been doing it for long enough). I agree in so much that this years Zeb isn't going to make any difference to your riding from last years Zeb, but the change from a bike with around 1200mm of wheel base will feel a whole lot more stable and ultimately faster than a bike with say under a metre of wheel base. Or this years Zeb is going to revolutionary if you're swapping from a 2005 Fox Talas. Bike tech, like lots of other areas I think goes through monumental changes every decade or so, and in between is a bunch of tidying up.
I also agree that many bike brands are very keen to sell you on how much better you'll be on their bike, but I reckon that most folks who're throwing several thousand on a bike probably already know that's not true, in the same way that Lynx doesn't make girls knickers magically fall down either.
in the same way that Lynx doesn’t make girls knickers magically fall down either.
Wait, WHAT?!
Your average sportive plodder (or even a fast club rider) doing <20mph on a breezy day spends far more time in a far more angled apparent crosswind than a pro doing pro speeds.
I think there are multiple things getting mixed up and conflated here.
Firstly, if you are riding in a group then the apparent wind is going to be very different compared to riding solo. Secondly, the article you linked seems to only be looking at deep rims vs regular box rims. It could well be the case but I'd be surprised if any other aero improvements made anything like the same gains, crosswinds or not.
From the graph in the article it looks like they are saying that just by switching to 80mm rims you will save 20W over regular box rims (at the right yaw angle although they don't say what the effective wind speed is which is kind of important). It seems a bit much but it's probably worth a try. Next time you wear out your rims it seems like it might be worth an experiment (oh, you also switched to discs last time you changed bike and don't wear out your rims anymore? That's a shame). 😉
I'm not sure I buy the argument about percentage time saved vs absolute time saved. No matter how slow I go (and believe me, I can go slow) I am absolutely certain the pros are spending far far more time than me in the saddle.
Anyway, he's not my favourite person but Hambini has some interesting thoughts regarding aerodynamics and yaw angles, as you might expect:
https://www.hambini.com/testing-to-find-the-fastest-bicycle-wheels/
Interestingly, the difference between the best and worst rims at 30km/h was around 20W.
Is that the article in which he roundly criticises a particular wheel manufacturer, and then subsequently refused to share his testing protocol with anyone so that his results could be verified, then accused them (falsely) of setting their lawyers on him?
Here's their response to that article
Anyway, he’s not my favourite person
Hambini is a ****ing idiot, who's managed to demonstrate his idiocy repeatedly. Nothing he says should be taken with anything other than a massive pinch of salt.
Yeah, I'd agree about taking anything he says with a massive pinch of salt.
However, I'm also taking road.cc articles where they tell me I can save 20W if I spend a few thousand on a set of wheels with a massive pinch of salt, as well.
But the fact both articles seem to come to roughly the same final number is interesting.
Still not spending 3K on my next wheelset though.
I’m not sure I buy the argument about percentage time saved vs absolute time saved. No matter how slow I go (and believe me, I can go slow) I am absolutely certain the pros are spending far far more time than me in the saddle.
Back in the McLaren era of the Specialized Venge they (or one of the mags) ran a similar article where the author rode a Tarmac and a Venge around a race circuit. Based on the wind data and their power meter McLaren could (obviously without an actual proof beyond an assurance that the models were well validated) say that he was so many seconds quicker on the Venge even though he admitted he was deliberately sandbagging to try and upset the data (i.e. his Venge time was slower, but they could still quantify how much quicker it was than if he'd done the same lap on the tarmac, and the reverse was true, his fast lap on the tarmac would have been faster on the venge, but not by as much.
So it's an idea the industry seems to have been settled on for quite a while.
20W's not to be sniffed at even if it is optimistic. 20W on your FTP is a solid 10 week training block for most people. Probably more than they manage to improve over a summers un-structured riding.
From the graph in the article it looks like they are saying that just by switching to 80mm rims you will save 20W over regular box rims (at the right yaw angle although they don’t say what the effective wind speed is which is kind of important).
It is road.cc, not a scientific journal like the International Sports Engineering Association (fun fact, I did once have my research published in their journal which is how I know it exists!) so I can forgive them not publishing a follow-up paper studying the effect at different velocities as well as angles.
I remember reading an interview about 1p years ago with one of the TDF riders on a Specialized sponsored teams who said he was as fast on his carbon as he was on his Roubaix as he was on his Race bike (and it was more comfy) but Specialized said they had to use their race bikes as that’s how they sell them.
20W’s not to be sniffed at even if it is optimistic. 20W on your FTP is a solid 10 week training block for most people. Probably more than they manage to improve over a summers un-structured riding.
Absolutely.
I just can't shake the suspicion that there is a way of getting the same effect with a Mavic 119 rim, a carving knife, and a big lump of high density polyurethane foam 🙂