Also need to stop talking to other cyclists online. "Oh yeah 100 miles is easy", not for me it isn't.
Anytime someone asks me bike buying advice, my only reply is “go to your local dealer and talk with them”. That relationship and taking a few test rides are far more important than any spec on a sheet.
Not really, or not enough at least. Drivers can and do cause horrific accidents because of inattention, bad judgement, intoxication, and road rage. There aren't enough penalties and, it seems, the situation has been getting worse and more chaotic lately, at least where I live in the Northeastern US.
This is a short list of a few common get out of jail free cards for traffic violence:
1. I couldn't see them
2. The sun was in my eyes
3. I had a medical emergency
4. The car was in my blind spot
5. They came out of nowhere
6. My car lost control
7. My brakes didn't work
The Dutch have a bicycle culture and bicycle friendly streets where cars are outnumbered and don't despise cyclists in the manner of Sydney, Australia or Mean City, USA.
The Dutch also live in a flat country and don't extreme cycle down the side of Big Sur, etc either.
Shops that cater to commuters and transportation cyclists are very different from ones that cater to hardcore road or mountain bike riders.
And he gives no dammn if this is cheeting according to some condescending self righteous hole of excretion. Did not even hear about those poor people. He just likes to move more and that's it.
Similarly entertaining, leaving work one day when a dude in Lycra on a $3000 racing bike blew past me with hardly a glance. ...And then looked completely flabbergasted when I caught up with him and said "Hi!" at a stoplight a few miles down the road, riding my mountain bike and still wearing slacks and a button-down from work. Like, I may be a fatass, but I've been doing this every day for 15 years and my calves are solid rock.
I must get back into it.
I was a very casual and just enjoyed riding until I started getting into touring. You're right not to care, at all. Unless you are a professional or are riding competitively at high levels, you will always do better by losing a little bit of belly, focusing on technique, and having more miles on the road. Weight will not be the difference maker.
I would come back from a tour on my steel Surly and just whip by people with 7k+ bikes in Central Park on a regular basis. It was the miles and nothing else.
Rolling resistance and comfort matter. I never went less than 23mm and I wouldn't even do that today, I'd go far wider 28mm or 35mm. Being comfortable keeps you on your bike longer and the longer you're on your bike, the more fit you'll be and happy - since you're riding a bike for longer.
Your instincts are good, have fun.
You don't care about "weight in grams" for each part.
You can get good exercise by lowering the assist level. You can raise the assist level for tricky parts or to get back to the car.
But the best part is getting TWO electric bikes - it lets you take someone with you, optimize for fun and minimize things like different ability or fitness levels.
Trying to legislate simple statements as if they needed to be universal law, and judging them as failures because you failed to find a a way to do that, does not make the simple statement bad.
I tried to be a hardtail purist, and quit mountain biking because it just sucked. (Local terrain is all huge rocks and drops) Years later tried a full suspension carbon- whoa, mountain biking can be type I fun??
I tried to be a commuter purist, favoring simplicity, durability, and reliability. Riding my hybrid is un-gratifying and soul-sucking. Tried a racy road bike, awkward as hell. Tried a nice gravel bike, oh my god I don't want to stop pedaling!
It's worth spending a little more to get the bike that feels good for you to ride.
The one thing where I suspect mass might matter is in the wheels. It's a huge difference between getting a heavy wheel spinning and a light one, and at least for commuting/recreational usage, most of that will be bled off as heat anyway.
Not really. Bikes don't have a battery to store reclaimed energy, if that would even be a thing. Maybe you go a bit faster on the downhill; I wouldn't call that reclaiming energy.
> Mass doesn't matter as much as people used to think.
On a flat road at a constant speed, mass doesn't matter (except for the slightly increased rolling resistance). With speed changes (in situations with sharp corners for example, or if you want to accelerate fast to escape from the bunch or to catch someone else) or in hilly/mountainous areas, mass does matter.
For recreational use, spending lots of money for shaving of a few grams here and there is not worth the effort, that's true. But a few kilograms more or less do make a difference.
> Hence no modern bikes being made out of drillium.
Modern top-of-the-line road bikes for climbing are already as light as allowed by the UCI. It makes no sense to drill holes in such a bike: you wouldn't be allowed to use it in a race.
This sort of edge case maximalism feels useless and needlessly contrarian - it seems as though if I were to claim you can pay for things by credit card, you’d claim “that doesn’t work what if the power is out”.
In my experience, hilly rides are just harder and I'm more tired after them. It's actually very surprising that what I would expect to be a common sense viewpoint is being considered the contrarian one! Sure, apply elementary physics and hills are meaningless, but apply real-world physics and maybe they aren't so meaningless. And we aren't even considering the differences in energy efficiency when your body has to work harder, or the major differences in energy loss through air drag at high speeds. There are also concerns about how comfortably and efficiently you are able to convert muscle energy into motion through pedaling (similar to how speed-walking gaits are very inefficient) at both the high (downhill) and low ends (uphill) of pedal RPM.
The big hills I can think of near me all have either stop signs at the bottom, or another hill to climb.
What does this mean? A downhill gives your legs a rest if you coast but it's not going to restore all the energy you burned going up the hill. And if you're riding sportily (not even a race necessarily), you'll still be pedaling the same amount of watts downhill. You'll just be going faster for the same amount of muscle power.
> Mass doesn't matter as much as people used to think. (Hence no modern bikes being made out of drillium.)
Modern bikes are getting lighter and lighter.
> The one thing where I suspect mass might matter is in the wheels.
Yes, in terms of ROI by unit weight, lighter wheels are the best place to start.
The trend over the last few years have been disk brakes, aerodynamic features and wider tires, all of which come with a weight penalty. Some brands are now starting to converge their aero and lightweight offerings, though.
When people say heavier bikes and/or wheels "resist drag better", it sounds like all that extra mass somehow magically makes it so that you need less power on the pedals to maintain speed. That is simply wrong.
True
> and so will require less energy to bring it up to the speed it had before decelerating, because the difference in speed will be less
False
The higher inertia of the heavier object resisted the deceleration, and that same higher inertia will resist acceleration too in exactly the same way. You've gained nothing at all.
> For the same reason, you would not ride while dragging an open umbrella behind yourself, but you'd have no problem putting a metal cube of the same mass on your stem. It's the ratio of cross-section and mass.
Now you're talking about aerodynamics which is a whole different matter. For aerodynamics, cross-section is of course a major factor (not the ratio of cross-section and mass!). That's pretty obvious, but has nothing to do with a discussion about mass.
(Ratio of cross-section and mass is relevant for things in free fall, because there gravity is the relevant force. Completely different from a vehicle on a flat road.)
My recommendation for those getting into it, decide the type of riding you wnat to do, figure out a budget and try bikes (new and used) in that budget for the one you like.
For what it's worth, my main bike is a steel "gravel bike" with fairly beefy tires, disk breaks and no suspension. I take it most places I have taken my full suspension mountain bike when riding in the bay area.
I've never considered anything but a steel frame (most common), in the realm of $1000 or less fully built.
Sure, I desire more. But we're talking about 10% satisfaction improvement for my (our) needs. And I definitely will splurge on a new bike soon, but only because I have money to burn.
I am contemplating a $3-500ish fitting with all the latest tech and a trained expert. That feels honestly worth it for anyone because it will likely save you injury.
Gears/derailleurs I have a tough time with.. even nice ones seem to need constant adjustment so I ride a single speed now and feel like I discovered a bike secret.
I'd spend on fit, frame, seat, tires as a min bar to be picky about.
Not true at all. People learn to modulate instinctively in a matter of seconds when switching from different bikes/brake systems.
Besides deoending on pad compound and rim material many v-brakes are very brutal with a low curve between doing nothing and grabbing hard compared to cantilevers and road calipers, so it not only about disc vs rim brake systems.
It sounds like waste of money for something people feel like they should be able to judge themselves, but bikes aren't shoes. The issues often develop only after some hours of effort. If You're a beginner, chances are the flexibility of Your back / hips / joints will be the most limiting factor.
Elite athletes are a different species from you and me.
OP said racing bike not road bike. I agree commuting on a nice road bike is awesome and the comfort/endurace category of road bikes is great for that (e.g. Specialized Roubaix, Trek Domane, etc.)
I wouldn't want to commute on an all-out race bike though. Too stiff, too uncomfortable geometry.
I used to ride as an elite racer 20y ago, I don't ride much these days, only twice a week and mostly shorts sub 3h, rides. My power is not higher than the average dude on the bike riding several times a week. Yet I am still comfy on a racing bike because I didn't lost that flexibility. I actually feel worse when my handlebar is too high and I can't stretch my back horizontally. I uusally don't fit well on what they call endurance bikes.
My point is that more people buy racing equipment for cycling than do skiers for skiing. It is more obvious that a straight sidecut on a long stiff ski won't be fun, than it is that a low stack height and high seat will hurt your neck. You'll see a loot of kludges to fix these decisions: adjustable stems, steering tube extenders, etc.