Now, I'm not rich but I'm definitely comfortably to the right on the curve, so to speak. However, I've noticed something in the groups I ride with: the vast middle of the faster, strong riders are on equipment that's all about the same level, give or take a few things.
It's usually mid-grade frames from major brands sporting Ultegra or Force, so probably a $3,000US bike.
This is true if the rider is, like me, a middle-aged person with significant disposable income, or a genuine millionaire, or a just-out-of-school teacher. Some of these bikes were doubtless purchased used, but still.
A few folks upgrade; the most common bump is carbon wheels, followed by electronic shifting. Both make a difference, but neither are required to ride at the level we're riding at. And yeah, the very serious or very rich do splash out for nicer gear, but there are always outliers.
It's not entirely on point, but I thought it was interesting anyway.
In the UK, there tends to be an inverse correlation between the shininess of your bike and your performance. The young Cat A riders with one eye on a professional contract mostly ride 15-year-old aluminium race bikes or cheap off-brand carbon bikes; the weekend plodders are often on brand new Pinarellos or Cervelos. There's also a difference in clothing - it's almost a badge of honour to wear faded and threadbare kit, because it shows that you really put the hours in.
No amount of go-faster equipment will substitute for youth and training, but the middle-aged amateurs with pro-grade gear like to dream and help to sustain the cycling economy by doing so.
There's definitely a few of the older folks rolling around on equipment that's far in excess of their ability, sure.
The strongest folks I know are on good, well maintained bikes of about the class I mentioned. Most don't have the cash to upgrade frequently. Plus, most of us at this level are too picky about components to be happy with a factory build anymore, so you end up with upgrades on your bike until your bike is a new bike. LOL.
>Threadbare kit
I don't actually see a lot of that. I think a good chunk of why is climate here -- shit just wears out faster in the heat. There is a sense of bride in faded Rapha, though. (Guilty)
For myself, I've always been really opposed to showing up for any hobby where my gear vastly exceeded my skill. I get that some folks don't have that thing, but holy hell if you show up on a shiny new $12,000 Pinarello, you'd better be pretty fast -- if not, I kinda feel like it's okay to rag you.
Back in the 90ies, I stayed in the same hotel as a pro team who were racing in the Giro d'Italia. It was interesting to see their bikes: except for the GC guy, they were 'workhorses' - good components, and steel frames that, taken together, where not exactly featherweight.
A nice bike certainly helps, but it's all about your fitness and strength.
In a punchy crit with constant accelerations, absolutely. For sustained efforts like time trials, it makes essentially no difference. Once you're up to speed, it's all aerodynamics, gravity and rolling resistance. Ondřej Sosenka actually used a weighted back wheel for his successful hour record ride, with the logic that it would act as a flywheel in the later parts of the hour and smooth out his ragged pedalling. Of course he did test positive for methamphetamine in 2008, which may have had something to do with breaking the hour record.
It's interesting you mention rolling resistance because in mountain biking, cross country anyway, where there will be climbing on loose surfaces, you have to trade off rolling resistance of the rear tire against traction.
If you over-inflate your tires, you'll have less traction.
There's also the fact that during a tough climb on a trail with obstacles (roots rocks) you can't just power your way up, you have to maintain constant awareness of where the contact patch of your rear wheel is at all times, and modulate the power such that you deliver the most power where you have the most traction.
Fail to do that on a rock or root and you'll blow the climb.
There might be some pride, I have a fairly highend bike and I hate not riding it well. I'd much rather get dropped on one of my middle bikes than on my best weapon...
The difference between some of those mid-level bikes and superbikes is also quite small compared to the price. Regardless of you wealth, the return on investment isn't there unless you're just a bike nut. They are also getting specialized to the point that they are really pro-level bikes that sort of need sponsors and mechanics behind them; how many Pinarello frames have been broken in competition the last few years? It's one thing when they pull a near exact duplicate off the car and give it to you in a race, it's something else when you call your wife for help and then take it to your dealer and 6-8 weeks later you get a new frame from Italy iff your still under warranty. I only pick on Pinarello because I think I've seen 4+ chainstays broken over the last handful of years, in competition. The second level gruppos are generally known to be identical but more durable than the top levels.
>The difference between some of those mid-level bikes and superbikes is also quite small compared to the price.
Oh, COMPLETELY.
I think the point of diminishing returns is probably the first decent carbon bike with 105 on it. Going above that gets you creature comforts -- Ultegra absolutely shifts more crisply, e.g. -- but won't make you materially faster.
Around here, the oft-repeated maxim is that Ultegra is worth it if you can easily afford it, but that Dura-Ace is just showing off. I think that's probably true.
There IS something to nicer wheels, but you kinda need to be fairly strong to justify the upgrade from decent alloy rims to aero carbon. I wore out the OEM rims that came on my bike, and a friend sold me his barely used ENVE 4.5s for a SONG (basically the "I need to get these out of the house, and I like you" price). They made a meaningful difference for me -- I'm quicker off the line, sure, but the bigger difference is the degree to which they feel like they just want to roll by themselves once I'm over 22-23MPH. I'm told that's more aero than weight, plus lower resistance from the hubs (DTSwiss 180).
BUT this also was a jump from pretty crappy OEM alloy to, realistically speaking, nearly top of the line carbon. My pal paid as much for these wheels as I paid for my entire bike 4 years ago. I wonder how much difference I'd have felt if my upgrade hadn't been such a huge jump.
>I only pick on Pinarello because I think I've seen 4+ chainstays broken over the last handful of years
Here, I don't even SEE that many Pinarellos. I think it's because of a lack of dealer presence. It's a big city (Houston), but the packs are dominated by Specialized, Cannondale, Cervelo, a bit of Trek, no small amount of Giant, and then a mix of more esoteric or custom bikes. I see more Moots or Alchemy than I do Pinarello. Bianchi is almost entirely absent.
Now, I'm not rich but I'm definitely comfortably to the right on the curve, so to speak. However, I've noticed something in the groups I ride with: the vast middle of the faster, strong riders are on equipment that's all about the same level, give or take a few things.
It's usually mid-grade frames from major brands sporting Ultegra or Force, so probably a $3,000US bike.
This is true if the rider is, like me, a middle-aged person with significant disposable income, or a genuine millionaire, or a just-out-of-school teacher. Some of these bikes were doubtless purchased used, but still.
A few folks upgrade; the most common bump is carbon wheels, followed by electronic shifting. Both make a difference, but neither are required to ride at the level we're riding at. And yeah, the very serious or very rich do splash out for nicer gear, but there are always outliers.
It's not entirely on point, but I thought it was interesting anyway.