You are quite right of course Chris. I have two sons into serious bike racing and their desire to trade up to better and better equipment as they progressed exactly mirrored my own when I started racing in my teens (but the best derailleur on the market was then about 6 quid!). Thankfully, one is now earning and the other has found a sponsor this year! Actually, you can discern the difference between the grades of top end equipment, but the law of diminishing returns defininately applies! Ultegra and (even more so) Durace are superb, but 105 is pretty damn good too! In case anyone thinks I am predjudiced towards Japan, top end campag is great too - it's just a matter of personal preference really.
Pro-Connect first range test.
- Thread starter burncycle
- Start date
Hi Chris,
As you are clearly someone with significant experience and knowledge of road bikes, I would like to ask you how you would spend your money if you were building a bike from scratch. Given that it is possible to spend a small fortune on each different component of a bike, which components offer the best return on investment for an enthusiastic, but not very talented rider in the real world: wheels? frame/forks? groupset? I suppose another way of putting it would be: what proportion of your total budget would you spend on each component?
Advice greatly appreciated, as I am seriously considering spending some money in the not too distant future.
Chris
Wow Chris, that's too tempting to ignore!....... First of all, I think you have to decide what you want to use it for - there's no point is buying the sharpest race geometry for fast leisure riding (which I'm guessing is what you want).
I firmly believe that, at any given quality level, money spent on good wheels and tyres gives the best return in terms of the feel of a road bike. Weight here matters because you have to spin them up to speed and keep them going (without a motor!) on the hills. There are lots of good moderately prices aluminium wheels (I would not use carbon wheels for anything other than racing). Have a look at Fulcrum (actually Campag made for Shimano transmission) and Mavic. I am a great fan of Continental tyres - and here I would use racing folders - they just feek soooooo good. (I use 4 Seasons 28mm on the Cytronex - Ribble Cycles are nearly always cheapest for Conti).
Frames are partly an issue of personal preference - I was bought up on steel (I'm 57) and still prefer all-steel to all-aluminium (which I find very harsh to ride). Having said that, all steel frames are now quite hard to find off the peg although good used ones are around (there are also still some great builders around in most parts of the country, but a bespoke steel frame is not the cheapest - or the lightest - option). Carbon is a much more accessible option these days and there are plenty of reasonably priced ones around.
With respect to transmission, brakes etc (often sold as groupsets), the midrange stuff from Campag and Shimano is really very good. Both my sons raced on Shimano 105 until they were really quite good and it certanly never let them down. I wouldn't go higher than Ultegra, although fashion (and over-generous sponsors!) do.
Don't forget that there is often a significant saving in buying a whole bike over building from parts - it can be better to get something nearly perfect and tweak it.
Now is also quite a good time to look, as all the major manufacturers are launching their 2009 range (and, allegedly, we are entering a recession so they will be keen to move stock).
About 2 years ago (in September) I built Jack a new road bike. Some parts were re-used from his previous model but I bought the previous year's Trek Madone 5.9 frame from Evans at half price and the previous year's Ultegra groupset from ProBikit, also at half price. So cost was £800 for frame and forks, £280 for the groupset. Most of the rest of the stuff was re-used but, if I had to, I would have expected to pay about £400 on wheels and £50 for tyres and tubes.
I hope this helps and apologies to all for deviating from electric bikes. I'm perfectly happy to continue in a new thread or by PM.
Last edited:
Hi Chris,
If you havn't already done this, then try any of the same journey's with hills, with the power turned off.
For my I knew then that the ebike was still for me.
Even in eco mode the bike still has a massive difference compared to no power at all.
Like I say try it if you havn't yet.
Its a killer !
I do carry quite alot the weight on my bike though.
Give me your thought's on this if you can.
Regards Bob.
No apologies needed Chris.
Some while ago I wrote some articles for the Technical thread on electric bike associated issues, and someone asked for one on what makes an efficient bicycle. So that I didn't dominate that section I threw it open for someone else to write instead of me, but the offer has never been taken up. Would you like to do it in a form to suit you, since you clearly have the knowledge and experience for that.
If so, publish it here and we can get the administrator to move it into the Technical section.
.
That's tempting too Flecc - though, as we both know, pretty well all bikes are amazingly efficient in the conventional sense of the word. I quess what is interesting is what makes some bikes seem easier to ride , or "livlier", than others. I do think this is an interesting question and it has been touched on by you and others in this forum (wheelbase, for example). I'll give it some thought!No apologies needed Chris.
Some while ago I wrote some articles for the Technical thread on electric bike associated issues, and someone asked for one on what makes an efficient bicycle. So that I didn't dominate that section I threw it open for someone else to write instead of me, but the offer has never been taken up. Would you like to do it in a form to suit you, since you clearly have the knowledge and experience for that.
If so, publish it here and we can get the administrator to move it into the Technical section.
.
What makes a bike easy to ride?
Flecc challenged me to write an article on what makes for an efficient bike and I’ve fallen for it! We are talking about human-powered bikes here, but most of the same principles will apply to power-assisted bikes to one degree or another.
The first thing to acknowledge is that bicycles are remarkable efficient machines. The track bikes that you will see flying around the Manchester or Beijing velodromes are probably transmitting nearly 100% or rider effort into forward motion. Even your poorly maintained and rusting mountain bike in the shed will achieve over 80%. So what we are talking about here is how you make sure that you get the best out of that remaining <20%.
I think that the significant influences can be divided into two categories, those that are rider-related and those that are mechanical or bike-related. Some, like rider position and wind-resistance fall between the two.
Rider-related issues.
The power that we deliver to the drive chain of a cycle is a product of the torque we generate by pedalling action and the speed (rpm) at which we pedal – known as cadence. The torque that we can deliver is determined by mechanical features like leg and crank length but, most crucially, by the strength of the relevant muscle groups. Importantly, at the sort of speeds that most of us pedal, torque doesn’t change much with cadence. So the faster we pedal, usually up to about 100rpm, the more power we put down (at very high cadences, torque actually reduces).
So the first thing to say is that faster cadences are more efficient than slower ones. This doesn’t mean to say that we should all pedal at 120rpm (although the UK Olympic squad all can, with ease). Cadence usually falls off with age, even in really fit riders. What this does say however is that the available range of gears we have (and what use we make of them) is important – pretty well all riders will be delivering more power at 60-70 rpm than at 30-40rpm. You can feel this on any hill, where it is easier to climb in a lower gear, pedling at higher cadences.
The second rider-related issue is that of position on the bike. Position can influence torque as our leg is basically acting as a lever, but the most important effect of position is on wind-resistance or drag. Serious racing cyclists go to a lot of trouble to adopt a maximally “tucked” position when riding into the wind alone (riders in a group can derive a great deal of shelter form other riders). As I write this, Emma Pooley has just won a silver medal in the Olympic Women’s Time Trial on a bike developed by Chris Boardman and British Cycling. As a small rider, she would have been really hard to get into a truly aerodynamic position and I suspect that she will have spent some time in a wind tunnel getting it right. We clearly can’t all do this but, in general, adopting a lower position on the bike will be more efficient that riding upright.
Bike-related issues.
Chains are a very efficient means of transmitting power and the drive chain is not usually a source of inefficiency. Keeping them clean is important as grit and other debris will introduce friction. A major reason for lubricating your chain is to keep the dirt out and chains should be cleaned and re-lubricated frequently. There is some evidence that the chain drives larger sprockets (gears) with somewhat more efficiency than it does small ones, but the use of small gears is usually determined by the cadence that we can comfortably maintain and that, in itself, will aid efficiency.
Derailleur gears usually have lower frictional losses than hub gears, but the reasons for fitting one or other to a particular bike are not usually based upon considerations of efficiency (durability and ease of maintainence being more common considerations).
Tyres can certainly affect frictional losses and, in my view are one of the most frequently overlooked components on a bike. There is often much concern about puncture resistance but rolling resistance (friction on the road) has an enormous effect on ride quality. Rolling resistance is influenced by the physical resistance of the tyre compound and the degree of inflation. I would always recommend inflating tyres towards the top of their stated range. Harder tyres do deliver a harder ride, but they are much more efficient. (Road bumps can be smoothed out by raked or suspension forks and suspension seat posts if required, these may have minor effects on overall efficiency, but not nearly as great as those caused by under-inflated tyres). Tyres that are “slick” (little tread) invariably roll better than those with a deep tread, and narrow tyres roll better than wide ones. It is a fallacy to assume that a tyre with a knobbly tread will grip the road better (as opposed to a muddy track, where knobbly tyres do deliver). There are plenty of nearly slick tyres that remained glued to the road, even in torrential rain – it’s the quality of the rubber compound that achieves this performance.
Weight.
The weight of a bike is an issue, most especially when riding up hills, but this is not a reason to start worrying about every last gram weight of your equipment. The difference in weight between middle of the range and top of the range equipment is sometimes the same as the chocolate bar in your pocket! If, like me, you are at least 10 kilos overweight, is the extra 200 grams on the weight of your frame really going to make that much difference? However, where I would defend weight saving is in wheels and tyres. It is rider effort that turns these and, on hills especially, rolling weight really does make a considerable difference. This is the reason, of course, why climbers get out their lightest carbon wheels for the mountain stages of the Tour de France. By the way, weight at the rim is more significant than weight at the hub (flywheel effect) so don't get too paranoid if you have a hub motor in your ebike!
Geometry.
The geometry of a bike (a combination of frame angles/sizes and how it is set up) certainly makes a difference to how it feels and sporty bikes with steepish seat and head tubes together with a short wheel base do feel “nippier” and more responsive. This is probably partly to do with the way in which human power is transmitted through the cranks, partly to do with sharper steering on a shorter wheelbase and partly because shorter frames flex less under rider effort. Whatever the reason, it’s true, as you can tell for yourself by going round to your local bike shop to test ride a few models. I confess that I find it hard to explain what is happening here in strict physical/engineering terms, but the effect is undeniable.
So that’s some initial thoughts on cycle efficiency. I am happy to be responsive to comments and will try to incorporate further thoughts that emerge (but I’m not going to get into an argument about whether light wheels are better on hills – I’m afraid they just are!)
Flecc challenged me to write an article on what makes for an efficient bike and I’ve fallen for it! We are talking about human-powered bikes here, but most of the same principles will apply to power-assisted bikes to one degree or another.
The first thing to acknowledge is that bicycles are remarkable efficient machines. The track bikes that you will see flying around the Manchester or Beijing velodromes are probably transmitting nearly 100% or rider effort into forward motion. Even your poorly maintained and rusting mountain bike in the shed will achieve over 80%. So what we are talking about here is how you make sure that you get the best out of that remaining <20%.
I think that the significant influences can be divided into two categories, those that are rider-related and those that are mechanical or bike-related. Some, like rider position and wind-resistance fall between the two.
Rider-related issues.
The power that we deliver to the drive chain of a cycle is a product of the torque we generate by pedalling action and the speed (rpm) at which we pedal – known as cadence. The torque that we can deliver is determined by mechanical features like leg and crank length but, most crucially, by the strength of the relevant muscle groups. Importantly, at the sort of speeds that most of us pedal, torque doesn’t change much with cadence. So the faster we pedal, usually up to about 100rpm, the more power we put down (at very high cadences, torque actually reduces).
So the first thing to say is that faster cadences are more efficient than slower ones. This doesn’t mean to say that we should all pedal at 120rpm (although the UK Olympic squad all can, with ease). Cadence usually falls off with age, even in really fit riders. What this does say however is that the available range of gears we have (and what use we make of them) is important – pretty well all riders will be delivering more power at 60-70 rpm than at 30-40rpm. You can feel this on any hill, where it is easier to climb in a lower gear, pedling at higher cadences.
The second rider-related issue is that of position on the bike. Position can influence torque as our leg is basically acting as a lever, but the most important effect of position is on wind-resistance or drag. Serious racing cyclists go to a lot of trouble to adopt a maximally “tucked” position when riding into the wind alone (riders in a group can derive a great deal of shelter form other riders). As I write this, Emma Pooley has just won a silver medal in the Olympic Women’s Time Trial on a bike developed by Chris Boardman and British Cycling. As a small rider, she would have been really hard to get into a truly aerodynamic position and I suspect that she will have spent some time in a wind tunnel getting it right. We clearly can’t all do this but, in general, adopting a lower position on the bike will be more efficient that riding upright.
Bike-related issues.
Chains are a very efficient means of transmitting power and the drive chain is not usually a source of inefficiency. Keeping them clean is important as grit and other debris will introduce friction. A major reason for lubricating your chain is to keep the dirt out and chains should be cleaned and re-lubricated frequently. There is some evidence that the chain drives larger sprockets (gears) with somewhat more efficiency than it does small ones, but the use of small gears is usually determined by the cadence that we can comfortably maintain and that, in itself, will aid efficiency.
Derailleur gears usually have lower frictional losses than hub gears, but the reasons for fitting one or other to a particular bike are not usually based upon considerations of efficiency (durability and ease of maintainence being more common considerations).
Tyres can certainly affect frictional losses and, in my view are one of the most frequently overlooked components on a bike. There is often much concern about puncture resistance but rolling resistance (friction on the road) has an enormous effect on ride quality. Rolling resistance is influenced by the physical resistance of the tyre compound and the degree of inflation. I would always recommend inflating tyres towards the top of their stated range. Harder tyres do deliver a harder ride, but they are much more efficient. (Road bumps can be smoothed out by raked or suspension forks and suspension seat posts if required, these may have minor effects on overall efficiency, but not nearly as great as those caused by under-inflated tyres). Tyres that are “slick” (little tread) invariably roll better than those with a deep tread, and narrow tyres roll better than wide ones. It is a fallacy to assume that a tyre with a knobbly tread will grip the road better (as opposed to a muddy track, where knobbly tyres do deliver). There are plenty of nearly slick tyres that remained glued to the road, even in torrential rain – it’s the quality of the rubber compound that achieves this performance.
Weight.
The weight of a bike is an issue, most especially when riding up hills, but this is not a reason to start worrying about every last gram weight of your equipment. The difference in weight between middle of the range and top of the range equipment is sometimes the same as the chocolate bar in your pocket! If, like me, you are at least 10 kilos overweight, is the extra 200 grams on the weight of your frame really going to make that much difference? However, where I would defend weight saving is in wheels and tyres. It is rider effort that turns these and, on hills especially, rolling weight really does make a considerable difference. This is the reason, of course, why climbers get out their lightest carbon wheels for the mountain stages of the Tour de France. By the way, weight at the rim is more significant than weight at the hub (flywheel effect) so don't get too paranoid if you have a hub motor in your ebike!
Geometry.
The geometry of a bike (a combination of frame angles/sizes and how it is set up) certainly makes a difference to how it feels and sporty bikes with steepish seat and head tubes together with a short wheel base do feel “nippier” and more responsive. This is probably partly to do with the way in which human power is transmitted through the cranks, partly to do with sharper steering on a shorter wheelbase and partly because shorter frames flex less under rider effort. Whatever the reason, it’s true, as you can tell for yourself by going round to your local bike shop to test ride a few models. I confess that I find it hard to explain what is happening here in strict physical/engineering terms, but the effect is undeniable.
So that’s some initial thoughts on cycle efficiency. I am happy to be responsive to comments and will try to incorporate further thoughts that emerge (but I’m not going to get into an argument about whether light wheels are better on hills – I’m afraid they just are!)
Last edited:
Hi Chris,
Thanks very much for the information you have provided : your answer to my question and the article you have written are extremely useful and I enjoyed reading them - your enthusiasm really comes across but has not clouded your jusdgement. It's really difficult to get an objective opinion about bikes because the bike magazine journalists have clearly been spoilt by having access to all the latest toys and definitely overplay the advantages of top end products and kit. I'm sure many of them are talented cyclists as well - which probably makes it hard for them to put themselves in my position!
What you have said about wheels and tyres is really interesting and if I do buy a custom bike from Ribble or similar I will definitely spend more on wheels and less than I might otherwise have done on frame and groupset, as I get the impression that while anyone will benfit from good light wheels, only 'contenders' will really benefit from a high end drive train and saving a few hundred grams on the frame (105 and a lightish frame, with comfortable geometry will definitely be good enough for me).
Again - much appreciation.
Chris
Thanks very much for the information you have provided : your answer to my question and the article you have written are extremely useful and I enjoyed reading them - your enthusiasm really comes across but has not clouded your jusdgement. It's really difficult to get an objective opinion about bikes because the bike magazine journalists have clearly been spoilt by having access to all the latest toys and definitely overplay the advantages of top end products and kit. I'm sure many of them are talented cyclists as well - which probably makes it hard for them to put themselves in my position!
What you have said about wheels and tyres is really interesting and if I do buy a custom bike from Ribble or similar I will definitely spend more on wheels and less than I might otherwise have done on frame and groupset, as I get the impression that while anyone will benfit from good light wheels, only 'contenders' will really benefit from a high end drive train and saving a few hundred grams on the frame (105 and a lightish frame, with comfortable geometry will definitely be good enough for me).
Again - much appreciation.
Chris
Hi Bob,
I do take your point and must admit that I wouldn't even want to try riding my Pro Connect up any sort of hill without power. Like you, I do tend to carry a fair amount of stuff in two panniers and that combined with the weight of the bike is a pretty big weight to shift.
Bear in mind though that an unladen Kalkhoff Pro connect weighs about 13kg more than a similarly priced carbon framed road bike. I have been overtaken many time by road bike riders, even going up hills and don't believe they are all fitter than me (I do run a bit).
Overall though, I do think electric bikes are good for commuting and don't regret buying a Kalkhoff at all - it's great to be able to carry all your stuff about and not have to worry about the weight. What's more, I don't want a 2 hour plus workout every day. Also, now that I've fitted a 16T sprocket, I think the lycra lads will have more trouble leaving me for dead than in the past - I even kept up with a car down a slight hill yesterday.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
