Steel > CF: Benefits?

Currently I'm riding 70's and early 80's vintage steel bikes. Mostly 531, Campy Record, Dura-Ace, etc. High end bikes for their day and still very serviceable as I'm riding 100 - 200 miles / week on them. What real world benefit am I likely to see from moving up to something like a Madone 6.5, Felt Z15, Orbea Orca or similar? Move my average speed from 19.5 to 20.5? Little difference on flats but big difference on climbs (where I often go off the back today)? Very little real difference other than better shifting?

You're not likely to see any real performance benefit.

__________________
Sex is horrid
Pain is Fun
I cut my fingers off
One by one

Certainly you're not going to move your average speed up 1 mph, but saving a few pounds will make a small difference on the hills, where climbing speed on steep grades (below 10 mph) is basically a function of your total (bike + rider + kit). If you could save 4 lbs with a new bike, and currently your combined weight is 200 lbs, that's gets you 2% increase in climbing speed. EG, from 10 mph to 10.2 mph on a 6% grade.

Going 0.2 mph faster on a 20 minute climb gets you to the top 24 seconds sooner. Not a big deal....unless the guy you're trying to beat is always 20 seconds ahead

Have you considered simply updating your drivetrain?

It is not difficult to respace the rear triangle to 130mm -- you can DIY or have an LBS do it ... BE CERTAIN THE SHOP HAS DONE THIS BEFORE ... you don't want your bike to be their first!

After that, all you have to do is decide whether you want Campagnolo or Shimano components -- accept no substitutes!

The attached picture is of my OLMO which 'I' respaced from 126mm to 130mm (you need to re-align the derailleur hanger if you want the indexed shifting to work properly) and which currently has Campagnolo 10-speed shifters + a mix of Shimano derailleurs & a 9-speed Shimano cassette.

Attached Thumbnails

 

If you have a good "engine" that's the main thing. Between my lighter and heavier bikes the only real difference is in sprints, on short, steep hills. Then, the lightest bike is snappier.

Over the long haul, comfort is king.

I agree with the reasoning behind alfengs's post: You're not going to see much of a performace effect of the reduced weight, let alone any effect of "stiffness", but going from your six- or seven-speed drivetrain (that's what you should have, based on the year of those bikes you gave us, right?) to a ten-speed will help you keep your cadence in the optimal range, and may well make you a bit faster, depending on the route, of course. The benefit will still be less than 1mph, I think.

A new fancy bike will most likely feel faster, so the placebo effect may make a difference, especially for the first couple of weeks.

In my opinion, most of the 'faster feeling' thing is a case of perception not matching reality (especially stiffness), although, when it comes to weight, if difference is pushing 2kg or more, I'd rather not have that weight on hilly rides, even just for piece of mind.

Every time I ride my clunky old 1988 531c Raleigh, it sure feels slow (I usually ride my zippier aluminium bikes), but I still end up in the same position on the same group smash-fests, mashing with the same guys.

I dunno what it is, but my Raleigh definitely feels like a crippled slug, compared to my zingy aluminium bikes, even though the Raleigh has virtually identical wheels, tyres, and a carbon fork. It's not weight, because the frame is only ~190g heavier than my faster-feeling steel Cervelo Superprodigy, and less than a pound heavier than my aluminium Soloist!

Thanks all, great info. My bikes range from about 19lbs to 23lbs so I'd realistically be getting maybe a 4 or 5 lb improvement on weight. I definitely like the shifters on the brakes compared with my downtube shifters and the bikes I've test ridden do certainly 'seem' faster than mine, especially up hills, but 'seems' and 'is' are clearly two different things.

531Aussie, how would you rate the comfort difference between your 531 and newer bikes? All the CF's I've tried are stiffer but in 15 minute test rides don't seem less comfortable. Are you any more or less tired after smashfests on one or the other?

Thanks,

My steel bikes are definitely more comfortable than my stiffer aluminium bikes, although I've had a couple of alu frames that were every bit as flexy and comfortable as my oldest 531 frame, especially when they had flexy forks on them.

I've never really bought into this 'extra fatigue' thing when riding stiff frames, but yeah, I've gotta admit my stiffest bikes do sometimes do my head in on long rides on shabby roads, especially if I zip the tyre pressure up kinda high for a smash-fest or race -- say, 130 rear and 120 front (I ain't light: about 87kg/ 190lb). However, if it really bugs me, I sometimes drop the pressure for the last 20km. I've noticed that stiffness and comfort can be somewhat subjective: one man's concrete slab can be the next man's waterbed.

Funny thing about tough group rides and races is that ya never notice comfort in the 'heat of battle'. All I notice is how fast or slow I feel, and I don't notice any aches or discomfort until I'm riding home

I thought good carbon bikes were meant to deliver 'everything'?: "lateral rigidity and vertical compliance."

You should be able to find a carbon bike which is very light a comfortable. In fact, it's a common complaint from bigger guys that their new super-light carbon frame isn't as stiff as they'd like.

if you change to CF send one of those 531's to me

Yer gonna get the biggest benefit from riding the bike that you like and fits you. That's all there is to it.

So the questions you have to ask yourself are:

1. Are you comfy on your current bike, i.e. does it fit?
2. Does riding your current bike make your tassels twirl, or are you achin' for a little two wheeled strange?

__________________
Sex is horrid
Pain is Fun
I cut my fingers off
One by one

4 things make your cycling performance better..
Bike fit
Cycling fitness
Fat, lackthereof on you
Finesse, riding and/or racing smart

A new bike would not necessarily give you any real world benefit. If you don't like the ride or if it doesn't fit, it may worsen your riding performance.

I would definitely consider the fit of the bike.
The science of fitting has come aways since the 80's and a new frame might be better in that respect.

__________________
Dope,when training and talent just aren't enough.

+1...well said. Just reading the reviews in current Bicycling Mag, the hype continues. One new CF bike is said to be stiff, for max performance, but not the kind of bike you'll want for century rides. My favorite quote is that if you ride a century on it, "you'll feel it in the morning".

A buddy here who rides a Litespeed Classic from the 90s just got a new Felt CF, one of the (Z-?) top-end frames. He said the Felt feels a lot stiffer and more responsive than the old Classic, but he didn't notice any real difference in ride comfort. He also was quick to mention that what he's feeling could be enhanced by "new bike syndrome"

My take on all this is that any lighter bike will feel more responsive and quicker when you jump on it vs the old heavier ride, but that difference really doesn't translate to performance (other than the small effect of total weight-savings on climbs).

carrying your bike into the house is much more enjoyable with a carbon fiber ultralight...