Bike limiting you?
- Thread starter Belovedad
- Start date
No complaints ! But then again I have 5 bikes remaining in my stable and 4 of them offer a different ride experience, and that allows me to choose what level of riding I want to do. The TT Bike: for all out balls to the walls effort. The High End Road Bike: Light weight, deep rims, maximize my road rides. SS Bike: Back to Basics. Mountain Bike: Different gearing and style of riding, playing in the woods. I do have a lesser road bike used with trailer to haul grand buddies around, and also lend out to friend's who don't have road bikes.
As I always say to newbies who are going to purchase their first bike, go to the bike store and test drive what gets your fancy. Nothing beats the actual feel of your body with a new bike. When I bought my first bike, it was also in the store but my focus was not on the feel but on the price and the design. And although I had tested it by riding in a spin, it was not enough. Back home, there were many adjustments to be done particularly with the saddle and the handle bars.
So if your bike seems to be limiting your capabilities, consider getting a new one that fits you to a tee.
So if your bike seems to be limiting your capabilities, consider getting a new one that fits you to a tee.
I have 1 bike, its not a "bling" bike, but it gets the job done! I have an aluminum Cannondale Synapse Tiagra 10 speed road bike with Mavic Kysrium Elite wheels. In the future, I may try a racier geometry and possible a carbon fiber bike. But know, I love my bike and it isn't holding me back!
Is holding me back, my road bike. It does fit my size and all but I already have like five years with it and is getting worn out. My next replacement will be another light road bike with multi velocity with a front brake and several other features or another BMX.
My current bikes actually hold me from enjoying the great performence of the high-end bikes. I don't have the required budget to buy the high-end bikes and that is why I am limited to my current bike's performence. I really want to buy a need bike and I am collecting the money so that I can enjoy the high-end performence (no limitation).
Your choice is really wonderful but which brand do you prefer. I don't think you will get all the things in a single brand. You can opt for the assembled one for this. You will get many features by assembling.
Last edited:
This is nonsensical. If you think that getting an expensive high end bike is suddenly going to turn you into superbiker you're delusional, really delusional, so delusional you want a bike with performance that has no limitation which is impossible because the limitation besides wind and friction is mostly YOU!
No one is limited by a bike's performance, the bike's performance is limited by you. I could put Peter Sagan on a cheap Walmart bike and I have the feeling he could beat all the riders here on this forum unless we have a top notch pro that hangs here then it may be a good race.
IF all you want is to spend the over abundance of money you have burning a hole in your pocket and you have the need to impress others with how much you spent on a bike then get the best bike you can find, but unless you're a pro you better be psychologically strong enough to take the fact that just as many riders pass you now will pass you when you're on your very expensive bike.
If you want to spend a lot of money to ride faster join a bike group that has a coach with your current bike, then after a year or two of training and you're able to keep up with the gang at their pace and not yours then consider getting a better bike.
I wouldn't say that the bike I've got is limiting me, but I have been cycling for quite a long time so I know what my limitations are anyway and just what kind of bike I need.
For a newbie I do think that a lot of the time that can be the case though and people should realise that they will have to change their bikes every so often as what you first start cycling on, will limit you the more experienced you get.
For a newbie I do think that a lot of the time that can be the case though and people should realise that they will have to change their bikes every so often as what you first start cycling on, will limit you the more experienced you get.
The average Joe Club Racer on a WallyWorld bike = Limited. They aren't Peter Sagan and there is a large performance gap between a $79 big box 'schwinn' (little 'S' on purpose) and a $$$$ SpeshiTrekaDale.
Buying the big bux racer will not make anyone a cycling Immortal, but even the local tourons go easier/faster/longer on a good machine.
Disclaimer: Different expectations, experiences, goals, training, sexual preference(s) and gender self-identifying may invalidate any and all opinions, facts, historical reference points and any offer of immunity from prosecution is void where prohibited by law.
Buying the big bux racer will not make anyone a cycling Immortal, but even the local tourons go easier/faster/longer on a good machine.
Disclaimer: Different expectations, experiences, goals, training, sexual preference(s) and gender self-identifying may invalidate any and all opinions, facts, historical reference points and any offer of immunity from prosecution is void where prohibited by law.
There is some truth to that if a person is racing, and not pro racing either but pros get their bikes for free so that's a moot point, but as you go up the cat levels a person could be enticed to buy a better bike, however I never did that, nor did quite a few people that I knew that raced did that either, though quite a few did, so no, not always does gaining more experience dictate getting a new bike, some people are just happy with what they have forever and ever and may be still better rider than either of us. Kind of like me, I still have my first racing bike I got in 1984, the only reason i bought another in 87 was due to the fact I didn't have a backup bike in case I crashed and destroyed the main bike, after that I didn't buy another new bike until 2013 and that wasn't due to me getting more experienced, it was due to the fact that all my bikes (I have more than just those two but the others were bought used for fun or found in dumpsters) were older and I wanted something newer, plus I wanted a frame material that would be a tad more comfortable due to a back injury, so I got titanium. Some people buy new bikes every 5 years or so because they want to, not because they need to, which is fine, I simply chose not to do that.
If you're not racing then really the only reason you have to get a far more expensive bike then what you have now is either to see a 1 to 2 mph gain (assuming your bike is really bad), or impress others. However, like I eluded to before, if buying a $15,000 bike for you is like me reaching into my pocket and pulling out my pocket change then by all means get a bike that would correspond with your lifestyle of owning Bugatti Veyron for example...a car that you will never take up to anywhere close to it's potential, and then you have a bike that will be the same way.
Bob you missed my point, I wasn't discussing the average joe, I was trying to make a point that it isn't entirely the bike, it's about the engine on the bike.
But I do like your disclaimer, LOL
The person on the bike is the most important part. Your question is really to vague to answer with much more than that.
The bicycle both inspires and defines the rider.
I started out on a 32-pound Schwinn Continental. NO amount of training could make a Cat. racer, club rider or even Thibaut Pinot competitive on it when pitted against similarly fit and trained riders on 21-pound racers with alloy wheels, sew-up tires, alloy components, etc.
The performance gap between the two types of bike was and still is (when comparing low end **** to a decent racing bike) significant.
That bike was a huge limiting factor. I know. I sat on it for thousands of miles.
I gave up on a bike that limited my performance and bought a much better bike that did not limit my abilities. From 20' distance the bikes 'looked' identical. From the saddle there was no comparison. Bikes can most certainly be the attribute that caps performance.
IMO a 2 MPH performance gain is a huge step up whether professional or punter. If someone offers me 'free' 2 MPH I'm in that line to see how much 'free' actually costs in dollars.
They hardware must be, at the least, 'very good' before any limits on the rider can be tested. While fantasy such as Dave Stoller carefully rebuilding a Huffy fixie to race on are awesome it must be remembered that he was only up against other Huffy bikes...and even then resorted to taping his feet to the pedals to get a competitive advantage to utilize his 'engine' more efficiently.
Yeah, the rider is the power plant.
What is then done with those precious few Watts of power we produce is critical and can not be over estimated.
Again, just my dos centavos worth. And that won't buy anyone much speed these days.
I started out on a 32-pound Schwinn Continental. NO amount of training could make a Cat. racer, club rider or even Thibaut Pinot competitive on it when pitted against similarly fit and trained riders on 21-pound racers with alloy wheels, sew-up tires, alloy components, etc.
The performance gap between the two types of bike was and still is (when comparing low end **** to a decent racing bike) significant.
That bike was a huge limiting factor. I know. I sat on it for thousands of miles.
I gave up on a bike that limited my performance and bought a much better bike that did not limit my abilities. From 20' distance the bikes 'looked' identical. From the saddle there was no comparison. Bikes can most certainly be the attribute that caps performance.
IMO a 2 MPH performance gain is a huge step up whether professional or punter. If someone offers me 'free' 2 MPH I'm in that line to see how much 'free' actually costs in dollars.
They hardware must be, at the least, 'very good' before any limits on the rider can be tested. While fantasy such as Dave Stoller carefully rebuilding a Huffy fixie to race on are awesome it must be remembered that he was only up against other Huffy bikes...and even then resorted to taping his feet to the pedals to get a competitive advantage to utilize his 'engine' more efficiently.
Yeah, the rider is the power plant.
What is then done with those precious few Watts of power we produce is critical and can not be over estimated.
Again, just my dos centavos worth. And that won't buy anyone much speed these days.
Bob, I seriously doubt the OP is riding on a Varsity from the 70's that weighs 43 to 45 pounds, in fact I don't even think they make bikes that heavy anymore, probably the heaviest would be around 28 pounds for a road bike. So assuming the OP is riding a 44 pound bike from the 70's then you would be right, the bike would make a big difference, probably around a 10 mph speed average increase on a 50 mile ride.
I've yet to see a TREK 2.1 on the podium at the Tuesday Afternoon World Championships.
a.) Either the sales hype works or...
b.) It's close to impossible to race competitively on lower end stuff even today because even club skinnies have 50mm carbon wheels on 17-pound mid-level bikes. I'm going with the second option.
Surely there's at least one tightwad out there in my area that could score a top 5 finish on that TREK? Where, oh where could that fast tightwad with Watts to spare be?
To my mind, someone that even questions his equipment is probably due for an upgrade. Carbon and aluminum are no replacement for training, but they are a sure path to maximizing the effort invested.
I don't see any 28-pound bikes in the 'B' race. I don't see any 25-pound bikes, frankly. Realistically, if we hung them all on a scale I seriously doubt there would be a 20-pound machine in the field unless it would be the guys that like to use 80 MM or 100 MM wheels...which baffles me to no end, but aero works.
Colin M. had one of the lowest tech bikes I've actually seen being raced and even he...upgraded.
Speed increases and energy savings are good things. If someone is interested in going faster and longer...get the best tools you can and work hard on them.
After the bike, get the skinsuit, the aero lid, the power meter, the GPS computer...all of it. And if you want a cheap sport...try jogging in the park or entering the 5K Save-The-Titties race. And if you want me to eat crow, take your old Nishiki Suntour Maeda stuff out and dust it off and podium in the 'B' race. You'll have to spend a few bucks and GoPro it for us though.
a.) Either the sales hype works or...
b.) It's close to impossible to race competitively on lower end stuff even today because even club skinnies have 50mm carbon wheels on 17-pound mid-level bikes. I'm going with the second option.
Surely there's at least one tightwad out there in my area that could score a top 5 finish on that TREK? Where, oh where could that fast tightwad with Watts to spare be?
To my mind, someone that even questions his equipment is probably due for an upgrade. Carbon and aluminum are no replacement for training, but they are a sure path to maximizing the effort invested.
I don't see any 28-pound bikes in the 'B' race. I don't see any 25-pound bikes, frankly. Realistically, if we hung them all on a scale I seriously doubt there would be a 20-pound machine in the field unless it would be the guys that like to use 80 MM or 100 MM wheels...which baffles me to no end, but aero works.
Colin M. had one of the lowest tech bikes I've actually seen being raced and even he...upgraded.
Speed increases and energy savings are good things. If someone is interested in going faster and longer...get the best tools you can and work hard on them.
After the bike, get the skinsuit, the aero lid, the power meter, the GPS computer...all of it. And if you want a cheap sport...try jogging in the park or entering the 5K Save-The-Titties race. And if you want me to eat crow, take your old Nishiki Suntour Maeda stuff out and dust it off and podium in the 'B' race. You'll have to spend a few bucks and GoPro it for us though.
I agree with you both to a certain extent. Theirs nothing more annoying to me than an unfit fellow cyclist who claims the only reason they get dropped is they need a new bike, new wheels, blah blah blah.....I'd say 90% of people who I know that can't stop talking about getting a new setup don't ride enough to reach their current bikes potential. If you can't even hit 15 on the flats, its you. If you have deep pockets, go for it.
On the other hand, equipment does have a greater affect for a cyclist who puts in the work. I went from heavy Shimano Rs500's to Mavic Kysrium elite's around 4 or so months ago. I had around a 1mph speed increase automatically. I put around 2500 miles in those $100 rs500's. If I didn't, I wouldn't notice or appreciate the difference. Maybe when I can hold a wheel,descend with greater accuracy and hold a steady cadence, i'll consider the thought of my bike limiting me.
On the other hand, equipment does have a greater affect for a cyclist who puts in the work. I went from heavy Shimano Rs500's to Mavic Kysrium elite's around 4 or so months ago. I had around a 1mph speed increase automatically. I put around 2500 miles in those $100 rs500's. If I didn't, I wouldn't notice or appreciate the difference. Maybe when I can hold a wheel,descend with greater accuracy and hold a steady cadence, i'll consider the thought of my bike limiting me.
Yep. It's a bit heavier and it's a frankenbike, I don't know anything about most of the equipment on it and I don't know much about bikes yet anyways. Learning though. I would prefer to understand what I'm riding on, you know?
For the bazillionth time...
It does NOT take 'deep pockets'. All it takes is commitment and prioritization to get the equipment necessary for the job at hand.
When compared to firearms, motorcycles, camera gear/lenses, planes, trains and automobiles...bikes, including mid-line road touring and racing models are one of life's inconsequential expenses. The old saw, "Speed costs. So how fast do you want to go, kid?", was never more true.
As I said earlier, a 1 or 2 MPH gain in average speed is <Donald J. Trump> HUGE. Jumping off the typical **** bikes I see onto a proper racing machine with some decent wheels is like getting behind the joystick of an F-16 after flying a Cessna 150 and no, I don't give a **** if someone thinks the analogy isn't accurate because their reality be damned...it is.
And I have to disagree with the 'cyclist that puts in the work' greater effect statement.
Froze has it correct when he says Peter Sagan could muscle around a clunker and still do well. The most trained riders are least in need of squeezing out every available Watt. They ride the best stuff to level the playing field, stay in the game and save energy for when they need it to get the results that get them their next contract.
No, it's the average shmuck that benefits most in the game of speed weapons and the arms race onto the podium. Hell yes a man's got to train to win, but without those wheels, a light bike for climbing, a TT machine for the ITT stages/races, backup wheels, gearing choices, aero helmet and skinsuit, insert endless list of 'stuff' here the club level punter is always going to be just that. He isn't going to train his way onto the Olympic squad despite the blurred dream sequence Wheaties box loop playing endlessly in his or her head.
The tightwad on the steel frame, box section rims and 7-speed freewheel isn't going to get dropped after the 50th punch out of a corner and then do a heroic solo chase back on to those guys with aero wheels and helmets in skinsuits as they make their 1 or 2 MPH higher speed moving off into the horizon...except maybe in their delusions of saving money and out-training everyone else.
Except the reality of the situation is everyone else is training away too and probably doing a more efficient job of it because they have the proper tools to do so.
Cycling for greater speed or longer distances isn't like Rocky training in Soviet Russia with only rocks and logs. Not even close to that. If it were, Chris Froome would be training on a re-branded Huffy single-speed clunker and switching to a Pinarello for game day.
This is precisely why cycling is what it is...an equipment centric sport. It always has been and always will be just due to the nature of the beast. And the level of that equipment does matter significantly and it plays an important role in getting results.
Ask yourself 'why' soccer is so popular in third world shitholes?
Because it is a ball sport. Not even a ball & stick sport. One $10 ball and an entire village of illiterate peasants is getting in shape and having sporting fun.
Cycling? That's a first world game and it takes at least some opening of the wallet to get in the game and more cash to stay in the game. Tires...chains...tubes...lubricants...saddle swaps...clothing...protective gear...electronics...this ain't the game for Zimbabwe.
It does NOT take 'deep pockets'. All it takes is commitment and prioritization to get the equipment necessary for the job at hand.
When compared to firearms, motorcycles, camera gear/lenses, planes, trains and automobiles...bikes, including mid-line road touring and racing models are one of life's inconsequential expenses. The old saw, "Speed costs. So how fast do you want to go, kid?", was never more true.
As I said earlier, a 1 or 2 MPH gain in average speed is <Donald J. Trump> HUGE. Jumping off the typical **** bikes I see onto a proper racing machine with some decent wheels is like getting behind the joystick of an F-16 after flying a Cessna 150 and no, I don't give a **** if someone thinks the analogy isn't accurate because their reality be damned...it is.
And I have to disagree with the 'cyclist that puts in the work' greater effect statement.
Froze has it correct when he says Peter Sagan could muscle around a clunker and still do well. The most trained riders are least in need of squeezing out every available Watt. They ride the best stuff to level the playing field, stay in the game and save energy for when they need it to get the results that get them their next contract.
No, it's the average shmuck that benefits most in the game of speed weapons and the arms race onto the podium. Hell yes a man's got to train to win, but without those wheels, a light bike for climbing, a TT machine for the ITT stages/races, backup wheels, gearing choices, aero helmet and skinsuit, insert endless list of 'stuff' here the club level punter is always going to be just that. He isn't going to train his way onto the Olympic squad despite the blurred dream sequence Wheaties box loop playing endlessly in his or her head.
The tightwad on the steel frame, box section rims and 7-speed freewheel isn't going to get dropped after the 50th punch out of a corner and then do a heroic solo chase back on to those guys with aero wheels and helmets in skinsuits as they make their 1 or 2 MPH higher speed moving off into the horizon...except maybe in their delusions of saving money and out-training everyone else.
Except the reality of the situation is everyone else is training away too and probably doing a more efficient job of it because they have the proper tools to do so.
Cycling for greater speed or longer distances isn't like Rocky training in Soviet Russia with only rocks and logs. Not even close to that. If it were, Chris Froome would be training on a re-branded Huffy single-speed clunker and switching to a Pinarello for game day.
This is precisely why cycling is what it is...an equipment centric sport. It always has been and always will be just due to the nature of the beast. And the level of that equipment does matter significantly and it plays an important role in getting results.
Ask yourself 'why' soccer is so popular in third world shitholes?
Because it is a ball sport. Not even a ball & stick sport. One $10 ball and an entire village of illiterate peasants is getting in shape and having sporting fun.
Cycling? That's a first world game and it takes at least some opening of the wallet to get in the game and more cash to stay in the game. Tires...chains...tubes...lubricants...saddle swaps...clothing...protective gear...electronics...this ain't the game for Zimbabwe.
Similar threads
