advice needed - upgrading to my first carbon road bike

[pliptrot]

Marketing/advertising website* in pushing new gear shocker

There are so many holes in that article it's practically swiss cheese. Assumptions, mis-comparisons and anecdote abound, and all that coming from one person who by his own admission moved over to road riding only recently, which seems to equate to a little over a year, with no clarification about how his biological performance has varied in that time.

And I'm no technophobe, not by a longshot...

* Yup, that's exactly what BR are, they haven't published a genuinely decent or useful 'review' in years, if in fact they ever did...

I would agree with you, but for the authoritarian tone of the site. Somewhere on there I saw a bike for about 9,000 quid described as "very good value." And it is not April 1st.....

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my SM-G900F using hovercraft full of eels.

[Sweep]

Marketing/advertising website* in pushing new gear shocker .

some of the comments underneath the article seem to say the same thing

[Vorpal]

Bike Radar have some decent reviews. I've linked to reviews of turbo trainers before, for example. But that article is merely a nice little opinion piece about new bikes.

I get the same effect by switching from my winter bike to my road bike every year. So I get that new bike feeling, without dishing out loadsa dosh for a new bike.

There's nothing worng with a new bike, and in some circumstances, a new bike can help someone go faster, but for someone who isn't racing, 'go faster' is only one of several criteria to consider. For myself, in a commuting bike, it isn't even in the top 5. Other opinions are available.

[amediasatex]

Bike Radar have some decent reviews

I'll concede they have some less awful reviews, but it's been a very very long time since I've seen anything approaching decent from them. Mostly they seem to be a re-hash of the marketing blurb from the manufacturer with a few superficial comments from a short test period thrown in there for padding.

Annoyingly though there are some articles from some of the same reviewers/journos in other publications that are much much better so I left to conclude it's some kind of limitations or guidelines imposed by BR that means their so often sub-par.

But then I've gone off on a tangent from the thread now, and I've not read all the BR content, maybe there are some hidden gems hiding in there

[Samuel D]

They do have some good articles but they’re few and far between. (Reviews, though? I can’t recall a useful one.) Then again, that’s the case for most advertising-driven websites circa 2018. That publishing model is broken although readers are too weak-willed to finally pull the plug on it by withholding their readership.

It’s a pity that writers of Steve Williams’ evident ability are wasted on stuff like this, but that’s the way things have panned out. I hope for a better future … one with less pointless bicycle “upgrading”.

[Brucey]

https://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/should-you-replace-your-3yr-old-road-bike-51951/

Sorry, Brucey and all you other technophobes, here it is: after just three years things are sooo much better, and even with a heavier bike you will be faster. Weight weenies beware........

I'm somewhat disappointed that you label me a technophobe; I've spent my life working with new technologies, and in a world that is just full of wild exaggerations about the benefits of often untested or flawed technologies, there has to be room for a more reasoned view. This is often a note of caution when it comes to new things; after all, many new things are actually lightly reheated old things, not thought through, or just a 'because we can' splatter-gun approach to employing technology wherever possible.

Well my views are often 'just because you can does not mean you should'.

If you put the benefits of new technologies into perspective, often they are found wanting; it seems to me that in our 'consumer society' some folks just like new shiny stuff and buy it to meet some craven inner need rather than for any real benefits it might bring. Swapping bikes as often as new phones come out or hemlines go up an down does nothing much for anyone in the grand scheme of things, least of all the poor blighter who cannot understand why they are not going faster etc despite the magical gifts of their new steed....

FWIW I have a nice sub-8kg road bike that is quite pleasant to ride but I would not for a moment suggest it might make a good commuting machine (which is, if you recall, where this thread started).... .

In fact I'd happily go for a nice ride in the country on almost any half-decent bike (that fitted me) that has been made in the last hundred years or so. I doubt I'd be very much faster or slower, or enjoy the ride a whole lot more or less, in the grand scheme of things.

Keep a sense of perspective!

cheers

[pliptrot]

I'm somewhat disappointed that you label me a technophobe;

Apologies all round. My (far too oblique) attempts at humour came across poorly. Somewhere up thread you properly took someone to task for referring to their 3- or 4- year old bike as an antiquity (or at least proclaiming that it rode as such; whatever that means). The BR article is in a similar ridiculous vein as that claim and was so fantastic that I thought it an easy target. That anyone capable of critical thinking would be susceptible to the idea that 3 years of development would offer such improvements that it would render a 3 year old machine worth replacing is outside my belief and value structures. Technophobe you are not, sir.

[Brucey]

sorry, I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I should have known better.

cheers