I would test the BH bike again, with a higher tier tyre and tube, for example: GP5000 + latex inner tube, because at this point, that gatorskin might be the biggest 'issue' on the older bike.
You'd need around 340 watts to go the speed of the Scott on the BH. About 20 of those watts will be down to rolling resistance of the trash tires on the BH, maybe another 3 to the not as well maintained drive train, the rest is going to be aerodynamics. I edited this comment, because my original comment didn't take account of how much more aerresistance you face when going slightly faster at those speeds.
Elves Falath Pro could be an interesting choice for the next test, but with their rim brake version frameset with deep carbon wheels. That would require a used SRAM wireless Force or Red rim brake grouppo, which could be a fun comparison.
Absolutely, I love my Falath Pro! I'd like to see how it compares, but I'm guessing it's not too far off. He's more likely to test the Evo, because it's a newer model, but I think the Pro is no worse, if not better
I'm a steel frame guy myself, but this test misses something very significant, which is that speed gains will be compounding the longer you're riding. As your energy depletes throughout a race, the minor differences become more pronounced. So while you may get a 4% gain for a 20 minute ride, that might turn into a 10% gain for a two hour ride.
Yep, this is a great point, even if the relative performance gain itself doesn't increase more with time.The times are for 2x4.5 mi = 14.484 km total. So a 56 sec difference is a 3.866 sec/km avg gain. That "per km" denominator means part of one's perceived value of a superbike is in the distances they're doing; that differential grows with course length. Then add in any factors arising from greater efficiency. Of course, other factors matter, as well. Two guys both at 300 W and yet Mitch was consistently faster? I think that shows the effects of things like small variations in equipment, body shape/aero profile, weight, etc. So the vid's takeaway is a good one, that the adage(s) "the best bike is the one you already own" (and "ride up grades, don't buy upgrades") rings true yet again. Get the super bike if you're going long a lot, or if you're racing and want to maximize performance *right now* (that is, when everything else about oneself like body shape and equipment is the same). And of course, there's a spectrum of price-to-performance (tempered by diminishing returns to scale), as said.
exactly my thought...when the power curve diminishes dramatically in the last 20-30km of a 160k full out every climb/sprint at every road sign group ride
I can comment on a old vs new Chinese bike debate. I was riding 2010 SCOTT Speedster with 105 and 2011 BMW M Carbon Racer (very rare bike, but still a oldschool type of carbon tube frame) with 6800 Ultegra spec. This summer I switched to Elves Falath Pro with an R8000 Di2 groupset and for the same power I go about 2-3 km/h faster on averages riding my usual 60-70 km routes. The difference was astonishing. It was really surprising. All of my Strava segments pretty much instantly got PR'd. Oh and all of my three bikes had the same wheelset (rim brake 60mm deep carbon fiber wheels). That sounds like a great idea for a test, you should do it.
I think discussion on bike fitting is really important because everything 'rides' on your comfort and ease of motion whatever style riding you set out to do. So there may be people out there who want to maybe pick up a nice used bike online, but have no idea how to get fitted, why it's even important, or even know about bike fitting in the first place.
Yeah but you don't get it. 4.3% is the difference between becoming a legend like Eddy Merckx. Or being a forgotten nobody. If you are a regular Joe. Sure no need to spend thousands on a road bike. But if you're a competition rider. Every second. Even fraction of a second MATTERS.
We would love to see the same test but with same tires. You don't need to spend $10,000 to benefit from Conti 5000s, you can put them on a $500 bike too. GCN does the same thing when comparing cheap vs expensive bikes, new vs old, the tire difference is an automatic handicap for the lower end spec, makes the new tech look like a bigger improvement than it actually is.
this was meant to be truly entry level vs high end but the next test might be entry level with some basic upgrades like tires. can we close that gap with minimal $$??
Like many of the other comments, I think there is at least 20-30w rolling resistence in those tyres and tubes. I would rather have equal tyres for both bikes, also cos those BH tyres were CRUUUUUUUSTY, and would have been replaced anyway. I think the difference between the two bikes would then come down to maybe 30 seconds, 20 would be a stretch but not unrealistic.
Maybe i'm overexaggerating, but there is a reasonable saving to be had on the tyres. My educated guess between the two bikes is around 16-20w if the positions are identical@@NorCalCycling
@@michaelmechex I bought my carbon rim brake canyon last year for 2200k total. But of course they don’t sell it anymore 👎🏽 came with an ultegra group set, carbon frame . Bike weighs in at 15.5 lbs
@@ralphmartinez8616 Yeah, but that's a rim brake bike, which most people (including me) wouldn't buy in 2023. Although if I did, I'd buy used, because a slightly used bike of those specs is worth about 900 in my area. Similar spec in hydraulic disc brake model is worth at least double that.
This comment may have already been made. Try the same bike test using similar tires on each. I bet the tires make almost as much difference as the bikes themselves
This was a comparison, I didn't know I needed but am glad to see. I am looking at upgrading an "entry level" bike I got in 2015 (aluminium frame, carbon fork, 105, rim brakes. With changes in bikes over the last few years, I am thinking of getting an entry level carbon bike in the 3-4k range. I would love to see how they compare.
The difference will be negligible. Just buy some top tier tires, decent wheels and tweak the position for some aero gains. (Narrower handlebars, lower stem level) If you do this all other upgrades will give you maybe 1%, the things I mentioned are the biggest factors for the speed, all the rest is marginal.
Wrote this off when he takes an old but light race bike but it has r500s with junk tires slapped on it. i'd take my old defy alloy with tiagra (couple lb heavier easy) but on good meats and decent wheels. -U10
i wanted to keep this entry level, so i didn't make any performance upgrades, but based on comments ppl might want to see "upgraded entry level bike vs high end bike"
Do an Elves or Yoeleo with $1000 Chinese carbon wheels and Ltwoo ERX groupset and compare it with the Scott. Maybe an equivalently priced mainstream bike brand as well.
I really like this idea of comparing a high end bike to an entry level bike. But the comparison is quite difficult. You use two different power meters, so when both display 300watts the reality might be different and you're pushing 290 on one and 310 on the other. 20Watts explain a few seconds. Also in frame 2:06 you can clearly see that on the two bikes both of you have slightly different positions. Being more crouched on the BH bike. Then on the Scott you're transporting a bottle, while on the BH you don't. Also because of the wind a few more test rides would be better. Maybe you can consider this in your next video, to have more precise results or mention it for those who are not aware.
West (scott foil) vs East. Do what trace velo did. Full chinese: x18 trifox / Ltwoo erx groupset / race work carbon crank / elite wheels drive 60d. Test should have a constant tire and tube/tubeless as control as we can all agree that quality tires can give you more speed than going dura ace.
There is some serious problematic math going on in the results. You can't add both total times and base your total savings on the difference between them. You have to go and divide 56 seconds by 2, because it was two separate riders. The true savings is an average of 28 seconds, which in the cycling world is still significant, but way less significant than 56 seconds. As many have mentioned already, not using the same tires is a critical error in this test too. Same tires and PSI are required to get a more accurate result. Lastly, the savings overall of an aero bike are most significant over long distances - the longer the ride, the better the savings.
might want to double check your math. Also, not using the same tires and wheels is kind of the point of this test, if I made upgrades this wouldn't be an "entry level bike vs high end bike" it would be "entry level bike with upgrades vs a high end bike". I've made that video too, results were really interesting suggest you check it out.
@@NorCalCycling Maybe I suck at math, but Mitch's ride was 10:13 on the Scott, and 10:41 on the BH. That's a 28 second difference. Jeff's ride on the Scott was 10:28, and on the BH it was 10:56. Again a 28 second difference. Over the same ride, the savings is only 28 seconds per rider, not 56. Totaling the savings makes no sense in the context of this test. As it applies to the tires, the difference in price is negligible between calling a tire "entry" level and another one "high-end." We're not talking about $500 difference between one tire or another like bike frames. We're talking $50 more or less. So setting the tire as a control for this test is perfectly reasonable.
@@kid_genyou suck at math bro, doesn’t matter if you add both or add both and then divide by 2, the proportions are the same for the comparison, thats why if you go to you calculator and test, it will give the same percentage.
I'd be really curious to see a review on some of the smaller up & coming Chinese carbon brands. Elves and Yoeleo are known to be pretty solid frames and well worth it, but then there's also BXT, Seraph, Airwolf, and OG-Evkin all making some rather budget friendly options with supposedly better fabrication than just the old basic bladder. That said the quality control on them is still kind of suspect, especially with the carbon bars and in particular at least it seems, the brand Trifox which, well yeah, Trace Velo hasn't had much luck with the frames he's tested from them.
If you can somehow run this experiment again where you are purely testing the aerodynamic speed of the frame, that would be interesting. Same tires, same wheels, etc... I bet with the same tires, similar depth wheels, and identical body position the BH is maybe only ~0.5-1% slower than the Scott.
The body position is actually my biggest issue. I suppose, because the Scott is an aero bike, the position on it is naturally lower. So I am afraid, with the different geometry, there will be inevitably a certain margin of error.
The frame and bars will be a bigger difference than that. Probably a good 20w or more. *Pretty crazy how slow round tubes are with cables sticking out. My Domane(an endurance bike ffs) is actually faster than my rim brake Cervelo Soloist. That's with the same 28mm tires and very similar box section rims(don't like training on aero wheels). Probably not true without water bottles but who rides like that? *Both bikes are within 2mm of one another in terms of fit.
Tires? What happens if you pop some GP5000s on that BH? Gator skins are vewy vewy slow. My guess is 2% is in that (as someone who owns very expensive bikes…)
You should do a video for avg power needed to stay in the bunch following wheels with the group traveling at 30km/h, 40km/h and 45km/h for 10 minutes. According to peak torque aero doesn’t matter when you are following wheels in a group. If the same tires are used so that rolling resistance is the same, by that logic you will see the same power reading.
Aero doesn't matter when you're following wheels *as much.* It still matters though, if you're huge as a barn door, you're not getting as much help in the slipstream. Also the more aerodynamic is the person you're following, the less slipstream you get overall. Let's say, if you were riding on a more upright road bike in a group of time trial bikes, you would feel almost the same as riding solo.
on a flat and straight piece of road, the principal force you're riding against is drag whether or not you're in the draft. the more wind you're pushing through the bigger the benefit of aero position / aero equipment. That's why I will adjust my position on the bike depending on teh race conditions... tucked in the draft at low speeds? get comfortable and more upright, open your diaphragm. bridging to a break in a headwind solo? TUCK and get as aero and efficient as possible, even if it's uncomfortable in the short term.
Awesome video! One vote for TFSA JH-06 vs Tarmac SL6.. Actually more interested with the BH bike, with a slight upgrade to a proper tyre and tube. If possible, then plus a pair of cheapest carbon wheels. Highly suspect it's the tyres that makes the difference.
I’d love to see a vid comparing different kit on the same bike. Eg top-end skin suit, aero helmet and overshoes, versus race jersey and shorts, mid-high helmet and shoes, versus T-shirt, baggy shorts, basic helmet and shoes. Same bike/tyres/position/power etc. I bet you’d see a bigger gain than the Scott bs BH for a lot less money!
With proper tyres and deeper lighter wheels I think the difference would be halved. Should consider running both bicycles on the same tyre next time. Great comparison nonetheless.
A few ideas come to mind: 1. Talking about what made Mitch faster despite watts being the same - looks like his arms were better, but is that all it takes to save 10s? His legs look as thick as Jeff's waist, so is he heavier too? Looking at the different spine flexions, I'd like to overlay the golden ratio over them, maybe that's the ideal! 2. A cool follow up would be "how important is aero in a draft?", since staying in the draft is the single most important part of racing (maybe?), and how important is aero in a sprint over 10s, 60s, etc.? 3. Talking about non-aero gains. Weight is the obvious one, followed by rolling resistance, clean/lubed drivetrain; but are there more? How important are they, what's their effort/cost value? The most aero position might not be one's most powerful, which would follow up well with question 2, asking how important is comfort? I'd also vote for reaching out to Elves, even though RCA is doing a decent job with that brand already, I'm just a sucker for their branding. And since I'm talking about ideas, I'd love to see an absurd crossover with Path Less Pedaled; he takes you fly fishing and philosophizing on his channel and you do a bike swap race with him on yours or something.
Some things to ocnsider. You try again by putting an aero handlebar to the BH, Bontrager has a pretty aluminium one for about 100 euros and maybe try some deeper wheels on the BH as well. the shimano R500 are good for an entry level bike and they have a nice performance going uphill (I had those when I started) but they aren't aero at all, compared to the 60mm deep of the dura ace ones. the vision trimax 35 would be interesting, not the same but you gain some depth.
I feel like if the BH had narrow bars, a wheel depth the same as the scott, and better tires that gap would drop… may be if it needs it some bearings replaced in the drivetrain
Jeff, since you're doing test on low end and high end bikes you should try out Lightbicycle wheels. They too are a Chinese brand but the quality I got from mine is astounding for not only the price but also the weight. They're lighter then some of the name brands you can buy for 4x the amount. Also, I would like to see a full Chinese Carbon "Aero" build and do this test, with the L-Twoo electronic shifting. I want to see your opinion on it.
How about the $1,000 bike with the wheels from the Scott? I would guess that the cheap bike would be less than 10 seconds slower than the Scott, that way. PS. How many extra watts would you have to push to get the "cheap" bike to finish in the same time as the Scott.
Let's go BH! The BH could beat that bike if, you put some lightweight carbon clinchers, light weight tubes and your favorite race tire. Let's go rim brakes!!!! Please test again!
It would be great to see a test run with the Elves Falath Pro. This frame has been on my list for sometime I wonder how it performs compared to higher end models.
You'd need around 340 watts to go the speed of the Scott on the BH. About 20 of those watts will be down to rolling resistance of the trash tires on the BH, maybe another 3 to the not as well maintained drive train, the rest is going to be aerodynamics. I edited this comment, because my original comment didn't take account of how much more aerresistance you face when going slightly faster at those speeds.
@@davidjames5168 Damn, you are right. I really underestimated the difference a small change in speed makes in watts at this speed. I guess that means with matched tires you'd need to produce 20 extra watts on the BH, which might be a slightly smaller difference than expected, but sounds reasonable.
Vitus Zenium taigra..... just bought it when they had Labor sale.... $1300.... I figure just have to switch out the wheels which to Vision Trimax 30 with Perelli P-zero tires... got them for $250 on Ebay.... switching out the crank to an Ultegra 8000..... bike will weigh in at 18lbs +/- .... that's all I need.. not racing ... yet... thanks for the video....
Ive had a Yoeleo R11 and an Elves Falath Evo. If you could compare either of those bikes that would be cool. I really like the Evo. Smoother and faster than the Yoeleo.
4.3% doesn't sound like much over 6mi - flat - course. But when you're riding 200mi per week or riding in the mountains maybe you'll see and, more importantly, FEEL the difference! But sure people should get what they can afford. I'd add one can upgrade a lot on any bike and get it really close to a $10k machine (start with tires!) If you're not sure you'll like bikes - don't spend 10k - sure. But if you find you really like riding bikes, and you're on it 6 days/week for 11mos of the year - , you'll prpbably find a way to afford more! Riding bikes is about more than raw speed - thought that is fun. Personally, I ride for KOMs, handling, racing, handling, aesthetics, handling, enjoyment, handling, brakes, handling, Di2 shifting. Sure, I'd enjoy the BH if I was in high school or college; that's all I could afford. But to paraphrase Evelyn in "Fried Green Tomatoes": I'm older and I have more money. So maybe I'm crazy (I know my neighbors would say so!) but I can afford more and I'd rather spend it on bikes than a new Tesla or trips to the oncologist.
Another test like these, which we have seen before. Too mamy factors in disfavor. Put a 38cm wide aero bar, used aero wheels, latex tubes and veloflex records on the BH, and do the test again 👍
Definitely interested in a low, mid, high price range compare. I’m conflicted whether you should try to match some things on all bikes because the entry level here is realistic of entry level and not entry plus a couple of hundred bucks. If anything maybe have a little better tires on the low end bike because gator skins are an avoidable watt loss and affordable small upgrade. I like this comparison with different rims. People encouraging to see a test with similar rims, changes the entry level bike to a non entry level bike. Very curious to see what you choose as mid-level. A comparison between open mould and a similar big brand would be good.
Not to nitpick too much, but I notice that you have aligned the rides for these two bikes by targeting the same power meter reading. But this introduces the possibility of systematic shift between the two. Sure you got 300W reading on both sets of rides, but the power meter on one bike could be systematically shifted by a couple percent from the other bike. So your error bar on these is ~1% on the 300W target, right? Still valid results, just worth considering the source of systematic error.
~5K Chinese bike vs. Scott would be great. Sticking to UCI approved equipment, I suggest the Elilee Blize 01, Magene EXAR DB508 wheelset, built with Ltwoo ERX and using the Elilee crank. Though not an open mold frame comparison, it would be a best of emerging Chinese brands that could be raced at any level vs. your WT-ready Scott. Would be fantastic to hear a "race" report (from Alviso), a ride report and a comparison like this one.
Yes. Please do a comparison of the scott with a "top end" chinese road bike like yeoleo, winspace or elves. These bikes will be at 50% price compare to the scott. It would be interesting to see the result.
Two years ago you did a test of a SL6 (~2500$) and a SL7 (~100500£). On a 33min lap there was a ~3min difference, making huge 7% benefit. And here way below. Any comments?
i'd love to see a test on an old 80s frame (with modern components?) to see how much weight factors in (i wonder how much it factors in on ascents and descents, besides on acceleration?
Winspace T1550 with winspace Hyper D45. This is the probably your best beat for a poor-man's super bike. I also think you should throw Hyper's on the BH and i bet your within 1% of the fast bike with better wherls. Another option is Yoeleo bike/wheels.
as a guy with a full carbon china bike (excluding shimano drive train, etc), yes i want you to run that test so i can be smug about my risky decision, thanks!
Good video please do some test on the sl8 against other bikes. I think anything over 4grand for a bike is stupid money, how much does an 6k specialized sl6 , compare to ab top end spec ? Probably not much and double the money bike industry gone crazy
would love to see a budget pimp my ride style video of the BH bike. see if you can breathe some fresh life back into it and see how much of that 4% difference can be made up while just doing small simple upgrades. (GP5000 + TPU Tube, wax chain, slam stem, and maybe upgrade to a good bank for buck set of carbon wheels like hyper, elite, etc or find a second hand set) i bet that bike can be a lot faster with a few simple tweaks even without new wheels
I run an ELVES FALATH PRO with sram force e-tap winspace hyper D67 TPU tubes etc etc its blooming quick it would be nice to see how that gets on against the scott!
Obvious difference when running both bikes solo against the wind but I bet the difference would be a lot closer drafting a bunch in an overall crit race for instance where aero advantage of the Scott would be diminished.
not necessarily, the main force you're up against, even in the draft, is drag, so the aero bike will still have an advantage over the non-aero bike, all things being equal.
next time just control for rolling resistance by using same tire + tube combo. No need to use same wheels, cuz wheels are pricey and that spoils the point of your comparison. but even entry level cyclists can buy a nice pair of tires for pretty cheap
Use same depth aero wheels (they will be lighter at least 200 grams compared to similar disc brake version), GP5000 tires with latex tubes or even better some fast tubulars (easy to find tubular wheels for rim brakes) and there will be no difference in speed. Only position on bikes will matter
Next test compare Cannondale SuperSix EVO LAB71 (highest end EVO) $15,000 SuperSix EVO 3 (lowest end EVO) $4,500 CAAD13 Disc 105 $2,325 CAAD Optimo 4 $1,025
Why did you ad the time difference up of the 2 riders and represent it as 1. It looks like the BH was less that 30 seconds for each rider slower not 56?
300W average per across runs, curious to see what the variance in power is over each run as well. Not that I don't think you can keep a steady state power consistently, just curious. That BH is not a $500 bike. Put it on CL and see what you can get for it 😉 Certainly if TPC were to list that bike it would be north of $1k (sorry, sponsor!). Another interesting test would be to compare the BH with some cheap deep wheels like Superteams and see if there are any gains both from stock and vs. the Scott.
Great video Jeff. Quick question, would you ever opt for an Addict vs the Foil in a tighter Crit ? Always accelerating. Less weight would certainly make it easier to accelerate more often
lighter becomes more important than aero in crits with hills and/or technical corners because of the acceleration factor, and speeds generally being quite a bit lower.
Thanks for the results. Now I see, for a pure hobby cyclist it makes nearly no sense to buy expensive bikes.... ;) The price is not worth the few percent of higher speed.
To start with. Like I’ve seen others commented. You guys kept the same power on both runs like it was nothing 😂 Now to your question. Let’s test a Elves Falath Evo or Pro Disc (model before the Evo) against that Scott. I also like to see a Yeoleo R12 in that test. 🤞🏽
