Some Fundamental Questions that Shaped my Choices?

The search for a dream bike started with a fundamental question. Which bike works the best for me? This was not an easy question to answer. As it often happens, even after the search to fulfil a need begins, it is not surprising to find that the mind is as yet unclear about the parameters of the search. My case was no different when I started asking myself some fundamental questions. Should I buy one of the mass-produced mainstream brands? Is it better to go in for a frame or a completely built bike? How about aero vs light weight? Will electronic groupsets be better than mechanical? Rim or disc brakes? And the list kept on increasing.

There is no dearth of information on the internet. There are channels galore that bring out reviews with unerring regularity. But as I devoured the content in giga byte loads, certain things became evident. There seemed to be some kind of hesitation amongst websites and channels to go against the grain of thinking of big brands, with a few exceptions. In other words, a trend or a technology adopted by major brands was rarely questioned. Further, while the strengths of an emerging technology were reinforced, it was rarely accompanied by adequate contextualisation of its intended needs. Let me illustrate that further.

How many of us are really capable of riding bikes in a manner and in positions adopted by pro riders? My guess, a small minority. However, despite that, brands and a lot of channels and anchors tend to push a certain line that highlights bikes primarily with a race geometry. The very fact that most of them can be seen on similar bikes themselves, indirectly creates an echo chamber. This is reinforced by those who have little else to do, other sharing their inexperience at the drop of a hat in the comments section on social media. A common refrain – why is your stem not fully slammed? Obviously because the guy values both his back and backside more than how the person looks on Instagram!

This brings me to the second issue of bike fit. There is often a tendency to pick at least a size bigger than what we need. In the past this was primarily due to inexperience and dealers pushing out what they had in stock. More recently, supply chain shortages have only added to this prevailing trend. Increasingly, there is also a sense of desperation driving the purchase, accompanied by a quick fix solution. Change the stem length. Or move the seat forward, irrespective of how it impacts riding comfort or efficiency on the bike. This perhaps suggests the importance of taking a most important decision that ensures the right size and fit, well ahead of choosing between flashy alluring brands, latest groupsets and state-of-art wheels. And in addition to the frame alone, sizing and fit also include handlebar width, crank length, seat width, stack, reach and shoe comfort. The list is endless.

But then there is a contradiction of sorts. A high-end bike fit that allows precise measurements and sizing is an expensive affair. In some cases, as much as the equivalent of $400 (Rs 32,000). Ideally one should go in for a pre-purchase bike fit, followed by a post-purchase adjustment. However, when the complete budget of the build and accessories is $1000 (Rs 80,000), it does become a problem to spend 40 percent on a bike fit. Though, personally, I would still prefer to go in for a basic fit even if a high end one is not feasible, just to make sure that the bike meets the physiological characteristics of the rider. And as you all may have noted, even the same size is represented very differently by brands based on their respective interpretations. This makes the logic of a bike fit that much more important.

Thankfully, there are a couple of great websites that provide useful comparative data (As an illustration see Geometry Geeks - bike geometry comparison tool) This does help with the process of selecting the right bike size and I would highly recommend going over these, prior to parting with your hard-earned money. And a confession here. Despite being more than willing to pay for this service, I could not avail it given the absence of such a facility in India and travel restrictions being in place due to Covid. So, if there is one regret that I have with this build, it will remain the inability to get the frame customised, despite the option being available to me. I resorted to the next best choice of comparing the existing geometry of my road cycle with endurance options available. This included changes that I would ideally want to my roadie. Luckily, I was able to get the frame as close as was feasible to my preferred sizing under the circumstances.

The next issue yet again relates to geometry. I am sure that a lot of you may have noticed that high end models are created primarily with a race geometry and not endurance. Be it the Pinarello F or a Bianchi, the focus remains on race geometry, even as endurance frames are accorded a lower priority. Their logic: A rider seeking comfort rather than all out speed, is unlikely to spend money on high end bikes. Nothing could be further from reality. A look around at most riding groups clearly indicates just the opposite. As does the mile long line of spacers on a race bike, just to make it more comfortable. This is injustice first to the rider who wants a high-end ride and second to the bike, which will certainly not deliver what it was designed for to begin with. And it is even rarer for brands to offer custom geometry as an option to their buyers. This then became a major factor for me, while searching for a frame for my bike.

Yet another factor that has ended up becoming a rage is “aero” bikes. From my perspective, this has potentially become one of the biggest half-truth or half-lies, as one may choose to describe it. The fact is that an aero bike will certainly be faster than non-aero bikes over a flat surface or even small undulations. There is little disputing this logic of science. The lie - it barely makes a difference to most amateur riders, who, to begin with, are not able to make their body positions aero, which causes 80 percent of all aero losses. Besides, if it was as obvious a reality as is projected, why would manufacturers not share ALL testing figures to prove their gains year after year? Why would claims of watts saved as part of the marketing literature remain at best half-truths? How many of us really ride at 45kmph for an hour? The fact is that aero elements do improve the speed and averages of professionals. And as discussed earlier, bikes are designed around their needs. We become willing or unwilling scapegoats of a campaign that has limited value for most cyclists. We tend to get bamboozled by the marketing claims of 10 watts extra and 20 percent more rigidity, to make a jump to the stiffer, faster and more aero bike.

I can completely understand buying bikes for different needs. Commuting, mountain biking, road racing, even gravel. But not because so and so is faster by 15 seconds at 45 kmph over an hour bull crap. Going for competitions, blessed with a flexible physical disposition, by all means aero makes sense. But not because GCN says so. I would rather have a responsive bike, rather than something that is "potentially" faster, just not with me but with Tadej Pogacar.

A similar logic relates to disc brakes. Are disc brakes going to be better in the future than rim? Perhaps yes. But were they necessarily better than decades of R&D that created kits that repeatedly won the Tour or Giro when they descended on the cycling scene? I doubt it. The initial years of its introduction obviously saw marketing blitz ram it down our gullible minds. A number of bikes, especially lower end models, have been sold with under engineered disc brake that sequel at the mention of a mountain slope. If Chris Froome could crib about the very best that he got to ride, despite having a stake in Factor bikes, I doubt, we need more evidence. The reality is that for a vast majority of us, rim brakes are easier to maintain, more reliable for the kind of riding we do and incidentally more aero, lighter and cheaper. And since the same vast majority buys cheaper bikes, the possibility of average quality disc brakes underperforming when compared to rim, becomes even greater. But this is obviously not going to be a subject of discussion on channels pushing a manufacturing agenda.

Does that mean that rim brakes are perfect and everyone is shifting on a whim? The answer is again "no". Rim brakes also have their limitations. Especially under wet conditions. And that too when brake pads do not match up well with the rims. I had a scary experience during a BRM immediately after changing to carbon wheels just prior to the ride. The performance was way below par to put it mildly under heavy rains. However, I am aware that a better combination of wheel and brake pads can largely offset this limitation. And, unlike some riders, I prefer to avoid riding during the rains. Especially because I can get away with it in India, where when compared to Europe, in my part of the country, one can just about ride 350 out of 365 days in a year. Therefore, my needs are better served by rim brakes. If a reasoned choice for someone points towards disc - perfect.

So, what should be the logic for buying a bike? What is it that we really need? The answer to the question of need is not difficult to answer. Possibly, the kind of bike most of us actually need, can easily be found at Decathlon (If they are available these days that is). Their bikes are unbeatable value for money. My son bought a RC520 to begin his road cycling journey. And it was difficult to argue against its value proposition.

Early days with the RC520

But what happens when you wish to graduate beyond what Decathlon can offer? Either because you want to move up the performance game, or just address the urge to buy your dream bike.

Anirudh competing in his first hill climb race

I realised that there are no right or wrong answers with the choices that are made. After all, it is based on what you like or need. No one else can or should dictate this decision. And more importantly, as far as possible, no amount of marketing buzz or influencer posts should deviate it either. But that is virtually impossible to achieve. After all we are human. And we cannot isolate ourselves from what happens around us. But maybe, just maybe, we could spend some more time researching our needs, seeking possible solutions and then go in for what is best for us. I don’t know how far I succeeded, but I did give it my best shot.

I also decided to keep myself immune from self-appointed “true cyclists”. Merely because someone can ride longer or faster or has a fixated opinion based on individual experience, the person does not get the right to decide right or wrong for me. Anyone who enjoys cycling even if it involves going around the housing block or trudging slowly every day to the workplace, thereby fulfilling an important need, is good enough from my perspective. No one gets to certify or validate a cyclist. So, I decided to go ahead and fulfil my dream – irrespective of what others said or felt. It was way more important to bother about what gave me happiness rather than what met public expectations.

Therefore, I am only in a position to share my experience of buying my dream bike, in the backdrop of my logic that guided my decisions. And since I bought each and every part of the bike on my own, it was quite the experience. Yet, it does not imply that choices based on differing perspectives are right or wrong. These are merely different. And because we do things differently, options emerge, learnings happen and corrections are applied. I just hope, I can help add to the debate around building a custom road bike. And that is all I intend to achieve with this blog.

Next: Reaching the decision...