How un-aero are un-aero carbon frames?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Locked
neeb
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:19 pm

by neeb

A lot of current frames that aren't marketed as aero have really big down tubes that are more or less flat on the front/underside. You can recognise these frames because this flat area is usually used for the manufacturer's logo - the Pinarello Dogma is a good example. On the face of it, they would appear to be presenting a serious amount of surface area to the wind, but I guess things are complicated by the airflow around the front wheel and fork. How much of an aero disadvantage is this sort of design compared with an old-fashioned narrower round-tubed frame?

by Weenie


NGMN
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:13 am

by NGMN

NOOOOOOOO, don't make us rehash the 10 pages all over again...

please see here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=101287

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6717
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

lock it ASAP :smartass:

neeb
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:19 pm

by neeb

Ok, yes, well, I can see that there are 10 pages on whether aero frames have an advantage over non-aero ones. That's not something I'd dispute, I'm asking a slightly different question, i.e. whether particular types of non-aero frames have a significant disadvantage compared to other non-aero frames.

It's a pretty important issue, because if you are buying a chunky-framed carbon bike for its stiffness benefits it would be good to know whether those benefits are effectively nullified by the aero disadvantages compared with, say, a more flexible round-tubed steel frame.

Maybe this question is addressed somewhere in those 10 pages, if so perhaps someone could compile an index to the thread so I can find it.. :wink:

steel515
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 2:03 am

by steel515

what does this have to do with weightweenies?

neeb
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:19 pm

by neeb

steel515 wrote:what does this have to do with weightweenies?

Everything is a trade-off. Big square tubes with thin walls are a way to increase stiffness while keeping the weight down. You could also get stiffness from narrower, round tubes with thicker walls, but the frame would be heavier (although possibly more aero).

Seriously though, I was kind of assuming that ww was the place to discuss any obsessive, technically related aspects of bikes these days! :)

User avatar
adriano
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:37 am

by adriano

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/The_Aero ... t_131.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=101287&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=1-(4715-141)%2F4715

User avatar
adriano
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:37 am

by adriano

and some more shamefully fuzzy math, maybe 1mph in a 35mph plus sprint finish, 10 watts if youre at the front at 25mph, and absolutely nothing at 20mph.

http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/Yaw.aspx

fordred
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:22 pm

by fordred

but when u are sprinting, u are swinging the bike around so much, i'm guessing there'll be even less difference.

hansonator69
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by hansonator69

:google:
Slam your stem.

by Weenie


User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8416
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Geelong
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

Please use the many multiple, linked threads.

Locked
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post