Weight Weenies

I've ridden a VWD S5.

Poor ride quality would be right down on the list of issues I'd have with it. Was smooth to me...


But 'ride quality' has been and will always have a lot of subjectivity to it.

NGMN wrote:

pk1 wrote:actually trek's data (at least what they put in the "whitepaper") claims that the madone is slightly more aero than the venge.
only bested by the s5 at low yaw angles but thats really distorted by testing the s5 with its stock training wheels - i expect if they had tested the s5 with wheels comparable to those on the madone and venge it would have thrashed them.

Yeah, I guess, I should have said their data showed one thing but a somewhat informed person knew what it really meant...

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Cervelo's own data shows the Madone is competitive with the new semi-aero RCA, especially at higher yaw angles. See the RCA whitepaper.

Cervelo claims the Madone (and RCA) drag measurements are roughly 300 grams higher than a S5 at the same yaw angles (comparing the numbers from the S5 white paper with the ones above).

It's worth noting that the Madone is notably lighter than the S5 though.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

I can say I own both a Scott Foil team Ed and a new Trek Madone 7. Comparing them to each other.

Foil feels fast and you also feel everything on the road. It has a bit of a harsh ride although not as bad as my older cervelo SLC. What I really like about the Foil is the feeling of stiffness in the head tube. Although you hit a bump and your bars will actually break loose and move crazy.

Trek Madone 7. This bike I love it is fast and the smoothest bike I have ever had. I want to ride it all the time. I also think it looks great. The best bike in my opinion !

Don't forget the AR1. Although it looks like Felt is working on a new version of one of these perhaps the AR1 is still reasonably one of the more aero by the number framesets that rides very much like a traditional road bike. Probably the most roadie like of the Cervelo and Specialized. I like all three bikes but I found the Felt to definitely be the easiest to manage.

I've previously owned an AR , SST and now on to a Venge.
SST most harsh out of the 3, but the AR was probably the most pleasant to ride out of the bunch. Only had the Venge a few months so the jury's still out for me..

nickl wrote:
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

That the Madone is competitive in drag with the Venge or S5 with way better wheels and an aero handlebar means that its not in their league with comparable wheels. It is as you say, on par with "semi-aero" bikes.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is the Madone is an improvement over the old Madone in terms of aerodynamics, but in my mind and supported by data; aero was pretty low on the priorities list.

It was indeed V shaped, narrow 45mm wheels.

Bontrager's own data shows a Aeoulus D3 5 compared to V shaped Easton 56mm wheel, which are similar to the Specialized wheels, is a reduction of drag as follows: ~40 grams at 0 yaw and up to 150 grams at 12.5 degrees yaw and about 50 at 17.5 and out. Its part of the reason why I'd imagine the Trek has lower drag compared to the competition between 7.5 and 15 degrees; thats where the new age wide wheels really shine.

Trek says the aero bar that was on the Madone can have up to a 90 gram drag reduction alone over a standard bar!

I agree that really we can only speculate without a standardized test but lets face it, the data that is out there shows its likely not in the high ranks and I disagree that a person can look at the available data aand think it stacks up with the Venge(but its more of an agree to disagree thing). The Trek is midpack in the Tour data, and the Venge was top notch against better bikes(S5 and AR1 are aero proven time and time again). The new Madone is only at the head of the pack in their own data with the big advantage of wheels and aero bar. When it comes to aero data, you can't expect to have data of every bike against every bike but once you get two or three tests you can see trends and make educated speculation.

I'm really a big fan of the Madone, it's light, looks good, found compromise between integration and workability, and it made aero improvements over their previous models. But should anyone be led to think its as aero as the S5? No.

nickl wrote:

NGMN wrote:

pk1 wrote:actually trek's data (at least what they put in the "whitepaper") claims that the madone is slightly more aero than the venge.
only bested by the s5 at low yaw angles but thats really distorted by testing the s5 with its stock training wheels - i expect if they had tested the s5 with wheels comparable to those on the madone and venge it would have thrashed them.

Yeah, I guess, I should have said their data showed one thing but a somewhat informed person knew what it really meant...

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Cervelo's own data shows the Madone is competitive with the new semi-aero RCA, especially at higher yaw angles. See the RCA whitepaper.

Cervelo claims the Madone (and RCA) drag measurements are roughly 300 grams higher than a S5 at the same yaw angles (comparing the numbers from the S5 white paper with the ones above).

It's worth noting that the Madone is notably lighter than the S5 though.

exactly - the madone and rca are semi-aero bikes which lose a massive 300g to the s5. they have huge benefits in weight and ride quality but it is a trade-off against the aero drag.
the s5 is pretty well agreed to be in a league of its own on pure aero but its not so clear where some of the others like the venge and tmr01 fit - somewhere in the middle i expect - on both drag and ride quality. if they're close to the madone then i'll take the lighter smoother ride thanks but if they're far lower drag then i could take the harsh ride in exchange for a fast ride

ps. where do you see reference to either the rca or madone in the s5 whitepaper? the 300g is for a "typical" road bike, i'd expect the rca and madone to be better than typical.

NGMN wrote:It was indeed V shaped, narrow 45mm wheels.

Bontrager's own data shows a Aeoulus D3 5 compared to V shaped Easton 56mm wheel, which are similar to the Specialized wheels, is a reduction of drag as follows: ~40 grams at 0 yaw and up to 150 grams at 12.5 degrees yaw and about 50 at 17.5 and out. Its part of the reason why I'd imagine the Trek has lower drag compared to the competition between 7.5 and 15 degrees; thats where the new age wide wheels really shine.

Trek says the aero bar that was on the Madone can have up to a 90 gram drag reduction alone over a standard bar!

I agree that really we can only speculate without a standardized test but lets face it, the data that is out there shows its likely not in the high ranks and I disagree that a person can look at the available data aand think it stacks up with the Venge(but its more of an agree to disagree thing). The Trek is midpack in the Tour data, and the Venge was top notch against better bikes(S5 and AR1 are aero proven time and time again). The new Madone is only at the head of the pack in their own data with the big advantage of wheels and aero bar. When it comes to aero data, you can't expect to have data of every bike against every bike but once you get two or three tests you can see trends and make educated speculation.

I'm really a big fan of the Madone, it's light, looks good, found compromise between integration and workability, and it made aero improvements over their previous models. But should anyone be led to think its as aero as the S5? No.

cool thanks, that explains the discrepancies
still leaves me unsure what to get - stuck trying to balance between aero and ride quality

pk1 wrote:the madone and rca are semi-aero bikes which lose a massive 300w to the s5. they have huge benefits in weight and ride quality but it is a trade-off against the aero drag.

Although 30 Watts is still a reasonable number, isn't the rough approximation 100g drag = 10W?

Agreed. 30 Watts is a very big difference!

My fellow weight weenies: this is a thread of conjecture.

It's fun to argue/hypothesize but NOBODY has wind tunnel tested these bikes against each other WITH a RIDER on board. NOBODY.

I like the Trek & Scott spin the best (I sell neither).

But given the OP's question:

Scott m/54 ht = 140mm; stack = 549
Cervelo 54 ht = 154mm; stack = 555
BMC 54 ht = 144mm; stack = 545
Giant S ht = 135mm; stack = ??
Giant M ht = 150mm stack = ??

Felt AR 54 ht = 140mm; stack = 541
Trek 54 H1 ht = 125mm; stack = ??
Trek 54 H2 ht = 150mm; stack = ??

So...

Giant & Trek don't care enough to list stack so if you're an aero weenie you shouldn't patronize them.
Leaving:

1. Felt
2. BMC
3. Scott
4. Cervelo

As long as we discount frame/wheel interactions this is the ranking. The blobs on top are what matters. Tube shapes can't compensate for much. Enjoy your Kool-Aid and remember to support your LBS owner with the best advice.

IMHO buy a custom bike and enjoy it forever. Or buy a far-east molded frame and be discontent when a "marginal gain" frame appears next month. YMMV

pk1 wrote:ps. where do you see reference to either the rca or madone in the s5 whitepaper? the 300g is for a "typical" road bike, i'd expect the rca and madone to be better than typical.

There's no reference to the rca or madone in the S5 whitepaper.

However, there is a "Bike with Rider" drag graph in the S5 white paper, and "Bike with Rider + 2 water bottles" graph in the RCA paper. Given that the tests are done by the same company (Cervelo) I'm saying that they probably used test protocols that are close enough to make the tests comparable.

(Also, there is a graph of unnamed bikes in the S5 paper, and they look pretty close to the graphs in the RCA paper)

BTW, Cervelo's CFD for S5 is done without derailleurs...

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

It's fun to argue/hypothesize but NOBODY has wind tunnel tested these bikes against each other WITH a RIDER on board. NOBODY.

Yeah, but this is explained a lot on manufacturer sites as well as lots of both experts and novices all over the web. Once you put a rider on, the variables are huge - rider size, dimensions, riding style including cadence, the lack of ability to be stationary unless you use a dummy, etc. There's a lot of logic in taking the rider out of the testing.