New aero test: 12 aero frames vs 12 "unaero" light frames

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
User avatar
tommasini
Posts: 1289
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:48 am
Location: Central USA
Contact:

by tommasini

Speaking about the "penalty" for aero - there sure seems to be in most of the comparisons. For those who were able to see the chart on page 5, in the overall rankings for the combined "performance" of those pairs of bikes - the non aero partner was ranked better (and generally MUCH better) overall than the aero partner in 7 of the 12 paired situations. It was a tie with 3, and the aero beat it's partner in only 2 situations.......but one was the Stork whose "aero" model truly sucked in the aero category but shined in comfort and stiffness (so a mis-categorized frame). So in my view the true aero frames were outright winners only once (8%). For those that didn't see the chart that performance ranking included the effect of aero but also comfort and stiffness where it counts.

So it's not as simple as why not......but is it worth it?........

Added side note about the Giant aero "module" - I seem to recall a review posted by a major source (Velo? CyclingNews?) that suggested the aero improvements were significantly positively influenced by the integrated stem and bars - which conflicts with a post here suggesting that it may be a disadvantage (compared to the Zipp used with the others). The article as I recall suggested that the lack of choices (bar angle and shape) was a significant compromise the end user would have to put up with.

Don't get me wrong - I am in support of aero - but not extremes that result in an overall detriment to the overall picture.

by Weenie


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

by Tinea Pedis

Not performing in the Tour test does not mean the Aernario is mis-categorised.

It was just that much better than the other aero offerings in judging on aspects unrelated to aerodynamics.

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 980
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

Would like to see a similar test for 100 mile rides comparing ultra stiff vs compliant.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Trek 5200(ultegra)

RookieB
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:48 pm

by RookieB

Mr.Gib wrote:
SolidSnake03 wrote:So all im seeing here is stuff that is so tightly clustered given the length of time of the test that aero wise your frame choice is largely irrelevant.


Which is what I have been saying since aero frames arrived on the scene, accept of course when it comes to wheel and tire options. Then choosing an aero frame become highly relevant as in it becomes a major nuisance. Mostly just heavier, and less comfortable. A true detriment for 95% of the people that ride them. Just try your S5 on some fresh chip-seal. :P

And who spends 4 plus hours exposed and solo in competition?? Don't we have time trial bike for that nonsense?? :noidea:

Whole thing is a bit of a scam IMO.


I agree with this although, im not a sprinter & when it comes to winning a race. Alot comes down to a TT Effort in a Solo Break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Using Tapatalk

kulivontot
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm

by kulivontot

Measure new frame weights to a .1 of a gram with/without paint, but don't waste my time with meaningless aero data. Everybody knows bikes are only meant to go up 25% gradients at 3mph.

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

by kgt

The fact is that actual weight is measurable in an absolute way while actual aero performance is rather debatable.

kulivontot
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm

by kulivontot

Aero is measurable, the physics is just more complicated than m x g x h. All I'm saying is you can't argue that a 1% performance improvement is worthless outside of a pro level and then claim dropping 20g is in anyway significant. You can argue the measurements may be inaccurate or inconsistent, but the "performance gains are too minimal to matter" argument doesn't hold.

RookieB
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:48 pm

by RookieB

Considering professionals ride the same weight (6.8) kg

Its really is all about he Aero...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Using Tapatalk

User avatar
ScuderiaDouroux
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA

by ScuderiaDouroux

It's not all about aero. If a pro is in a 5 hour stage and has another one the next day, the last thing he/she wants is to be on a potentially harsh riding aero frame that causes fatigue.
Long live the horizontal top tube, standard crankset, and Italian threaded bottom bracket.

User avatar
DMF
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Location: Sweden

by DMF

The equation for having it all; aero, compliance/comfort and sharp handling is actually quite simple...

It goes a little something like this:

N+1

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Sorry for rehashing this older thread, but I read through the whole thing and I want to see the original articles, but don't think the months were documented. I think Feb is the aero bikes. What about the light bikes?

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

There is a very very important thread regarding "comfort" that a lot of people here need to read. Nowadays, aero bikes can fully take advantage of large 25c tires, are very very stiff, and only show a penalty with regards to weight. Damn near everything else has been sorted. Things have changed in the months since that test was conducted.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Thoughts ... _4571.html

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowt ... _P5231787/

Ozrider
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:06 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

by Ozrider

The rider is still the biggest "aero" factor, and as we are all different shapes and sizes, have varying flexibility and positioning on the bike and wear different helmets, clothing and shoes, the variables are just mind boggling.
As a total package you could have a rider on a round tube bike with shallow alloy rims be more aero than a different rider on an aero bike with deep carbon rims purely due to size and position on the bike



Image


Parlee Z5, Trek Madone, Colnago Dream,
Ozrider - Western Australia
Parlee Z5 XL (6055g/13.32lbs) Trek Madone 5.9 (7052-7500g)Jonesman Columbus Spirit (8680g)
Chase your dreams - it's only impossible until it's done

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

Sure, but that's a very strange comparison. Like for like (position, equipment, etc), a rider will be faster on the more aerodynamic bike.

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

by Tinea Pedis

Ozrider it's not about how aero a complete set up is between two different riders, but more so what a rider can benefit from simply having a more aero road bike - as opposed to a more traditional set up.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post