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

[Franklin]

I would lay a $1k bet that I could pick out the difference in a blind test with the condition that the aero seat post couldn't be swapped out on the Venge (that may be scientific but nobody would do that to their aero bike in the real world.)

I gladly take that money of your hands, considering every blind test I have read about blows this notion out of the water You seriously overestimate your bodies sensitivity. With similar setup in general testers are consistently unable to feel the difference, so I would be rather hesistant if I were you....

And I am laughing incredibly hard about the whining about frame stifness. Not only is frame stiffness hardly important compared to the contactpoints and tires, noone here would dare to say a steel or god forbid a Vitus frame is faster.

Let's be very clear here:

Aero is always important and generally much more decisive than weight. That's not opinion, simply proven by theory and practical tests. Denial is quite bizarre.

And those who say it doesn't matter if you are not a Pro should do a checkup on the speed of the lower category crits... They will realise how important aerodynamics will be.

[dunbar42]

I would lay a $1k bet that I could pick out the difference in a blind test with the condition that the aero seat post couldn't be swapped out on the Venge (that may be scientific but nobody would do that to their aero bike in the real world.)

I gladly take that money of your hands, considering every blind test I have read about blows this notion out of the water You seriously overestimate your bodies sensitivity. With similar setup in general testers are consistently unable to feel the difference, so I would be rather hesistant if I were you....

Theory vs. reality. Since I've actually ridden a 2015 Tarmac and Venge back-to-back I'd gladly lighten your wallet. The difference in ride quality was pretty dramatic. I highly doubt I could tell the difference between a Roubaix and Tarmac with the same seat post installed on both FWIW. The blind test you reference swapped out the aero seat post to hold it constant. That's fine in a scientific sense but is irrelevant in the real world where nobody rides around with a standard seat post installed on their aero frame. But yes, if people actually did do that I would concede that I probably couldn't tell the difference between the frames...

[dunbar42]

21.3 Watts less drag for the new S5, compared to the old one (according to Cervelo!!) ? Is that right? Hmmm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heMTsjG4qnE

From reading over on Slowtwitch almost all of the added savings are coming from the deep section wheels that come stock on the bike. I think the aero road bars they're using accounting for 4-5w of those savings.

[SkippyMcJimmelstein]

I was reviewing the Tour Mag test in the OP and was pleased to read that they used a dummy with rotating legs (no upper torso however). They also had a single water bottle on the downtube although I'd prefer they used two. Wheels were Zipp 404s.

[User Name]

From reading over on Slowtwitch almost all of the added savings are coming from the deep section wheels that come stock on the bike. I think the aero road bars they're using accounting for 4-5w of those savings.

[/quote] ah, I see. Thanks.

[Imaking20]

I would lay a $1k bet that I could pick out the difference in a blind test with the condition that the aero seat post couldn't be swapped out on the Venge (that may be scientific but nobody would do that to their aero bike in the real world.)

I gladly take that money of your hands, considering every blind test I have read about blows this notion out of the water You seriously overestimate your bodies sensitivity. With similar setup in general testers are consistently unable to feel the difference, so I would be rather hesistant if I were you....

Theory vs. reality. Since I've actually ridden a 2015 Tarmac and Venge back-to-back I'd gladly lighten your wallet. The difference in ride quality was pretty dramatic. I highly doubt I could tell the difference between a Roubaix and Tarmac with the same seat post installed on both FWIW. The blind test you reference swapped out the aero seat post to hold it constant. That's fine in a scientific sense but is irrelevant in the real world where nobody rides around with a standard seat post installed on their aero frame. But yes, if people actually did do that I would concede that I probably couldn't tell the difference between the frames...

The error in your logic here is that you saw what bikes you were riding. You likely decided the ride quality would be dramatic before you ever clipped in. I'd lay a wager that the difference in ride quality could easily be offset/overcome by tire pressure.

[highdraw]

And your error was again quoting the post above, when that's not required


And the error in your logic is the benefit of the aerodynamics of a Venge eclipse the performance advantage of a Tarmac. Tell that to the guy who won the TdF this year. He chose a Tarmac as did most of the riders in the peloton this year versus a much smaller percentage on a Venge. If there was no downside to the Venge and only an aerodynamic benefit, he would have been on one.
In engineering parlance this is referred to as no free lunch.

[Butcher]

The top GC riders in the Tour were seldom on the front. There is little reason that you would want an aero bike if you are constantly drafting someone. Might as well pick a bike that you feel better/more comfortable with.

[aaric]

And the error in your logic is the benefit of the aerodynamics of a Venge eclipse the performance advantage of a Tarmac. Tell that to the guy who won the TdF this year. He chose a Tarmac as did most of the riders in the peloton this year versus a much smaller percentage on a Venge. If there was no downside to the Venge and only an aerodynamic benefit, he would have been on one.
In engineering parlance this is referred to as no free lunch.

And the error in your logic is that the Venge vs Tarmac decision applies to all aero bikes. A venge is much harsher than a Tarmac: I'd wager from the aero seatpost. You can have aero and comfortable, just not if Specialized is your team sponsor . In reality, the Venge is a pretty old design. The lunch isn't free, but it comes at the cost of weight. But in a UCI race, there's a miniumum weight that the latest aero frames can hit pretty easily.

I think you will see more and more GC riders wearing aero helmets, deeper wheels, and aero frames over the next few years, as the benefits of aero become more well known, and the equipment manufacturers get better at making the engineering compromises for aero.

[Franklin]

And the error in your logic is the benefit of the aerodynamics of a Venge eclipse the performance advantage of a Tarmac. Tell that to the guy who won the TdF this year. He chose a Tarmac as did most of the riders in the peloton this year versus a much smaller percentage on a Venge. If there was no downside to the Venge and only an aerodynamic benefit, he would have been on one.
In engineering parlance this is referred to as no free lunch.

And the error in your logic is that actually all evidence shows that many if not most pro's most certainly do not choose the best gear for the job. Many pro's simply don't care. I am 100% certain we know a lot more about bike technology than the average pro or their mechanics.

In laymans parlance this is refered in putting too much trust in the knowledge in pro riders and their mechanics.

[Imaking20]

The error in your logic here is that you saw what bikes you were riding. You likely decided the ride quality would be dramatic before you ever clipped in. I'd lay a wager that the difference in ride quality could easily be offset/overcome by tire pressure.

And the error in your logic is the benefit of the aerodynamics of a Venge eclipse the performance advantage of a Tarmac. Tell that to the guy who won the TdF this year. He chose a Tarmac as did most of the riders in the peloton this year versus a much smaller percentage on a Venge. If there was no downside to the Venge and only an aerodynamic benefit, he would have been on one.
In engineering parlance this is referred to as no free lunch.

Can you point out where I said that? I offered no opinion on the topic of aero vs. comfort

[dunbar42]

The error in your logic here is that you saw what bikes you were riding. You likely decided the ride quality would be dramatic before you ever clipped in. I'd lay a wager that the difference in ride quality could easily be offset/overcome by tire pressure.

I love it when other people tell me what I can, and cannot, feel on a bike. I'd wager that you are dead wrong.

The test you keep referring to conceded that the aero seat posts on aero road bikes could result in poor ride quality. They performed the blind test without the aero seat post installed on those frames.

"One of the major discoveries was that after controlling for seat post (round post shimmed into aero frame so as to not give it away) not a single rider found the aero road bike to be less comfortable, less compliant, etc, than the identically setup 'endurance' or 'roubaix' bike (clearly this leaves room for the aero seat post to be why people feel aero bikes are less compliant..seatposts generally have more effect on bike compliance in the lab than frames do, but that's another story)."

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

[Franklin]

Well, you are right if it's just the seatpost you are referring to.

I love it when other people tell me what I can, and cannot, feel on a bike. I'd wager that you are dead wrong.

Your point about the seatpost stands:

Frame material does not really matter:
http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html

Tour magazine (just can't find the article!):
viewtopic.php?t=7202

=> Seat post is very important.

I read other publications (printedd) and they all had the same conclusion. Comfort is not influenced by the matterial involved.

The test you keep referring to conceded that the aero seat posts on aero road bikes could result in poor ride quality. They performed the blind test without the aero seat post installed on those frames.

The influence of a seatpost is indeed the decisive factor. Considering it should be pretty doable to creat a more compliant aero seatpost I still see no reason to dismiss aerodynamics.

[Zigmeister]

Not to jump into your little love fest here, but many pros, ride what they are given. Since all but the UCI World teams, are poor and don't make much money. Most are flat broke and can keep/sell the equipment/bikes at the end of a season. So they are happy to have stuff paid for and for free. Beggars can't be choosers. Furthermore, if another human being can detect a mm or two of change to their seat height, just because they are pro, doesn't mean a high level, or even regular person doesn't feel/detect that as well. Pro mechanics get that type of feedback all the time. Making comments like, did you change my seat height? Til? Handlebar reach? After measuring multiple times....ooops, 2mm forward on the setback, or height was found.

You ever notice when a web page loads 160ms slower? That is about the threshold for people to detect something with the eye. And the brain will process that in a matter of 15-50ms.

With that said, to make any claim that you can't tell the ride qualities of a bike, is absurd. I personally went from a Scott Foil Team, one of the stiffest bikes made today in the HT and BB to a Foil 15, which is the HMF carbon layup, compared to the HMX of the team. The ride qualities were very easy to discern #1, and #2, as a 165-170lb sprinter, I can assure you, the flex of the HT and particularly the BB area on the Foil 15 was noticeable to me. At times, I'm still a bit unnerved by it in certain circumstances. One thing a sprinter doesn't like is any type of odd flexing going on while on the power in sketchy situations. In addition, I can easily tune the ride qualities with wheels/tubulars, stems/handlebar combos etc that have made the Scott Foil a very nice riding bike and tolerable even 60+ miles high intensity training over a variety of surfaces and terrain, flat/hills. Still it's ride, especially the HT/handlebar area, every pebble and pavement variation you feel right up into your hands. But I like that personally.

Now compare that to let's say a Cannondale Supersix, or EVO which I've owned both, those bikes ride like a luxury Rolls Royce. The Evo being stiff, but very well tuned to not pass that onto the seat/BB/HT area.

Lastly, the seat post things you guy talk about. Maybe you should relay over to Dave and Felt you have the 3T mounting mast/rubber vibration dampening technology option to limit and buffer the harshness of the BB and seat tube vibration. Apparently the seat post/seat tube does make a difference, and design of the aero tubes/shapes, that has been known and proven over and over compared to a round tube and physics.

[highdraw]

The top GC riders in the Tour were seldom on the front. There is little reason that you would want an aero bike if you are constantly drafting someone. Might as well pick a bike that you feel better/more comfortable with.

Do you ride any different? Do you race yourself? Do you race others and therefore always pull? If so, you lose to equivalent riders.
All of us ride in a draft when racing 95% of the time. That is why Nibali and most of the peloton was on a Tarmac and not a Venge and why the entire peloton was on fat tube bikes versus a much smaller percentage of aero bikes.

The biggest advantage to an aero tube bike is in a TT when racing in your own air on a closed course against the clock.