New aero test: 12 aero frames vs 12 "unaero" light frames
Moderator: robbosmans
Yeah, 0,2% accuracy on an aero test just seems ridiculous, and that's between the best and the worst. What is the difference in percentages between the top contenders, like 0,08%? That, no matter what the protocol is, to the best of my knowledge in terms of bicycles with all their aerodynamic complexities involved, kind of accuracy just doesn't exist...
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
rijndael wrote:They tested "Light Frames" but didn't include a SuperSix EVO Hi-Mod?
They only tested brands that had both a light model and an aero model. Cannondale don't have that, so....
@tommasini; they have been using a half dummy. As in the lower half, which is the part that has influence on the airflow of the frame. Why comment, if you won't bother reading the description of the test?
- SolidSnake03
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:09 pm
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. With that minute of a different you might as well just ignore the areo stuff all together.
The margin of error combined with slight alterations to the testing methodology could completely chance these rankings when the difference is <1% in many of these cases
The margin of error combined with slight alterations to the testing methodology could completely chance these rankings when the difference is <1% in many of these cases
Looks like I made a new 90 Proof friend
Mario Jr. wrote:rijndael wrote:They tested "Light Frames" but didn't include a SuperSix EVO Hi-Mod?
They only tested brands that had both a light model and an aero model. Cannondale don't have that, so....
@tommasini; they have been using a half dummy. As in the lower half, which is the part that has influence on the airflow of the frame. Why comment, if you won't bother reading the description of the test?
Ease up - I started my post, went off and checked the OP's linked site a second time, finished my post. I didn't know that at nearly the same time member ichobi submitted his message with the needed information.
I bought the download. Basic gist is the it was 100km with 2000m climbing in it modelled off of data they collected running the bikes in the wind tunnel and simulation of average 200watts.. They used their pedaling dummy. All bikes set up with 404 firecrests and zipp vuka sprint bars (except propel).
Interestingly, using their usual all around criteria for testing (no tunnel), the Strock Aernario came out tops, but it's the slowest 'aero' bike in the test.
Interestingly, using their usual all around criteria for testing (no tunnel), the Strock Aernario came out tops, but it's the slowest 'aero' bike in the test.
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.
And who spends 4 plus hours exposed and solo in competition?? Don't we have time trial bike for that nonsense??
Whole thing is a bit of a scam IMO.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.
- SolidSnake03
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:09 pm
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.
And who spends 4 plus hours exposed and solo in competition?? Don't we have time trial bike for that nonsense??
Whole thing is a bit of a scam IMO.
I'm not in any way denying that I felt the whole thing was a farce from a practical point of view. I honestly think it's mostly a big joke but to each his own. However, this is the first time I have seen such a large data set comparing this specifically aero vs. non-aero. I'm mostly just commenting on the fact that for me, the data does quite the opposite of what Cervelo intended, it shows the whole aero thing and even the difference between the companies is all largely irrelevant. These differences are so minute that it would be borderline irrational to even consider them ahead of anything like cost, fit, spec's etc...
Yes, one could argue that this is one test and other testing might show different however, the burden to me lies on proving aero is actually "worthwhile" which no solid study has yet. True worthwhile is hard to quantify but I think most rational people could agree that differences <1% are not "worthwhile" ESPECIALLY for regular people
Looks like I made a new 90 Proof friend
On the numerical rankings chart - Only a couple of final results had the aero frame rankings better than light. For a few it was a dead heat. But overall the light (and dare I say more compliant??) bikes won a good majority of the time (again in the numerical rankings not just the time for 100K). My observation was the big negatives for aero were due to the harsh ride for those frames and forks - something I also hear from the few locally that have such steeds (e.g. Scott Foil being the most spoken about)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nf9hl3t7cy0x ... _0705.jpeg
And I know it's been hashed over many times when aero wheels were the new kid on the block, but how much during that 100K will the rider be hitting the full force of the wind to gain the theoretical advantage that the wind tunnel suggests. With race/group pack situations maybe 10% give or take a lot? So at the end of the day does the theoretical time saved actually water down to the difference between a well executed bike throw or not? Myself I'll readily admit that I've drank (and enjoyed) the kool-aid of aero wheels, skinsuits, and so forth - but those gains aren't so much (in my opinion) a significant factor in a pack - but only obtained when giving it my all at the front/alone - which a tactical rider will try to limit (so yes it's an advantage - but just don't oversell it). Meanwhile, I need to arrive at the finish (and the next day and the next) not so beat up......so the net gain of those aero frame is ?????
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nf9hl3t7cy0x ... _0705.jpeg
And I know it's been hashed over many times when aero wheels were the new kid on the block, but how much during that 100K will the rider be hitting the full force of the wind to gain the theoretical advantage that the wind tunnel suggests. With race/group pack situations maybe 10% give or take a lot? So at the end of the day does the theoretical time saved actually water down to the difference between a well executed bike throw or not? Myself I'll readily admit that I've drank (and enjoyed) the kool-aid of aero wheels, skinsuits, and so forth - but those gains aren't so much (in my opinion) a significant factor in a pack - but only obtained when giving it my all at the front/alone - which a tactical rider will try to limit (so yes it's an advantage - but just don't oversell it). Meanwhile, I need to arrive at the finish (and the next day and the next) not so beat up......so the net gain of those aero frame is ?????
ichobi wrote:Uploaded the whole article. Read it here.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nf9hl3t7cy0xywm/xp4FRB0-GW
.
Ah, you legend!! Grouse!
I think the direction of Cervelo R5 / Madone / Scott Addict that try to combine weight saving and comfort and aerodynamic is the way to go. Save a few watts here and there, while enjoying a stable and smooth ride is a nice package, all while ridding myself the assumption that I am riding an aerodynamically inferior bike compared to those with aero specific frame. Save myself a few thousands dollars.
For those arguing that the measurement error is too large to make the test worthwhile - If you were to guess the fastest aero & light bikes what would they have been? Also, based on what has been published previously, if you were to predict the order of the aero bikes it would probably be pretty close (with a few exceptions)?
To me the test looks credible.
To me the test looks credible.
IMO threads like this one have the same value to threads like "Which is the best carbon frame?".
I really cannot understand why people bother...
I really cannot understand why people bother...
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com