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

[Norregard]

Most aero frames are heavier than their traditional counterparts, so weight doesn't really come into it.

[highdraw]

Not myth, tell that to the sprinters and the breakaway riders.
The Pro peloton is quite possibly the worst example you could have ever found.

I agree and mainly because they're marketed to amateur/recreational riders who are very often pulling on group rides, solo riding, racing in loose packs or trying desperately to catch up, triathlons, time trials, etc.

That being said I don't think someone should replace their frame for an aero one to save a few tens of grams but why not if you need a new frame anyway? Considering how improved the ride quality is for newer aero frames.

Ever ride a S5? It rides like a cement mixer...lol.

[highdraw]

So your argument stands on a pro team riding their freshly released flagship frame in the biggest race of the year vs a 3 year old aero design?

It doesn't even relate to Specialized. The fact is no other team on aero bikes won the TdF and there were quite a few in the race.
Designing a frame expressly for aero savings especially for the amateur unless riding completely in his/her own air against the clock is waste. The original S5 Cervelo pretty much underscores this. Its a pretty awful bike to ride and live with for a handful of grams saved at 30 mph.
But over time yes improvements and decoupling vertical compliance and aero tube profile will occur and this is already happening.
If you listen to Specialized engineers they addressed this early on with the Venge. They deliberately didn't design the Venge to be the most aero bike. It has aerodynamic qualities but not a pure aero bike like the Foil is an example...or an older aero design which is pretty horrid to ride day in and day out. But yes this will change with suspending the rider from the vertical stiffness of the frame as engineers become more creative.
I am looking forward to the new Venge. Will see just how well Spesh engineers solved the riddle of overall bike performance and aerodynamics. It may become a very popular bike. There is nothing wrong with improving aerodynamics. Whether its wheels, helmets, or even frames. But the frame is the back bone of the bike and if other properties of the bike are compromised by a miniscule reduction in drag, then its an unacceptable tradeoff.

[highdraw]

Most aero frames are heavier than their traditional counterparts, so weight doesn't really come into it.

Didn't you just contradict yourself? Maybe you could explain what you meant.

[Franklin]

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.

It's a very traditional sport. Many pro's and mechanics are famously uninterested in the material.

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.

Oh boy.... on the mm difference, I assume you buy a new BIB short every ride? Considering Chamois compression is definitely a few mm. I also assume your muscles have the same elasticity every day? You are glued to the saddle and handlebar? Wear the same socks which you replace (along with your sloes) every two weeks? Your shoe cleats are tungsten which you replace every month?

Cycling is a dynamic activity. 1-2 mm is unimportant. Anyone claiming differently should take a few step backs and look at the material and activity. A few MM does not matter. => This is also supported by lab tests!

With that said, to make any claim that you can't tell the ride qualities of a bike, is absurd.

Except I did not say that. What I said is that the frame (thus material/build) is very minor compared to what is converted through contact points. And well, that's not just me, that's every test out there, so you should take offense with reality instead of me.

[Franklin]

According to Cervelo you still benefit when drafting.

In the case of that argument then, all riders in the peloton should be on aero bikes and most aren't.

They should. That they aren't is simply stupidity. Your notion that a Mechanic or pro is an expert on cycling technology is flawed. There is no reason why that should automatically be the case.

To drive that one home with Thor's hammer.

- Nobody here would deny that STI was superior to downtube shifters. Yet the uptake was quite slow.
- Before Greg Lemonds "innovation" TT bars were know to be superior. Only Greg used it. Indeed even afterwards uptake was slow considering the things involved.
- Aerodynamic helmets were en vogue in the early eighties. Fignon (and Breukink) happily rode along without a helmet and were pulverized by Lemond.

A pro cyclist is someone who can ride a bike really fast. He's not an engineer.

[Franklin]

I don't expect to change of religious aero addicts or flat earthers.

Sorry, small correction here. You use faith (namely unsupported personal beliefs) versus sience.

In any definition you are the religuous person/flat earther versus those who look a bit further.

Greg Lemond says hi. He loves that Fignon and Guimard had your mindset.

[Norregard]

Most aero frames are heavier than their traditional counterparts, so weight doesn't really come into it.

Didn't you just contradict yourself? Maybe you could explain what you meant.

I was responding to Skippy who suggested that swapping from a traditional frame to an aero frame would save you a few tens of grams, when in reality most aero frames are heavier than their traditional counterparts.

When weight is the most important factor in buying a new frame, you probably wouldn't look towards an aero frame first. So when I say weight doesn't really come into it, I mean there are more important deciding factors for anyone considering an aero frame, other than weight.

Sorry if I worded that poorly, I'm not a native speaker.

[justkeepedaling]

Not myth, tell that to the sprinters and the breakaway riders.
The Pro peloton is quite possibly the worst example you could have ever found.

I agree and mainly because they're marketed to amateur/recreational riders who are very often pulling on group rides, solo riding, racing in loose packs or trying desperately to catch up, triathlons, time trials, etc.

That being said I don't think someone should replace their frame for an aero one to save a few tens of grams but why not if you need a new frame anyway? Considering how improved the ride quality is for newer aero frames.

Ever ride a S5? It rides like a cement mixer...lol.

Ever ride a new S2/S3 on 25c tires? I thought not

[kgt]

@ justkeepedaling
You say: "An aero bike is faster than an non-aero one". You are right. That is something measurable. We agree.
Your mistake: "A cyclist will be faster on an aero bike than on a non-aero one". Big mistake. A rider's speed, power etc depends on much more variables than his aero or not equipment. On the contrary, if an aero frame is less compliant/harsh/uncomfortable that will make him slower. That is why pro riders usually prefer non-aero frames. Because their ride quality is usually better.
Isn't that clear?

[highdraw]

Most aero frames are heavier than their traditional counterparts, so weight doesn't really come into it.

Didn't you just contradict yourself? Maybe you could explain what you meant.

I was responding to Skippy who suggested that swapping from a traditional frame to an aero frame would save you a few tens of grams, when in reality most aero frames are heavier than their traditional counterparts.

When weight is the most important factor in buying a new frame, you probably wouldn't look towards an aero frame first. So when I say weight doesn't really come into it, I mean there are more important deciding factors for anyone considering an aero frame, other than weight.

Sorry if I worded that poorly, I'm not a native speaker.

Cool. Thought is was possible that English wasn't your native language by your user.

[highdraw]

@ justkeepedaling
You say: "An aero bike is faster than an non-aero one". You are right. That is something measurable. We agree.
Your mistake: "A cyclist will be faster on an aero bike than on a non-aero one". Big mistake. A rider's speed, power etc depends on much more variables than his aero or not equipment. On the contrary, if an aero frame is less compliant/harsh/uncomfortable that will make him slower. That is why pro riders usually prefer non-aero frames. Because their ride quality is usually better.
Isn't that clear?

I have beat that drum repeatedly and it goes right over jkp's head. Keep in mind, he is an 'aero' engineer. Moments of inertia, strength of materials, force/deflection etc is not his forte.

[highdraw]

Not myth, tell that to the sprinters and the breakaway riders.
The Pro peloton is quite possibly the worst example you could have ever found.

I agree and mainly because they're marketed to amateur/recreational riders who are very often pulling on group rides, solo riding, racing in loose packs or trying desperately to catch up, triathlons, time trials, etc.

That being said I don't think someone should replace their frame for an aero one to save a few tens of grams but why not if you need a new frame anyway? Considering how improved the ride quality is for newer aero frames.

Ever ride a S5? It rides like a cement mixer...lol.

Ever ride a new S2/S3 on 25c tires? I thought not

You finally got something right. I have in fact and quite right...much better than the S5. No doubt the new S5 will incorporate these improvements. There is no question that aero bikes will continue to improve and in fact become more mainstream. Further there will be synergy and is now between more compliant bikes like R series Cervelo and Tarmac and even the Madone in terms of aero improvement further blurring the line between both genres.

[highdraw]

I don't expect to change of religious aero addicts or flat earthers.

Sorry, small correction here. You use faith (namely unsupported personal beliefs) versus sience.

In any definition you are the religuous person/flat earther versus those who look a bit further.

Greg Lemond says hi. He loves that Fignon and Guimard had your mindset.

Those that you believe look forward are really thinking in a vacuum. If there wasn't a performance 'deficit' to aero bikes, traditional tube bikes like the Tarmac wouldn't exist. Its kind of like choosing a car because it has the most horsepower. The fact that it weighs 2 tons, gets 8 mpg and won't corner, escapes you.

[Butcher]

Again, using a protected GC rider to support your belief is poor. The amount of time Nibali was out in front was much less than any other member of his team. I have no proof, but I can believe he was protected 99% of the Tour. There is little reason to pick aero when you are that protected. Now if you lost by less 1 second, I bet you would think twice.

Maybe finding a successful sprinter that uses no aero equipment would better support your belief. Good luck with finding that person.

I know this is weightweenies and every gram counts, but using the same philosophy, all aero do-dads when added up, would account for something [maybe not much, but more than nothing]. Not all aero components make the ride worst.