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

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

highdraw wrote:Dunbar, quit bringing common sense or even the thinking of a tour rider racing a 2000 mile tour into the calculation.
Aero fan boys here look at data in a vacuum. I think the video did a credible job of explaining the choice between an aero bike versus not.

Hanging your hat on what is the fastest bike based upon a 300 watt steady state 40k TT like effort gives aero boys what they deserve.
Put aero wheels on a fat tube bike and now you have the best of both worlds and in spite of all the commentary to the contrary, the guys that race bikes for a living do know what is fastest for 'them' not only in a TT but when racing over 100 miles/day for 2 weeks in a row.
TT, short, flat course in open air, no question aero wins. Duh. :) But there is a cost in longer excursions which is not quantified by marketing 'data'...or with climbing. If there was a minute difference for every 40km traveled in the TdF this year, Nibali would have been beat by one or several riders on an aero frame as there were 20 unfathomably strong riders on an aero bike in that race this year. But he won on a traditional tube bike. In some ways the TdF is a metaphor for a traditional tube bike. A round tube bike is not a single stage. An aero bike is a single stage. A round tube bike is the aggregate of all stages. Most in the real world don't ride their road bikes daily in a TT format or they own a TT bike for that purpose. Notice in the pro peloton there are few exceptions in that regard...in TT's all pros ride uber aero TT bikes...which belies the questionable judgment of pro racers not understanding the right tool for the job. It is the amateurs on the internet that don't.


I thought you were done with this thread. 300 watt steady state and 40k doesn't nullify aero. That's the best thing. You will still see a benefit at lower speeds.

In fact, you get more benefit when you are doing accelerations on the aero bike. EVEN in a group

Butcher
Shop Owner
Posts: 1917
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:58 am

by Butcher

This is weightweenies! We all spend money and time to get that last gram out of their bike. Why not do the same on aero? It may not add up to much, but just like the grams we seek to drop, it all adds up. As we drop the weight, we all run into issues, reliability, flex, costs, etc. When we search for aero, there are also other tradeoffs. Why someone is going to tell me what tradeoffs I'm willing to accept is just ludicrous.

No one bashed this guy for wasting a ton of time making this... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=128493. All that time to loose 22 grams, some would say is stupid. Most here think he is a genius. Why do some have to ruin this aero thread for the same type of gains. There is one common denominator.

New comers to the forum that want to try to change that weird tick we have, should start their own forum. Expressing your opinion is ok, making mean/degrading comments because someone does not align with their opinions is not what this forum is about. Mutual respect is what makes this forum the best around.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



goodboyr
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

by goodboyr

^This!!

User avatar
fa63
Posts: 2533
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:26 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, US

by fa63

Amen, brother!

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

What?... Just when I was about to fire up another batch of popcorn :)
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

dunbar42
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:20 am

by dunbar42

I test rode an S2 today and liked it so much I bought a 2015 on the spot. I was shocked at how well it rides. Very nearly as good as my Roubaix with CG-R seat post. WAY better than the Venge.

The same shop had the Felt AR series but I didn't even bother riding it after taking the S2 for a spin. The salesman rides an AR and said it's not as smooth as the S2/S3.

Image

User avatar
Mario Jr.
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:49 am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

by Mario Jr.

Sorry, dunbar. But your behind must be very sensitive. ;-)
I have a Ridley Noah Fast and a Ridley Helium SL. Both set up identically, except for aero road bars on the Noah Fast. Now, the Noah fast would probably aspire to be one of the stiffest frames in the market, and also one of the most "uncomfortable". Likewise, the Helium SL is quite comfortable according to tests and has all the features like pencil thin seatstays and a slim seatpost. (*This I will get back to later) In reality, I prefer the Noah Fast very much. It is simply a faster bike. This I can see on data, as I have powermeters on both bikes, as well as looking at Strava etc. The big difference that was supposed to be in comfort, I really don't feel. I have tried with my Enve 6.7 wheels on the Helium and LW on the Noah Fast. Same result. The Noah Fast is just the fastest bike for me. And I'm not any more banged up after 4 hours on either bike.
Highdraw, when you state that you are working with physics, (remarkably without showing one single graph or formula in 19 pages) it wonders me that you disregard the fact that frames are VERY close in respect to vibration dampening and shock absorbtion. (There's a lot of marketing, though). Nothing that's not negated by choice or saddle, tire pressure. Of course there's small differences, but nothing that makes you go faster or slower in normal conditions. Here I'm not talking about all out comfort frames, like the Specialized Roubaix (Can I even write that name without being sued?), which has more absorbtion, but at the expense of other things. It's a fine bike to race Paris-Roubaix.
Disclaimer, I am in the industry. What I have been shown (again, real data and I don't have anything to gain, as I sell both types of bikes), is that the difference between a bike with "comfort features" let's pick a Helium SL as that's the brand of bikes I have experience with, and a "non compromise sprinter bike" like a Noah Fast is a lot less than a milimetre of shock absorbtion in the frame. Then there's something to gain in the seatpost if you use a thin one of course, but still nothing that is on the scale of what you can gain with choice of saddle, tire pressure, 25mm tires etc.
What is a fact also, is that human nature is such that we are lousy at being objective. When we see a bike with thin tubes etc, we automatically perceive that as more comfortable than a bike with big bulky aero tubes.

PS.I agree that many earlier aerobikes rode horribly, but that was mostly because of a low torsional stiffness from the narrow tubes, with has become a less serious issue now with more advanced layup and manufacturing techniques and eg. kamm profiles which enable the manufactors to make wider tubes etc. Combine that with a stiff rear end that was usually the result of the big BB areas, and you had a bike that felt very wrong.

nd2rc
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:20 pm
Location: Tennessee

by nd2rc

Cool, now that's a logical back-to-back real world test! Got any recommendations for a more comfortable saddle for my S5?

Funny, this reminds me of a highly technical article which said a comfortable bike is like riding an "uncomfortable" bike with 5psi less in the tires. Basically, there's not much difference.

dunbar42
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:20 am

by dunbar42

Mario Jr. wrote:The big difference that was supposed to be in comfort, I really don't feel. I have tried with my Enve 6.7 wheels on the Helium and LW on the Noah Fast. Same result. The Noah Fast is just the fastest bike for me. And I'm not any more banged up after 4 hours on either bike.


The Roubaix SL4 is actually an incredibly stiff frame, 3rd stiffest tested by Velonews last year. Anyone who thinks the Roubaix is a smooth comfort bike hasn't ridden an SL4. When I first got the frame (under warranty) I tried a standard seat post for 3 weeks and the ride was too stiff. Like stiff enough that you start grimacing at every bump in the road towards the end of a long ride. I tried a 28mm rear tire and a more padded seat to no avail. Only the CG-R (suspension) seat post made the ride acceptable to me. Ive swapped it out and few times since then (playing with fit) and always come to the same conclusion - a bikes ride quality can definitely be too stiff IMO.

I do realize it comes down to personal preference and also the condition of roads you ride on. The roads around here alternate between good and bad.

I will also throw out another reason pros may not like aero road bikes (besides the ride.) The S2 definitely didn't feel as light/responsive as a bike like the Tarmac or even my Roubaix. Think of a drag racer vs. a sports car. For going fast in a straight line I think the aero road bike obviously the better choice.
Last edited by dunbar42 on Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hornedfrog
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:13 pm

by hornedfrog

What pressure were you running?

dunbar42
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:20 am

by dunbar42

hornedfrog wrote:What pressure were you running?


80-85psi on GP400S tires 23 front, 25 rear. I weigh 155lbs.

Post Reply