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