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