Tarmac or Venge

[kenmical]

On the aero vs traditional comparison. I was in this dilemma 2 months ago when looking for a replacement for my De Rosa R838 (first roadie). I rode the DR for 5000km and analyse what sort of rider I am since I am relatively a newbie. I started off with (non aero) Tarmac S-works, De Rosa Superking, Cervelo R3/ (Aero) Venge S-works, Giant Propel Advance, Cervelo S3.

Thinking through that and also understanding the terrains that I most frequently take, I narrowed down to the aero bikes simply because I like to ride at the front go for breakaways. From the aero shortlisted bikes, I consider properties of how each bike feel on flat, on acceleration, in corner, speeding downhill and punching up short section climbs. Comfort is a plus for me.

After doing a few test and analysis, I went for the S3. It is may not be the fastest among the shortlist but my reason is comfortable, responsive, weight, look and sales support. I did not go into the numbers as they are too vague.

After riding it for 2 months (1,100km) without going scientific, the aero properties does work.

1) Same rider weight (+/- 1kg) on F8, Tarmac S-works, Madone 7 etc all on 50mm carbon wheels (I am on 35mm carbon). We started rolling together or they started rolling before infront of me, I will gradually overtake them freewheeling.

2) At the front: I find that I am able to pull longer and thus further vs when I am on the DR.

3) Going uphill: I won't lie that it is a performer uphill (10% - 13% gradient) but the bottom bracket and front is stiff as hell so it helps push the bike uphill with every stroke input. However the Tarmac and F8 etc will be dancing upward more happily vs S3. Talking about the behaviour of the bike rather than power output of different rider here.

4) Downhill: The aero advantage help mitigate the margin I lost on long climb. I can speed downhill much faster with the front of the bike tracking nicely at speed while the rear stay planted. I can gradually overtake peers who KOM earlier when on downhill.

The above is the initial impression I got from riding the S3. I am happy with my choice based on accessing my riding style and road condition. Will be changing to a deep section wheels soon and see how much improvement it makes on flat at 40 - 50kmh.

[Kermithimself]

Aero still matters in a sprint. What makes you think that an aero bike would somehow lose significant power compared to another modern carbon frame?

Well, I'm not actually saying that. It was just hypothectical

But if we take bike A: An aero bike, but not very stiff, and bike B: a more traditional bike, but very stiff. In a real life situation, with two equally riders, which would come first?

That's not the same as saying that aero bikes are not as stiff/have as good power transfer as a traditional bike, it was just a thought.

[kgt]

@ kenmical
it is great you like your new bike but the fact you "overtake other riders freewheeling" or "speed downhill much faster" or "overtake peers who KOM earlier when on downhill" is no due to the aero properties of your frame...

[53x12]

Actually kgt the better response would be that we don't know if it is or is not the frame in this case. We would need to do a more scientific test like the Chung Test and make sure we had the same wheels and tires so that we were only test difference between the frames. Also would need same rider on the frames we were comparing due to rider mass. Hopefully could put rider in same position as well.

But honestly can't say it isn't the frame. Also can't say it is the frame at this point.

[kgt]

It 's not the frame. You need to ride hundreds of kms in order to detect considerable gains in aero performance (if any). A few hundred meters downhill cannot prove anything...

[53x12]

"It 's not the frame. You need to ride hundreds of kms in order to detect considerable gains in aero performance (if any). A few hundred meters downhill cannot prove anything..."


Wrong again kgt. You must not use a power meter when training I assume, as this tends to be the typical response from cyclists that don't train with power and that don't understand aerodynamics.





http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage ... ct-cda.pdf

[kenmical]

@ kenmical
it is great you like your new bike but the fact you "overtake other riders freewheeling" or "speed downhill much faster" or "overtake peers who KOM earlier when on downhill" is no due to the aero properties of your frame...

Yes many factors come into play. Example Tyre pressure, hub bearings, weight, position of rider etc etc. We deliberately do stupid test like freewheeling etc to do layman gauge on aero "claims" by manufacturers.

I am just explaining experiences based on rides with peers on other makes. I am not implying that aero is best

[Dodger747]

Also need to consider the ride quality of the frame. No point having the most aero frameset ever, only for it to beat you up during the stage and then having nothing left at the end [even if it is only mental].

There will always be a tradeoff, as suggested, take both for a spin and see what feels best for you.

[wingguy]

When you make yourself angry for a moment and push the pedals harder for that moment you will benefit already more than earodynamics on that road bike can do.

Ok. So what if you make yourself angry and you have an aero road bike? Then you'll benefit from both.

[kgt]

kenmical explained his aero claims himself...
@ 53x12
your answer is irrelevant

[53x12]

@ kgt, what are you going on about. I already showed how you were wrong with your statement in which you claim that one needs to "ride hundreds of kms in order to detect considerable gains in aero performance (if any). A few hundred meters downhill cannot prove anything..." when in fact this is FALSE. Chung Method proves you are wrong. Now give up already. Unless of course you want to pick a fight with physics and math?

[kgt]

Can you explain how Chung's test is related to kenmical's "test"? Rhetorical question...

[Kermithimself]

Don't we have way too many variables IRL to draw any conclusions on aerodynamics of 3-4 different bikes going down the same hill by 3-4 different rider, event if the riders are similar? I mean, position on the bike, aerodynamics of the individual, rolling resistance of tires, wheel aerodynamics etc etc. Not to mention wind conditions, even by riding next to eachother there can be individual differences?

Which leads us to the reason why we test aerodynamics in a closed environment. No doubt that there are measurable differences in aerodynamics between an aero optimized bike, and a traditional roundtube. How these translates to real life is the big question that is quite hard to answer.

And then we should probably all remember that it's rarely the aerodynamics of the bike that wins the races. It can make a difference, but if it was the #1 reason Tylar Farrar should have a lot more victories.

[53x12]

Can you explain how Chung's test is related to kenmical's "test"? Rhetorical question...

I'll give you a legitimate reply and not a rhetorical one in return.


1. My response regarding the Chung Test was in response to your statement. Not kenmical's statement, if you follow the conversation flow in this thread. Specifically the "It 's not the frame. You need to ride hundreds of kms in order to detect considerable gains in aero performance (if any). A few hundred meters downhill cannot prove anything..." As I pointed out this is false and you don't need to ride hundreds of kms to detect considerable gains in aero performance. That is incorrect and false.


2. In relation to kenmical's "test" you will note above that I pointed out that we would need to do a more scientific test to test out the difference in kenmical's frame vs. his buddies frames as there are too many variables in that equation. Enter Chung Test.

If kenmical (or you) were seriously interested in knowing whether his frame or his buddies frames were more aero, you can easily do the Chung Test and get the data for that. Easy peasy.

[bfno]

Sure the venge isn't as stiff as the tarmac, but it is still no noodle and I find it plenty stiff for me.