Tarmac or Venge

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

Moderator: robbosmans

Butcher
Shop Owner
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:58 am

by Butcher

Yes, I agree with aero, but this is a thread about the Venge and Tarmac. There are plenty of those aero threads they can rehash their strong beliefs [which ever camp they are on].

User avatar
BRM
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:43 pm

by BRM

Its about an Aero roadbike. so . . .
I never will understand that genre, its just manufacturers that comes with something new to get a piece of the market extra.

You really need to be vulnerable for marketing chit chat to believe in it. Most people have no clue how to interpretate the Aero figures and are not able to translate to the real world situations. They only repeat the Cervelo bull. Cervelo for years has tons of other marketing lies and people dont see it. How come? whats wrong?

People fall for the designof the Venge, and then those people buy it and set the bike up with tons of spacers under the stem. How nice. After it they complain that the rides are harsh.
Look to a Tarmac and maybe some other bikes that suits you to have comparison material.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Willem81
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:44 pm

by Willem81

I chose a Tarmac Pro (no S-Works) but not for racing purposes. I don't like the big aero shaped tubes of the venge. I prefer the finer tubes of the Tarmac. It is not only the performance but also the looks that are important to me.

Valbrona
Posts: 1629
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:25 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

by Valbrona

If you are a bit guy that only ever bangs over flat roads - Venge. If your rides are hilly/mountainous - Tarmac.

1415chris
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:59 am
Location: Surrey UK

by 1415chris

Both are ugly from ugly company.
But Tarmac is a bit less ugly then Venge, so the choice should be a bit easier :)

kenmical
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:25 am

by kenmical

Don't want to go into the aero debate. If the road is rough and with climbs then Tarmac. It is a great all purpose bike. However I won't choose a Specialized to begin with. Heh...just me.

User avatar
Kermithimself
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Denmark

by Kermithimself

Thanks for all the input. Not that it made me any wiser on which to choose, but it definately got me thinking about the aero vs. weight. No doubt that an aero bike will save watts if I go at it alone, but since most of my races I will be riding in a pack that won't make the big difference. There will definately be a difference no matter what, but whether it outweighs factors like comfort or responsiveness I don't know. From what I've read the Venge is a harsher ride due to the aero seatpost, but actually not stiffer. Question is if a 300 meter sprint will be won by the aero bike or the bike that gets power from the legs to the wheels most effectively.

Will try to get a side by side comparison of the two bikes.
------------
If you dream of being famous - think of what birds do to statues.
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kermithimself/
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdCPaXwpeXT_LpuEF0REjqw
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gotlegscycling/

sawyer
Posts: 4485
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

BRM wrote:Its about an Aero roadbike. so . . .
I never will understand that genre, its just manufacturers that comes with something new to get a piece of the market extra.

You really need to be vulnerable for marketing chit chat to believe in it. Most people have no clue how to interpretate the Aero figures and are not able to translate to the real world situations. They only repeat the Cervelo bull. Cervelo for years has tons of other marketing lies and people dont see it. How come? whats wrong?

People fall for the designof the Venge, and then those people buy it and set the bike up with tons of spacers under the stem. How nice. After it they complain that the rides are harsh.
Look to a Tarmac and maybe some other bikes that suits you to have comparison material.


Hard to deny that some aero frames are, well, more aero and that it's useful to save a few watts here and there

Ride quality / liveliness wld be my main concern ... in particular avoiding the dreaded wooden feeling that some aero frames are reported to have ... I'd get a bigger performance boost from a bike that feels like it wants to shift
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Kermithimself wrote:Thanks for all the input. Not that it made me any wiser on which to choose, but it definately got me thinking about the aero vs. weight. No doubt that an aero bike will save watts if I go at it alone, but since most of my races I will be riding in a pack that won't make the big difference. There will definately be a difference no matter what, but whether it outweighs factors like comfort or responsiveness I don't know. From what I've read the Venge is a harsher ride due to the aero seatpost, but actually not stiffer. Question is if a 300 meter sprint will be won by the aero bike or the bike that gets power from the legs to the wheels most effectively.

Will try to get a side by side comparison of the two bikes.



If you are stuck with Specialized for some reason, because of team or work discount, I can understand that. But if you are really considering a aero road bike I would probably look elsewhere as the Venge isn't all that good. Felt, Cervelo and Giant would be much better options. Venge is getting a little old.

Even in the pack, it will make a big difference having an aero bike over a non-aero bike. Don't just go over hearsay and personal preference. Here is some data:

Image


What about drafting?

Even though drafting reduces aerodynamic drag, the benefits of an aero design still help the rider. Riding in a pack generally means you can draft much of the time, which reduces aerodynamic drag and saves you energy. However, when you’re drafting, a more aerodynamic bike still gives you an advantage. Although an aero bike’s advantage is reduced in a group, it doesn’t vanish. Even in a group, aerodynamic drag is still the biggest source of resistance a cyclist has to overcome.

The power required while drafting is about 25-30% less than that what is needed to ride solo, but aerodynamic drag is still the dominant source of resistance. 4 This means that even when drafting, a rider on the S5 keeps 70-75% of the aero benefit, still saving between 6 and 22 Watts, compared to the S3 or typical road bikes, respectively.

Obviously, saving power continuously like this gives the Cervélo S5 rider an energetic advantage over riders of other road bikes that can be spent tactically any way the rider chooses: arrive sooner, arrive fresher, attack, or maintain contact during critical moments, climb stronger, sprint stronger, etc.

http://www.cervelo.com/media/docs/Cervl ... d4f6-0.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now regarding the 300m sprint on an aero vs. non-aero frame, not sure one can do an analysis or model on which one gets the power from the legs to the wheels more efficiently. But you can do a mathematical model looking at an aero frame vs. non-aero frame and which one would win in a sprint. In this example, 200m in length.

Just One Metre

In a 200 metre sprint finish, is it better to be on a Cervélo R5 or S5?

http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/a ... metre.html




You seem to be very concerned about the comfort of the frame. I would argue you need to consider the wheels, tires and tire pressure as being where you will get the vast majority of your comfort from. Also don't neglect a good saddle, bib shorts and proper fit on the bike. If you are still concerned about the Venge, you really should check out the new Cervelo S3 or the new Felt AR. Both are very comfortable and if blinded I wouldn't be able to tell they weren't traditional tube frames in terms of their comfort. Very comfy.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
Pokerface07
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:43 pm

by Pokerface07

I have both and far prefer the Tarmac. It's just a better, more comfortable ride. They are both fast bikes.
Twitter: @FormerTTchamp https://twitter.com/FormerTTchamp

aaric
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:10 pm

by aaric

I had a Tarmac SL3 S-Works, and a Tarmac SL3 Pro, as well as a venge Pro. They were setup with the same position, and the same cockpits. I swapped aero and non-aero wheels around on them. I picked up the SL3 Pro cheap as a race bike, and then went to the Venge.

First things first, I couldn't tell a difference between the Tarmac Pro and S-works framesets. They even weighed the same (within 20-50 grams) (S-Works had thick yellow paint, and raw carbon on the Pro) I'll assume that the Pro/S-works level doesn't make a difference on the Venge as a result.

The Venge was about 200g heavier (White paint though). Real world riding, the weight was not really noticeable. The Venge definitely felt more jumpy, and more harsh. This is probably due to the stiffer seatpost, and the thicker bottom bracket area. The current tarmac probably has better stiffness in the bottom bracket than the SL3 did.

There's a Tuesday hammer ride that I do pretty regularly that's pretty aggressive. Its mostly flat, usually has a significant crosswind. Its not a scientific study, by any means, but I could regularly hang in better on the Venge than the tarmac. Aero wheels made a bigger difference, but the Venge definitely was a bit easier to play with the front group than the Tarmac. The Venge felt a bit skittish with cross wind gusts though.

I also found I prefered the Venge climbing on most climbs less than 20-30 minutes, as it was more responsive.

This all being said, I wouldn't put my money into a Venge at this point. Its a first gen aero bike with comfort issues. The latest gen aero bikes are much faster, comfortable, and lighter. I've replaced both my Tarmac and Venge with a Felt AR. Supposedly the Cervelo S series is comparable. I didn't look at them because the new S5 wasn't out when I bought the AR. I considered keeping the Tarmac thinking that I'd miss the comfort, but found I never rode it. It also ended up weighing within 200grams of my AR (which comes down to the difference between Red and Ultegra Di2)

User avatar
Kermithimself
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Denmark

by Kermithimself

Working in marketing myself, I don't give that much for aerodynamics when it comes from a company that have interest in making their products superior. If the testing is done independently, I'd probably believe them more. But I still think the difference in watts between an aero bike and a not so aero bike IRL is small. Maybe 5 watts. It sounds like a lot, but get yourself on a trainer and ride 5 minutes with 290 watts and then 5 minutes with 295 watts and tell me if you can feel the difference.

I'm not very concerned about comfort. If I was, I would probably look at the Roubaix bike. But that being said, I wouldn't choose a frame that was uncomfortable.

About the S5 vs R5 it still only looks at weight and aerodynamics, and the bike with the best aerodynamics would probably win - it should at least. But it doesn't account for hopefully better stiffness and power transfer. As you mentioned it would be hard to test for it, which is probably why Cervelo just sticks to aero is better.

Look at it another way. Just because a car has a lower drag coeffiency than another, doesn't make it a better race car. If you just look at numbers, you're not getting the full picture. A bike may have better aerodynamics, but if it lacks in stiffness, I have to push harder in the pedals to get it up to speed anyway. If it doesn't corner very well, that means I'd have to push harder after the corner etc.

And why I'm not into Cervelo, Felt, Giant? Probably the same reason why others are not into Treks or Specialized - they don't appeal to me. I need a bike that appeals to me, so that I get on it even on days when I'm not motivated.

Also, my bike purchase is probably atleast 6 months away, so maybe there'll be a new Venge at that time, or even a completely different bike. Then I won't have a problem waiting 3-4 months for it to be in the stores.
------------
If you dream of being famous - think of what birds do to statues.
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kermithimself/
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdCPaXwpeXT_LpuEF0REjqw
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gotlegscycling/

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

"Working in marketing myself, I don't give that much for aerodynamics when it comes from a company that have interest in making their products superior. If the testing is done independently, I'd probably believe them more. But I still think the difference in watts between an aero bike and a not so aero bike IRL is small. Maybe 5 watts. It sounds like a lot, but get yourself on a trainer and ride 5 minutes with 290 watts and then 5 minutes with 295 watts and tell me if you can feel the difference."

I understand you are new to aero, but go and read some threads on here or go over to ST and read some of them there if you don't believe the claims. These aren't just manufacturer claims. They have been verified by 3rd party testers as well. Not to mention, go buy yourself a power meter and do a Chung Test. The difference between a top aero frame and a traditional round tube frame is more than 5 watts. If you don't want to accept the truth, that is ok. Carry on. But please don't bring in personal opinion when there is data out there supporting the opposite.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

eric
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
Contact:

by eric

Kermithimself wrote:most of my races I will be riding in a pack that won't make the big difference.


It must be nice to always be your teams protected sprinter.

Question is if a 300 meter sprint will be won by the aero bike or the bike that gets power from the legs to the wheels most effectively.

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?

Will try to get a side by side comparison of the two bikes.


An excellent idea. Though while riding feel is important, the butt dyno is not very accurate.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8615
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

Kermithimself wrote:Maybe 5 watts. It sounds like a lot, but get yourself on a trainer and ride 5 minutes with 290 watts and then 5 minutes with 295 watts and tell me if you can feel the difference.

I'm rather keen on the odd ergo session and I can tell the difference between one interval 5 watts lower than another.

I'd take 5 free watts. But that's just me.

Post Reply