Aero
Moderator: robbosmans
Some of my friends have gone with aero frames recently. They say they make a difference, particularly when bridging or sprinting. Talking to yet another very strong rider yesterday and he said the same thing. No love for these giant tube frames, unless you're going to be going up hill.
I've also noticed the average speeds are up a bit this year. At times we are absolutely flying. I know I'm up a gear or two in certain familiar sections over previous years. At times it's almost surreal how fast we are going, and I'm not the only one bring this up.
I'm back revisiting aero frames again. The Venge is popular here, and the Felt AR1 as well. The Canyon has really caught my interest, but so sad they are not available in the US.
Anyone else reconsidering this topic?
I've also noticed the average speeds are up a bit this year. At times we are absolutely flying. I know I'm up a gear or two in certain familiar sections over previous years. At times it's almost surreal how fast we are going, and I'm not the only one bring this up.
I'm back revisiting aero frames again. The Venge is popular here, and the Felt AR1 as well. The Canyon has really caught my interest, but so sad they are not available in the US.
Anyone else reconsidering this topic?
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
There are several tests by objective sources showing aero frames are faster by as much as 20 watts. But to take advantage of that, you have to be solo. Most people, even in non race situations, ride in groups. There's also hills and aero frames weigh more - 250 grams or so. That's a lot of extra weight to deal sigh on climbs
Bridgeman wrote:Some of my friends have gone with aero frames recently. They say they make a difference, particularly when bridging or sprinting. Talking to yet another very strong rider yesterday and he said the same thing. No love for these giant tube frames, unless you're going to be going up hill.
I've also noticed the average speeds are up a bit this year. At times we are absolutely flying. I know I'm up a gear or two in certain familiar sections over previous years. At times it's almost surreal how fast we are going, and I'm not the only one bring this up.
I'm back revisiting aero frames again. The Venge is popular here, and the Felt AR1 as well. The Canyon has really caught my interest, but so sad they are not available in the US.
Anyone else reconsidering this topic?
I have been into aero for some time. The data is there to support it. If you don't trust manufacturers, there is the ability to get your own data and see it for yourself. Assuming of course you train and race with a power meter.
At this point in time, I won't race on a non-aero road bike. Doesn't make sense to race on a traditional frame (unless doing a climbing time trial). Really, over the years my weightweenism has even going away as I realize being as aero as possible (fit and equipment) makes a much bigger difference than blowing my wad on boutique parts to save a few grams. Been there, done that.
Valbrona wrote:Well, if you're a fat lad that rides over flat roads, yes. But if you ride hills (>500m) and mountains (>1000m) and where average speeds are typically slower, then no.
Maybe, but why can't you have both? The Felt AR FRD is decently light. Same with the Cervelo S3 (lighter than many standard frames). Why not light and aero?
Also, unless you are doing a climbing time trial, many have to bike in the flats to get to climbs and also have to descend back down.
"Col de la Tipping Point"
How steep does a climb have to be before the weight savings trump the aero gains? As we saw before, the answer depends on the rider weight and speed, as a faster rider would encounter higher aerodynamic forces while the gravitational forces stay the same. For an average, 250 Watt rider, the tipping point is around a 5% slope, for a good pro who puts out 400 Watt, it’s at 8%.
http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/t ... -aero.html
stanseven wrote:There are several tests by objective sources showing aero frames are faster by as much as 20 watts. But to take advantage of that, you have to be solo. Most people, even in non race situations, ride in groups. There's also hills and aero frames weigh more - 250 grams or so. That's a lot of extra weight to deal sigh on climbs
20-30w going from an un-aero to an aero frame seems about right. Still watts to save even when drafting in a pack.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:07 am
20-30w from using an aero frameset over a traditional frameset is way too much. Dont forget the frameset is just part of the system, you still have to take into account your position, gear, wheels and other components. If you like an aero frameset and you think it will make you faster then buy it, I really think the placebo effect is way more effective than the real effect that jst switching framesets will have.
The 20-30w thing depends on speed and yaw angle. I figure it's more like 15-20w at 25mph which is faster than most of us are riding. That said, I've been riding my 2015 Cervelo S2 with for the past 5 months (I recently added Zipp 404's.) I got on my Specialized Roubaix with alloy wheels this past week for the first time in months and I could feel the extra drag. My position on both bikes is very close. I like to ride fast so the aero bike is just more enjoyable for me to ride most of the time.
-
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:27 pm
The data is there. aero works. but 20-30 watts is an exaggeration. from the absolute best to the absolute worst in CERTAIN speed and yaw scenarios, probably. a more realistic difference is about 5-10 watts.
However, a frame is on the more expensive scale of getting race performance. there are much more low hanging fruit worth getting before considering an aero frame. fit and position are major components of aero- if you can get low and narrow, with a properly fitted bike and minimal spacers you get a free aero advantage. often way more than what an aero frame will give you. helmets, tight fitting clothes, tidy cabling, and wheels are also relatively cheaper than a new aero frame
IF you have all the above dialed, and IF you race, then it may be worth it to spend the extra money on an aero frame. My next bike will be an aero frame, but I'm not purposely going out and buying one just because. but an aero frame is not magic. if you're a racer, it won't take you from the mid of the pack to the front. if you're consistently front of pack, it may just be that difference you need to get on the podium.
However, a frame is on the more expensive scale of getting race performance. there are much more low hanging fruit worth getting before considering an aero frame. fit and position are major components of aero- if you can get low and narrow, with a properly fitted bike and minimal spacers you get a free aero advantage. often way more than what an aero frame will give you. helmets, tight fitting clothes, tidy cabling, and wheels are also relatively cheaper than a new aero frame
IF you have all the above dialed, and IF you race, then it may be worth it to spend the extra money on an aero frame. My next bike will be an aero frame, but I'm not purposely going out and buying one just because. but an aero frame is not magic. if you're a racer, it won't take you from the mid of the pack to the front. if you're consistently front of pack, it may just be that difference you need to get on the podium.
Nothing like a good dose of "Cervelo KoolAid" to get people on the bang wagon and looking for easy, although not cheap speed. For most of us, the difference sustained in watts and average speed over given time is negligable when there are so many other variables in play. 5 - 10 watts, perhaps but sometimes a placeabo or a very small gain persive is enough to get you that moral boost you need to win that sprint in the Sunday group ride or local race.
I know it's been said before but I know know anyone who will say the 5000+ bike they bought is pretty lame....
I know it's been said before but I know know anyone who will say the 5000+ bike they bought is pretty lame....
I see this in two ways. It is DEFINITELY blown out of proportion so manufacturers can sell more frames. BUT at the same time, you do get gains from an Aero frame. Same as high profile wheels, they will not make you a good rider, but they will make you faster at the same wattages. I don't see why not to get an aero frame if it will weigh close to the same as non-aero. Aero frames also tend to be super stiff which is better for a power delivery and another advantage in the aero frame category. I do not ride an aero frame, but I will probably get one next time I am in the frame market.
BMC SLR01 2015
Redline Conquest Team
Redline Conquest Team
Aero frames make a difference. But you'll get similar gains from position, wheels, a skinsuit, and an aero helment. And they are additive. You should try the aero game with those items before shelling out for a new frame.
That being said, if you are buying a new frame anyways, it would seem shortsided to not weigh the advantages heavily versus your other priorities. Adding a couple hundred grams of weight for more aero slipperiness is going to be a good compromise, unless you are doing a pretty severe hill climb up a steeper gradient.
That being said, if you are buying a new frame anyways, it would seem shortsided to not weigh the advantages heavily versus your other priorities. Adding a couple hundred grams of weight for more aero slipperiness is going to be a good compromise, unless you are doing a pretty severe hill climb up a steeper gradient.
^probably none, or absolutely paltry compared to the savings you gain from aerodynamics.
I like that we're now taking a great body of quantifiable data and dismissing it as placebo, "between the ears," or purely because of xyz reason. But WOAH, something like frame comfort, power loss from ride harshness, or anything that I have yet to see an ounce of data about is treated as obviously true, because you know, they just know.
53x12 basically summed up why I went all out aero. You still have to get to the hills, and saving myself a decent chunk of work to arrive fresher at the base of them is a much better argument than having a frame that saves 1-2W up the hill of effort by being lighter.
I like that we're now taking a great body of quantifiable data and dismissing it as placebo, "between the ears," or purely because of xyz reason. But WOAH, something like frame comfort, power loss from ride harshness, or anything that I have yet to see an ounce of data about is treated as obviously true, because you know, they just know.
53x12 basically summed up why I went all out aero. You still have to get to the hills, and saving myself a decent chunk of work to arrive fresher at the base of them is a much better argument than having a frame that saves 1-2W up the hill of effort by being lighter.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
asv wrote:Since there seems to be consistent complaints about comfort with aero frames have aero frame manufacturers calculated the amount of lost wattage due to increased fatigue?
Not only that but you are going to gain more time and save more power by being able to sit in an efficient position for hours on end. IME you can't do that on most roads on most aero framesets.