Aero Road Bikes are BS

[TheKaiser]

I have been riding a 2015 S5 for much of the spring- it has proven faster on climbs and flats but until yesterday I would say the differences were seconds because I was comparing shorter blocks.
Yesterday I rode an 80 mile loop. Wind is usually similar as you get it on the way out and only a small stretch on way back- since it is a loop you cannot avoid the wind.
I rode the loop at a similar power to the exact ride 13 months ago.
On the ride 13 months ago I had a titanium frame with exact same wheels.
I was 5 minutes faster over the 18 miles.
Significant speed difference? Or pure noise and maybe conditions were different?

Wait...so was this loop 18mi or 80mi?

[sawyer]

Pls keep your friend in the dark slow lane

The new Canyon aero bike is hands down the best bike I've ridden. It feels faster at high speed - unscientifically of course.

All the guff about "optimise rider position" rather than buy aero frame / wheels etc is a false choice. Obviously that is an objective. The real choice these days is between a <800g WW frame for a pure WW build and an aero frameset at maybe 300g total system weight heavier.

It is surprising in particular how much comfort has now been tuned into the best aero bikes

[kgt]

It is somehow 'strange' that we have many new threads on much discussed, neverending topics by new members lately.

[Jmdesignz2]

It is somehow 'strange' that we have many new threads on much discussed, neverending topics by new members lately.

You've got some nice vintage bikes too - what do you think about the comfort of steel vs carbon frames?

I'll have to post some pics of my Merckx Corsa Extra. I built it up with mostly vintage Campy parts to around 7700g. It's done well at 6Gap and several back to back century rides.

[kgt]

... get a life.

[Svetty]

Seriously people DFTT!

[Jmdesignz2]

KGT - if that is aimed towards me I am shocked at your rudeness.

Thanks to those that contributed to this discussion and posted that link to the video. I was not obviously aware of that.
But that video brings another factor into question - what about yaw angles. They conspicuously did not test any angles so I am going to guess that the differences were not as "dramatic" as 50 seconds over 40KM.

[MoPho]

It always amuses me when people try to argue against the math... as though their logic is somehow more indicative of reality than proven physics.

Except that math is calculated in controlled conditions and with the assumption that the "engine" is the same, the real world doesn't quite work that way.



.

[djconnel]

Yeah...for example if a bike doesn't fit you'll supply less power. But there's no reason to expect that applied power is much different between steel, carbon, or aero carbon. At least I can't measure it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fromtrektocolnago]

I'm able to put out more power on my Colnago than on my Trek. I attribute it mostly to better geometry, at least for me, since the weight difference is not that significant. So i'll agree with the previous post who argued similarly.

[Ebruner]

I'm not saying this applies to anyone in this particular thread, but most cyclist I know who go on and on about areo this and that, spend much more time talking than out crushing it on the bike. Ride hard, and the rest will sort itself out.

[dunbar42]

But that video brings another factor into question - what about yaw angles. They conspicuously did not test any angles so I am going to guess that the differences were not as "dramatic" as 50 seconds over 40KM.

Most aero road bikes, including the Venge, do better with some yaw so, if anything, it would increase the the time saved over 40k. See this graph for wind tunnel sweeps. And 50 seconds equates to 12.5 watts which is not a huge savings when you factor in the cost of aero bikes/frames.

[53x12]

But that video brings another factor into question - what about yaw angles. They conspicuously did not test any angles so I am going to guess that the differences were not as "dramatic" as 50 seconds over 40KM.

Most aero road bikes, including the Venge, do better with some yaw so, if anything, it would increase the the time saved over 40k. See this graph for wind tunnel sweeps. And 50 seconds equates to 12.5 watts which is not a huge savings when you factor in the cost of aero bikes/frames.

Not any more expensive than a traditional round tube frame. If you are in the market for a new frame, the price difference isn't a deciding factor as there really isn't a difference.

[spud]

It always amuses me when people try to argue against the math... as though their logic is somehow more indicative of reality than proven physics.

Except that math is calculated in controlled conditions and with the assumption that the "engine" is the same, the real world doesn't quite work that way.



.

So basically, you prefer mysticism to analysis.

[Stueys]

When I first got my R5 it was a faster bike than my Canyon. Empirically faster as demonstrated on Strava on segments across multiple weather conditions. Same wheels, same gearing, same bike fit settings, only real difference was the frame which is designed to be semi aero.

Is the difference massive, probably not. But its tangible.