Aero Road Bikes are BS

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

Moderator: robbosmans

Lieblingsleguan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:47 pm

by Lieblingsleguan

kgt wrote:winguy is right.
It is impressive how much speculation there is on the benefits of an aero frame while at the same time pro riders are crystal clear: "I am faster on the frame I am feeling better riding". Why is it that hard to accept this simple fact?

That's not what he said.
Also, I tried to point out what the pros and cons of aero frames are and why you see different types of riders on different kind of frames, when their sponsor offers an aero and a non-aero option. I don't know anyone that is on the "wrong" frame because of feel.

Nicos
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:49 am

by Nicos

If you guys are so interested in bike aerodynamics, have a look at this full thesis done the subject:
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10 ... lltext.pdf

It is really in depth and super interesting, precious informations!

This chapter is on topic for this thread:
3.2.2.6 Bike Frame

The rest on clothing roughness tripwires etc. is worth a read too.

One of the things that stands out as I'm reading it is that aero is highly individual.
You can see this one page 151 for example. Every rider was affected very differently by changing helmets. (same goes for clothing etc. depends on speed, shape of body, type of air flow etc.)
I still maintain that aero (bikes) will make you faster (or spend less energy), BUT there is not point trying predict exactly how much gain you will have by buying this or that, it depends.

Page 185 is for Wiggins, can't wait to see his clothing!

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



MarkTwain
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:51 pm

by MarkTwain

Nicos wrote:If you guys are so interested in bike aerodynamics, have a look at this full thesis done the subject:
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10 ... lltext.pdf

It is really in depth and super interesting, precious informations!

This chapter is on topic for this thread:
3.2.2.6 Bike Frame

Using references over a decade old...

Well, I'm sold :|

Nicos
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:49 am

by Nicos

Are you serious? Lol
Do you think the physics change every decade?
Nothing has changed, every conclusion is still valid.

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

We went hypersonic with the X-15 in 1959, and went to the moon on a computer with less computing power than a calculator made in China for 5 cents.

Given some of the responses in this thread, you'd think we'd never have made cars that could go over 200 mph, cuz you can never take into account all the real world parameters, right? Or planes that could fly. Guess what, the Wright brothers made a windtunnel and tested over 200 airfoil designs.

Numerous people have datalogged rides in the "real world" using Chung method and it has matched quite decently with expected rankings of bikes from tunnel testing.

The noise might be high enough to not be able to accurately distinguish between two similarly performing bikes (as far as tunnel results show), but between a huge fat round downtube and an airfoil, yes, you can see that in data.

SuperDave
in the industry
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:57 am
Location: San Juan Bautista, CA
Contact:

by SuperDave

MoPho wrote:
WMW wrote:[/b]

If that's the case why aren't all the pro riders on aero bikes? And why aren't those that are on aero bikes just running away from the "screwed" non-aero bike riders every time?
.


I think the pros are on aero bikes, certainly in time trials.
The guys who are forced to ride road bikes and positions lose huge chunks of time in the TT vs. the guys on aero bikes.
The "benefit" of just an aero road frame does not overcome the benefit of a team for example, or the draft of 100+ other riders.

-SD

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

It comes down to a simple fact. Most of us go on rides where we average well under 17 miles per hour, probably close to 15 mph on longer rides. At speeds that are on average way below the 20 or more where the claimed aero benefits seem to matter. And if we are riding above 20 or 30 it's probably on a descent where getting into a good aero position will get the biggest bang for the buck.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

MRM
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:15 pm

by MRM

Guess you didn't read the Venge 2016 thread... :roll: :wink:

SuperDave
in the industry
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:57 am
Location: San Juan Bautista, CA
Contact:

by SuperDave

fromtrektocolnago wrote:It comes down to a simple fact. Most of us go on rides where we average well under 17 miles per hour, probably close to 15 mph on longer rides. At speeds that are on average way below the 20 or more where the claimed aero benefits seem to matter. And if we are riding above 20 or 30 it's probably on a descent where getting into a good aero position will get the biggest bang for the buck.


Are you confusing kph with mph?
20kph is the tipping point, not 20mph.

Once your speed reaches 17mph, what do you think is the biggest contributing factor to the additional watts needed to go from 17mph to 20mph? Weight? Ride "quality"?
Even if you are riding at 17mph the relative airspeed is 34mph in some areas.

Sailboats, even small ones can still move with wind speeds under 15mph, no? What moves them?

-Dave

MiddMan
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:54 pm

by MiddMan

It's better that this is being hashed out here instead of the Venge thread, although there's good discussion there too.

Let's take some examples from the pros from this year's Tour: Joaquin Rodriguez is now 3rd in the KOM and I've seen him on the Canyon Aeroad every day, ergo, aero can climb. Now, on the other hand, Quintana has been riding the Ultimate CF SLX yet he holds the fastest time behind Froome, ergo, the Ultimate has not slowed him down.

Of course, there are a thousand other details that determine this so my example is only half in jest. I think we can agree that the laws of physics are pretty stable and that therefore an aerodynamic bike will--all things equal--be slightly faster than a non/less-aerodynamic bike. I think we can also agree that re-producing all factors equally is quite difficult. Some people race and are counting seconds, others are enthusiasts chasing their own KOMs or personal bests, and still others just enjoy riding and not looking at numbers.

As for me, I ride alone a lot, so wind is a real issue and I'm thinking of trying a 2015 Venge or Aeroad. That said, I also love horizontal top tubes and lugged frames a la Colnago. All beautiful bikes. No foul no harm.

wingguy
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

fromtrektocolnago wrote:It comes down to a simple fact. Most of us go on rides where we average well under 17 miles per hour, probably close to 15 mph on longer rides. At speeds that are on average way below the 20 or more where the claimed aero benefits seem to matter. And if we are riding above 20 or 30 it's probably on a descent where getting into a good aero position will get the biggest bang for the buck.


Speak for yourself mate. You might be too slow to feel that aero works for you (which is totally fine) but there way too many riders significantly faster than your 'us' to make sweeping generalisations about the commercial value of aero.

User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

This thread is hilarious. Facts and figures vs speculation and "appeal to authority".

For those that "doubt" the efficacy of field testing - have a look at the latest Trek white paper. The AlphaMantis tech is awesome for "real world" aero testing. And having used the system myself it is amazing how even small things matter for aero benefit. The data is clear, belief is not required.
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

kulivontot
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm

by kulivontot

Such a troll thread

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

by 53x12

The thing is, many of those who scoff at aero benefits are also riders who don't own nor trading/race with a power meter. As a result, they haven't done their own field tests. They are stubborn and rather hold to their faulty preconceived notions. That is fine, they are free to do so. Yet they are still incorrect and wrong at the end of the day.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8749
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

True... Quintana, Nibali, Aru, Contador... many stubborn guys who ignore the benefits of an aero frame. Some of them even ride on low profile wheels!

Post Reply