Aero Road Bikes are BS

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

Moderator: robbosmans

eric01
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:06 am

by eric01

I remember a magazine some years back that took a bunch of tape and cardboard to a number of frames to disguise them. Then asked riders to do a blind test. Wish I could remember what it was... I vaguely recall the conclusion was the people could tell a difference between a modern high end bike vs an older one. But I believe it was generational differences, not top end to top end of current model year. I will try to dig out...

And btw, I do own a Scott Foil and a Vial Evo. They are definitely different. Both were Dura Ace 9000 and I switched Zipp 303's between both.
Specialized Tarmac Sworks SL6, Moots Compact, Carl Strong Titanium

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



jano
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:15 pm

by jano

MarkTwain wrote:I think we all stopped paying attention to you quite a while ago. But don't let that stop you posting.


I guess I hit a nerve there, LOL.
If insults are what makes you feel better it's all fine with me.

User avatar
wheelsONfire
Posts: 6280
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Location: NorthEU

by wheelsONfire

MarkTwain wrote:
Tapeworm wrote: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.

And the ignorance keeps rolling...

wheelsONfire wrote:Ride a Vial EVO and compare it to Scott Foil and say you don't feel any difference!

Then come back to me :wink:

Worst appeal to authority ever? With added smiley to really drive that point home.

jano wrote:Anyway, don't let my comments derail the daydreaming.

I think we all stopped paying attention to you quite a while ago. But don't let that stop you posting.


Mr. Twain, i think you missed what i ment? Or maybe it was me coming out in a bad manner?
I can sure agree that some or many frames are alike and maybe hard to tell apart.
But to lump them into a general mass is not fair. If it would be, we certainly would not chase our appeal.
I guess same could be said about wheels, bars etc etc.
Are all same same really!?
Am i missing something or do you mean it is vanity and nothing more driving this quest?
I don't think so even if i guess that is also a part of the equation for some people.

I understood the costly way that i was not ment to ride a Foil even though it was a nice bike in some ways.
I changed many things around Foil frame to make it more nice to ride. Finally bought one ti frame and then another.
Went further and bought Vial EVO. This was not to change frames or build a bike for the fun of it.

Neither when i bought different sets of wheels or changing tires, bars aso.
This was to find what i feel is a nicer riding bike.

The smiley was merely to cool things down is i see no point in arguing.

I have friends who are very different in what they use.
One of my buddies have two bikes which are all composed with knock off parts and i am happy for him.
Others use all from cheaper to medium level bikes.
I does not matter. Over here the crazy guy is the one who buys the most expensive.
It surves no purpose in bragging terms, rather contrary i would say.

Hope that sort some things out?

One of my buddies, riding an S5 asked me a few weeks ago when he was reading about the later aero stuff and bikes, reading this data seems to suggest i
would never need to exhaust myself. It seems the bike will propel itself forward without much effort.
He went a bit further in this, but i think you get what he ment.

But sure, i would personally like to test ride Madone 9 due to it's comfort concept.
I also would like to test ride the new Foil just to feel and learn what they've achieved.
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)


Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.

Ahillock
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:30 am

by Ahillock

jano wrote:It's not that simple.
Not all carbon is equal, and even if you use the very same carbon fiber sheet, ultimately the layup configuration will have the biggest influence on the final characteristics.
CF has the huge advantage that you can use it to produce parts with an-isotropic mechanical properties. You can have the same ride characteristics for different geometries. However without the proper knowledge some will create CF frames parts which are basically just a blob of CF and resin. Meanwhile, those with the knowledge will create impressively light yet stiff and comfortable frames and forks. It's all about details that the end customer can not see, but they are there.



You fail to see and understand the point 53 was making. If you are going to compare an aero road bike vs. a traditional road bike in terms of comfort and handling, you can't compare an aero road bike made of one material and a traditional road bike made of another material. Different bike makers use different carbon fiber and resin types as well as layup patterns. But if you compare a bike makers own aero vs. traditional (say a Cervelo R3 vs. S3 or a Felt F1 vs. AR1) then you would see there really isn't a different in comfort when you control for the other variables. From my test rides, I doubt I would be able to tell the difference if blinded. Tube shapes, carbon use and layup have definitely changed for the better since aero frames first came out. The 'rides like a plank' really isn't true any more.

jano
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:15 pm

by jano

My bad if I misunderstood his point.

Franklin
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:09 am

by Franklin

On the anecdotical side:

I have a reasonably "soft" steel bike (late 80ies frame) and an oversized cheapo alu ultrastiff competition animal. The steel bike has Veloce, the comp racer has Chorus. The steel frame is 1 cm longer, stem 1 cm shorter. Seat heigth is same, drop is about the same. Seat setback? Not a clue if they are the same, but it feels okay. When I ride the bikes I sure feel a difference... for about 100 metres after which I'm completey oblivuous to it all. I regularly ride both bikes for four hours and I sure can't say with a straight face one is more comfortable as the other.

So I'll add my voice to the chorus of posters who say frame materiel hardly matter for comfort. Considering time and time again this is confirmed by tests It's a pretty solid position.

So no, I very much doubt an "aero" frame beats you up. The wrong position, saddle ,tire pressure, form of the day and mood are much more important in that area.

User avatar
luckypuncheur
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:26 pm
Location: Germany

by luckypuncheur

Ahillock wrote:
jano wrote:It's not that simple.
Not all carbon is equal, and even if you use the very same carbon fiber sheet, ultimately the layup configuration will have the biggest influence on the final characteristics.
CF has the huge advantage that you can use it to produce parts with an-isotropic mechanical properties. You can have the same ride characteristics for different geometries. However without the proper knowledge some will create CF frames parts which are basically just a blob of CF and resin. Meanwhile, those with the knowledge will create impressively light yet stiff and comfortable frames and forks. It's all about details that the end customer can not see, but they are there.



You fail to see and understand the point 53 was making. If you are going to compare an aero road bike vs. a traditional road bike in terms of comfort and handling, you can't compare an aero road bike made of one material and a traditional road bike made of another material. Different bike makers use different carbon fiber and resin types as well as layup patterns. But if you compare a bike makers own aero vs. traditional (say a Cervelo R3 vs. S3 or a Felt F1 vs. AR1) then you would see there really isn't a different in comfort when you control for the other variables. From my test rides, I doubt I would be able to tell the difference if blinded. Tube shapes, carbon use and layup have definitely changed for the better since aero frames first came out. The 'rides like a plank' really isn't true any more.


True. I ride an S3 and had an R3 as a rental bike for one week this spring. They're practically indistinguishable in terms of comfort and ride feel.

That said, other (carbon) frames I spend time on feel quite different from another (e.g. S-Works Tarmac, Look 695, Cannondale CAAD10, Storck Fenomalist).
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.

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

by MRM

From Velonews

Dear Lennard,
With all the hoopla about aero bikes, do they provide a better draft for the guy riding behind? Perhaps no different when directly behind but maybe at certain angles?
— Freddy

Dear Freddy,
Certainly when riding directly behind an aero bike, there is less draft. In a crosswind, I suppose it’s possible that there might be more draft since it would tend to have a higher side surface area, but if the aero bike is also efficient in a sidewind, then it also should not be providing as much draft as a standard road bike. That’s because draft is a function of turbulence—the more turbulence, the more draft. But aerodynamic efficiency means that turbulence behind the object is reduced—that the wind reattaches better coming off of the object. So, I wouldn’t count on finding more draft behind an aero bike whether straight behind or off to the side in a crosswind.
― Lennard

:wink:

Post Reply