Aero Road Bikes are BS

[Nicos]

It's not 1km/h. If it was a flat individual TT then the difference would be +- 2-3 seconds/km just for the venge frame. And it's not even an individual TT.

[wingguy]

OK, so would his imaginary more efficient road bike win be because of the aero of the bike or more because of the aero of his now lower positioned body? Or perhaps the lower rolling resistance of high pressure road tires vs mtb knobbies? Or the gearing?

It's not 'or'. It's 'and'.

[MoPho]

OK, one last time....

SGo put a box on top of your car/truck and see what it does to the mileage of your car.

You keep throwing out extreme examples that have no relevance. Of course if you put a big box on the roof it will affect your gas mileage, but the difference between something like a Tarmac and a Venge is more akin to putting a small object like a coffee can on the roof of your car, not a box, do you think that will make a significant difference to your gas mileage?

Exept cross winds usually make even faster with aero frames, some well shaped wheels even show negative drag values in crosswinds.

You are just throwing all the factors that trouble your mind, and hope people will get as confused as you.
Don't project your stupidity on others...

Thanks, that was very kind of you

(and I have aero wheels - I like the look- and they get blown all over the place in cross winds. I also did a ride with a guy who was on a Cervelo S5, he swore up and down about how great aero is, that is until we did a descent in a heavy cross wind and then he was just swearing and riding at a crawl in fear for his life. He easily lost +- 2-3 minutes/km. Again, real world )


.


.

[MoPho]

It's not 'or'. It's 'and'.

Exactly!! That's my point, all the other factors contribute, you can't definitively say the bike is solely responsible for a performance boost outside of controlled circumstances like a wind tunnel, which is not the way it works in the real world. There is no way [that I know of at least] to prove that someone won a race or beat their buddy because of the bike they were on. It's all speculation


Now back to work!


.

[ergott]

Talk to people that race and ask them what they think about a 20 watt reduction in resistance. I say 20 watts because that's a generally conservative number. If you are talking about a threshold power output of 400 watts that's 5%.

Look I get that you think the gains are small. Most of us here aren't winning or losing races for money by small margins. It's doesn't mean they are outside the noise of what we can measure and apply towards real-world situations. The gains are orders of magnitude more than just measurable. I chose extreme examples because they help make the point that there are indeed differences. At no point in time did I tell anyone that they "need" aero equipment for their Tuesday Night local worlds ride.

I will tell you that if I were a professional racer I would make sure I had the most aerodynamic equipment my sponsors can provide I would recommend any pro do the same. There would have to be a compelling reason not to.

[ergott]

(and I have aero wheels - I like the look- and they get blown all over the place in cross winds. I also did a ride with a guy who was on a Cervelo S5, he swore up and down about how great aero is, that is until we did a descent in a heavy cross wind and then he was just swearing and riding at a crawl in fear for his life. He easily lost +- 2-3 minutes/km. Again, real world )

.

We are at a point were engineers are developing bikes and components that do perform better in those cross winds. What wheels are blowing you around? I have set of older 65mm wheels here. They are dicey to say the least in cross winds. I also have ridden Enve 6.7s, 8.9s, November Rail 52s and shortly will have Enve 4.5s. They are worlds better in cross winds while still being more aerodynamic than my low profile wheels. They aren't several km/hr faster. I would honestly say they are less than 1km/hr faster in the best of situations. They are still faster.

Frames like the Trek Madone are more aerodynamic then ever before and don't misbehave like that Cervelo. It's due to cam-tail tech. You can see similar shapes on a Toyota Prius. It's more aerodynamic than fat, round tubes and it handles better in varying wind conditions.

[wingguy]

Exactly!! That's my point, all the other factors contribute, you can't definitively say the bike is solely responsible for a performance boost outside of controlled circumstances like a wind tunnel, which is not the way it works in the real world. There is no way [that I know of at least] to prove that someone won a race or beat their buddy because of the bike they were on. It's all speculation.

You can't prove they won the race because of any factor. We all know that training is beneficial, but what if you missed one scheduled day and then lost your next race by a meter. Is it because of that missed day? Who knows. Then what if you missed two days. Three days. A week. A month. At what point is your lack of training directly responsible for lack of results? Who knows.

So what can you do? You can train every day of your schedule so that you know you're giving yourself the best possible chance of winning. Same as with equipment choice.

[dunbar42]

[sawyer]

A question to the aero advocates:
Aru rides an sworks as well as Landa Meana and Contador.
According to your 'science' and 'facts' if Aru replace his sworks with a Venge he will easily win the second place. 12 hours of racing left, 1km/h gain from the Venge, 12km advantage in total. Actually he might even win the Giro. No?

The answer is no, but rather than explain to you why I'm going to ask you to have a think
and come back to us with ideas as to why no might be the answer.

[MoPho]

You can't prove they won the race because of any factor. We all know that training is beneficial, but what if you missed one scheduled day and then lost your next race by a meter. Is it because of that missed day? Who knows. Then what if you missed two days. Three days. A week. A month. At what point is your lack of training directly responsible for lack of results? Who knows.

So what can you do? You can train every day of your schedule so that you know you're giving yourself the best possible chance of winning. Same as with equipment choice.

Of course, I never said otherwise.



.

[WMW]

Again, I am not saying it doesn't (or does) matter, just pointing out that with all the variables, it's pretty hard to prove aero is the necessity you claim it is in the real world, it's all a bit "mystical"...

It's not hard to prove if you "believe" in testing.

[MoPho]

It's not hard to prove if you "believe" in testing.

And what testing would that be? Controlled wind tunnel?



.

[BeeSeeBee]

You can test yourself with field testing. Look up the Chung method. Yes, it works better in controlled conditions, no that doesn't invalidate it.

It correlates highly with tunnel testing

I won't say there's no downside to aero bikes, the handling problem you mentioned has come up occasionally for me (really only on descents would I say I lose time, on the flats, the 20+ watt gain more than makes up for any additional energy I spend in handling the bike), but those conditions are outliers, so I'll come out ahead 99% of the time and behind 1%; in other words, maximizing the benefit my equipment gives me.

[tinozee]

I feel a lot faster without a helmet (shaved head too). Also in my team kit which is like a skin suit. I log a ton of miles on the same route, use a power meter, structured training, etc. I bet I could tell the difference if it's there. I would like to try say, the tarmac vs the Venge, setup with exact same fit/position and components. Or the addict vs foil or something.

It's surely interesting. Not sold either way really until I try in my own real world setting. I'm betting there's a difference but it's really hard to tell due to all the variables. A velodrome would be ideal imo.

[WMW]

And what testing would that be? Controlled wind tunnel?

And field testing.