wheelsONfire wrote:This is and should be considered a question, so i would like to ask you.
Don't you think an experience is somewhat clouded by expectations?
I will say what clouds the entire subject aside from personal bias and belief that a good machine maybe better than another...I say it is both conscious and subconscious. People are dramatically different in their perception based upon background as it turns out. Some are analytical like myself and some are purely aesthetic and kinesthetic. And some are a mixture of both. As to me, many may believe a guy like me would come down on the side of the argument that aero wins. Some analytics believe this and argue vociferously here. To me, they aren't true analytics however because they don't take into account the relationship of frame section modulus...what makes a bike aero versus how it affects the ride and stiffness of the bike which are diametrically opposed. In a blind test virtually ever single rider would prefer a non aero bike.
Lets take a single element of the new Venge....the new seat mast. Some here...probably a very limited few may even understand the tradeoffs considered when designing a proprietary aero post. Some with an engineering background know that a seat post for an aero bike is a huge conundrum. It is in fact a metaphor for virtually ever tube section and longitudinal shape that makes up an aero versus less aero bike. You see, to make a seat post less stiff aka introduce a modicum of compliance aka force/deflection while maintaining overall yield and bending strength, a designer needs more equivalency in terms of section modulus fore/aft and east/west as sitting on the bike. But that isn't what the wind wants. The wind wants a pencil width thin sharp edged front and long length fore/aft as that is what knifes the wind most effectively. So what is best for ride compliancy is the opposite of what is best for aerodynamics and this portends to many aspects of the frame sections on a bicycle including top and down tubes and rear triangle. So for designers it always comes down to a compromise for the best feel on a road bike versus what is most aero. If ever there is a manifestation of that, is it the earlier gen Cervelo S5. A bike designed for uncompromised aerodynamic performance in a wind tunnel and arguably one of the roughest riding road bicycles ever conceived. Of course there will be those that say they love the ride quality of the earlier S5...lol. Btw, Cervelo has knocked the new S bikes out of the park. Uncanny good ride quality for their level of aerodynamics. So this tradeoff is a huge dilemma for designs with all their FEA, stress analysis and virtual aerodynamic aka fluid computer modeling...aerodynamics being a subset of fluid mechanics. So I know that the seat post of a Venge for the same length is not going to have the same level of compliancy as say a FSA Kforce light 27.2mm round carbon 2 bolt post preferred by top racers in the pro peloton on a Tarmac which btw also has a superior seat post clamp to the one bolt Venge VIAS clamp.
So analytics if they really understand the full equation versus the misrepresented myopic view of the concept of 'data'...the mantra of the tunnel vision aero flat earthers...and have also been to engineering school and understand the concept of moment of inertial and differential section modulus and how aerodynamics are in direct opposition to these principles in terms of ride compliancy including deep section carbon wheels...then the line between wanting an aero bike versus all the other things that vastly contribute more to optimizing aerodynamics matter much more...like riding position, aero helmet, also with tradeoff to cooling benefit...skin suit...a knife edge aero handlebar which are both comfortable and ergonomic and aero wheels which can be put on any bike. The tradeoff for many including Peter Sagan in the worlds of riding the most slippery frame shape relative to the other qualities of a bike that propelled hm to victory which give it its 'overall' performance and comfort, feel and handling and punch on acceleration not to mention weight...these qualities trump a very minute if not indiscernible aero advantage of say a Venge over a Tarmac.
So yes, we each come from different walks and view things much differently. Some are a complete slave to fashion for example and will be seduced by the new VIAS and have to own one replete with tradeoffs and all. Others will think the bike is ugly. I think the stem and head tube are hideous for example but I do like that the cables are all routed through the stem but this sure will make it harder to change a single cable on the bike...best to change all cables at once for maintenance. And then there is rider weight, power, fitness and perhaps most important, what kind of roads we ride. For me, a strong recreational rider who pacelines on public roads at 20-30 mph depending on conditions, I prefer a Roubaix...a top of the line Roubaix with Campy but none the less a bike that can take the less than pristine road surfaces without beating me up as pulls are generally for no more than a mile or two. After 30 miles, I know this bike is fastest for me because it minimizes my fatigue and it rides appreciably different than both a Tarmac and a Venge. In other words, I know I am faster on what some may consider the slowest of all the race bikes Specialized makes and in fact allows me to ride more day to day which also makes me stronger.
So there are many factors and yes, each of us will have a very different view of what they want in a high performance road bike. To me the new Venge is a specialty bike. A bike for a very specific application which no doubt does its job well.