spartan wrote:watch the f** video. 1989 final tt. one guy embraces silly tri bars to win the greatest tdf ever. the other does not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvwtOQYQ-Eevery pro in the peloton rides aero wheels. why?
cyclespeed wrote:Surely the fact that the Tour de France Top 10 are all so close to each other after about 90 hours of riding discredits somewhat the aero frame theory.
Because if some of the marketing is to be believed, then there are 'minutes' on offer when riding for an hour at 40km/h on an aero frame.
So even if we say only 5 seconds advantage per hour, that would still be 450 seconds or 7 and a half minutes over the whole Tour. I don't see anyone gaining that kind of advantage....?
We're not talking about TT's and we're not talking about aero wheels, but rather, aero frames.
I'm quite aware that in the bunch aero isn't so important, but why is it then that in this year's TdF, on multiple occasions, riders in breaks of 2, 3, 4, 5 riders, etc. were on non-aero bikes like the Tarmac, SuperSix Evo, etc. If they're at such a massive disadvantage to the S5 riders, then why even bother trying to get in the break? Doomed to failure surely? No pro can fight it out with another pro if the latter has a 50W aero advantage.
I 'get' the aero thing - I have aero wheels and handlebar on my Tarmac. But the frame is more complex, as there are cons as well as pros with aero frames, and the gains are highly dependent on where you put your body. (less so with bars and wheels.)
For stage racing like TdF, with hills, bends, braking, bumps, etc. etc. many riders are still choosing to ride non-aero bikes; there must be a reason for this, and I don't buy the tired old 'that's what they're told to ride' argument. The 'plus' factors of a non-aero frame are outweighing the pluses of the aero one in certain situations.
In your opinion, in what year will we no longer see non-aero bikes in the TdF?