Do Aero Road Bars look ok on Non Aero frames

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

Moderator: robbosmans

Aero Road bars on Non Aero frames

Looks cool, and it will be aero.
74
68%
Looks daft, don't build a frankenbike.
35
32%
 
Total votes: 109

dreden513
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:42 pm

by dreden513

kgt wrote:
dreden513 wrote:For those who voted No, let's hear your reasoning if you have a moment. BTW, decision against based on aesthetic grounds is totally valid as far as I am concern, would be great if you articulate why, though.


Aesthetics basically which means that a bike follows a certain concept. If 'aero' is your concept do it the right way. Don't just change your handlebars. It's like an S5 with low profile wheels.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=126959


Interesting. I agree (as will many, I believe) that an S5 or its ilk, looks "incomplete" with low profile wheels. But why is the reverse not true? What I mean is, few (if anyone) will think that a Super Six or Tarmac looks silly with Zipp 404 or ENVE 6.7. This board is filled with examples just like that, in the Introduce Yourself forum. On the contrary, many thinks those bikes look great with the deep (50-60mm) rims. Why do traditional frames look ok with deep wheels, but aero frames with shallow wheels do not?

Further, what conceptually or philosophically is different between aero wheels vs aero road handlebars, when applied to non-aero frames? Why is one ok on traditional looking frames, and not the other?

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

If you ask me a Super Six or Tarmac does not look great with Zipp 404 or ENVE 6.7.

ktw7937
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:43 am

by ktw7937

it does not look daft to put the aero handle bar on non aero frame sets.

If you look good, do that.

Marin
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:48 am
Location: Vienna Austria

by Marin

.
Last edited by Marin on Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Marin
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:48 am
Location: Vienna Austria

by Marin

kgt wrote:BTW here is an example of being true to a concept:


What's the concept - buying everything from Specialized? ;)

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

by kgt

Not a fan of Spec but that's a concept as well ;)

sawyer
Posts: 4485
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

@53x12 - thanks for posting that. It looks like about 10-15 watts at 45km/h for a combination of hood and drops - unstated as to what that is. Test doesn't give enough detail about protocol to have much confidence

I don't doubt aero bars give some advantage but would like to see a test trying to measure the advantage in the hoods at 35, 40 and 45km/h ... which, if you don't race, is where the potential for real world advantage lies. I suspect that on the hoods at 40km/h (i.e. decent cyclist in a group) the advantage is very small.
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

Krackor
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:48 pm

by Krackor

The graph shows total power in the 300-350W range. A 10-15W savings is ~3-5% advantage. Percentage gains in aero are relatively constant across different speeds so you can estimate that it will be a 3-5% advantage at 35, 40, or 45 kph. 3-5% is on par with or more than the improvement in physiological FTP that elite racers chase for an entire season. I don't think any racer would consider that "very small".

sawyer
Posts: 4485
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

Krackor wrote:The graph shows total power in the 300-350W range. A 10-15W savings is ~3-5% advantage. Percentage gains in aero are relatively constant across different speeds so you can estimate that it will be a 3-5% advantage at 35, 40, or 45 kph. 3-5% is on par with or more than the improvement in physiological FTP that elite racers chase for an entire season. I don't think any racer would consider that "very small".


Hi there - aerodynamic effects are non-linear. By that I mean that a specific aerodynamic improvement (e.g. aero bars not round bars) will result in a larger % reduction in watts required at higher speeds.

Another issue I have with the "methodology" is that it isn't clear how much time was spend on the drops and how much on the hoods. This is non-trivial. I suspect time on the hoods almost entirely negate the aerodynamic benefits of aero bars at 40ish km/h speeds, though would like to see some robust test data.

I don't dispute there are benefits, but I'd guess on the hoods at a more realistic speed, it's maybe 3-5 watts, not 10-15...

Edit - and to the data helpfully posted by 53x12 below ... what the "on the hoods" position was is also relevant!
Last edited by sawyer on Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

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

by 53x12

coneill0422 wrote:Most people that have aero bars aren't really looking to wrap them and if you do you are missing the point (just stick with a round or ergo bar and actually be comfortable). I know the yaw angle and tube shape have a lot to do with how aero a bike is but you can't say that aero bars don't significantly reduce the frontal area exposed while riding

GCN did a good explanation of different positions that makes a lot of sense if you are trying to gain some free speed. I can say I honestly say I use this position 50% of the time riding.
http://youtu.be/clfm0lf5Now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-s3tfhEyl4


Yeah that one by GCN is a good explanation. Here is one with some data. "Low on the hoods" is better than just being in the drops.


Image
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

spdntrxi
Posts: 5782
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

I have a parlee z5i with enve 6.7 and a canyon h11 aero bars.. No one has ever told me my bike does not look great. I get compliments all the time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2024 BMC TeamMachine R Building
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL- getting aero look makeover
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault - completed project, full Xplr package

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

by 53x12

sawyer wrote:@53x12 - thanks for posting that. It looks like about 10-15 watts at 45km/h for a combination of hood and drops - unstated as to what that is. Test doesn't give enough detail about protocol to have much confidence


Not sure where you are getting the 10-15 watts number from?

Going from a 42cm regular handlebar (~345w) to a 42cm aero handlebar (~325w) looks like ~20 watts. However this isn't statistically significant because the error bars overlap. This is because it is hard for a live rider to hold completely still over the whole testing period and to not move. However, it is clear from the data that there is a trend that decreasing the handlebar width and volume (aero profile), will decrease the watts required. Going from a 44cm or 46cm regular handlebar to a 42cm aero handlebar is obviously significant since the error bars don't overlap.


sawyer wrote:I don't doubt aero bars give some advantage but would like to see a test trying to measure the advantage in the hoods at 35, 40 and 45km/h ... which, if you don't race, is where the potential for real world advantage lies. I suspect that on the hoods at 40km/h (i.e. decent cyclist in a group) the advantage is very small.


This should give you a good idea of the advantage of hoods vs. elsewhere.

Image
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

basilic
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

sawyer wrote:Hi there - aerodynamic effects are non-linear. By that I mean that a specific aerodynamic improvement (e.g. aero bars not round bars) will result in a larger % reduction in watts required at higher speeds.


Interesting discussion - may I just parse this to clarify?
Power to fight aero drag is proportional to CdA, so an x% reduction in CdA (achieved by areo bars) will result in an x% reduction in power, regardless of the level of power (but only power used to fight aero drag).

This does not take into account power spent overcoming rolling resistance and gravity, which are independent of CdA. Is that what you mean by non linear? as power spent on areo increases with the cube of speed, whereas power spent on rolling resistance is proportional to speed, at higher speeds the aero component is larger, and a fixed x% reduction in the aero component is thus a larger % of total power than at low speed?

Thanks

Krackor
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:48 pm

by Krackor

Yep, basilic you have it right. CdA has a linear effect on aerodynamic drag power. Velocity has a non-linear effect on power, but unless CdA is a function of velocity we can ignore that part of the drag equation. Improvements in aerodynamics will lower your CdA, which decreases drag power by a linearly-proportional amount. That % change should be roughly constant across a range of speeds.

BikeAnon
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:36 pm
Location: NY USA

by BikeAnon

kgt wrote:
dreden513 wrote:.....BTW here is an example of being true to a concept:


[[[ inserts pic of a road-bike on a dirt/stone mountain cliff ]]]


:thumbup:



:mrgreen:

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Post Reply