Question to the aero gurus - "non aero" frame vs Cervelo S5 frame / fork / seatpost

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

Moderator: robbosmans

User avatar
BRM
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:43 pm

by BRM

Great info, now I'm going for a handlebar that is 20 cm less width and I save 50 Watts.

User avatar
BRM
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:43 pm

by BRM

istigatrice wrote:
I've heard that aero bars make a difference . . . .


The effect is so minimal, that on a road race bike you will discover no single benefit.

Don't understand why people are so damn busy with minimal watts gaining on a road race bike.
Come back with your feet on the ground. Bring things in the right balance. Drop the focus. There are many things during a ride or a race that has influence on your speed, with much greater effects. Dont think you win races or suddenly experience an increasement in your speeds by an aerobar . . . . Most of the so called tests has major flaws. Strange that many people dont want to see that. Maybe because they are not out on balanced, clear, clean information, but only are looking for CONFIRMATION of their blurred thoughts.

Sure, your position on the bike is of importance, there is something to win for some people.
But maybe the most possible Aero position for you is not comfortable enough.
Message for all: Stop wasting your time with minimal Watts saving nonsense that doesnt matter in real life conditions. Set focus on how you can enjoy your sport the most.

A smaller handlebar that doesn't feel right and is a bit uncomfortable, and be honest doesn't really gain speeds . . vs a comfortable handlebar. Make the choice.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



RyanH
Moderator
Posts: 3181
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

by RyanH

Dez33 wrote:
cyclespeed wrote:I estimate my FTP to be about 270W. So by changing to an S5 with 'ETAP' (6W really?!), I move up to 320W? I mean that would be fantastic, and whereas before I hang on to the big guys at 50km/h on the flat, now I could break away?! Have to say I find that hard to swallow, but if it can be rubber stamped true, I'm happy to give it a go!


No. A few figures from the Tour Test.

tarmac 231 watts
Venge 204 watts
Cervelo S5 205 watts

giant tcr advanced sl 229 watts
Propel 210 watts

And your tarmac spec above is better than the tour test tarmac spec.

Just so everyone keeps up, these numbers are for 45 kph and half mannequin (no upper torso). You need to add about 200 watts to those figures if you were to ride at those speeds on the hoods. So, a S5 is going to be roughly 404 watts while a Tarmac is going to be 431 watts (are those both with 404s and aero bars? I don't think so).

From my own testing, an R5ca was about 12w slower at 45kph than a new Foil and 8w at 40 kph. Admittedly, there was probably a half cm difference in drop and 1cm wider bars on the Foil in addition to a bar shape and rotation that I didn't like. Either way though, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed if you're expecting some of the watt savings thrown about in this thread at 40 kph.

Spreadsheet Results:
https://docs.google.com/a/hlmn.co/sprea ... sp=sharing

Aero Testing Thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=139992

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

Why is that a disappointment? The R5CA is tested to be a bit more aero with the Squoval tubeshape than round tubes. The RCA is even closer to the Foil.

And as stated over and over again, your test isn't holding variables constant. It can't even be called scientific.

mrlobber
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:36 am
Location: Where the permanent autumn is

by mrlobber

Put together 60 rides from the past 2 years - all training, from Z2 to Z5, more or less the same training roads - where I live, I only have one direction available for evening intervals, where traffic lights are not a factor.

4 different bikes used - 2 can be described as non-aero (especially the Cannondale Evo while Orbea Orca with its fat tubes (2008 model) certainly wasn't far behind), two - as aero (Cervelo S5, Felt AR FRD).

Average speeds differ, but it is obvious that aero bikes trump non aero, and quite significantly.

You can think what you want, but trend in my chart is not explainable by "chance".
Attachments
aero_vs_non_aero.png
Minimum bike categories required in the stable:
Aero bike | GC bike | GC rim bike | Climbing bike | Climbing rim bike | Classics bike | Gravel bike | TT bike | Indoors bike

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I like that chart. Is your position exactly the same on all the bikes, and I do mean exactly?
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
BRM
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:43 pm

by BRM

The trap of CONFIRMATION, aka how to set data to your like . . .

(selective collection of evidence)

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I didn't get that he was being "selective", I just assume he's compiled 60 samples of data of a ride he does very frequently. I think it's a valid chart and I like it, if for no other reason than it has lots of data points and you can definitely see a difference. The only question is whether his position on all the bikes was exactly the same, and to a lesser extent... tires, wheels, etc.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

mrlobber
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:36 am
Location: Where the permanent autumn is

by mrlobber

Check stack & reach charts for S5, AR FRD and Cannondale Evo (2013 model) ;) For my riding, all have 130mm stems on top of 15mm headset covers, setback seatposts, difference from saddle nose to center of bars of 58cm.

Edit: stacks are 544 / 542 / 546 for Cannondale / Cervelo / Felt, reach are 384 / 384 / 383.

Bars all are 42cm C-C, obviously, the S5 has the Cervelo aerobar, while Evo - 3T Ergonova, AR had Enve SES Aero (which might be considered an outlier as it is narrower at the hoods) Then again, I've actually felt I've been faster on the Cervelo, but that could indeed be discounted as subjective. In training, I almost 100% ride on hoods. Racing is different of course, but excluded here.

Wheelsets vary (usually something between Boras (old model), Zipp 404 FC ar Enve 6.7), anyone, who says a wheelset separately can cause 2kph difference while a frame can't, is a funny guy (even manufacturers don't state it :D)

No racing, no rides to/from work (which sometimes I have used as training, but excluded because of possible significant traffic impact and/or traffic lights impact), also, I have excluded some early morning rides (all with aero bike) which had significant traffic impact on the way home (and thus, had averages 34+ with less than 200W normalized power, and would have made the chart actually much more lopsided towards aero bikes).

Power meters are all P2Max Type S.

BRM, thank you for completely useless post and implying I have somehow "selected" the rides to prove my point. I won't bother showing what kind of chart that one would look like if I indeed would have cherry picked the rides. Please keep posting your data or anything you base your statements upon, I don't see any.
Minimum bike categories required in the stable:
Aero bike | GC bike | GC rim bike | Climbing bike | Climbing rim bike | Classics bike | Gravel bike | TT bike | Indoors bike

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Stack and reach per geo charts mean nothing in this context. It is the stack and reach, and saddle height that your hands and rear are positioned at in determining your final riding position that counts. If all these are equal, and your rides are done in that same position all the time, or close to it, then nice job. I like it. Simple, maybe not perfectly controlled, but with enough data points you definitely start to see trends for you particular setup and ride. :thumbup:
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
Dr.Dos
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:00 pm

by Dr.Dos

BRM wrote:Great info, now I'm going for a handlebar that is 20 cm less width and I save 50 Watts.

Maybe a bit on the high side but ask the UK sprinters about their 33cm bars.

And regarding your uncalled for indoctrination, your joy in riding may not be everybody elses joy and you are surely not in a position to teach me or anybody. I enjoy taking my chances and go off the front in races. In about 20 of this season's 55 races there were situations where every little watt counted, either sprint primes or solo breakaways. All good guys around here spend so much time on these details compared to just 3 ys. ago, you rarely see regular jerseys, sponsored riders *buy* Turbo Cottons and such, it's amazing.

mrlobber
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:36 am
Location: Where the permanent autumn is

by mrlobber

Calnago wrote:Stack and reach per geo charts mean nothing in this context. It is the stack and reach, and saddle height that your hands and rear are positioned at in determining your final riding position that counts. If all these are equal, and your rides are done in that same position all the time, or close to it, then nice job. I like it. Simple, maybe not perfectly controlled, but with enough data points you definitely start to see trends for you particular setup and ride. :thumbup:


Thanks Calnago :thumbup: With the focus on stack and reach, my goal was exactly to transfer the riding setup from the Nth bike to the N+1st without any testing - you just adjust the numbers you have on one bike to all the others, including seat setback, seat height, stem length etc.
Minimum bike categories required in the stable:
Aero bike | GC bike | GC rim bike | Climbing bike | Climbing rim bike | Classics bike | Gravel bike | TT bike | Indoors bike

RyanH
Moderator
Posts: 3181
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

by RyanH

justkeepedaling wrote:Why is that a disappointment? The R5CA is tested to be a bit more aero with the Squoval tubeshape than round tubes. The RCA is even closer to the Foil.

And as stated over and over again, your test isn't holding variables constant. It can't even be called scientific.



...Reread what I wrote and take it in context of this thread. Savings of 20-45 watts at 40 kph are being bandied about in this thread. I'm not complaining (at this time) about 8w @ 40kph. It's still an advantage, just not worth the $4000 I spent on the frameset for that purpose.

Also, how are the slight changes in cockpit/shiftgroup any different than comparisons of complete bikes in the wind tunnel? I had a Scott Foil which the smallest bars are 40cm wide (39 at the hoods) and -6*. Is that unfair to compare to bikes equipped with 40cm (38 at the hoods) Ergonovas, one with SRAM and the other with Campy? We're talking about relatively small changes. If anything, the longer reach of the Foil should have biased the results downwards in its favor as it did with the Fuji when I went to a longer stem. But, what you're saying is that those small changes make a significant percentage of the difference in aero of the frames... So, we're back to what Calnago and I and a few others are saying...

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

RyanH wrote:
justkeepedaling wrote:Why is that a disappointment? The R5CA is tested to be a bit more aero with the Squoval tubeshape than round tubes. The RCA is even closer to the Foil.

And as stated over and over again, your test isn't holding variables constant. It can't even be called scientific.



...Reread what I wrote and take it in context of this thread. Savings of 20-45 watts at 40 kph are being bandied about in this thread. I'm not complaining (at this time) about 8w @ 40kph. It's still an advantage, just not worth the $4000 I spent on the frameset for that purpose.

Also, how are the slight changes in cockpit/shiftgroup any different than comparisons of complete bikes in the wind tunnel? I had a Scott Foil which the smallest bars are 40cm wide (39 at the hoods) and -6*. Is that unfair to compare to bikes equipped with 40cm (38 at the hoods) Ergonovas, one with SRAM and the other with Campy? We're talking about relatively small changes. If anything, the longer reach of the Foil should have biased the results downwards in its favor as it did with the Fuji when I went to a longer stem. But, what you're saying is that those small changes make a significant percentage of the difference in aero of the frames... So, we're back to what Calnago and I and a few others are saying...


I have... The R5CA is a semiaero frame. Not as good as something like the RCA/Foil, but better than a round tubed bike. The S5/Felt AR/Madone/Vias are more aero bikes than the Foil.

Slight changes in cockpit/shiftgroup are different because in the tunnel, all attempts to keep equipment and positioning the same are done. And don't even try to rationalize results with regards to position. Plenty of things can make changes that are opposite of what you'd expect. You may have all the things pointing in favor of the Fuji or R5CA rather than the Foil, biasing the results and making it seem like the gains are less than they should be. They are affecting the magnitude, not the net trend of what the frame provides

istigatrice
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 8:32 am
Location: Australia

by istigatrice

Dr.Dos wrote:estimates 5W saved with every 2cm less width

Thanks, that's very helpful and corresponds well to my estimates (reduced 6cm and found 20-30w savings)... Now to search for some data on the Aeronova/similar bars...
I write the weightweenies blog, hope you like it :)

Disclosure: I'm sponsored by Velocite, but I do give my honest opinion about them (I'm endorsed to race their bikes, not say nice things about them)

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Post Reply