Weight Weenies

Ah, don't go posting actual test data...

It screws up the folks that like to tell you Aero frames all equal zero ...

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

www.starbike.com

Hi,

el condor wrote:Don't know if it has been mentioned before, I own a Canyon Cf SLX, just by the looks of it it's easy to figure out that's it's not a very aero frame, but riding a 100 to 200 km's on a very compliant-more comfortable frame which the Canyon defenitely is, may leave the rider with more power left compared to one on an aero bike. Just my 2 cents.

If you mean by compliant that it would flex and loose transmission energy then I disagree.
The Canyon (this one in particular) is the only European frame I know of that measures the way Tour likes it to but still rides extremely comfy as well.

In that sense I'll join you stating that comfort is every bit (if not more) important that the cx-factor of a general purpose road frame.
If you can have it all in a single package then you may have yourself the perfect bicycle...

Now we all know that "perfect" products tend to kill off businesses in no time, right?

Ciao,

Hi,

All good data but I do have one question for anyone here. Over the last month or so I have seen pictures of the Venge, Foil and S5 on the test but none of the control bike (Centurion). I think given that's the main comparison here that that is actually quite an important picture or video to see. Has anyone seen it?

Like this one?

http://www.centurion.de/en_int/cms/153/en_int-road_bikes_road_race

Ciao,

2013 tour aero test. anyone get the results. which one tested best on aero? weight? i assume the storck will win overall

bikes to be tested.

BH G6 8.5
BMC Time Machine TMR01
KUOTA Kuraro
NEIL PRYDE Alize
ROSE Xeon 8800 CW team
SIMPLON Nexio Red
STORCK Aernario Platinum Edition
Trek Madone 7.9 Project One


http://www.tour-magazin.de/technik/test ... 21981.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i´m not sure, but neilpryde wrote on there Facebook site that they came like second place or something, just behind storck, but the storck was a 12000 euro bike and theres was a 4000 euro bike.

I won a race last year (a rare event for me) - 30 mile solo break - riding my round tubed Stevens but with my 808/404 FC wheels on. Would I have gotten the win on a pair of Kysiriums - probably not, given the time gap involved. Might I have been sweating a little less as the bunch started to close on me in the last five k had I had an aero frame - maybe. But as a small, light rider, I'll take any aero advantage I can get - certeris paribus and budget permitting. PS I was wearing shoe covers too!

I tried that once and got caught within 20 meters of the line.... ended up 8th? I blamed it on braking too much into the last corner. Bitter? No, why do you think I'm bitter??? Anyway, that was on very conventional equipment.

Anyway, from that list I'd take the Trek, but will guess the BMC wins most aerodynamic. Just look at the thing.

Aero:
BH 347w
BMC 347w
Kuota 350w
Neil Pryde 351w
Rose 353w
Trek 353w
Simplon 357w
Storck 359w

Wow... BH does with exposed brakes does not look as good as BMC (at least my pick tied for the win), and Trek, which is hardly in the aero category other than the downtube profile, did surprisingly well. Did they do a yaw-average?

Did they (wind tunnel) test all the bikes with the same wheels? If not, that might explain the tie between the BH with 404s and the BMC with Eastons. Would love to see the actual wind tunnel results all yaw angles.

The numbers shown is a balanced value at 45 km/h, with a rider dummy and with Mavic Cosmic wheels. They were also tested with Zipp 808. Interesting to see the difference from the Mavics. It differs a good deal from frame to frame.

Any chance of posting the numbers on the 808s? Thanks

interesting to compare with the previous test results - i'm assuming they've kept the same test protocol, certainly sounds like the same wheels used anyway.
page 1 graph suggests the venge and S5 are about 341w and foil is 348w
now we see the tmr01 which i would have expected to be the cutting edge of aero road bike design trailing at 347w. then the trek which is an all-rounder compromise not far back at 353w - though it is much the same design as the foil

perhaps i'm wrong and they have changed the protocol significantly enough for there to be no comparison, i'm just assuming they kept it the same as that would be sensible to do - if anyone can confirm that would be great.


this test's results suggest there's not much between the different aero bikes - most within the margin for error presented in the first test results, so much for the marketing departments!

Remember the tmr01 has a lot of tricks, but the one thing it didn't make much use of is full 3:1 airfoils, which matter when you are counting watts. Not to say its not a good bike, but its easy to see why it's not quite in the same aero class as the s5. Though, I'm wary about comparing data from different sessions even with a matching protocol.

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

www.starbike.com

Matching protocols can't account for variables they don't control. Comparing aero data across different tests should be deemed impossible.