Nobody disagrees that aerodynamics is important as a science that involves physics, mathematics, computation etc etc. Of course it is.
All that in theory. In practice isolating the aero properties of a frame offers nothing.
In practice? Well allow me to offer my own experience -
I have been riding a road aero frame (an S5) for 3 months and can say that any "new bike/ aero placebo effect" has been removed from my judgement. In practice, my aero road bike does ride faster than my non-aero road frame which is a Dogma (as in measurable lower watts needed for the same speed using same wheels, same tires, same pressure, almost same equipment, same riding position over my usual course). Although, as many has pointed out, I cannot pin it solely on aerodynamics as frame stiffness, angles, etc may have played a part but IMO, a major departure between the two sets of variables has been the aerodynamic design.
Look, I am a user like most of you and have no interest whatsoever in bicycle sales. I too am wary of marketing claims on speed, weight and so on (and been a victim of spurious product claims). However, in this area of aerodynamic drag, I am a believer as I can practically
see the reduction in power wasted when I jump on my aero frame versus a traditional frame. This advantage is more obvious when you work at the front or go on training rides alone. I am not talking about race winning advantage just because I am on an aero bike but less aero drag makes riding at the front and training easier - come to think of it maybe legs are fresher for the final burst.
I know that there will always be people who will disagree but please do give aero frames a try before pronouncing the senselessness of such designs. In theory and in practice.
Current Bikes: Storck F0.6 6kg
, Storck Aero2 7.04kgStorck Organic Light 11.1kg
, Storck F0.7IS Di2 4.8kg