What does "35% faster" mean?
If I can do 20mph at X watts now, I can do 27mph on this bike? Somehow I don't think that'll happen.
BTW thanks Dave for posting intelligent and informative stuff here. I wish more manufacturers did so.
I'm sorry, "faster" was a low hanging adjective. Admittedly, it was poorly used.
In general terms, a decent round tube bike has about 1000g of average drag in a 20/0/20
A good aero bike will have 800g
The best aero bikes available today tend to focus on aerodynamics as a much greater metric than say weight, ride quality, torsional stiffness, and some component integration.
Those were once very rare, bikes like the KG196, Vitus ZX-1, road-going prototypes of the GT SB and Vengence, 3Rensho, KHS's Zinn crafted bikes pioneered "aero road"
The best aerodynamically performing road bikes available today have 600g
When a previous design moves from the "good 800g" category into the "exceptional 600g" category you might see this 200g reduction displayed in some basic format such as 200/800 = 25%
The simpletons like myself just say shit like "25% faster"
The reality is a very good rider in a very good road position will generate upwards of 3000g of drag.
Colby Pearce probably has the best position I've ever seen on a road bike, I'd bet he's around 2500-2700g. Drafting off him is like drafting off a tennis ball.
Big guys like Boonen and Fabian are likely up around 3500-3700g @ 30mph.
Despite Tom insisting that the cobbles are no place for carbon aero wheels, he's changed his tune after HH, Fab, and others tackled the stones.
Now Boomboom agrees aero is important.
So back to my absurd claim, there really is a 200g savings from currently available good frames and if you're power limited like Colby (sorry CB) and can get 200g/2500g savings that is going to help from a percentage standpoint more than the supercharged 400w motor Fabian has at 200/3700.
To circle back on your previous comment, I've seen first hand bike + rider aerodynamics take a given constant power output and give it's pilot 7mph.