New aero test: 12 aero frames vs 12 "unaero" light frames
Moderator: robbosmans
Speaking about the "penalty" for aero - there sure seems to be in most of the comparisons. For those who were able to see the chart on page 5, in the overall rankings for the combined "performance" of those pairs of bikes - the non aero partner was ranked better (and generally MUCH better) overall than the aero partner in 7 of the 12 paired situations. It was a tie with 3, and the aero beat it's partner in only 2 situations.......but one was the Stork whose "aero" model truly sucked in the aero category but shined in comfort and stiffness (so a mis-categorized frame). So in my view the true aero frames were outright winners only once (8%). For those that didn't see the chart that performance ranking included the effect of aero but also comfort and stiffness where it counts.
So it's not as simple as why not......but is it worth it?........
Added side note about the Giant aero "module" - I seem to recall a review posted by a major source (Velo? CyclingNews?) that suggested the aero improvements were significantly positively influenced by the integrated stem and bars - which conflicts with a post here suggesting that it may be a disadvantage (compared to the Zipp used with the others). The article as I recall suggested that the lack of choices (bar angle and shape) was a significant compromise the end user would have to put up with.
Don't get me wrong - I am in support of aero - but not extremes that result in an overall detriment to the overall picture.
So it's not as simple as why not......but is it worth it?........
Added side note about the Giant aero "module" - I seem to recall a review posted by a major source (Velo? CyclingNews?) that suggested the aero improvements were significantly positively influenced by the integrated stem and bars - which conflicts with a post here suggesting that it may be a disadvantage (compared to the Zipp used with the others). The article as I recall suggested that the lack of choices (bar angle and shape) was a significant compromise the end user would have to put up with.
Don't get me wrong - I am in support of aero - but not extremes that result in an overall detriment to the overall picture.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
- Tinea Pedis
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
- Contact:
Not performing in the Tour test does not mean the Aernario is mis-categorised.
It was just that much better than the other aero offerings in judging on aspects unrelated to aerodynamics.
It was just that much better than the other aero offerings in judging on aspects unrelated to aerodynamics.
-
- Posts: 1145
- Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm
Would like to see a similar test for 100 mile rides comparing ultra stiff vs compliant.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels
Mr.Gib wrote:SolidSnake03 wrote:So all im seeing here is stuff that is so tightly clustered given the length of time of the test that aero wise your frame choice is largely irrelevant.
Which is what I have been saying since aero frames arrived on the scene, accept of course when it comes to wheel and tire options. Then choosing an aero frame become highly relevant as in it becomes a major nuisance. Mostly just heavier, and less comfortable. A true detriment for 95% of the people that ride them. Just try your S5 on some fresh chip-seal.
And who spends 4 plus hours exposed and solo in competition?? Don't we have time trial bike for that nonsense??
Whole thing is a bit of a scam IMO.
I agree with this although, im not a sprinter & when it comes to winning a race. Alot comes down to a TT Effort in a Solo Break.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
Measure new frame weights to a .1 of a gram with/without paint, but don't waste my time with meaningless aero data. Everybody knows bikes are only meant to go up 25% gradients at 3mph.
The fact is that actual weight is measurable in an absolute way while actual aero performance is rather debatable.
-
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
Aero is measurable, the physics is just more complicated than m x g x h. All I'm saying is you can't argue that a 1% performance improvement is worthless outside of a pro level and then claim dropping 20g is in anyway significant. You can argue the measurements may be inaccurate or inconsistent, but the "performance gains are too minimal to matter" argument doesn't hold.
- ScuderiaDouroux
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:33 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
It's not all about aero. If a pro is in a 5 hour stage and has another one the next day, the last thing he/she wants is to be on a potentially harsh riding aero frame that causes fatigue.
Long live the horizontal top tube, standard crankset, and Italian threaded bottom bracket.
The equation for having it all; aero, compliance/comfort and sharp handling is actually quite simple...
It goes a little something like this:
N+1
It goes a little something like this:
N+1
Sorry for rehashing this older thread, but I read through the whole thing and I want to see the original articles, but don't think the months were documented. I think Feb is the aero bikes. What about the light bikes?
-
- Posts: 1712
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
There is a very very important thread regarding "comfort" that a lot of people here need to read. Nowadays, aero bikes can fully take advantage of large 25c tires, are very very stiff, and only show a penalty with regards to weight. Damn near everything else has been sorted. Things have changed in the months since that test was conducted.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Thoughts ... _4571.html
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowt ... _P5231787/
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Thoughts ... _4571.html
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowt ... _P5231787/
The rider is still the biggest "aero" factor, and as we are all different shapes and sizes, have varying flexibility and positioning on the bike and wear different helmets, clothing and shoes, the variables are just mind boggling.
As a total package you could have a rider on a round tube bike with shallow alloy rims be more aero than a different rider on an aero bike with deep carbon rims purely due to size and position on the bike
Parlee Z5, Trek Madone, Colnago Dream,
As a total package you could have a rider on a round tube bike with shallow alloy rims be more aero than a different rider on an aero bike with deep carbon rims purely due to size and position on the bike
Parlee Z5, Trek Madone, Colnago Dream,
Ozrider - Western Australia
Parlee Z5 XL (6055g/13.32lbs) Trek Madone 5.9 (7052-7500g)Jonesman Columbus Spirit (8680g)
Chase your dreams - it's only impossible until it's done
Parlee Z5 XL (6055g/13.32lbs) Trek Madone 5.9 (7052-7500g)Jonesman Columbus Spirit (8680g)
Chase your dreams - it's only impossible until it's done
-
- Posts: 1712
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Sure, but that's a very strange comparison. Like for like (position, equipment, etc), a rider will be faster on the more aerodynamic bike.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
- Tinea Pedis
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
- Contact:
Ozrider it's not about how aero a complete set up is between two different riders, but more so what a rider can benefit from simply having a more aero road bike - as opposed to a more traditional set up.