I think this sums it up perfectly.

The reality of the situations is that with all that goes into riding/racing, the benifits are VERY SMALL at best, and possibly ZERO or WORSE, when including watts burned with being uncomfortable or fighting any side winds etc...

Just a thought

@Prendrefeu-Fair enough, you can show me that a non aero equipped individual can beat an aero equipped individual. Also, you can say that there are different horses for different course. However, my point is quite simple and it doesn't need to be taken so far out of context. For ME I change my opinion about the benefit of aero depending if I race or don't. Really doesn't matter what kind of racing because I do TTs, RR, and Crits. I leave the longer stuff and Tris for others. And to be clear I do think there is a benefit even though some choose not to. But, I don't need that benefit once I decide I am merely out to enjoy myself.

So, you're a yes for a racer that doesn't place as high a value on aero but still believes it does give some benefit. That is all I wanted to hear.

Hi,



Aero frame is lower, yes. Not aero in general.
I can see your point but OTOH in the majority of the races 95% of all riders would not even be able to benefit from their aero frame. They spend most of the time sheltered in the belly of the pack anyway.

Maybe we should all start doing races on TT bikes as well.

Ciao,

_________________
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

If I thought it was advantageous then I would.

I believe that 'racing' itself it too variable in too many ways to give anyone a general answer of "this will make you win". Afterall, even within a specific type of racing - say criteriums - one route is different from another.

Related: Last year (and I believe still to this day), there's a gentleman out here in SoCal who does an entire series of Crits on a singlespeed setup. Yet, despite not having the range of gears to flip through, he definitely dominates the podiums and series totals. Now, based on one person's performance in a particular route, which week by week is the same location, same direction, same roads, is everyone advised to go with singlespeed setups? No, they are not. When it comes to other crits he uses a fully geared setup. When it comes to circuits, a different bike entirely, and so on and so forth.

Why?
Fitness trumps all. Equipment is for the specificity of event, and further specific to that individual rider's needs. That is all.

_________________
Exp001

Really? I have to train to be successful? I can't just buy speed? Your anecdotal examples are just that, and I am not sure why you keep bringing them up.

But I guess i'll counter with one of mine since this seems like what you want to hear. Mr. Euro Pro, I am sure we don't need to be dropping names? Well he races when he has time around here in the 1/2 field and in one particular race, a crit, he got handled. Not because he wasn't fit, or choose his equipment poorly, or the course didn't suit him (because it did), but because he was alone and the other kids had teams. See it is not all about one thing, not even fitness.

But that is not my point. My point is that I was trying to come to grips with why there was this major position that I couldn't fathom and then I thought about if I didn't race would my position change. So, I wanted to know if that was the reason for a majority of others. Therefore, a yes or no answer is all I was looking for, as a 'no' jives with my thinking and a 'yes' means it doesn't. I don't need the justifications for your positions as you and others have splattered it all over this and other threads but the missing piece was if you raced. I hope that is clear and if not then I guess i'll just move on.

Stalkan, if you feel better, faster, stronger, calmer, more secure, etc. etc. by counting every single aspect of your body, training, bike, diet, equipment etc. etc. no one will tell you not to. But I guess this is more of a psychological obsession and nothin more or less.

_________________
Wilier Cento Uno
Colnago Master X-light
Wilier 18carati

I race. I have both an aero bike and a "normal" bike set up very much alike. I use the "normal" bike 85% of the time. Only on very specific courses I choose the Aero bike. Why? Because I much prefer the handling, stiffness and lower weight of the normal bike. I'm also sure that these qualities are outshining any little aero gain the other bike has most of the time.
I think your concept only has merit if the almost all aero frames wasn't penalized by this. And yes. I have tried most on the market. But the frames that on paper has most aero benefits to offer, is generally also those with the least impressive numbers in other regards. There's no free lunch. (yet, at least)

Lets say that you suck at racing (as I do), and you cannot put down enough power to notice the stiffness, are too terrible a bike handler to notice the handling, and either have a heavy enough road bike or have zero body weight already to justify the 300 gram frame weight increase. Then does aero make sense?
Basically do aero frames only help pros or only help Freds?