Is an aero frame beneficial? (light or aero bike faster?)

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

djconnel wrote:What's the S5 and AR for the same size? Numbers I've seen are bigger. Remember felt reports weight without paint and, I think, no hangers.



I think the S5 VWD is closer to 1000g for the frame. You are right that the claimed weight by Felt is without the paint. But the AR FRD has no paint and has minimal graphics. SuperDave posted a video of him weighing the frame and I think it came in at 896g. Any idea how much the actual weight of the Parlee is? Looks like thick and heavy paint to me.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

SLCBrandon
Posts: 721
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:52 am

by SLCBrandon

nathanong87 wrote:dunno how many of you shave your legs because of the time it saves.... but having shaved guns looks sweet and makes me feel fast.


^This^

by Weenie


tranzformer
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm

by tranzformer

nathanong87 wrote:marginal gains are mental too. an aero frame wont do the pedaling for you, but whatever it takes to make you feel fast. And feeling fast is part of the game.



You might think marginal gains are mental too, but do not discount the real world benefit that they provide. All this skepticism of aero gains is funny, yet how many of you guys have tried the Chung method to verify it? Many of us on here have. If there is nothing to be gained from modern cycling equipment, we should all ride 1980s steel bikes with downtube shifters. Because afterall, with some of the logic being employed on here, none of us race to put food on the table so it is just a waste of money. That slick carbon fiber bike doesn't pedal for you. Your Campy grouspet doesn't pedal for you. Your LW wheels don't pedal for you. So it is all a waste.

I can guarantee that while an aero frame won't pedal for you, it will make you quicker compared to your same self on a standard road bike (same fit, same position, same wheels, same course, same weather conditions...etc.). It isn't just some voodoo made up BS. Rather than just feel fast, why not actually be faster. Be faster even while training to become faster. As someone mentioned earlier, equipment options and training and bike positioning aren't mutually exclusive. You can and should do all of them.

But hey, if you guys want to continue to ignore aero, so be it. Makes race day and fast group rides easier.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

nathanong87 wrote:dunno how many of you shave your legs because of the time it saves.... but having shaved guns looks sweet and makes me feel fast.


Time saved is definitely a great benefit of shaving legs. But there are other reasons why shaved legs are better. We each have our own reasons.

But being able to save 50-80s over 40km is definitely a plus and is reasonable to do and quite inexpensive.

http://youtu.be/DZnrE17Jg3I?list=UUcrBt ... eXM7f-xihA
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

nathanong87
Resident master of GIF
Posts: 3177
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:44 am
Contact:

by nathanong87

tranzformer wrote:
nathanong87 wrote:
But hey, if you guys want to continue to ignore aero, so be it. Makes race day and fast group rides easier.


You're somewhat missing the point of what im saying. Im not skeptical that wind tunnel testing and aero parts exist and are indeed beneficial to the rider. I personally think that the mental aspect to riding cat 5 or racing people on strava or whatever is really matters. Having to reach down to my downtube to shift, doens't make me feel fast at all.... that makes me feel pretty darn slow actually lol. As an amateur who doesn't race for a living (or get free bikes to ride/race), i'd much rather build/ride a sweet looking bike than one that is windtunnel tested and ugly. Neither are mutually exclusive though, as most cool parts these days just so happened to be wind tunnel tested.

if i were to finish wheel to wheel (and infront of someone), who came up to me and says 'nathan if i only used my 80mm deep wheels, i would have had you...' I'd just facepalm and walk away. Similarly... saying that in my mind when i lose by a wheel doesn't make me train or approach my racing tactics differently... all it does is makes me wish i had more money for 'aero' parts.

dunbar42
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:20 am

by dunbar42

53x12 wrote:Yes the Cervelo S2/S3 and the Felt AR are improvements over the aero roads bikes of old. From my time test riding them (limited), I would say I would have an extremely hard time telling a difference in comfort compared to a traditional road bike if I was blind folded. Honestly, that Felt AR is quite comfy.


I seriously doubt they ride as well as the better road bikes but that's a very subjective. Road bikes run the spectrum from bone-jarringly stiff to plush. I ride a Roubaix SL4 with CG-R seat post so my definition of "good ride" probably differs from yours. I do plan to test the AR the next time they have a demo in my area. I don't know if Cervelo does that type of demo but I think you really need to ride the bike for at least 30-45 minutes to get a feel for ride. There was a recent magazine review of the S3 and AR and I think they rated the ride at 6-7 which isn't exactly plush bike territory.

I am also of the mindset that you also get a lot of your comfort from other places besides your frame: Better quality bib shorts helps a lot, selecting a good saddle, proper tire selection as well as tire pressure, wheel selection...etc.


I disagree, my personal experience is that if the frame is too stiff there is very little you can do to make the bike ride acceptable. Bearing in mind that most aero frames can't take larger than a 25-28mm tire.

Why does this aero discussion always have to turn into a, "instead of getting a aero frame why not do x,y or z instead." They aren't mutually exclusive. One should be doing all of those things you listed. Yes, all of them. Why can't you have an aero frame + all of those things you listed (which I agree with)?


I think context is very important when you're talking about aero equipment. If your goal is to pick up a certain amount of watts there are cheaper ways to do it. For example, should I really go spend several thousand dollars on a new bike or work on being able to ride a more aggressive position comfortably? The big point is the penalty in ride quality aero frames impose. We may get to the point that aero frames ride as well as standard road bikes but we are not there yet.

User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8441
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Geelong
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

nathanong87 wrote:if i were to finish wheel to wheel (and infront of someone), who came up to me and says 'nathan if i only used my 80mm deep wheels, i would have had you...' I'd just facepalm and walk away.

If there was a matter of mm in it - and he was on some box section rims with unshaven legs and jersey unzipped - then he would be right. Classless to take away by your win by voicing it, but still correct. There's two different points of the above hypothetical - which happens at pretty much every race day by someone with a bit too much butthurt.

nathanong87 wrote:Similarly... saying that in my mind when i lose by a wheel doesn't make me train or approach my racing tactics differently... all it does is makes me wish i had more money for 'aero' parts.

The only time aero gains should impact on training would be position wise, especially for TTs. As there's a lot of free speed in that. Otherwise no one is (or should) be suggesting aero upgrades can make up for basic conditioning (but might keep those saying upgrades are pointless unless you're a pro happy).

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post