New aero test: 12 aero frames vs 12 "unaero" light frames

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 2332
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:26 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, US

by fa63

Saw this on another forum, from Cervelo's twitter account:


These are the results from a recent Tour test. I don't know the details of how the test was performed.

by Weenie

User Name
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:32 pm

by User Name

This recently showed up on Cervelo's Twitter ... 26/photo/1

It's only the results; I gather the full article with all the parameters will soon be on

According to the Twitter comments on Cervelo's link, the difference between the best and worst aero frame is less that 1% of time difference over ~4hrs19m.

In bold are the "non-aero" frames

4:17:11 Cervelo S5
4:17:34 Merida Reacto EVO
4:17:51 BMC Time Machine TMRO1
4:18:01 Giant Propel Advanced SLO
4:18:02 Specialized S-Works Venge
4:18:06 Simplon Nexico
4:18:18 Scott Foil Team
4:18:25 Cervelo R5
4:18:29 Canyon Aeroad CF
4:18:33 Neil Pryde Bura S1
4:18:37 Scott Addict SL
4:18:45 Neil Pryde Alize
4:18:46 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
4:18:48 Giant TCR Advanced SL
4:18:52 Ridley Noah Fast
4:18:54 BMC Time Machine SLR 01
4:18:56 Rose Xeon CW-8800
4:18:57 Simplon Pavo 3
4:19:04 Storck Fascenario 0.6
4:19:05 Storck Aerario
4:19:07 Specialized S-Works Tarmac
4:19:12 Ridley Helium SL
4:19:27 Rose Xeon CR5
4:19:42 Merida Scultura CF Team
Last edited by User Name on Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:19 am, edited 3 times in total.

Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:33 am

by Wcl4


This should be interesting

User avatar
Posts: 7111
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

Cervelo presents a comparative test in which the best aero and non-aero frames are both Cervelo. Ok...

Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:54 pm
Location: Krakow, Poland

by ToffieBoi

The difference between Venge and Tarmac is 00:01:05. Foil and Addict is 19 seconds. Some aero frames are slower than their "lighter brothers".

So, I believe that, buying a lighter frame, which can climb better and does not effect from sidewinds that much is a better idea.

User avatar
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Location: The Lone Star State

by FIJIGabe

Economics Teacher: [takes attendance] Madone? Madone? Madone?
Economic Student Simone: Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Madone pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
Economics Teacher: Thank you, Simone.
Economic Student Simone: No problem whatsoever.
Economics Teacher: [continues with attendance] Dogma? Dogma? Dogma?
Madone 9
Madone 5

Madone 4, Cobia. I own a lot of Treks.

Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:54 pm
Location: Haines, AK - Temporarily

by rijndael

They tested "Light Frames" but didn't include a SuperSix EVO Hi-Mod?

User avatar
Posts: 1235
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: In the industry

by elviento

I am surprised it took so long for someone to post this. Key is the test protocol because these tests can be very easily administered to yield very different results. Yaw range, weighting, bottle or not, bar height/width, rider/dummy rider or not, etc.
Fast falcons:" onclick=";return false;
Facebook: falcobikeglobal

Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Pedal Square

by HillRPete

On top of what elviento says, I'd like to see a number of what would comprise a statistically significant difference, given the test measurement inaccuracies and so forth. Say 30 seconds of 4:18 hours (15480 seconds) are about 0.2%, I would be surprised if the test setup was so accurate. Might just as well see jitter here? Maybe not between the fastest and slowest, but with those in between.

User avatar
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:06 pm

by Kayrehn

I vaguely recall Velo magazine testing the propel better than the Cervelo previously...

Posts: 496
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 3:40 am
Location: Triange, NC

by NealH

Well, without knowing more about the test protocol and conditions its difficult to draw too many conclusions other than aero frames are more a marketing tool than a performance advantage tool.

User avatar
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Utah

by carbon2329

I couldn't agree more.


rijndael wrote:They tested "Light Frames" but didn't include a SuperSix EVO Hi-Mod?

:goodpost: Highly Suspect.....

Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:21 am

by HaroldC

kgt wrote:Cervelo presents a comparative test in which the best aero and non-aero frames are both Cervelo. Ok...

The sad part is that there will be people who don't see that as a problem. Or the fact that there are a bunch of popular frames not included in the "test".

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:30 pm

by ichobi

*Links removed*

They changed the test procedure a little bit from last year. Use half-body mannequin from torso down with rotating legs. Make sure you read the rest though.

The frames that weren't in the test were either not given by the manufacturers (for whatever reason) or didn't make the deadline for the article. (there were two frames for the latter case).

WIll try to upload the 'light' frames test sometimes tomorrow.
Last edited by ichobi on Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 1333
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:48 am
Location: Central USA

by tommasini

Rider or no rider - they need to make that clear.

While it's nice to see how one frame/bike directly stacks against another - it's not so relevent when you take into consideration that a rider is a non negotiable part of each bike ride and contributes a lot to the movement of air around the frame.

To me a test with no "dummy" (like the DZ dummy) means little for real life buying decisions.

by Weenie

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post