Light weight goes down - aero goes up

[wheelsONfire]

Lately it seems there's lesser light weight frames/ bikes and more and more aero frames/ bikes.
It seems it's like a dealer told me - people are more into looks than weight?
I also have been pondering why most light bikes looks rather boring.
What's your guys opion of this?

[mrlobber]

My answer is usage of the N+1 principle.

[VTR1000SP2]

Perfect example of this is the new Venge vs current Tarmac. Both amazing bikes but the Venge is incredibly sexy!

I was just in the market for a new bike and really wanted the new Venge but it ended up being cost prohibitive so I went in the opposite direction going back to a light bike from an aero bike. Sold my 2015 S3 replacing it with a 2017 Izalco Max. Nailed the fit between the 2 so the only difference is wheels and frame with the S3 having 7.8s and the Izalco having Aeolus XXX 4.

In my experience so far, the aero bike holds speed north of 40kph easier than the Izalco but my avg speed hasn’t been affected between the 2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kgt]

People are influenced by marketing. It's as simple as that...

[Phuddy]

My big problem with this, is that there is no budget Aero bike to speak of; what’s the Everyman to ride??

[VTR1000SP2]

My big problem with this, is that there is no budget Aero bike to speak of; what’s the Everyman to ride??

Cervelo S2, Bianchi Aria, Ribble makes one, Giant Propel.. are these still out of reach?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VTR1000SP2]

People are influenced by marketing. It's as simple as that...

Marketing only does so much (telling us we need discs, that we will be faster on an aero bike) but beauty in design is undeniable with some. I’ve not previously wanted a Venge but the new design is super hot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wheelsONfire]

I don't believe it matters much to me. I have no gains of deeper aero wheels over semi-aero.
I don't think i have the fit/ pose to make this matter.
But i don't aim to make this another bla bla aero thread.
But it seems some guys just need to.
Mainly wonder(ed) why aero has been the latest hick-up on weight weenies?

[wheelsONfire]

I believe design makes people find excuses and aero seems to be just it.
Vanity perhaps?

[reedplayer]

People are influenced by marketing. It's as simple as that...

+1
"beauty in design" is a very relative term. imo those aero bikes look terrible, specialized most notably, i like to keep things simple and prefer classical, pure design with as less embellishment as possible (regrettably very few bikes like that remaining!). others (a.t.m. many!) will find that absolutely boring.
aero is "en vogue"at the moment (see above for the reason..), so rather hard times for the "classical race bike"-lover.

[Kayrehn]

It's easy to go aero - buy a frame these days and it comes with aero seatpost and integrated bars etc. But to build a WW bike... That takes time and research and probably a lot more cash.

Many people I spoke to also have the perception that a light bike makes them slower because they need more effort to hold a certain speed. But almost all of them ride with groups

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Zakalwe]

People are influenced by marketing. It's as simple as that...

Marketing only does so much (telling us we need discs, that we will be faster on an aero bike) but beauty in design is undeniable with some. I’ve not previously wanted a Venge but the new design is super hot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The main reason you find the latest Venge super hot is because you’ve been bombarded with marketing through the iterations of the frames design for long enough to condition you into thinking this

[kgt]

I believe design makes people find excuses and aero seems to be just it.
Vanity perhaps?

More sales

[Multebear]

Lately it seems there's lesser light weight frames/ bikes and more and more aero frames/ bikes.

Fashion changes. WW'ism is oldschool. Aero is all the craze now.

Besides that, I think there's is some truth in the marketing babble (the schience behind it), lighter bikes will make you go faster on very steep climbs. But the rest of the time an aero bike will be faster. And who only rides very steep climbs.

I know it's a crime on this forum to say this; but WW'ism never really made any sense to me. I'm here because a lot of knowledgeable people visit this forum, not because of WW.

It seems it's like a dealer told me - people are more into looks than weight?

Aero isn't necessarily better looking. I still find the Cannondale SuperSix Evo HiMod being one of the prettiest bikes out there. Round tubes, almost horizontal toptube makes it classic and timeless.

I also have been pondering why most light bikes looks rather boring.

I don't now if they look boring. There's just no R&D into light bikes anymore. No new light bikes hit the market anymore. So you're looking at the same old ones. And that gets boring.

[TobinHatesYou]

Lightweight bikes look boring because they have to be. The strongest tube shape is a cylinder. Even making a shallow D-shaped tube requires more carbon bolstering the corners. This is why the Tarmac and Teammachine are heavier than, say, the more flowy Emonda.

Also it’s just reality. Aero bikes are simply the better option for most people, especially those of you who don’t climb much. On flat ground, a lightweight bike only helps during acceleration. Up a hill when climbing at a steady pace, the aero bike will be faster until you reach a pitch where your speed dips below 10mph or so. For me this is around 8% avg for a 1 hour climb.