*Tour Aero Bike Tests*

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

naavt
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2018 6:58 pm

by naavt

Can anyone share the Aero Bike test comparison issued on Tour Mag 05/2021?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



pedalbasher
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:35 am

by pedalbasher

justkeepedaling wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:22 pm
thirdsun wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:15 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:11 pm
pedalbasher wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:59 pm


Thank you. No, I didn't read through 75 pages of forum on the off chance that someone had pasted what I needed :wink:

Appreciate the signpost :thumbup:
Why would you look at the first 70 pages for current bike results?
So what you're saying is that the we should always expect to find the results within the last 5 pages of the thread?

Come on, the guy asked a valid question and the fact that his answer is found on page 73 was random luck.

What would actually make sense is keeping and updating those ranking in the first post of this thread.
When this thread had only 55 pages, I went through the whole thing to try to find the info I was looking for. No, if you do due diligence by searching through the thread, going through recent pages and you can't find it, sure posit the question. But it's lazy as hell to say "you searched everywhere online" and couldn't find it and it literally is just a few pages before
You need a hobby, pal 😂

HBike
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:22 pm

by HBike

justkeepedaling wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:58 pm
aeroisnteverything wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:02 am
nycxandy wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:30 am
aeroisnteverything wrote:
Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:00 pm
Based on this, buying a Cervelo Soloist as a relatively affordable crit racer does not seem like a good idea anymore.
It's 218 watts with the 404s, so not that bad.

"There is potential: With the reference wheels, the Cervélo Soloist improves by ten watts, which corresponds to a place in the densely staggered midfield."
Yielding 10-15 watts to the people on SL7s, Venges, S5s and Aeroads is going to make it pretty hard in a breakaway or a sprint finish. Around London at least, the top crit racers are all about the marginal gains. Skinsuits, aero bottles, narrow bars, deep wheels, etc. etc.
Most people won't be on completely round bars taped all the way on the tops, but I'm curious to know how many watts that costs. I wonder if the normal stem and potential round spacers hurt it
Depends on speed. Specialized measured Cd*A for round vs. Aerobar. Cd*A was about 95%-96% of that with round bar. You can then calculate power using that.

Nickldn
Posts: 1867
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:35 am

by Nickldn

HBike wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:10 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:58 pm
aeroisnteverything wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:02 am
nycxandy wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:30 am


It's 218 watts with the 404s, so not that bad.

"There is potential: With the reference wheels, the Cervélo Soloist improves by ten watts, which corresponds to a place in the densely staggered midfield."
Yielding 10-15 watts to the people on SL7s, Venges, S5s and Aeroads is going to make it pretty hard in a breakaway or a sprint finish. Around London at least, the top crit racers are all about the marginal gains. Skinsuits, aero bottles, narrow bars, deep wheels, etc. etc.
Most people won't be on completely round bars taped all the way on the tops, but I'm curious to know how many watts that costs. I wonder if the normal stem and potential round spacers hurt it
Depends on speed. Specialized measured Cd*A for round vs. Aerobar. Cd*A was about 95%-96% of that with round bar. You can then calculate power using that.
For their SL70 Aero bars Zipp marketing quoted a saving of 6.4w at 30mph compared to a round bar. This is according to road.cc

https://road.cc/content/review/zipp-sl- ... 272175?amp
Giant Propel Advanced SL Red Etap 11s Easton EC90 wheels CeramicSpeed BB Zipp SL70 bars 6.5kg

Vitus ZX1 CRS Campy Chorus 12s Bora WTO 45 disk brake wheels Zipp SL70 bars 7.5kg

SL8 build with Craft CS5060 Wheels in progress

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

Nickldn wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:30 pm
HBike wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:10 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:58 pm
aeroisnteverything wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:02 am


Yielding 10-15 watts to the people on SL7s, Venges, S5s and Aeroads is going to make it pretty hard in a breakaway or a sprint finish. Around London at least, the top crit racers are all about the marginal gains. Skinsuits, aero bottles, narrow bars, deep wheels, etc. etc.
Most people won't be on completely round bars taped all the way on the tops, but I'm curious to know how many watts that costs. I wonder if the normal stem and potential round spacers hurt it
Depends on speed. Specialized measured Cd*A for round vs. Aerobar. Cd*A was about 95%-96% of that with round bar. You can then calculate power using that.
For their SL70 Aero bars Zipp marketing quoted a saving of 6.4w at 30mph compared to a round bar. This is according to road.cc

https://road.cc/content/review/zipp-sl- ... 272175?amp
Yeah, but that's not an integrated bar. I've seen 9-10 W mentioned before, but may include cables as well

Finn
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Europe

by Finn

justkeepedaling wrote:
Nickldn wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:30 pm
HBike wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:10 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:58 pm


Most people won't be on completely round bars taped all the way on the tops, but I'm curious to know how many watts that costs. I wonder if the normal stem and potential round spacers hurt it
Depends on speed. Specialized measured Cd*A for round vs. Aerobar. Cd*A was about 95%-96% of that with round bar. You can then calculate power using that.
For their SL70 Aero bars Zipp marketing quoted a saving of 6.4w at 30mph compared to a round bar. This is according to road.cc

https://road.cc/content/review/zipp-sl- ... 272175?amp
Yeah, but that's not an integrated bar. I've seen 9-10 W mentioned before, but may include cables as well
Tarmac SL7 Comp tested 6w slower (216w) than SL7 S-Works with the same wheels in 2022 Tour test. With stock wheels it was 229w. With same wheels pretty much the only significant difference is the cockpit as I suspect groupset doesn't matter that much. 6w for aero cockpit would sound reasonable.



robeambro
Posts: 1829
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

Also, would urge caution when applying component-only savings to an imaginary setup and mixing and matching figures from different protocols. Like, Zipp (and others) may have tested with no mannequin. Or, the test protocols may have been wildly different than Tour's.

Lina
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

So if you take the 10 watts from wheels, and 6 from cockpit the Soloist is suddenly at 212 watts, which isn't nearly as bad. And considering you can easily install a narrow bar and any size stem on the soloist it wouldn't be a surprise if it ended up being just as aero, if not more aero, in the real world than some of the "faster" bikes where you can't change the bar width or stem angle/length. The Tour test doesn't rider position into account at all and that is the biggest source of drag after all.

The first thing you should think when buying an aero bike is can you achieve an aero position on the bike. If you can't it doesn't matter how many watts faster the wind tunnel tests claim the frame to be. Gaining 10 watts from the frame doesn't help if you're at the same time giving up 20 watts from your position.

spartacus
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

by spartacus

Lina wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:02 pm
So if you take the 10 watts from wheels, and 6 from cockpit the Soloist is suddenly at 212 watts, which isn't nearly as bad. And considering you can easily install a narrow bar and any size stem on the soloist it wouldn't be a surprise if it ended up being just as aero, if not more aero, in the real world than some of the "faster" bikes where you can't change the bar width or stem angle/length. The Tour test doesn't rider position into account at all and that is the biggest source of drag after all.

The first thing you should think when buying an aero bike is can you achieve an aero position on the bike. If you can't it doesn't matter how many watts faster the wind tunnel tests claim the frame to be. Gaining 10 watts from the frame doesn't help if you're at the same time giving up 20 watts from your position.
I don't understand why more people aren't talking about this instead of nerding out on the aero drag of riderless bikes with arbitrarily wide bars.

Steve Curtis
Posts: 1314
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:20 pm
Location: Hampshire UK, Dublin Ireland and Geneva Switzerland.

by Steve Curtis

spartacus wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:22 pm
Lina wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:02 pm
So if you take the 10 watts from wheels, and 6 from cockpit the Soloist is suddenly at 212 watts, which isn't nearly as bad. And considering you can easily install a narrow bar and any size stem on the soloist it wouldn't be a surprise if it ended up being just as aero, if not more aero, in the real world than some of the "faster" bikes where you can't change the bar width or stem angle/length. The Tour test doesn't rider position into account at all and that is the biggest source of drag after all.

The first thing you should think when buying an aero bike is can you achieve an aero position on the bike. If you can't it doesn't matter how many watts faster the wind tunnel tests claim the frame to be. Gaining 10 watts from the frame doesn't help if you're at the same time giving up 20 watts from your position.
I don't understand why more people aren't talking about this instead of nerding out on the aero drag of riderless bikes with arbitrarily wide bars.
Me three. It's equally annoying and entertaining 😄.

HBike
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:22 pm

by HBike

spartacus wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:22 pm
Lina wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:02 pm
So if you take the 10 watts from wheels, and 6 from cockpit the Soloist is suddenly at 212 watts, which isn't nearly as bad. And considering you can easily install a narrow bar and any size stem on the soloist it wouldn't be a surprise if it ended up being just as aero, if not more aero, in the real world than some of the "faster" bikes where you can't change the bar width or stem angle/length. The Tour test doesn't rider position into account at all and that is the biggest source of drag after all.

The first thing you should think when buying an aero bike is can you achieve an aero position on the bike. If you can't it doesn't matter how many watts faster the wind tunnel tests claim the frame to be. Gaining 10 watts from the frame doesn't help if you're at the same time giving up 20 watts from your position.
I don't understand why more people aren't talking about this instead of nerding out on the aero drag of riderless bikes with arbitrarily wide bars.
Tour has a half body model with rotating legs already. There is a lot of drag because of the upper body, too, but there is only a small interaction of the flow of the upper body with that of the bike below. So to first order one can add both components. This means that when you have already your typical racing position, it is the bike that counts to add additional aero gains.

I would like Tour to do tests with as much similarity in setups as possible at least for the best possible variant of a bike:
- reference wheels and tires (to minimize effects that some manufacturers use e.g. 28c wheels + 160/160 discs, others 25c/28c with 160/140 or else)
- similar spacer heights
- similar bar width (optimally reference aero bars if possible with similar bar tape and taped similarily)
- similar group sets

Lina
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

HBike wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:28 am
spartacus wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:22 pm
Lina wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:02 pm
So if you take the 10 watts from wheels, and 6 from cockpit the Soloist is suddenly at 212 watts, which isn't nearly as bad. And considering you can easily install a narrow bar and any size stem on the soloist it wouldn't be a surprise if it ended up being just as aero, if not more aero, in the real world than some of the "faster" bikes where you can't change the bar width or stem angle/length. The Tour test doesn't rider position into account at all and that is the biggest source of drag after all.

The first thing you should think when buying an aero bike is can you achieve an aero position on the bike. If you can't it doesn't matter how many watts faster the wind tunnel tests claim the frame to be. Gaining 10 watts from the frame doesn't help if you're at the same time giving up 20 watts from your position.
I don't understand why more people aren't talking about this instead of nerding out on the aero drag of riderless bikes with arbitrarily wide bars.
Tour has a half body model with rotating legs already. There is a lot of drag because of the upper body, too, but there is only a small interaction of the flow of the upper body with that of the bike below. So to first order one can add both components. This means that when you have already your typical racing position, it is the bike that counts to add additional aero gains.
And all of that was true 5 years ago. You could look at the Tour tests, pick the most aero bike, and be confident that you have the most aero bike. That's because you could get the same position on pretty much any bike. But that's not true anymore because of full integration and proprietary cockpits. Upper body position matters a lot on terms of aero, both your torso and arms. If you can not change the cockpit parts to whatever you want then getting an aero fit becomes much harder if not impossible. And with many integrated options there simply are no long and narrow cockpits available. They're simply not an option.

In the current top 10 list of fastest Tour tested bikes there are multiple bikes where you're stuck with whatever options the manufacturer is willing to offer you for cockpits. In the Canyon (SLX and CFR) you can't even change the size, the irony here is that the cheapest SL frame has much more potential in terms of aero than the more expensive ones because it has a traditional steerer. Simplon and Cervelo have their own proprietary stems AND bars, so even if you can get a stem in size you want you're still stuck in using one of their bars. Factor One has their own proprietary system.

Now Tour is in a difficult position here. Having just the legs for testing makes the tests repeatable and somewhat fair. But it completely leaves out the upper body position. That wasn't a problem a few years ago when you could make any bike with stack and reach in the right ballpark fit you. But nowadays the design choices do have an impact on how much potential there is for getting aero. I don't think adding a full mannequin is the right thing to do for testing. But they definitely could make some tests on what upper body and arm position means in terms of drag.

HBike
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:22 pm

by HBike

Lina wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:59 am
HBike wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:28 am
spartacus wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:22 pm
Lina wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:02 pm
So if you take the 10 watts from wheels, and 6 from cockpit the Soloist is suddenly at 212 watts, which isn't nearly as bad. And considering you can easily install a narrow bar and any size stem on the soloist it wouldn't be a surprise if it ended up being just as aero, if not more aero, in the real world than some of the "faster" bikes where you can't change the bar width or stem angle/length. The Tour test doesn't rider position into account at all and that is the biggest source of drag after all.

The first thing you should think when buying an aero bike is can you achieve an aero position on the bike. If you can't it doesn't matter how many watts faster the wind tunnel tests claim the frame to be. Gaining 10 watts from the frame doesn't help if you're at the same time giving up 20 watts from your position.
I don't understand why more people aren't talking about this instead of nerding out on the aero drag of riderless bikes with arbitrarily wide bars.
Tour has a half body model with rotating legs already. There is a lot of drag because of the upper body, too, but there is only a small interaction of the flow of the upper body with that of the bike below. So to first order one can add both components. This means that when you have already your typical racing position, it is the bike that counts to add additional aero gains.
And all of that was true 5 years ago. You could look at the Tour tests, pick the most aero bike, and be confident that you have the most aero bike. That's because you could get the same position on pretty much any bike. But that's not true anymore because of full integration and proprietary cockpits. Upper body position matters a lot on terms of aero, both your torso and arms. If you can not change the cockpit parts to whatever you want then getting an aero fit becomes much harder if not impossible. And with many integrated options there simply are no long and narrow cockpits available. They're simply not an option.

In the current top 10 list of fastest Tour tested bikes there are multiple bikes where you're stuck with whatever options the manufacturer is willing to offer you for cockpits. In the Canyon (SLX and CFR) you can't even change the size, the irony here is that the cheapest SL frame has much more potential in terms of aero than the more expensive ones because it has a traditional steerer. Simplon and Cervelo have their own proprietary stems AND bars, so even if you can get a stem in size you want you're still stuck in using one of their bars. Factor One has their own proprietary system.

Now Tour is in a difficult position here. Having just the legs for testing makes the tests repeatable and somewhat fair. But it completely leaves out the upper body position. That wasn't a problem a few years ago when you could make any bike with stack and reach in the right ballpark fit you. But nowadays the design choices do have an impact on how much potential there is for getting aero. I don't think adding a full mannequin is the right thing to do for testing. But they definitely could make some tests on what upper body and arm position means in terms of drag.
There are quite a few ressources available regarding effects of body position on drag, easy to google (even some scientific papers).

Even though upper body position is extremely important, too, there are so many parameters, it is very difficult to test appropriately to offer comparability. Sure, you could include an upper body, but I don't see a big benefit as I want to see the effect of the bike.
Everybody knows the geometry of the bike beforehand, the possibilities to change stem and bar and can compare with one's needs. Luckily, many manufacturers still offer the possibility to make changes, unless extremes are required (for my Scott Addict RC I could choose bar width and stem length free of charge to my liking - a small surplus was charged for the fully integrated carbon cockpit which I chose).
If manufacturers don't offer anything, this could (and should) be an important part of your buying decision. Canyon allows for changing width within limits (I like that), but it is "very difficult" to obtain different stem lenghts according to people's reaction in forums. A reason why I wouldn't choose it similarly to other pure online resellers with limited options.

robeambro
Posts: 1829
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

HBike wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:24 am
Lina wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:59 am
HBike wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:28 am
spartacus wrote:
Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:22 pm


I don't understand why more people aren't talking about this instead of nerding out on the aero drag of riderless bikes with arbitrarily wide bars.
Tour has a half body model with rotating legs already. There is a lot of drag because of the upper body, too, but there is only a small interaction of the flow of the upper body with that of the bike below. So to first order one can add both components. This means that when you have already your typical racing position, it is the bike that counts to add additional aero gains.
And all of that was true 5 years ago. You could look at the Tour tests, pick the most aero bike, and be confident that you have the most aero bike. That's because you could get the same position on pretty much any bike. But that's not true anymore because of full integration and proprietary cockpits. Upper body position matters a lot on terms of aero, both your torso and arms. If you can not change the cockpit parts to whatever you want then getting an aero fit becomes much harder if not impossible. And with many integrated options there simply are no long and narrow cockpits available. They're simply not an option.

In the current top 10 list of fastest Tour tested bikes there are multiple bikes where you're stuck with whatever options the manufacturer is willing to offer you for cockpits. In the Canyon (SLX and CFR) you can't even change the size, the irony here is that the cheapest SL frame has much more potential in terms of aero than the more expensive ones because it has a traditional steerer. Simplon and Cervelo have their own proprietary stems AND bars, so even if you can get a stem in size you want you're still stuck in using one of their bars. Factor One has their own proprietary system.

Now Tour is in a difficult position here. Having just the legs for testing makes the tests repeatable and somewhat fair. But it completely leaves out the upper body position. That wasn't a problem a few years ago when you could make any bike with stack and reach in the right ballpark fit you. But nowadays the design choices do have an impact on how much potential there is for getting aero. I don't think adding a full mannequin is the right thing to do for testing. But they definitely could make some tests on what upper body and arm position means in terms of drag.
There are quite a few ressources available regarding effects of body position on drag, easy to google (even some scientific papers).

Even though upper body position is extremely important, too, there are so many parameters, it is very difficult to test appropriately to offer comparability. Sure, you could include an upper body, but I don't see a big benefit as I want to see the effect of the bike.
Everybody knows the geometry of the bike beforehand, the possibilities to change stem and bar and can compare with one's needs. Luckily, many manufacturers still offer the possibility to make changes, unless extremes are required (for my Scott Addict RC I could choose bar width and stem length free of charge to my liking - a small surplus was charged for the fully integrated carbon cockpit which I chose).
If manufacturers don't offer anything, this could (and should) be an important part of your buying decision. Canyon allows for changing width within limits (I like that), but it is "very difficult" to obtain different stem lenghts according to people's reaction in forums. A reason why I wouldn't choose it similarly to other pure online resellers with limited options.
I think the point that others were trying to make is that it should but in many cases it doesn't. There's plenty of people who obsess over Tour wattages and then:
- make the "rider aero" worse, by using whatever 40cm wide handlebars the manufacturers spec on their bikes.
- make their "bike aero" worse - think of how many swapped* the stock cockpit on the SystemSix due to it weighing too much. Or putting* slow tubulars on their aero bikes to make them lighter. Or how many buy* too stiff a bike and then have to fit a 32mm tyre at the front which in most cases will make aero worse.

*for reference, I respect everyone's decision and if one likes the aesthetics of an aero frame but they want a light bike then so be it - but neither of those examples are likely to be faster than a "fully aero and RR optimised" bike, so if one bought that specific frame cause they think they'll be faster on it but then they kill the aero to make it light/comfortable, well..

User avatar
C36
Posts: 2471
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:24 am

by C36

I think it has been mentioned a couple of times here that many bikes have a fit limitation and it is good that we keep repeating it.

It’s an issue that is not just related to aero but of overall fitting (how many people select a frame, the like in on the after adapt their position).

Now, Once this is taken in consideration, they’re still a huge value from Tour tests, measuring the part that is not fit dependent (who is a caveat of bar width and height that impact overall result). Another point is that it is the only thing we have….

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply