*Tour Aero Bike Tests*

[Lina]

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 agree that adding an upper body wouldn't make the tests better. Many manufacturers do make it possible to make changes to the cockpit. But there are also many that don't. And I feel like taking this into account would be a better solution than adding upper body to the tests. Tell the watts same as before but add an asterisk to any bike that can't take a standard stem.

Also there's nothing in Canyons online only approach that makes their options limited, it's their engineering and sales choices that make it limited. They could offer bars in their shop for purchase if they wanted to. Just like they offered with the old models, you could buy any size bar you wanted to. Iirc you could even exchange them for free when buying a bike one. Online only has nothing to do with the amount of options, and there are plenty of direct to customer brands that allow customization. It's their engineering choices that made changing the bars extremely difficult so they don't even want to offer other sizes.

And yes, there is plenty of information online about the effects of body position on aerodynamics that's not what people seem to care about online. Just look at this thread, it's mostly obsessing over single digit watt differences between different frames (and wheels).

[HBike]

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 agree that adding an upper body wouldn't make the tests better. Many manufacturers do make it possible to make changes to the cockpit. But there are also many that don't. And I feel like taking this into account would be a better solution than adding upper body to the tests. Tell the watts same as before but add an asterisk to any bike that can't take a standard stem.

Also there's nothing in Canyons online only approach that makes their options limited, it's their engineering and sales choices that make it limited. They could offer bars in their shop for purchase if they wanted to. Just like they offered with the old models, you could buy any size bar you wanted to. Iirc you could even exchange them for free when buying a bike one. Online only has nothing to do with the amount of options, and there are plenty of direct to customer brands that allow customization. It's their engineering choices that made changing the bars extremely difficult so they don't even want to offer other sizes.

And yes, there is plenty of information online about the effects of body position on aerodynamics that's not what people seem to care about online. Just look at this thread, it's mostly obsessing over single digit watt differences between different frames (and wheels).

"Also there's nothing in Canyons online only approach that makes their options limited, it's their engineering and sales choices that make it limited. They could offer bars in their shop for purchase if they wanted to. Just like they offered with the old models, you could buy any size bar you wanted to. Iirc you could even exchange them for free when buying a bike one. Online only has nothing to do with the amount of options, and there are plenty of direct to customer brands that allow customization. It's their engineering choices that made changing the bars extremely difficult so they don't even want to offer other sizes. "

You have a very good point here. I think this reduces storage and logistics + employees, so increases margin, which is likely the driver behind that. I liked the new Ultimate, but not their new bar design https://s14761.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploa ... st-155.jpg , especially the single bolt fixing mechanism.

I have great experience with Scott and Scott service, this is why I stick with the brand (Giant would have been my alternative). Syncros is offering many useful options.

[spartacus]

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

So basically what you want is for them to isolate the bike frame and compare how aerodynamic different frames are? Who even cares if they are 2-3 watts apart lol. Maybe someone but still, I feel like looking at the bike as a whole is more to the point here.

[BigBoyND]

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.

Because on almost all bikes you can do the same thing. Comparing a narrow bar on a slow frame to a wide bar on a fast frame makes little sense when you can put a narrow bar on a fast frame. Aside from Canyon with it's new cockpits, all the bikes mentioned above can be combined with narrow bars.

[spartacus]

Because on almost all bikes you can do the same thing. Comparing a narrow bar on a slow frame to a wide bar on a fast frame makes little sense when you can put a narrow bar on a fast frame. Aside from Canyon with it's new cockpits, all the bikes mentioned above can be combined with narrow bars.

No you can't, please tell me how many bikes on the market with integrated cockpits have a 130mm stem and 36cm bar option. Now let me tell you going from 40cm bars with a short stem, to 130mm stem and 36cm bars, is a difference in aero magnitude that exceeds anything else about the bike easily.

[spartacus]

check out this dumb assery from bianchi who is putting freaking fairings on their dumb ass bike:

COCKPIT
STEM
Integrated aero handlebar , Carbon, drop 125mm, reach 80mm Ext: 90x400-47/50cm; 100x420-53cm; 110x420-55/57cm; 120x440-59cm

https://www.bianchi.com/store/int_EN/ys ... 2sp-3.html
(someone should be fired for this. Maybe their entire engineering department let go)

Similar dumb assery from cervelo on the s5? etc..? Not sure but you bet I'd be DAMNED sure before buying one!

[aeroisnteverything]

Because on almost all bikes you can do the same thing. Comparing a narrow bar on a slow frame to a wide bar on a fast frame makes little sense when you can put a narrow bar on a fast frame. Aside from Canyon with it's new cockpits, all the bikes mentioned above can be combined with narrow bars.

No you can't, please tell me how many bikes on the market with integrated cockpits have a 130mm stem and 36cm bar option. Now let me tell you going from 40cm bars with a short stem, to 130mm stem and 36cm bars, is a difference in aero magnitude that exceeds anything else about the bike easily.

I am going to take an issue with stem length here. While anyone should be able to comfortably ride with 36cm bars (although for someone with very wide upper body this is unlikely to be effective), going, say, 3cm longer simply on a whim is not biomechanically sustainable. Stem length should be such that one can sustainably hold an aero hoods position for extended periods of time. Similarly, not everyone should with a slammed cockpit on every frame.

That said, your point about a lack of integrated 36cm cockpits remains completely valid.

[BigBoyND]

Because on almost all bikes you can do the same thing. Comparing a narrow bar on a slow frame to a wide bar on a fast frame makes little sense when you can put a narrow bar on a fast frame. Aside from Canyon with it's new cockpits, all the bikes mentioned above can be combined with narrow bars.

No you can't, please tell me how many bikes on the market with integrated cockpits have a 130mm stem and 36cm bar option. Now let me tell you going from 40cm bars with a short stem, to 130mm stem and 36cm bars, is a difference in aero magnitude that exceeds anything else about the bike easily.

"please tell me how many bikes on the market with integrated cockpits have a 130mm stem and 36cm bar option" Well, not the fast frames but not the slow ones either. In any case you need aftermarket combinations.

Most of them can, btw. Take something like an Aerover or RSL VR-C that will work with any bike that routes like Madone/Venge/SL7/SystemSix. If it's ACR or similar, get the OE or ACR stem and use a 36mm Prime Primavera Aero which allows for routing through the stem. One of these solutions should cover a majority of aero bikes. You don't need a slow frame to mount your long/narrow setup.

The only exceptions I can think of are Aeroad and S5/Simplon setups. Are there any others?

[spartacus]

Because on almost all bikes you can do the same thing. Comparing a narrow bar on a slow frame to a wide bar on a fast frame makes little sense when you can put a narrow bar on a fast frame. Aside from Canyon with it's new cockpits, all the bikes mentioned above can be combined with narrow bars.

No you can't, please tell me how many bikes on the market with integrated cockpits have a 130mm stem and 36cm bar option. Now let me tell you going from 40cm bars with a short stem, to 130mm stem and 36cm bars, is a difference in aero magnitude that exceeds anything else about the bike easily.

I am going to take an issue with stem length here. While anyone should be able to comfortably ride with 36cm bars (although for someone with very wide upper body this is unlikely to be effective), going, say, 3cm longer simply on a whim is not biomechanically sustainable. Stem length should be such that one can sustainably hold an aero hoods position for extended periods of time. Similarly, not everyone should with a slammed cockpit on every frame.

That said, your point about a lack of integrated 36cm cockpits remains completely valid.

It's not on a whim, if you're 6' tall or taller with 36cm bars you're gonna need a long stem.

[spartacus]

Because on almost all bikes you can do the same thing. Comparing a narrow bar on a slow frame to a wide bar on a fast frame makes little sense when you can put a narrow bar on a fast frame. Aside from Canyon with it's new cockpits, all the bikes mentioned above can be combined with narrow bars.

No you can't, please tell me how many bikes on the market with integrated cockpits have a 130mm stem and 36cm bar option. Now let me tell you going from 40cm bars with a short stem, to 130mm stem and 36cm bars, is a difference in aero magnitude that exceeds anything else about the bike easily.

"please tell me how many bikes on the market with integrated cockpits have a 130mm stem and 36cm bar option" Well, not the fast frames but not the slow ones either. In any case you need aftermarket combinations.

Most of them can, btw. Take something like an Aerover or RSL VR-C that will work with any bike that routes like Madone/Venge/SL7/SystemSix. If it's ACR or similar, get the OE or ACR stem and use a 36mm Prime Primavera Aero which allows for routing through the stem. One of these solutions should cover a majority of aero bikes. You don't need a slow frame to mount your long/narrow setup.

The only exceptions I can think of are Aeroad and S5/Simplon setups. Are there any others?

Yeah, I'm not saying it's all bikes cause some of them you can change. For example I have the aforementioned 130/36 unicorn combo on my tarmac SL7.

[aeroisnteverything]

It's not on a whim, if you're 6' tall or taller with 36cm bars you're gonna need a long stem.

Loads of assumptions there. I am presuming that this hypothetical someone was able to achieve a good fit on a bike previously with a typical 100 mm stem and 40-42cm bars, and somewhere a 56-58 acm top tube? If so, then simply going to 36cm bars is not going to require a stem that is 130mm long, no. If the original position was already too short, then that is of course another story.

[spartacus]

It's not on a whim, if you're 6' tall or taller with 36cm bars you're gonna need a long stem.

Loads of assumptions there. I am presuming that this hypothetical someone was able to achieve a good fit on a bike previously with a typical 100 mm stem and 40-42cm bars, and somewhere a 56-58 acm top tube? If so, then simply going to 36cm bars is not going to require a stem that is 130mm long, no. If the original position was already too short, then that is of course another story.

Look I'm not going to get into an argument here, I know a lot of people can't ride in an aerodynamic racing position but I'm talking about fit flexible riders on racing bikes, basically nobody tall runs a short stem IRL if you go to a bike race.

[Lina]

Ah yes, spend $$$$$ on a fancy aero bike but don't spend a few minutes daily to stretch and strenghten your core so that you can ride in an aero position. I have disproportionally long legs and short torso for someone that is 6', yet spending hours in an aero position with a long stem is not a problem.

[apr46]

Because on almost all bikes you can do the same thing. Comparing a narrow bar on a slow frame to a wide bar on a fast frame makes little sense when you can put a narrow bar on a fast frame. Aside from Canyon with it's new cockpits, all the bikes mentioned above can be combined with narrow bars.

No you can't, please tell me how many bikes on the market with integrated cockpits have a 130mm stem and 36cm bar option. Now let me tell you going from 40cm bars with a short stem, to 130mm stem and 36cm bars, is a difference in aero magnitude that exceeds anything else about the bike easily.

Short riders (<5'7") also run into the problem of literally not being able to get low enough for the that narrow aero position without sizing down so far that a lot of stock bikes start to get weird in terms of handling and by nature of longer trail numbers, more succecptible to cross winds, limiting the ability to use more aero wheels w/ narrow cockpits. Physically there is also the issue of saddle position as well. While this affects a minority of men it does affect the majority of women.

The decission between a faster or more aero frame and one that a rider can confidently hold a more aero position on is real, but its also not in the front of people's minds because not enough riders understand that nor are there cost effective ways to measure the impact even at the pro level. As that changes, bike designs will also change.

[tmrace]

SL7 was I think 210
Aeroad was 204
New Scott Foil 206
New Giant Propel 209
BMC TimeMachine 210
2022 Cervelo S5 was 205
2023 Cervelo S5=???
I have not seen a number for Gen7 Madone yet

From what I'm understanding here the number for the new Scott Foil was measured with the 454. Did Tour release a number with the control 404 wheelset too?

I don't want to reopen the 454 vs 404 debate we all know the 454 is slower, I just want to see how the Scott stacks up with the regular 404 wheelset if Tour tested that.