*Tour Aero Bike Tests*

[jlok]

As much as I love to get more aero bar, the Aeronova LTD was too soft, which could be twisted easily and affect descending confidence. It's the softest bar I have ever used. I love the long reach and low weight tho... Anyone can tell if the TEAM version is stiffer?

[TiCass]

As much as I love to get more aero bar, the Aeronova LTD was too soft, which could be twisted easily and affect descending confidence. It's the softest bar I have ever used. I love the long reach and low weight tho... Anyone can tell if the TEAM version is stiffer?

I believe the Aeronova is the sole reason why aero handlebar had such bad press couple years ago. Dumb geometry + being a noodle.

[hambini]

Hambini,
Should we expect the same “surprises” measuring an aero frame in transient flow test as we had with the wheels? Could you guess if the different with a classic frame (supersix, tarmac...) would be bigger or smaller than suggested in Tour tests?

Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
[/quote]

Not really, even in the steady state Tour test, by the time the air hits the bike frame it is in a chaotic state so it's behaving transiently. The test could be frigged so that they waited for the streamlines to steady out but I don't know if they did that or not.

Hambini

[spud]

As much as I love to get more aero bar, the Aeronova LTD was too soft, which could be twisted easily and affect descending confidence. It's the softest bar I have ever used. I love the long reach and low weight tho... Anyone can tell if the TEAM version is stiffer?

I believe the Aeronova is the sole reason why aero handlebar had such bad press couple years ago. Dumb geometry + being a noodle.

I've won plenty of hard sprints, and never felt like the Aeronova held me back. Ymmv.

[MMW]

As much as I love to get more aero bar, the Aeronova LTD was too soft, which could be twisted easily and affect descending confidence. It's the softest bar I have ever used. I love the long reach and low weight tho... Anyone can tell if the TEAM version is stiffer?

I believe the Aeronova is the sole reason why aero handlebar had such bad press couple years ago. Dumb geometry + being a noodle.

I've won plenty of hard sprints, and never felt like the Aeronova held me back. Ymmv.

Hey.
Can I ask if your using the Team or the LTD?
Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spud]

I've won plenty of hard sprints, and never felt like the Aeronova held me back. Ymmv.[/quote]


Hey.
Can I ask if your using the Team or the LTD?
Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]

pretty sure it's the standard Team. I typically don't spring for the superlite version of anything since I weigh 180 lbs.

[RocketRacing]

The aero pie chart certinally supports dogma as i understood it from other sources, with maybe more emphasis on wheels... which is great as i am building a 56mm wheelset.

I suspect a good portion of the bike/frame aero drag slice is bars, fork.. and the front caliper. If an aero seatpost is say 2-5% frame drag... it is 0.2% or so of the bike/rider system (just rough numbers to communicate a concept). Insignificant.

The trick is remembering that rider drag is so huge, and thus, what you wear is huge (aero clothes, helmet).

Most importantly, there is a reason why bars like the aero nova have such a huge reach, and are often so narrow at the hoods: they essentially place the rider in a narrower, more stretched out (translation:aero) position. A few cm in rider position change can give significant aero savings. So a longer stem, narrower bars, compact drop, and untaped tops might give you much of the benefits of aero bars.

This is part of why why tt/tri bikes are so fast. The rider is in a far more optimal position, and in the pie chart of aero for those bikes, the rider still predominates, but the bike/wheels is proportionaly more significant... because rider drag is lower than your traditional climbing/aero bike.

Also to be remembered is performance at yaw. The deep winged frames/wheels of the tri bikes get to ignore the uci 3:1 rule and can build up some pretty solid sailing effect. So they do not just cut throught the air efficiently, but the air is used to push them along! That is truly free watts! The down side is that as your bike is being pushed forward by wind... the wind also has a vector that is trying to push you over! The other down side is that shapes that sail well at high yaw, tend to suffer slightly more at low yaw. Also, as riders get faster, the yaw angles encountered decrease... so the sail benefits decrease. So the trick is having the right tool for the right yaw.

My hiarchy of making you faster is as follows: (in non scoentific, but logical order)
- just ride
- set your tire pressures, not too high, not too low.
- aero clothing
- aero helmet
- optomize aero position (low and narrow) as tolerated
- aero wheels
- aero bars/stem

[Hexsense]

I still have some doubt about practicality of sailing.
1.) It work optimally in a range of yaw angle, bike's sailing component are not angle adjustable unlike wind yacht.
2.) To create some forward push, you get even more side way push. While wind yacht have some wide spaced stable base to prevent tipping over, your bike only have (narrow) center-located tire and you that can shift weight against the wind. When side force is enough to disturb you from pushing down power optimally, is it still worth the free watts?

[RocketRacing]

Exactly!

Wheels and frames optimized for sailing are 100% a risk/reward calculation. And paradoxically, they should benefit the slower rider more, as they see higher yaw angles on average.

If side forces from winds force you to leave the persuit position, you have just hurt your aero gains! Not for the faint of heart, or beginner. I think this is why tri bikes (and to a lesser degree, a deep section wheelset) with high surface area are best reserved for closed courses.

To me it is less about wind... as you can adjust by leaning. The bigger risks are sudden wind changes like gusts, side roads/tree cover, passing cars. The last thing you want is a car passing you with one foot of clearance when you are in persuit position, near the curb, leaning into high yaw winds.

Yaw is not always in favor of sail effects. The window is narrow. No wind, or minimal wind, and you get none! Too high, and you risk being blown over. However, do the math, and even at a pretty human 35km/hr, it takes a solid wind to bring yaw outside something optimal for these sailing bikes. There are some online calculators that help.

Of interest, the felt ia has won womens division at the kona world tri championships the last five years in a row (every year since released). This is typically a high wind course, and felt had this in mind designing the ia. Mind you, it was a tri, so swimming and running ability factored also, as does sponsoring the fastest athletes.

Vs mens division, women tend to be lighter and less powerful (top riders averaging 200-220+w over the bike leg. Still very impressive given they are going all day!). Due to lower average speeds vs the top pro men, yaw angles experienced are higher, so a better chance at seeing sail benefits. But higher risk too.

[vanmatthew]

I base my aero gains on how good the bike looks.

[KarlC]

I base my aero gains on how good the bike looks.

LOL ride what you love.

[RocketRacing]

I base my aero gains on how good the bike looks.

“If it looks like a dagger, it must be fast” is my mantra

[robeambro]

Oh and another thing I thought today. Adding weight penalty into the equation.

An aero handlebar would weigh some 230g, while a WW round bar would be around 170g. So you “pay” around 60g (ie nothing) and possibly no change in comfort, for a decent bit wattage saving (3-5w at normal speed?)

Wheels: especially with disc brakes, there’s not really much weight difference between a shallow rim and a deeper one. Maybe 150-250g? And the wattage savings, if paired with a right tyre, could be double digits. There might be some loss in comfort but it will largely depend on the wheel and tyre.

When it comes to aero frames, unless you get a Venge or Aeroad, there is a weight penalty that is quite substantial once you take into account seatpost and fork (400g?) potentially some reduction in comfort over long distances, and all this for a quite low wattage saving.

So not only a frame has the least watt/$, but also watt/kg penalty!

It’s so annoying that I love the looks of aero frames so much. They don’t make much sense for most people, why do they have to be so sexy. Why.

[vanmatthew]

My bike sits on the wall next to my car and every time I walk by it I think. Dam you are sexy with your 45mm wheels and integrated stem/handlebar. I can't wait to ride you.

But in terms of weight, what's a few hundred grams when I weigh 80kg.

I have a Canyon Ultimate SL disc with DT Swiss ARC 1400. Was coming from a Giant TCR pro with Flo rims laced to Carbon-ti hubs. That was a super light bike but I've been killing my PRs on Strava with the Canyon.

[Kraaf]

Going to start a little rant here, be warned. While there are plenty of valuable contributions in this thread, it does get a wee bit tedious to see the same uninformed opinions and criticism every single time aerodynamics are mentioned in general, and Tour’s testing in specific. It’s perfectly alright if you can’t understand German, but in that case, please acknowledge that you are missing a lot. For example, the ~10 page document on the Tour website that outlines how they test, why and with what error margins (+/-0.25W within a test series, 1W between series, i.e. 2019 vs 2016). The reason for the high accuracy is the protocol they developed in cooperation with the Airbus testing facility. Simplified, bike-only isn’t representative enough, as the moving legs are an important factor. Humans are not consistent enough, and neither are full-dummies, as getting front end setup stable and identical across models is close to impossible, plus the large amount of drag from the upper body makes detecting bike specific differences harder (see the nice pie chart in above posts). All bikes are set up with the same bar height. I could go on and on, but the simple truth is Tour has put a crapton of thought, time and expertise into getting the best test setup. However, inherent to the nature of these tests, this involves making choices that can be debated. If you are informed enough.

The ‘but it doesn’t matter in the real world’ argument cracks me up every time. If speed doesn’t matter, then that’s true. If it does, then tests like these are not just the best, but the only way to indicate real world performance objectively. And if you maintain the notion that aerodynamics only matter at high speed, well, get educated. In fact, it’s been well established, by many more sources than Tour, that an aero bike is faster than than a light weight bike on almost any course except a single, steep climb. Admittedly, this is something really cool to be fast on. Just ask Phil Gaimon.

Does all of this mean you should buy an aero bike? Or the fastest one in the test you can afford? Must these numbers be important to you? Hell no, get the bike you want. Get the bike that makes you feel good (this may include the feeling of not being bankrupted by your purchase). Since we’re on these forums, that may well be something ridiculously light. Awesome. Or it may be the >10kg alloy beast I just ordered to tear up the local gravel trails with. But please, for the love of all Weenies, don’t rationalise your choice by denying facts or physics.

edit: I acknowledge that “I base my aero gains on how good the bike looks.” is a superior post to mine in every sense. I may have to make that my new signature, sorry Cartman.