*Tour Aero Bike Tests*

[maxim809]

genuinely curious, what are the drawbacks to BB86?

[TobinHatesYou]

genuinely curious, what are the drawbacks to BB86?

30mm spindles aren't going away. Every brand just needs to get on-board with T47 or BB386EVO.

[lewolive]

genuinely curious, what are the drawbacks to BB86?

When you make statistics on a large sample of BB86 frames, it appears that they are close to BSA with 24mm spindles (smoothness and bearings durability).
When you want a 30mm, because 30mm cranks are definitely better (let's say 150-200g lighter than Shimano), you need the 41/30mm BB.
And according to my experience, the 41/30 is less durable than standard 41/24 (BB86). Considering smoothness, 41/30 may be close to 41/24 when you select good ceramic products, but you need to plan a bigger budget for maintenance and replacement parts.
It would say that as BSA30 with similar quality is twice more reliable than a 41/30.

However, when you consider other factors like:
-price of the frame
-availability of the products/frames
-aero performance of the bikes
-geometry that is optimized for you
....

Spending 2 ceramic BB per year for a total of $300 would probably solve the issue of most of us with BB86 and 30mm spindes.

At the end it's just an equation btw price per mile and energy consumption (speed/watt).
So, popular brands like Canyon and Scott would be actually more competitive with T47 frames. But spending an extra $2000 for just a threaded frame may be a little too expensive.

[FartofDarkness]

They have a web version but it’s quite convoluted to subscribe via their publisher website. Very confusing. But their text are selectable so i copy and paste the bits i want to google translate. These days it produces accurate translation aside from a few words which you can make sense anyways.

If you get Google chrome it can automatically translate the webpage for you (just take some of it with a pinch of salt!)

[HBike]

genuinely curious, what are the drawbacks to BB86?

They are just fine with 24mm spindles from Shimano.

Here an older but interesting comparison regarding friction:
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/fric ... cket-drag/

According to Friction Facts’ latest report: “No statistically significant difference exists showing a general advantage or disadvantage of a standard type under similar loading conditions. It appears the frictional losses are heavily dependent on the manufacturer, quality, and design of the bottom bracket, not the standard itself.”

You can get nice ones threaded ones from WheelsMfG or Token Ninja.

[OUGrad05]

Last gen foil was 210w?

S5 is great but only Cole's in size 58. I'm 6'6 there's no way I'm fitting on an s5 with their sizing limitations

[maxim809]

<details, followed by Big Picture>

Thank you, that was a great explanation!

[spdntrxi]

genuinely curious, what are the drawbacks to BB86?

They are just fine with 24mm spindles from Shimano.

Here an older but interesting comparison regarding friction:
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/fric ... cket-drag/

According to Friction Facts’ latest report: “No statistically significant difference exists showing a general advantage or disadvantage of a standard type under similar loading conditions. It appears the frictional losses are heavily dependent on the manufacturer, quality, and design of the bottom bracket, not the standard itself.”

You can get nice ones threaded ones from WheelsMfG or Token Ninja.

I've been on BB86 with 30mm for 3+ years now.. same bearing and no issues.

[aeroisnteverything]

The new foil is 206 watts of power at 45 km/h
Just go to the Tour site and use google chrome. It will translate everything to English.

Which is... OK, but does not set the world on fire by any means. Canyon was 202, IIRC (albeit tested with what are likely faster wheels), and Cervelo S5 is faster as well.

S5 with 205 Watt. Include error margin and there is hardly any difference (something people don't pay attention to). Additionally, did they use equal wheels, tires, tire widths, ...? Do both weigh the same? People here post weird things. Calling 206W just "ok" is strange, in my opinion. Roman Bardet used the new Foil on flat and mountainous terrain.

I just expect more progress given the relaxed aero rules. At the moment, based on Tour tests, the most aero efficient frames are, I believe, Canyon, Cervelo S5 and Cannondale. None of which were designed to take advantage of the new rules allowances for deeper tube profiles. So it's just a bit disappointing to see a shiny new thing come out from Scott, and have it perform at the same level as the bikes from 3-4 years ago, especially given the price tag.

[Nickldn]

The new foil is 206 watts of power at 45 km/h
Just go to the Tour site and use google chrome. It will translate everything to English.

Which is... OK, but does not set the world on fire by any means. Canyon was 202, IIRC (albeit tested with what are likely faster wheels), and Cervelo S5 is faster as well.

S5 with 205 Watt. Include error margin and there is hardly any difference (something people don't pay attention to). Additionally, did they use equal wheels, tires, tire widths, ...? Do both weigh the same? People here post weird things. Calling 206W just "ok" is strange, in my opinion. Roman Bardet used the new Foil on flat and mountainous terrain.

I just expect more progress given the relaxed aero rules. At the moment, based on Tour tests, the most aero efficient frames are, I believe, Canyon, Cervelo S5 and Cannondale. None of which were designed to take advantage of the new rules allowances for deeper tube profiles. So it's just a bit disappointing to see a shiny new thing come out from Scott, and have it perform at the same level as the bikes from 3-4 years ago, especially given the price tag.

Thing is to get a real step up in aero you need to look at Tri and TT specific bikes. How many people really want that look on their road bike?

The new Bianchi Oltre has caused a lot of controversy about its looks, who wants to take that business risk?

[justkeepedaling]

Which is... OK, but does not set the world on fire by any means. Canyon was 202, IIRC (albeit tested with what are likely faster wheels), and Cervelo S5 is faster as well.

S5 with 205 Watt. Include error margin and there is hardly any difference (something people don't pay attention to). Additionally, did they use equal wheels, tires, tire widths, ...? Do both weigh the same? People here post weird things. Calling 206W just "ok" is strange, in my opinion. Roman Bardet used the new Foil on flat and mountainous terrain.

Old S5, remember, and on slow wheels. If I remember correctly, the S5 was equal to the Cannondale on equivalent 404 wheels.

Foil is lighter than S5 I believe, but more expensive and seems like with far more annoying maintenance requirements. That seatpost adjustment can't be real. 600 miles? I'd have to mess with it every 3 weeks? Yikes.

As far as the aero game goes, what the pros use is not indicative of ability, it's simply what they have available and what they individually prefer. For over a decade people were riding round tube bikes even though things like the Soloist existed

With new test protocol? Why didn't you cite the new 5 with disc brakes, to compare like to like? Because it didn't suit your prejudice?
What do round tubes have to do with this, things have changed? I think you don't know what you are talking about.

I AM comparing the latest test protocol and the disc brake S5 BEFORE the 2023 update. Or maybe you haven't seen that there's a new one with deeper tubes and updated aero.

It's as fast as the System Six when on equal 404 wheels. Go check, it's at 202 Watts with disc and 404s. That puts it (and most likely the latest S5) outside of your error bar statement

As far as my comment on what the pros ride, your statement that a pro rides any of these bikes so it's good enough for xyz terrain means nothing. Which is what I was stating.

[FartofDarkness]

The new foil is 206 watts of power at 45 km/h
Just go to the Tour site and use google chrome. It will translate everything to English.

Which is... OK, but does not set the world on fire by any means. Canyon was 202, IIRC (albeit tested with what are likely faster wheels), and Cervelo S5 is faster as well.

S5 with 205 Watt. Include error margin and there is hardly any difference (something people don't pay attention to). Additionally, did they use equal wheels, tires, tire widths, ...? Do both weigh the same? People here post weird things. Calling 206W just "ok" is strange, in my opinion. Roman Bardet used the new Foil on flat and mountainous terrain.

I just expect more progress given the relaxed aero rules. At the moment, based on Tour tests, the most aero efficient frames are, I believe, Canyon, Cervelo S5 and Cannondale. None of which were designed to take advantage of the new rules allowances for deeper tube profiles. So it's just a bit disappointing to see a shiny new thing come out from Scott, and have it perform at the same level as the bikes from 3-4 years ago, especially given the price tag.

When did the new rules come into effect and we’re they telegraphed before? Take the usual lead time from design to retail, add in the covid supply chain problems and perhaps these ‘new’ bikes were conceived of way before the new changes were announced


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[justkeepedaling]

Which is... OK, but does not set the world on fire by any means. Canyon was 202, IIRC (albeit tested with what are likely faster wheels), and Cervelo S5 is faster as well.

S5 with 205 Watt. Include error margin and there is hardly any difference (something people don't pay attention to). Additionally, did they use equal wheels, tires, tire widths, ...? Do both weigh the same? People here post weird things. Calling 206W just "ok" is strange, in my opinion. Roman Bardet used the new Foil on flat and mountainous terrain.

I just expect more progress given the relaxed aero rules. At the moment, based on Tour tests, the most aero efficient frames are, I believe, Canyon, Cervelo S5 and Cannondale. None of which were designed to take advantage of the new rules allowances for deeper tube profiles. So it's just a bit disappointing to see a shiny new thing come out from Scott, and have it perform at the same level as the bikes from 3-4 years ago, especially given the price tag.

When did the new rules come into effect and we’re they telegraphed before? Take the usual lead time from design to retail, add in the covid supply chain problems and perhaps these ‘new’ bikes were conceived of way before the new changes were announced


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These new bikes are all using the relaxed rules on airfoil depth. The more likely take is that we're getting to diminishing returns, much like what has happened in the time trial bike scene

[CAAD8FRED]

I think we are at a plateau for bike design at this point. The propel and SL7 both have similar test results. Aero-focused bikes cannot seem to get any lighter and the lightweight semi-aero bikes cannot seem to get more aero without giving up stiffness targets.

[Mr.Gib]

The new one looks a bit better but has some compromises, like servicing the seat post every 600 miles.

Is this real? Is this what it's come to? Even 300 miles a week is pretty ordinary mileage. So a two week service interval?
Show me a bike that requires the seatpost to be "serviced" every 600 miles and I'll show you someone who doesn't know how to design a bike. FFS a good wax job on a chain can lost longer than that. I've had tires that could go longer without adding air. Hell, my creepy brother had a pet boa constrictor that we didn't feed that often. Sorry Scott, IMO that is pretty sad.