I don't mean to be a smartass, also cause English isn't my first language, but "to overshadow" doesn't mean that something is not available, just that there are far more important aspects.AJS914 wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:21 pmAero benefits are not overshadowed. Aero benefits are always available. I just don't get the constant minimizing of aero benefits.
From the System Six white paper:
https://www.cannondale.com/~/media/File ... epaper.pdfConsider the final kick with
the final 200m covered at an average speed of 60 km/h.
For a typical rider that 12s effort would require an average
of 1000W. Over this final kick the SystemSix would achieve
a 2.1 km/h top speed and reach the line 0.4 sec ahead of
the modern race bike. That doesn’t sound like a big margin,
but at 60km/h that equates to 7.2m, or four bike lengths.
If you don't believe their marketing numbers then go plug in your own numbers in the analytical cycling site.
That said, the Cannondale White Paper compares "a modern race bike", which is either the SS Evo or a whatever-round-tube frame, I assume. So clearly the aero benefits are amplified to sound better for marketing. Let's just do it ourselves, shall we.
If you watch this video, at the specified time you'll see a table with average CdA's in the drops and in an aero position on the hoods, which is not really like sprinting but hey ho: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDmbKzf3ig&t=262s
You'll see that in the "Straight Arms Drops" position, the Cda for the Tarmac is 0.3091, and for the Reacto is 0.2973.
So, let's go to this website and plug all the data in: http://www.aeroweenie.com/calc.html
Well, on a sprint @1000w, the terminal speed for the Reacto is 61.96kmh, while for the Tarmac is 61.18. A difference of roughly 0.78kmh, which is meaningful, but only a bit more than ONE THIRD of what Cannondale claims. So maybe one third of four bike lengths, which is 2.4 metres in those 200m.
Oh and this is for that level of sprinting, not sure how many can hold that power. For lower level cat 6959 sprinters, may be less than that. If we do the same @ 900w, the difference in speed becomes 58.99 vs vs 59.25, which is 0.26kmh, which is some odd 20 watts, so still meaningful, nothing to be sniffed at, but it's still a bit more than ONE TENTH of what Cannondale claims. .
Is there a difference? YES. The aero bike is better for sprinting.
Is it as big as Cannondale claims if you compare a decently aero frame like the Tarmac? NO WAY.
I don't mean to deny aero. I think the data is pretty clear. I just wish you'd convene with me that the difference FOR THE FRAME isn't very big and in most cases isn't worthwhile buying into, and definitely not because of what the marketing says.
And this is sprinting at high watts, don't get me started on how beneficial an aero frame is on a mixed course..