*Tour Aero Bike Test 2019*

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
spdntrxi
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

Lugan wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:33 am
spdntrxi wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:38 pm
aero trumps lightweight
comfort trumps discomfort
strong legs nearly trumps all.. :0
No need for trumping and other false choices. We can choose all of these.
Make aerobikes light again? :beerchug:

by Weenie


robeambro
Posts: 613
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

AJS914 wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:52 pm
robeambro wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:32 am

Firstly, because the gap is 20 watts @ 45km/h, which is an average speed not many amateurs can hold while riding solo. Now you'll say that you can hold it in a crit, but while you are drafting, the aero benefit from a frameset is -while still there- even less important.
So it's much more fair and objective to say that the gap is 10 to 15 watts *at best* for the great majority of us.

Faster amateurs can certainly hit 45km/hr. We hit faster speeds on our group ride every Saturday. When it's your turn to take a pull or follow an attack off the front, it's nice to have any extra advantage. You may not need the aero bike for 99% of your solo ride but when you attack that Strava segment it's nice to have an aero advantage.

Isn't 20 watts Tour mags half mannequin watts?

Anyway, I don't understand why people constantly try to minimize or diminish aero gains. Nobody ever posts that aero wheels don't make a difference. Nobody comes along and says that you don't need aero wheels when you ride in a group. I'm curious why aero bikes feel so threatening to people.

Sure, a 200 watt FTP guy is not going to buy an aero bike and keep up with a 400 watt guy. I don't think anyone actually thinks this when they purchase an aero bike.
Just making people read the data critically and objectively. I didn’t really comment on whether aero frame gains are worth it.

AJS914
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

Understanding data critically is fine but you frequently post stuff like "not many amateurs can hold while riding solo" or "the aero benefit from a frameset is -while still there- even less important". Those comments attempt to minimize the benefits of aero gains. You basically are commenting on whether the gains are worth it.

Of course, in the end nobody needs to run out and buy a new bike. An aero bike is going to be a 10-15% improvement for most serious amateurs and then only at the fast part of ride which might represent only a few minutes of ride time. Still, some people will work for six months to get a 10% performance gain.

robeambro
Posts: 613
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

AJS914 wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:37 pm
Understanding data critically is fine but you frequently post stuff like "not many amateurs can hold while riding solo" or "the aero benefit from a frameset is -while still there- even less important". Those comments attempt to minimize the benefits of aero gains. You basically are commenting on whether the gains are worth it.

Of course, in the end nobody needs to run out and buy a new bike. An aero bike is going to be a 10-15% improvement for most serious amateurs and then only at the fast part of ride which might represent only a few minutes of ride time. Still, some people will work for six months to get a 10% performance gain.
I agree on the second quote, could have avoided that. Don’t agree so much on the first quote being dismissive of aero gains, but anyway, doesn’t matter.

Going forward I will try not to minimise the importance of those gains - But I still believe there’s so much low hanging aero fruit that it’s really important not to get carried away in thinking that the frame makes a difference by Itself. I’m still an aero weenie at heart, just not sold on frames. :)

Lugan
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:02 pm

by Lugan

(oops, duplicate post)
Last edited by Lugan on Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lugan
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:02 pm

by Lugan

spdntrxi wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:39 am
Lugan wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:33 am
spdntrxi wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:38 pm
aero trumps lightweight
comfort trumps discomfort
strong legs nearly trumps all.. :0
No need for trumping and other false choices. We can choose all of these.
Make aerobikes light again? :beerchug:
+1! Speaking of which, I am looking forward to reviews of the new Parlee RZ7. Simultaneously, I promise to continue to train hard and smart, ride low, wear tight kit, and numerous other tweaks to create my own big pile of marginal gains. Pursuing marginal gains is fun; sort of a hobby.

User avatar
wheelsONfire
Posts: 2963
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Location: NorthEU

by wheelsONfire

spdntrxi wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:39 am
Lugan wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:33 am
spdntrxi wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:38 pm
aero trumps lightweight
comfort trumps discomfort
strong legs nearly trumps all.. :0
No need for trumping and other false choices. We can choose all of these.
Make aerobikes light again? :beerchug:
If talking next trend, that would be my guess to
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2018.12.21)
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=156137
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)


Ex bike; Vial EVO D

aeroisnteverything
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:43 pm

by aeroisnteverything

Lugan wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:56 pm

+1! Speaking of which, I am looking forward to reviews of the new Parlee RZ7. Simultaneously, I promise to continue to train hard and smart, ride low, wear tight kit, and numerous other tweaks to create my own big pile of marginal gains. Pursuing marginal gains is fun; sort of a hobby.
I have not even noticed the Parlee release! Nice looking bike and 870g frame (unpainted?) is quite good. Would indeed be interesting to see the reviews.

TheRich
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

robeambro wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:57 pm
I agree on the second quote, could have avoided that. Don’t agree so much on the first quote being dismissive of aero gains, but anyway, doesn’t matter.

Going forward I will try not to minimise the importance of those gains - But I still believe there’s so much low hanging aero fruit that it’s really important not to get carried away in thinking that the frame makes a difference by Itself. I’m still an aero weenie at heart, just not sold on frames. :)
Aesthetically (and practically), I doubt the majority is sold on full aero frames, but a lot of what ends up making them aero IS the low hanging fruit like bars, cable routing and subtle changes in tube shape.

Beancouter
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:04 pm

by Beancouter

Out if interest, has anyone on the forum (or elsewhere)compared a modern aero frame against an old one? Have recently built up a 2011 Cervelo s2 to add to my stable and am intrigued as to how much difference modern design makes.

I did contemplate pulling some kind of list together from the Tour tests over the years, but proved harder than expected to get copies of the articles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
VTR1000SP2
Posts: 782
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:21 pm

by VTR1000SP2

Beancouter wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:09 pm
Out if interest, has anyone on the forum (or elsewhere)compared a modern aero frame against an old one? Have recently built up a 2011 Cervelo s2 to add to my stable and am intrigued as to how much difference modern design makes.
While not a direct answer to your question, I think the best response here is that it's irrelevant. Previous generation aero bikes lack the tire clearance and compliance of their successors which translates to speed and efficiency outside of the wind tunnel.

Beancouter
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:04 pm

by Beancouter

Maybe..... I am running knight composites (i think they are 18/19 internal width, 25 mm external) and then 23mm GP5000 - enough clearance on my S2.

In any event, my question was regarding aero, not compliance/ real world riding. It was in part triggered by a comment on the forum that new disc frames are less aero than their rim brake predecessors





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BmanX
Posts: 3911
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:31 pm

by BmanX

AERO AND LIGHT IS RIGHT and I have been saying this for a decade. About time the industry listened.
BIG DADDY B FLOW
AERO & LIGHT is RIGHT

Cervelo SLC 5960g/13.13 lbs

User avatar
Alexbn921
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 pm

by Alexbn921

BmanX wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:39 pm
AERO AND LIGHT IS RIGHT and I have been saying this for a decade. About time the industry listened.
Don't forget comfort too. There is absolutely no reason a bike can't be aero, light and comfortable all at the same time.

User avatar
C36
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:24 am

by C36

Beancouter wrote:Out if interest, has anyone on the forum (or elsewhere)compared a modern aero frame against an old one? Have recently built up a 2011 Cervelo s2 to add to my stable and am intrigued as to how much difference modern design makes.

I did contemplate pulling some kind of list together from the Tour tests over the years, but proved harder than expected to get copies of the articles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do have with bikes since 2013 (but just from the magazine I bought so highly incomplete) that’s 104 bikes so far, last update from the pure aero bikes jan-2019.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post