*Tour Aero Bike Test 2019*

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Lugan
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:02 pm

by Lugan

Sulliesbrew wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:43 pm
aeroisnteverything wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:22 pm
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.

I’ve had mine for a few weeks now. It is an incredible machine. I have HED Vanquish 6s on it. Weighs in at 18 lbs 2oz with pedals, cages, computer mount. I went with the ultegra Di2 build.
More details please! (Maybe answer on this thread, which is the main RZ7 thread: viewtopic.php?t=156437 )

ksavostin
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:12 am

by ksavostin

I was planning to buy Madone SlR disc but 9 watt difference against system six is huge...

by Weenie


cajer
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:26 am

by cajer

I am slightly skeptical that it tests that badly considering Treks own data which shows it as slightly worse than the previous Madone but not 6 watts worse

ksavostin
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:12 am

by ksavostin

cajer wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:28 pm
I am slightly skeptical that it tests that badly considering Treks own data which shows it as slightly worse than the previous Madone but not 6 watts worse
I also looked at Trek Madone SLR white paper. It’s tricky but they didn’t say which model they compared to old madone , the disc slr or the rim slr? Also I wonder which wheels TourMag used during madone slr test, stock comp5 or new 60mm bontrager xxx6(which according trek is faster than zipp404 and enve 6.7 http://trek.scene7.com/is/content/TrekB ... epaper.pdf)?

cajer
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:26 am

by cajer

Trek explictly said they were testing the disc model. It's likely that the new rim brake model performs better than the old madone due to the improved fork transition.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 4025
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

The biggest single reason why the new Madone is slower than the old: H1.5 vs H1.

ksavostin
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:12 am

by ksavostin

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:28 am
The biggest single reason why the new Madone is slower than the old: H1.5 vs H1.
But what about aero penalty due to disc brakes?

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 4025
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

ksavostin wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:47 am
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:28 am
The biggest single reason why the new Madone is slower than the old: H1.5 vs H1.
But what about aero penalty due to disc brakes?

It exists. It’s a couple of watts. The penalty for gaining around 2cm in stack is far greater.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:04 am
ksavostin wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:47 am
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:28 am
The biggest single reason why the new Madone is slower than the old: H1.5 vs H1.
But what about aero penalty due to disc brakes?

It exists. It’s a couple of watts. The penalty for gaining around 2cm in stack is far greater.
Just curious, do you have a source for your latest ramblings above, or is that just some random guess. It wasn't so very long ago that companies were claiming that by increasing the headtube length, they actually increased the aero aspect of the bike as it reduced the amount of spacers necessary. But you probably woudn't remember that, given that you really got into this whole road bike thing not more than 3 or so years ago I would guess, around the time you began your quest to become an internet bike expert. The longer headtube also supports the steertube more effectively. So, I think Trek's decision to go with the H1.5 fit is a very good one, as it fits far more people better. The decision to also drop the point at which the top tube intersects the seattube however just makes the bike look more and more like a kids mountain bike imo.
Regarding headtube lengths... I have a Trek Koppenberg that has H1 geometry. The headtube is effectively 3cm shorter than my same size (60cm) Emonda in H2 fit. On the Koppenberg I run 2cm of spacers under the stem. Fits well. On the Emonda I run no spacers (save for 3mm alloy red spacer just to add a bit of aesthetic interest) so it ends up about 1cm higher than the Koppenberg. There is no discernable aero difference between the two due to the bike. There is a big aero difference if I simply get low and stay low, but that's my choice. I can get to the same aero postiion on both bikes as most people can, simply by moving your body to a more aero position. This is nothing anyone doesn't know, but it's just funny that most people I see riding around on the latest aero concoctions are often in a position that is anything but aero.
2 watts, 3 watts... even more watts... it really doesn't make a difference other than in the charts and graphs, where all that stuff goes out the window in the real world. Sneeze and you've upset the testing protocol. What's a watt weigh anyway? :noidea: .
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 4025
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

So is the moratorium on you randomly attacking me over?

I made no mention of normalizing body position, and neither does the Tour test. I’m explaining why Tour’s results for the new Madone are so much worse. I didn’t mention HT length or whether H1.5 is good or bad, so you’re stabbing the hell out of a strawman again. Not the best way to attack my credibility.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Never a moratorium. There’s only so much idiocy I can read before I gotta respond. So, any sources for your ramblings of late because they really do seem to be reaching new levels of “expertise”.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 4025
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Grow up.

spdntrxi
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

Cal.. come on dude...

lets put it in the simpliest terms... all other things being equal if you are reducing the frontal area of the bike..and specifically the headtube area you are lowering the aerodynamic drag.. this is commonsense man. Stop asking for links and shit.. makes no sense.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I’m not really asking for a source because I know he’s pulling stuff out of his ass. And you’re not really reducing the frontal area if you fill that area with spacers. That was the whole concept behind the idea that it was easier to shape the headtube in an aerodynamic fashion than to add spacers with the added benefit of better steertube support.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

by Weenie


TobinHatesYou
Posts: 4025
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Tour’s. test. does. not. incorporate. body. position.

This thread is about Tour’s test. Last I checked, they use a torso-less half-dummy. People were asking specifically about why the new Madone fairs significantly worse than the old in this test. I mentioned an increase in stack from H1’s 549mm to H1.5’s 565mm matters in this test. Grow up.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post