Gen 1 vs Current Venge Drag Data

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
cyclenutnz
Posts: 801
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Contact:

by cyclenutnz

I digitise and save all the aero data I can find.
It's not ideal to compare results from different tests, so this is just indicative
revenge.jpg
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz
http://www.velogicfit.com - 3D Motion Capture and Frame Finder Software

Kvnmil13
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:57 pm

by Kvnmil13

cyclenutnz wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:07 am
I digitise and save all the aero data I can find.
It's not ideal to compare results from different tests, so this is just indicative
revenge.jpg
This is what I was looking for. The Vias and current are indeed faster. In my case, it probably does not make sense to upgrade since the gap is so small.

No one ever does this kind of comparison when the new “faster” bikes are launched. Until I started to dig into this, I assumed that the Vias and current Venge were at least 20 watts faster. I am sure that this information is left out of the marketing campaign for a reason.

by Weenie


User avatar
silvalis
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Aus

by silvalis

From what I recall, they also said that the Allez Sprint and the Venge 1 were on par aerodynamically?
Chasse patate

Pierre86
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 3:53 pm

by Pierre86

silvalis wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:23 am
From what I recall, they also said that the Allez Sprint and the Venge 1 were on par aerodynamically?
At low yaw they are similar, venge 1 is still faster as the angle increases
S6 Evo
S5 Aero

gbrnole
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:40 pm

by gbrnole

Imaking20 wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:24 am
Find whatever reason you need to justify ditching the first gen Venge though. I spent 7500+ miles on one before I realized I was lying to myself. It's a solid bike, but that thing is so freaking uncomfortable. The Felt AR1 will likely feel A LOT more rapid AND comfortable.
gbrnole wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:59 pm
spartan wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:59 pm
first gen venge had pretty poor aero. current gen venge/tarmac/roubaix all are better aero.
that's really not true.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately.
But it's not true. I did not suggest that the first gen Venge is on par with a Madone, Vias, new Venge, S5 Disc or SystemSix, only that it was at least as aero, if not more aero than an SL6 or a new Roubaix.

We have already seen independent testing that shows the original Venge at 213w (in line with the Aeroad as I previously said) and the SL6 at 219w with the SL6 having the benefit of more aero wheels (Firestrike vs Firecrest) but the Venge having the benefit of first gen aero road bars. At best, the first gen Venge is marginally more aero and at worst it's a wash.

If I had to choose between the two, of course, I'd take the SL6 if money was no object because it's a significantly more comfortable bike that is also a bit lighter. If I already had the first gen Venge, then the decision weighs heavily on investment and need for comfort because aero and weight are not significant enough factors.

Kvnmil13
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:57 pm

by Kvnmil13

gbrnole wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:42 pm
Imaking20 wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:24 am
Find whatever reason you need to justify ditching the first gen Venge though. I spent 7500+ miles on one before I realized I was lying to myself. It's a solid bike, but that thing is so freaking uncomfortable. The Felt AR1 will likely feel A LOT more rapid AND comfortable.
gbrnole wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:59 pm
spartan wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:59 pm
first gen venge had pretty poor aero. current gen venge/tarmac/roubaix all are better aero.
that's really not true.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately.
But it's not true. I did not suggest that the first gen Venge is on par with a Madone, Vias, new Venge, S5 Disc or SystemSix, only that it was at least as aero, if not more aero than an SL6 or a new Roubaix.

We have already seen independent testing that shows the original Venge at 213w (in line with the Aeroad as I previously said) and the SL6 at 219w with the SL6 having the benefit of more aero wheels (Firestrike vs Firecrest) but the Venge having the benefit of first gen aero road bars. At best, the first gen Venge is marginally more aero and at worst it's a wash.

If I had to choose between the two, of course, I'd take the SL6 if money was no object because it's a significantly more comfortable bike that is also a bit lighter. If I already had the first gen Venge, then the decision weighs heavily on investment and need for comfort because aero and weight are not significant enough factors.
I might not have enough experience with other bikes but I actually have no complaints on the comfort of the first gen Venge. Most of my rides are around 30 miles solo or a ~40 mile weekly group ride. I am still interested in find a few ways to shave watts off my 1st gen venge. Does anyone have data on the savings when going to eTap or hiding Di2 wiring?

Jugi
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:10 am

by Jugi

As a rough ballpark estimate, every 10cm of housing taken off from bike's frontal area takes away about 1W of aero drag. So if a bike has a mechanical groupset and a tidy cabling job to begin with, an average sized frame may gain 1-2W by switching to eTap. If the bike has excess housing to begin with, there might be a third watt up for grabs.

cyclenutnz
Posts: 801
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Contact:

by cyclenutnz

Kvnmil13 wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:16 am
No one ever does this kind of comparison when the new “faster” bikes are launched. Until I started to dig into this, I assumed that the Vias and current Venge were at least 20 watts faster. I am sure that this information is left out of the marketing campaign for a reason.
One of the issues with Tour data is that they're quite good at collecting it but terrible at analysing it, so those wattage demand figures are nearly useless.
Using my course model for our local 26km summer series racing (bad road surface, rolling hills = 200m of ascent) we can break it down to time differences.
Of course, we're pretending that different test days can be compared with certainty, so again - this is just indicative.

With Venge 1 as the baseline averaging 40kph (which requires ~350w normalised for me if I sit in)
Tarmac SL6 4s slower
Venge Disc 15s faster
Venge Vias 19s faster which is an average saving of 3.8w

The model incorporates drafting, so the aero differences are discounted.

If we take it to Worldtour speed (which is known because our club has occasional appearances from *very* good riders), and average 48kph (one of the Trek Segafredo guys averaged more power at club racing than at the Tour down under crit) the difference to the Vias is 16s.

If you want to get really detailled the analysis needs to break down what happens at the pinch points - particularly the final sprint. But for that we need accurate weights and a bit more time.

So if you're doing a 100km race the Venge Disc would save you ~1min. Assuming you can build it to the same weight as your current bike (1kg = 2s in the model so 8s over 100kg, more if the rider is lighter).
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz
http://www.velogicfit.com - 3D Motion Capture and Frame Finder Software

Kvnmil13
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:57 pm

by Kvnmil13

cyclenutnz wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:25 am
Kvnmil13 wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:16 am
No one ever does this kind of comparison when the new “faster” bikes are launched. Until I started to dig into this, I assumed that the Vias and current Venge were at least 20 watts faster. I am sure that this information is left out of the marketing campaign for a reason.
One of the issues with Tour data is that they're quite good at collecting it but terrible at analysing it, so those wattage demand figures are nearly useless.
Using my course model for our local 26km summer series racing (bad road surface, rolling hills = 200m of ascent) we can break it down to time differences.
Of course, we're pretending that different test days can be compared with certainty, so again - this is just indicative.

With Venge 1 as the baseline averaging 40kph (which requires ~350w normalised for me if I sit in)
Tarmac SL6 4s slower
Venge Disc 15s faster
Venge Vias 19s faster which is an average saving of 3.8w

The model incorporates drafting, so the aero differences are discounted.

If we take it to Worldtour speed (which is known because our club has occasional appearances from *very* good riders), and average 48kph (one of the Trek Segafredo guys averaged more power at club racing than at the Tour down under crit) the difference to the Vias is 16s.

If you want to get really detailled the analysis needs to break down what happens at the pinch points - particularly the final sprint. But for that we need accurate weights and a bit more time.

So if you're doing a 100km race the Venge Disc would save you ~1min. Assuming you can build it to the same weight as your current bike (1kg = 2s in the model so 8s over 100kg, more if the rider is lighter).
This is interesting. How much impact does “drafting” have on these times?

Imaking20
Posts: 2050
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:19 am

by Imaking20

gbrnole wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:42 pm
Imaking20 wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:24 am
Find whatever reason you need to justify ditching the first gen Venge though. I spent 7500+ miles on one before I realized I was lying to myself. It's a solid bike, but that thing is so freaking uncomfortable. The Felt AR1 will likely feel A LOT more rapid AND comfortable.
gbrnole wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:59 pm
spartan wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:59 pm
first gen venge had pretty poor aero. current gen venge/tarmac/roubaix all are better aero.
that's really not true.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately.
But it's not true. I did not suggest that the first gen Venge is on par with a Madone, Vias, new Venge, S5 Disc or SystemSix, only that it was at least as aero, if not more aero than an SL6 or a new Roubaix.

We have already seen independent testing that shows the original Venge at 213w (in line with the Aeroad as I previously said) and the SL6 at 219w with the SL6 having the benefit of more aero wheels (Firestrike vs Firecrest) but the Venge having the benefit of first gen aero road bars. At best, the first gen Venge is marginally more aero and at worst it's a wash.

If I had to choose between the two, of course, I'd take the SL6 if money was no object because it's a significantly more comfortable bike that is also a bit lighter. If I already had the first gen Venge, then the decision weighs heavily on investment and need for comfort because aero and weight are not significant enough factors.
I'm also not comparing the first gen Venge to the new breed - I'm saying it's not great compared to its own generation. Just have a look at the Felt AR from the 2015 test.

Your summation of "on par" with the Aeroad is ~3w (slower than) according to the 2015 Tour test. I've not seen any 3rd party data saying the Firestrikes are faster than the Firecrest - whereas the NSW routinely test slower than the original Firecrest. At best, I'd say the wheel difference is a wash - but wouldn't be surprised if the Firestrike was actually a penalty on the Tarmac. Potentially clawing back 2-3w to the original Venge - thus halfing the difference in the tests you reference.

Using the (excellent) practical explanation @cyclenutnz just gave - the largest delta from the on-road comparison was 3.8w. That number may not seem significant - but the reality is that's about all we're playing for among aero frames these days.
Current:
Acid Minty

Retired:
Wilier Wonka | The Dentist | The Bucket List | Specialissima | Evo | T2 | Blue | Project C6.0 | Felt AR FRD | Colnago C59 | S-Works Tarmac SL4| S-Works Venge | Wilier Cento1 SL | Tarmac SL2

gbrnole
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:40 pm

by gbrnole

Imaking20 wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:20 am
gbrnole wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:42 pm
Imaking20 wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:24 am
Find whatever reason you need to justify ditching the first gen Venge though. I spent 7500+ miles on one before I realized I was lying to myself. It's a solid bike, but that thing is so freaking uncomfortable. The Felt AR1 will likely feel A LOT more rapid AND comfortable.
gbrnole wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:59 pm


that's really not true.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately.
But it's not true. I did not suggest that the first gen Venge is on par with a Madone, Vias, new Venge, S5 Disc or SystemSix, only that it was at least as aero, if not more aero than an SL6 or a new Roubaix.

We have already seen independent testing that shows the original Venge at 213w (in line with the Aeroad as I previously said) and the SL6 at 219w with the SL6 having the benefit of more aero wheels (Firestrike vs Firecrest) but the Venge having the benefit of first gen aero road bars. At best, the first gen Venge is marginally more aero and at worst it's a wash.

If I had to choose between the two, of course, I'd take the SL6 if money was no object because it's a significantly more comfortable bike that is also a bit lighter. If I already had the first gen Venge, then the decision weighs heavily on investment and need for comfort because aero and weight are not significant enough factors.
I'm also not comparing the first gen Venge to the new breed - I'm saying it's not great compared to its own generation. Just have a look at the Felt AR from the 2015 test.

Your summation of "on par" with the Aeroad is ~3w (slower than) according to the 2015 Tour test. I've not seen any 3rd party data saying the Firestrikes are faster than the Firecrest - whereas the NSW routinely test slower than the original Firecrest. At best, I'd say the wheel difference is a wash - but wouldn't be surprised if the Firestrike was actually a penalty on the Tarmac. Potentially clawing back 2-3w to the original Venge - thus halfing the difference in the tests you reference.

Using the (excellent) practical explanation @cyclenutnz just gave - the largest delta from the on-road comparison was 3.8w. That number may not seem significant - but the reality is that's about all we're playing for among aero frames these days.
Agreed. And to achieve those results it required a speed/power that relatively will only be achieved by Cat 1 and above riders on a consistent basis. I guess the disconnect was that we were coming from different angles. I fully agree that the original Venge is not as aero as a marketed aero bike.

morrisond
Posts: 962
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:34 pm

by morrisond

Net discussion on Aero in here.

Has anyone analyzed how unaero the RED AXS RD is? That thing looks so bad - it looks way more draggy than almost anything else.

You would have to think a Mech RD would save a lot of watts - assuming you can hide the cables.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post