Colnago All New Aero Bike

[chorus88]

W-O-W!

[ghisallo2003]

Come on UCI. Save us.

[robbosmans]

According to rumours, it will be manufactured by XDS

Hmm interesting because Giant is their manufacturer for all their other monocoque bikes

[TobinHatesYou]

Pointless gimmicks if you ask me.

What's the point of a bayonet fork if you're not even close to tube depth limit with the headtube. Just extra weight and complexity for no reason.

The seattube may be moved forward, but the angle is still so extreme that raising it adds massive amounts of setback/effective seat angle. Just worse than S5, Foil, etc. But hey it may at least give is some actual vertical compliance.

Pretty shallow bb area for an aero bike too.

The bayonet fork reduces the frontal area of the HT and also reduces the overall stack height of the stem in conjunction with the riser bars.

[Mockenrue]

According to rumours, it will be manufactured by XDS

Hmm interesting because Giant is their manufacturer for all their other monocoque bikes

No they're not, that partnership ended some time ago. I forget who it is now though.

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[toxin]

Pointless gimmicks if you ask me.

What's the point of a bayonet fork if you're not even close to tube depth limit with the headtube. Just extra weight and complexity for no reason.

The seattube may be moved forward, but the angle is still so extreme that raising it adds massive amounts of setback/effective seat angle. Just worse than S5, Foil, etc. But hey it may at least give is some actual vertical compliance.

Pretty shallow bb area for an aero bike too.

The bayonet fork reduces the frontal area of the HT and also reduces the overall stack height of the stem in conjunction with the riser bars.

There are other ways of narrowing the ht and the other part is purely a negative when it forces a fully proprietary cockpit solution.

[CJosephB]

Even with these two grainy images... forgot to say finally COLORS!!! Holographic one at that with black ofcourse!

[robeambro]

Ima guess 900g ish frame weight. Gonna claim 30w faster over the V4RS by virtue of seating position, front forward, short crank, narrow bar + bikes smaller CDA). Those enve hoops better be light though. Pogacar will be on it in MSR, but ditch it in TDF except may be pan flat stage. Will win something on it. (guy is a true ww and won't accept anything north of 6.8kg).

He often tries to break away and goes solo with several km left. He would be silly not to pick this bike for all of those occasions. Then again he'd win on a Steelnovo for that matter.

[rollinslow]

Looks like someone asked OpenAI to make a frame with the following inputs.....madone + look blade + cervelo S5.

[CarlosFerreiro]

I'm left wondering on just how you can interprate UCI rule 1.3.020 on the seat tube in any way that makes it fit?

The frame tubes must be tubular without excessive curvature. The frame elements may be slightly curved, but a straight line must be able to be drawn within each element along its length.........
The start and finish points of the lines inside frame elements are the following.......
Seat tube: from the center of the bottom bracket to the section passing through the top of the seat tube.

I think there's been interpretation for TT frames in the past that the tube elemnt is OK if it fits inside the envelope and compensation triangles for the frame, but this one looks to be pushing that pretty hard.

[TobinHatesYou]

I'm left wondering on just how you can interprate UCI rule 1.3.020 on the seat tube in any way that makes it fit?

The frame tubes must be tubular without excessive curvature. The frame elements may be slightly curved, but a straight line must be able to be drawn within each element along its length.........
The start and finish points of the lines inside frame elements are the following.......
Seat tube: from the center of the bottom bracket to the section passing through the top of the seat tube.

I think there's been interpretation for TT frames in the past that the tube elemnt is OK if it fits inside the envelope and compensation triangles for the frame, but this one looks to be pushing that pretty hard.

There are essentially bounding boxes for each major tube section, so if you don’t use all of the depth, you can fill the ST box however you want. That’s how I’ve interpreted it anyway.

[Karvalo]

Ima guess 900g ish frame weight. Gonna claim 30w faster over the V4RS by virtue of seating position, front forward, short crank, narrow bar + bikes smaller CDA). Those enve hoops better be light though. Pogacar will be on it in MSR, but ditch it in TDF except may be pan flat stage. Will win something on it. (guy is a true ww and won't accept anything north of 6.8kg).

He often tries to break away and goes solo with several km left. He would be silly not to pick this bike for all of those occasions. Then again he'd win on a Steelnovo for that matter.

I think that too. Pog's a competitor - I don't think there's any evidence that he's specifically a weightweenie more than he is a performanceweenie. If the aero bike is actually faster on a lot of courses I'd bet we see him on it on a lot of courses. Like with Visma's approach to performance - Jonas rides the S5 most days, even on a decent number of mountain stages if they're not big summit finishes.

[bedampft]

Interesting looking bike.
About time we depart from the form of the last century and actually have a bit of a future going on, doing things different. Even better if it will actually perform. I'm sick auf all these marginal developments. All these small steps that the industrie has been taking over the past 10 years, could've been done in one big leap. Saving us a lot of money in the process as well. Just get rid off the antiquated UCI rules for building bikes. Or maybe, some big company just developes something truely groundbraking, ignoring all this shit, and prove that bikes can be way better. I'd rather spend 10k on a truely new concept, than spending it on something that looks like every other UCI restricted frameset.

[AndrewCowley]

In that case race bikes for the pros need to be seperate from normal road bikes. All those marginal gains come at a huge price and there is no point in the public being expected to buy these bikes. You don't buy a car with Formula 1 technology to take shopping do you. Making a car like that is just needless in every way.

[CarlosFerreiro]

I'm left wondering on just how you can interprate UCI rule 1.3.020 on the seat tube in any way that makes it fit?

The frame tubes must be tubular without excessive curvature. The frame elements may be slightly curved, but a straight line must be able to be drawn within each element along its length.........
The start and finish points of the lines inside frame elements are the following.......
Seat tube: from the center of the bottom bracket to the section passing through the top of the seat tube.

I think there's been interpretation for TT frames in the past that the tube elemnt is OK if it fits inside the envelope and compensation triangles for the frame, but this one looks to be pushing that pretty hard.

There are essentially bounding boxes for each major tube section, so if you don’t use all of the depth, you can fill the ST box however you want. That’s how I’ve interpreted it anyway.

Yes, I wondered about that, and thought the "straight line" requirement had maybe been removed for road frames now, but it's still in the current practical guide.
If you can zigzag about however you want within the envelope, as you can for TT frames, then you can probably get away with it.