Cycling Weekly Aero Bike Test 2. XR4 looking legit.

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Shrike
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm

by Shrike

VIAS, XR4, Foil and a climbing frame (Merida Sculptura) up for comparison this time. The numbers are much lower compared to the last test. Anyone know if that's due to arms being straight on drops and hoods this time and bent last time?

Test 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcdwTRh3sGo

Test 1
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/produ ... est-326667

by Weenie


spartan
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am

by spartan

venge vias get another beat down.

specialized spent large resources $$$$ no rewards. heavy, does not sell well, does not test well. :oops:
Current Rides:

2017 Giant TCR Advanced SL 0 DI2 9150

Slack
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:37 pm

by Slack

Except, in a real world riding situation it was fastest in the first test and second fastest in the second test. who actually rides without a bottle cage?

hannawald
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:28 pm

by hannawald

Foil rulezz:) Must agree, that it´s surprising, how well it performs without hiding cables in integrated cockpits, without being overly porky...

DutchMountains
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:16 pm

by DutchMountains

Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.

jdw
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:10 pm

by jdw

Thanks for posting, I've been considering a new Bianchi

jacobeh
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:56 pm

by jacobeh

DutchMountains wrote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts

Shrike
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm

by Shrike

DutchMountains wrote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


Marketing isn't a euphemism for physics.

In fact if you run the numbers, you'll find that the slower you are, the more meaningful and dramatic aerodynamics are in terms of time. It's 'Joe Average' who benefits the most.

This backwards aero-denial has the same baseless, cherry-picking that goes on with climate change deniers.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 1034
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

DutchMountains wrote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


What’s a meaningful time to you?

User avatar
wheelsONfire
Posts: 1806
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Location: NorthEU

by wheelsONfire

Of all bike that were tested, i wonder which bike would actually feel fastest, but perhaps not measure as fastest.
The lightest, the stiffest?

Anyway, this was interesting :-D
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO D
Paduano Racing Fidia
Open *UP*
https://opencycle.com/showcase/the-xplo ... eelsonfire

Shrike
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm

by Shrike

I have a feeling the Aeroad might feel fastest :lol:

Supposed to be really light and stiff, and has the aggressive drops and geometry. Must be a bit of a thrill ride :P

fordred
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:22 pm

by fordred

wheelsONfire wrote:Of all bike that were tested, i wonder which bike would actually feel fastest, but perhaps not measure as fastest.
The lightest, the stiffest?

Anyway, this was interesting :-D


Whichever bike that vibrates the most or rides the harshest.

Vermu
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:39 am

by Vermu

jacobeh wrote:
DutchMountains wrote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts

Air resistance doesn't work like that. If the speed doubles, air resistance quadruples. Less speed means less air resistance.
This is why most recreational cyclist have zero need for aero bikes - it is even highlighted when the frame geometry is too aggressive for a rider.

DutchMountains
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:16 pm

by DutchMountains

DutchMountains wrote:[...] Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time [...]
TobinHatesYou wrote:What’s a meaningful time to you?

The rides I care about are about 7-60 hours in the saddle (ie. London-Edinburgh-London) and I average about 120W on these rides (measured with Quarq DZero). FTP according to TrainerRoad (on a Tacx Genius) is ~ 290W but my max on the road is more like 210W for an hour.

by Weenie


Shrike
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm

by Shrike

Vermu wrote:
jacobeh wrote:
DutchMountains wrote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts

Air resistance doesn't work like that. If the speed doubles, air resistance quadruples. Less speed means less air resistance.
This is why most recreational cyclist have zero need for aero bikes - it is even highlighted when the frame geometry is too aggressive for a rider.


Again, more bilge waffle.

Aerodynamics is not about needs. No-one needs anything. It's about benefit.

Aerodynamics benefit slower riders more than fast riders because of time saved. Slow, solo riders benefit the greatest. Professional sprint finishes are almost impossible to quantity in terms of aerodynamic benefits from bike parts as the forces from drafting and slingshotting are far too great and the range in those estimates drown out any possible benefit from aerodynamic bike parts. You could possibly make the case where Kittel, who was simply powering down, without slingshotting in some Tour wins last year, may have had benefit from his deep wheels and aero bike. Maybe. You'd have to make the case, and it would be hard to do if you ran the numbers.

A solo rider, going on a big weekend ride at only 16 to 17mph can save a big chunk of time however. They are essentially time trialing and as any halfwit knows - the longer the time spent on a course solo, the greater the time saved can be had from aerodynamics.

There is no reason to want to buy bikes, clothing or helmets that are not aerodynamic. It makes as little sense as intentionally buying something that's uncomfortable.

You would only ever trade off a little aerodynamics for some other aspect that was important to you, however those days are largely gone as stiffness, compliance, low weight etc are all excellent on current gen aero bikes.

The name is unnecessary now, they should lose the moniker and be called bikes again. Then people will stop talking bilge about how aerodynamics aren't 'needed' in bicycles.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post