Aero bikes and the Pro peloton...

[TobinHatesYou]

w/kg is good for climbing, on flats and descents it doesn't mean very much. Bit annoying to think when you're happy with your value.

It kind of brings back the question: What's a good weight or bmi for a high performing cyclist? Do they weigh more during their on season than if they are lets say just training (waiting) for a few months/weeks. That would indicate they need some muscle mass for that absolute power.

BMI is very generalized, but an endurance cyclist should be on the low end of healthy (19-21.) In general what makes you a TTer vs a GC contender is how much taller your are (with exceptions of course.) Cyclists gradually lose weight as the season progresses toward their targeted races.

[Bigger Gear]

One thing not mentioned so far is the so-called "compliance" factor or even the perception of it. Given that most pro races are point to point on a parcours that the rider sort of knows but does not intimately know, and that the road condition will vary a lot throughout any given day of racing, I think the aero-road bike is chosen less because in general they are less compliant on rougher roads in technical situations. Even if the real-world difference in compliance is minimal between the all-around and the aero bike from a manufacturer, there is also a massive perception that the aero bike is much rougher riding. Part of that is even from the sound of the aero bike....the larger tubes and complete integration of bar/stem and internal cables tend to be more audible over bumps.

[mattr]

but saying they offer no tangible advantage is a simple factual fallacy.

No it's not. It's statistics and applying actual real world use cases to the theoretical test protocols. Some riders might get the full 30w saving. Most will not. Some will find certain aspects of an aero frame annoying or uncomfortable.
Yes, some will just not like them, but to say everyone will gain a measurable advantage is also a simple factual fallacy. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

[parajba]

I am the OP, just checking in to say that I am reading every reply, all very interesting.

[wheelsONfire]

To me it seems ride feel has been less relevant for those really hot on aero bikes?
I might be wrong here, though!?
I also believe in what mattr wrote talking true gains for "all" / most using aero bikes.
I would never consider an aero bike if i couldn't ride really low and stretched out.

[Bordcla]

but saying they offer no tangible advantage is a simple factual fallacy.

No it's not. It's statistics and applying actual real world use cases to the theoretical test protocols. Some riders might get the full 30w saving. Most will not. Some will find certain aspects of an aero frame annoying or uncomfortable.
Yes, some will just not like them, but to say everyone will gain a measurable advantage is also a simple factual fallacy. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Your response goes against basic logic. The frame either creates less drag or doesn't compared to a non aero frame. If it does create less drag, then that's this much less added to whatever the rider himself creates. Given the relatively small fit window of ways anyone can sit on a bicycle to actually ride it, how could a rider's position completely negate the savings offered by the frame, compared to the position of another rider? That makes no sense.

The case made earlier was of the limited benefit for those sheltered in the peloton all day. Just because the wattage number is low doesn't mean it isn't lower still with the aero bike. I won't deny that once the number is low enough, the drag advantage may not matter much, but physics dictate that the advantage would be there nonetheless.

[aeroisnteverything]

Well, the pros also ride tubs, despite higher rolling resistance than best tubeless (Corsa Speed). Despite the “marginal gains” story, it’s hard to see that the equipment choices of the pro peloton as being entirely based on what gives the best performance.

[mattr]

Your response goes against basic logic.

If you say so.

but physics dictate that the advantage would be there nonetheless.

Physics also dictates that it might well be within the realms of experimental error. If we knew what the experiment was in the first place. And if it was even remotely relevant. (As the Hambini wheel testing thread shows.)

[mattr]

Well, the pros also ride tubs, despite higher rolling resistance than best tubeless (Corsa Speed). Despite the “marginal gains” story, it’s hard to see that the equipment choices of the pro peloton as being entirely based on what gives the best performance.

Define performance.

[kgt]

+1
Talking about logical fallacies. Two of those:
a frame with lower drag = a 'faster' bike in a race = better performance of the rider in a race
a tire with lower rolling resistance = a 'faster' tire in a race = better performance of the rider in a race

[jlok]

does it sounds better?
a frame with lower weight = a 'faster' bike in a race = better performance of the rider in a race

[seaneT1]

Let us make somethings clear here, an aero bike is faster than a non aero bike. That does not necesserily mean that a cyclist ridind an aero bike is faster than riding an non-aero because there are many variables at play, both physical and mental ones! In the end, what we actually want is the bike that will enable us to go faster, so if an aero bike for example causes you severe back pain, you will end up going slower than riding a non-aero bike that does not. Are we all on the same page now? Because all of the talking about logical fallacies and all that does not need to continue if we are to have a nice conversation IMHO.

[LeDuke]

I’m guessing that some/many of the people who don’t believe that an “aero” frame is faster ride 40mm+ rims.

So, they apparently believe that a non-box section rim is an improvement over a box section rim, but don’t think an airfoil is an improvement over a round tube. Strange.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AJS914]

Aero deniers remind me of climate deniers. I don't know why aero frames threaten their world view. It's easy not to buy one. The bottom line is that aero is invading the pro peloton on every front. There's too much on the line for those guys to leave 3 or 5 watts on the table. And when it's 3 or 5 watts multiplied by 5 times it becomes significant.

I'm thinking: aero road helmets, aero handlebars, aero shoes or shoe covers, aero jerseys/skinsuits, skinny handlebars, etc. Bikes like the Tarmac have gotten more aero. Bikes like the Venge have gotten lighter and more comfortable. If you put an aero bar on a Tarmac you are almost as fast as a Venge. Team Sky rides an aeroish road bike on all stages. All this is converging such that every road bike will be aero some day.

[Bordcla]

Let us make somethings clear here, an aero bike is faster than a non aero bike. That does not necesserily mean that a cyclist ridind an aero bike is faster than riding an non-aero because there are many variables at play, both physical and mental ones! In the end, what we actually want is the bike that will enable us to go faster, so if an aero bike for example causes you severe back pain, you will end up going slower than riding a non-aero bike that does not. Are we all on the same page now? Because all of the talking about logical fallacies and all that does not need to continue if we are to have a nice conversation IMHO.

Same rider riding exact same position on same wheels and tires inflated to the same pressure, dressed the same, will ride faster on aero bike than on non aero bike for the same wattage or have to produce less watts for exact same speed.

Back pain and mental aspect only come into play if position is allowed to change or if effort level isn't kept constant.

Fully agree with whoever said that one is allowed not to buy an aero bike without having to make up alternative facts to imply that aero bikes provide no advantage ALL ELSE EQUAL.