*Tour Aero Bike Test 2019*

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
gbrnole
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:40 pm

by gbrnole

rudye9mr wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:00 pm
ryanw wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:56 pm
All tested at 45kph:

2019 Cannondale SystemSix Disc - 203w
2016 Trek Madone - 204w
2016 Specialized Venge ViAS - 204w
2016 Cervelo S5 - 205w
2016 Felt AR FRD - 205w
2019 Cervelo S5 Disc - 206w
2016 Canyon Aeroad - 208w
2019 Specialized Venge Disc - 208w
2016 Giant Propel Advanced SL - 210w
2016 Scott Foil Premium - 211w
2016 BMC Time Machine - 211w
2016 Look 795 - 212w
2019 Trek Madone Disc - 212w
2019 Ridley Noah Fast Disc - 213w
little bit of a bump but any updates to the list?
The problem with the above list is that it's not all apples for apples. We don't know how the SystemSix, Noah Fast Disc or the Madone SLR disc tested with Zipp 404's. The numbers for all of the '16 tests were using the 404 reference wheel. The '19 Venge disc and '19 S5 disc both tested at 206w and 203w respectively with Zipp 404 wheels.

I think what might be more important, based on the current impetus of manufacturer sales, is to better understand the aero results (or lack thereof) of the lightweight bikes. Tour mag tested the SL6 to be about 16w slower than the Venge Vias. Cycling weekly tested it to be about 18w slower than the Vias. I'm looking forward to seeing some independent data on the new crop of integrated lightweight bikes.

My opinion is that none of them will best the Pinarello F10 (213w) or F10 disc (214w) - maybe equal it at best?

The Canyon Aeroad is still a heck of a bargain even if it is getting long in the tooth.

CAAD8FRED
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:52 pm

by CAAD8FRED

Wonder how the F12 (disc) does in the tunnel

by Weenie


SchallUndRauch
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:58 pm
Location: East of West

by SchallUndRauch

gbrnole wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:23 pm
The Canyon Aeroad is still a heck of a bargain even if it is getting long in the tooth.
Exactly. Plus the added convenience of external cables in the bar/stem area, allowing for
- an inline adjuster for the FD (yes I prefer mechanical shifting) and
- disassembly into a transport case when travelling.

robeambro
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

gbrnole wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:23 pm
rudye9mr wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:00 pm
ryanw wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:56 pm
All tested at 45kph:

2019 Cannondale SystemSix Disc - 203w
2016 Trek Madone - 204w
2016 Specialized Venge ViAS - 204w
2016 Cervelo S5 - 205w
2016 Felt AR FRD - 205w
2019 Cervelo S5 Disc - 206w
2016 Canyon Aeroad - 208w
2019 Specialized Venge Disc - 208w
2016 Giant Propel Advanced SL - 210w
2016 Scott Foil Premium - 211w
2016 BMC Time Machine - 211w
2016 Look 795 - 212w
2019 Trek Madone Disc - 212w
2019 Ridley Noah Fast Disc - 213w
little bit of a bump but any updates to the list?
The problem with the above list is that it's not all apples for apples. We don't know how the SystemSix, Noah Fast Disc or the Madone SLR disc tested with Zipp 404's. The numbers for all of the '16 tests were using the 404 reference wheel. The '19 Venge disc and '19 S5 disc both tested at 206w and 203w respectively with Zipp 404 wheels.

I think what might be more important, based on the current impetus of manufacturer sales, is to better understand the aero results (or lack thereof) of the lightweight bikes. Tour mag tested the SL6 to be about 16w slower than the Venge Vias. Cycling weekly tested it to be about 18w slower than the Vias. I'm looking forward to seeing some independent data on the new crop of integrated lightweight bikes.

My opinion is that none of them will best the Pinarello F10 (213w) or F10 disc (214w) - maybe equal it at best?

The Canyon Aeroad is still a heck of a bargain even if it is getting long in the tooth.
The above list is not apples to apples mainly because the bikes will have been tested at different times, and different environmental conditions may affect the results.
Re: the aero results of lightweight bikes, the new SuperSix claims to be around 9w faster than the traditional SL6 (but again, we're comparing different experiments with different protocols, so we're at best guesstimating here), which would mean that it could be around 10w slower than the SystemSix.

Also important to note, the SL6 with an aero handlebar may recover and be roughly 12w slower than the SystemSix.

A word of cautios as usual though, most tests are inherently flawed as they are not accounting for differences in stack between frames. They will test 56/M sized bikes. However, if I'm choosing between a SystemSix or an Emonda H2, I will probably size down on the Emonda to achieve the same position, thus reducing frontal area.

Might also be worth it to always remember that:

- those differences are around double what they'd be at 30km/h (which is closer to the average speed most of us hold when non drafting)
- the (albeit small) weight difference will slightly offset the full-on aero bike advantage on steep gradients.

So yes, let's look at the data, let's identify big-picture trends, but let's not obsess over details, because scientifically speaking, those tests don't hold too much water.

gbrnole
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:40 pm

by gbrnole

robeambro wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:44 pm
gbrnole wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:23 pm
rudye9mr wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:00 pm
ryanw wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:56 pm
All tested at 45kph:

2019 Cannondale SystemSix Disc - 203w
2016 Trek Madone - 204w
2016 Specialized Venge ViAS - 204w
2016 Cervelo S5 - 205w
2016 Felt AR FRD - 205w
2019 Cervelo S5 Disc - 206w
2016 Canyon Aeroad - 208w
2019 Specialized Venge Disc - 208w
2016 Giant Propel Advanced SL - 210w
2016 Scott Foil Premium - 211w
2016 BMC Time Machine - 211w
2016 Look 795 - 212w
2019 Trek Madone Disc - 212w
2019 Ridley Noah Fast Disc - 213w
little bit of a bump but any updates to the list?
The problem with the above list is that it's not all apples for apples. We don't know how the SystemSix, Noah Fast Disc or the Madone SLR disc tested with Zipp 404's. The numbers for all of the '16 tests were using the 404 reference wheel. The '19 Venge disc and '19 S5 disc both tested at 206w and 203w respectively with Zipp 404 wheels.

I think what might be more important, based on the current impetus of manufacturer sales, is to better understand the aero results (or lack thereof) of the lightweight bikes. Tour mag tested the SL6 to be about 16w slower than the Venge Vias. Cycling weekly tested it to be about 18w slower than the Vias. I'm looking forward to seeing some independent data on the new crop of integrated lightweight bikes.

My opinion is that none of them will best the Pinarello F10 (213w) or F10 disc (214w) - maybe equal it at best?

The Canyon Aeroad is still a heck of a bargain even if it is getting long in the tooth.
The above list is not apples to apples mainly because the bikes will have been tested at different times, and different environmental conditions may affect the results.
Re: the aero results of lightweight bikes, the new SuperSix claims to be around 9w faster than the traditional SL6 (but again, we're comparing different experiments with different protocols, so we're at best guesstimating here), which would mean that it could be around 10w slower than the SystemSix.

Also important to note, the SL6 with an aero handlebar may recover and be roughly 12w slower than the SystemSix.

A word of cautios as usual though, most tests are inherently flawed as they are not accounting for differences in stack between frames. They will test 56/M sized bikes. However, if I'm choosing between a SystemSix or an Emonda H2, I will probably size down on the Emonda to achieve the same position, thus reducing frontal area.

Might also be worth it to always remember that:

- those differences are around double what they'd be at 30km/h (which is closer to the average speed most of us hold when non drafting)
- the (albeit small) weight difference will slightly offset the full-on aero bike advantage on steep gradients.

So yes, let's look at the data, let's identify big-picture trends, but let's not obsess over details, because scientifically speaking, those tests don't hold too much water.
There are plenty of other, valid independent tests that mesh with the Tour Mag results. Cannondale's own white paper for the SystemSix and the supplement for the SuperSix Evo 3 suggest that the SSE3 is about 15 watts slower than the SuperSix - with that said, I don't have a huge amount of faith in Cannondale's competitor testing results.

It's a bit of a conundrum really for the manufacturers - at about the current 20 watts (or more) difference between the aero bikes and lightweight bikes, it's a quantifiable large enough gap for those with the means to happily go n+1. At 10 watts or less difference, I would gladly take that penalty for more comfort, agility and lighter weight. I could probably make up a good chunk of the difference with wheel and water bottle choices if an event really demanded it. The F10 is already hovering on that edge.

robeambro
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

gbrnole wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:59 pm
It's a bit of a conundrum really for the manufacturers - at about the current 20 watts (or more) difference between the aero bikes and lightweight bikes, it's a quantifiable large enough gap for those with the means to happily go n+1. At 10 watts or less difference, I would gladly take that penalty for more comfort, agility and lighter weight. I could probably make up a good chunk of the difference with wheel and water bottle choices if an event really demanded it. The F10 is already hovering on that edge.
I don't necessarily agree.

Firstly, because the gap is 20 watts @ 45km/h, which is an average speed not many amateurs can hold while riding solo. Now you'll say that you can hold it in a crit, but while you are drafting, the aero benefit from a frameset is -while still there- even less important.
So it's much more fair and objective to say that the gap is 10 to 15 watts *at best* for the great majority of us.

Secondly, as we move towards next-gen lightweight bikes like the new Izalco Max, Addict and SuperSix, the weight differential is not going to be massive, which means agility will tend to be similar between bikes. And, with wider rims and tyres, comfort is becoming less of a stigma for aero bikes.

In other words, as things stand at the moment, IMO it's becoming a huge "potayto potato" kinda thing.

aeroisnteverything
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:43 pm

by aeroisnteverything

robeambro wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:32 am

In other words, as things stand at the moment, IMO it's becoming a huge "potayto potato" kinda thing.
Pretty much.

So let's just establish that we should choose on looks and optics. I think Spesh Venge looks better than Tarmac, while C-dale Supersix looks better than Systemsix. This is not indended as any sort of a prescription, but as between those two brands, this is how I'd choose.

Still waiting for the damn Canyon Aeroad to be updated, and it looks like my wait's in vain. Going to have to splurge on the Venge.

Vermu
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:39 am

by Vermu

Its really weird that ppl are seeking more comfort from wider tires as they increase aerodynamic resistance.

And with new lightweight bikes, well seems that most are discs and there goes the lightweight...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
LeDuke
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:39 am
Location: Front Range, CO

by LeDuke

Vermu wrote:Its really weird that ppl are seeking more comfort from wider tires as they increase aerodynamic resistance.

And with new lightweight bikes, well seems that most are discs and there goes the lightweight...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don’t know how I’d quantify it, but I’d guess that the comfort I gain from a 28mm wide tire more than compensates for the handful of watts I lose from aero losses.

Additionally, I’d guess that it also saves me energy by letting me corner and descend faster.

All told, the pros outweigh the cons, for me. If people want to ride 21mm tires at 120psi, that’s cool. I just hope they don’t set up inside of me on a rough or gravelly corner.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

spdntrxi
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

aero trumps lightweight
comfort trumps discomfort
strong legs nearly trumps all.. :0
2019 BMC TM01 Road UCI config 7.36kg

AJS914
Posts: 4346
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

robeambro wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:32 am

Firstly, because the gap is 20 watts @ 45km/h, which is an average speed not many amateurs can hold while riding solo. Now you'll say that you can hold it in a crit, but while you are drafting, the aero benefit from a frameset is -while still there- even less important.
So it's much more fair and objective to say that the gap is 10 to 15 watts *at best* for the great majority of us.

Faster amateurs can certainly hit 45km/hr. We hit faster speeds on our group ride every Saturday. When it's your turn to take a pull or follow an attack off the front, it's nice to have any extra advantage. You may not need the aero bike for 99% of your solo ride but when you attack that Strava segment it's nice to have an aero advantage.

Isn't 20 watts Tour mags half mannequin watts?

Anyway, I don't understand why people constantly try to minimize or diminish aero gains. Nobody ever posts that aero wheels don't make a difference. Nobody comes along and says that you don't need aero wheels when you ride in a group. I'm curious why aero bikes feel so threatening to people.

Sure, a 200 watt FTP guy is not going to buy an aero bike and keep up with a 400 watt guy. I don't think anyone actually thinks this when they purchase an aero bike.

Stueys
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 1:12 pm

by Stueys

Read an interview that said the difference in aero between wider tyres and narrower is a couple of watts at 0 yaw. Once the angles increase it’s a wash, assuming the rim/tyre rule is followed. From memory might have been a cycling tips article.

spartacus
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

by spartacus

To me the question is how much of the gain is from the frame and how much is because of things like wheels, handlebars, and even cable routing. I can hold 45kph on flat ground for a reasonable amount of time and I suck. If I had another 20w at that kind of speed I could pull longer or go faster.

gbrnole
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:40 pm

by gbrnole

AJS914 wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:52 pm
robeambro wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:32 am

Firstly, because the gap is 20 watts @ 45km/h, which is an average speed not many amateurs can hold while riding solo. Now you'll say that you can hold it in a crit, but while you are drafting, the aero benefit from a frameset is -while still there- even less important.
So it's much more fair and objective to say that the gap is 10 to 15 watts *at best* for the great majority of us.

Sure, a 200 watt FTP guy is not going to buy an aero bike and keep up with a 400 watt guy. I don't think anyone actually thinks this when they purchase an aero bike.
If the 200 watt guy is following wheels, the aero bike gives him a puncher's chance of hanging on. The 200 watt guy isn't going to sustain 280-300 very long following wheels on a regular bike, but he might be good to hang on at 240-260 on the aero horse.

Lugan
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:02 pm

by Lugan

spdntrxi wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:38 pm
aero trumps lightweight
comfort trumps discomfort
strong legs nearly trumps all.. :0
No need for trumping and other false choices. We can choose all of these.

by Weenie


Post Reply