Seems like the use case for aero road frames doesn't really pan out?

[dzxc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I was looking at the differences a I was thinking about aero frames. Found this from Cervelo:

http://www.cervelo.com/media/docs/Tour-Mag-3370aff0-217e-43b7-8024-8a305634944f-2.PDF
(http://www.cervelo.com/media/docs/Tour-Mag-3370aff0-217e-43b7-8024-8a305634944f-2.PDF)

Which is their marketing copy based off of Tour's 2015 aero/light road bike tests. It's great that aero road frames are often faster. The test simulated a 100km ride, 2000m elevation gain, 200w average power. A few sample results:

S5 (aero) finished in 4:17:11, R5 (light) finished in 4:18:25.
Venge (aero) 4:18:02, Tarmac (light) 4:19:07.
Propel 4:18:01, TCR 4:18:48.

They also give some other numbers, including stiffness and stability in objective measurements. i.e. force required per degree of deflection. Pretty neat! Tee "light" bikes seem to be universally stiffer and more stable. The R5 is about 30% stiffer than the S5. The Tarmac is about 33% stiffer than the Venge. The Foil, however, seems to be a good combo of stiffness and aero as it is more aero, more stiff, and more stable (and faster), but of course heavier than the Addict.

I'm sure the numbers have been discussed. Looks like the aero bikes are pretty much universally faster...in a solo effort (or effort at the front of a paceline?)...across 100km...

So when exactly would someone be racing a road bike over this distance in the wind? If it's a 100k TT, bring out the TT bike, obviously. The only 100km road bike races are road races where people basically ride in a giant pack and aerodynamics come into play minimally. In a road race know I'm usually spinning at as low wattage as possible in the pack trying to save my legs and avoid trying to take a pull. I guess when you're actually making a break for it, the aero may come in (slight) handy, but if it takes 100km of pulling to pull out a minute of time savings from the aero frame, I see only incremental advantage when you're in front at the late stages of the race. And, unless you're a superstar, if you're in front in the wind and pulling and it's not the very very last minutes of the race, you're probably doing it wrong. Not to mention giving up the extra responsiveness of a normal frame.

Crits? Really, zero advantage according to this. In fact, having an aero bike may be to your detriment given that they're less responsive and stable.

So, what, on training rides you can be slightly faster? Who cares. I think I would rather have a stiffer and more stable bike as a general matter than saving a minute on a training ride.

Unless I'm totally missing something. Not debating whether the frames are more aero, or what's the fastest, just the fact that they seem to be faster only in TT scenarios that you would rarely/never find yourself in with several detriments that show themselves on every ride making them seemingly not worth it. Thoughts?

As a couple side notes, first I suspect aero frames will look dated as hell in a few years. Second it's funny that in Cervelo's copy they show Cav winning by a half a bike length on his Venge over Goss on his Tarmac and seem to imply it's because of the aero frame when there are about a million other things that could have caused this.

[oldpotatoe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I was looking at the differences a I was thinking about aero frames. Found this from Cervelo:

http://www.cervelo.com/media/docs/Tour-Mag-3370aff0-217e-43b7-8024-8a305634944f-2.PDF
(http://www.cervelo.com/media/docs/Tour-Mag-3370aff0-217e-43b7-8024-8a305634944f-2.PDF)

Which is their marketing copy based off of Tour's 2015 aero/light road bike tests. It's great that aero road frames are often faster. The test simulated a 100km ride, 2000m elevation gain, 200w average power. A few sample results:

S5 (aero) finished in 4:17:11, R5 (light) finished in 4:18:25.
Venge (aero) 4:18:02, Tarmac (light) 4:19:07.
Propel 4:18:01, TCR 4:18:48.

They also give some other numbers, including stiffness and stability in objective measurements. i.e. force required per degree of deflection. Pretty neat! Tee "light" bikes seem to be universally stiffer and more stable. The R5 is about 30% stiffer than the S5. The Tarmac is about 33% stiffer than the Venge. The Foil, however, seems to be a good combo of stiffness and aero as it is more aero, more stiff, and more stable (and faster), but of course heavier than the Addict.

I'm sure the numbers have been discussed. Looks like the aero bikes are pretty much universally faster...in a solo effort (or effort at the front of a paceline?)...across 100km...

So when exactly would someone be racing a road bike over this distance in the wind? If it's a 100k TT, bring out the TT bike, obviously. The only 100km road bike races are road races where people basically ride in a giant pack and aerodynamics come into play minimally. In a road race know I'm usually spinning at as low wattage as possible in the pack trying to save my legs and avoid trying to take a pull. I guess when you're actually making a break for it, the aero may come in (slight) handy, but if it takes 100km of pulling to pull out a minute of time savings from the aero frame, I see only incremental advantage when you're in front at the late stages of the race. And, unless you're a superstar, if you're in front in the wind and pulling and it's not the very very last minutes of the race, you're probably doing it wrong. Not to mention giving up the extra responsiveness of a normal frame.

Crits? Really, zero advantage according to this. In fact, having an aero bike may be to your detriment given that they're less responsive and stable.

So, what, on training rides you can be slightly faster? Who cares. I think I would rather have a stiffer and more stable bike as a general matter than saving a minute on a training ride.

Unless I'm totally missing something. Not debating whether the frames are more aero, or what's the fastest, just the fact that they seem to be faster only in TT scenarios that you would rarely/never find yourself in with several detriments that show themselves on every ride making them seemingly not worth it. Thoughts?

As a couple side notes, first I suspect aero frames will look dated as hell in a few years. Second it's funny that in Cervelo's copy they show Cav winning by a half a bike length on his Venge over Goss on his Tarmac and seem to imply it's because of the aero frame when there are about a million other things that could have caused this.

win on sunday, sell on monday

[kgreene10]

Yeah, the claims about watts saved don't seem to align with Tour's simulation findings.

[bicycletricycle]

I think that even in the case of racing the aero road bikes don't make a lot of sense, I guess that someone can reason that in a race any time advantage is worth the potential compromise in handling as long as it is manageable. Just because the aero frames are flexier it doesn't mean that they are too flexy. All of these modern carbon frames are probably stiffer than the steel bikes from the past, Maybe?

on the other hand, for regular people who just ride around this data is basically useless. An examination of the frames ability to absorb bumps might be useful as well.

[benb]

Any claims of responsiveness or handling are probably meaningless as the variable of what rider is sitting on top of the bike changes the weight distribution and such far more than any difference in the frames.

I find this test hilarious that they deleted the upper body from the dummy.. it makes the aero drag differences between the frames seem much more significant if measured in % of total drag. It also eliminates any differences related to some of the frames fitting better than the others.

[echappist]

Yeah, the claims about watts saved don't seem to align with Tour's simulation findings.

those estimates are rather misleading. 100km in 4hr 17-18min? That's 23.25 kph or 14 mph. Watt savings varies with cube of speed, and comparisons are usually done at 30 mph in order to tease out differences between positions. So essentially, any watt savings from the Tour test needs to be octupeled (is that even a word?) to make a comparison with what manufacturers report.

few other thoughts: 2000m in 100km? That's as much elevation gain as the total of a medium mountain tour stage.

granted, aero frames really don't save that much at 25mph, and 10-15W difference would be significant, but we should also be cognizant of the fact that aero wheels save even fewer watts (more like 8-10)

[beeatnik]

they're good for strava KOMz

[livingminimal]

those estimates are rather misleading. 100km in 4hr 17-18min? That's 23.25 kph or 14 mph. Watt savings varies with cube of speed, and comparisons are usually done at 30 mph in order to tease out differences between positions. So essentially, any watt savings from the Tour test needs to be octupeled (is that even a word?) to make a comparison with what manufacturers report.

few other thoughts: 2000m in 100km? That's as much elevation gain as the total of a medium mountain tour stage.

granted, aero frames really don't save that much at 25mph, and 10-15W difference would be significant, but we should also be cognizant of the fact that aero wheels save even fewer watts (more like 8-10)

This is all fine, and I agree there is some benefit to same rider/different bike on an Aero/watts-saving set-up over one that isn't as much. this would actually include an even more comprehensive package regarding changes in shoes, helmet, etc to make a dramatic person in aero with a rider of the same size and same position.

I think the larger point is that this is only necessary/applicable to about .001% of the cycling population. That is, the highest-end crit racers (for example) while actually in those races. Not even necessarily when they're training.

The rest of us are being fooled a bit and having the marketing wool pulled over our eyes once more.

It's about the engine...it's about the engine...it's about the engine...

[alioup]

they're good for strava KOMz

Truth^ I've gotten more KOMz on my foil than I have on my stinner :/

[MattTuck]

Where to even begin here...

Is there a demonstrated placebo effect of bicycle speed/weight? If not, this should be tested. I'd be willing to bet that the differences found in the study are dwarfed by placebo effects.

The rider is the biggest piece of aerodynamic drag on the bike. So, it seems silly to be trying to shave watts based on aerodynamic tubes if you haven't already gone through the process of finding your most aero position. And frankly, if you were in your aero position and sat up to drink or eat, or talk to a fellow rider, or look behind you, well, you'd probably have sacrificed the small aero-related gains you'd made over the last 4 or 5 miles.

Now, I am interested in the argument that says that all these gains are cumulative. This is the idea that says you save all these watts in the first 85% of the race, and thus have more 'matches' to burn at the end of the race. I'm not sure about this, honestly. It could make sense. If you accumulate watt savings through bike, wheels, position, etc. maybe you do have more energy at the end. But I think this is dependent on two requirements to be true. One, that you're at or above a certain zone. My understanding is that, below a certain power/HR band, you can pretty much go all day at that intensity, assuming you have the fuel. and Two, when you do have to go 100%, that the difference between what you can put out, and what is needed (for instance, the needed power to bridge a gap, cover a move, etc.) is equal to or smaller than the savings you obtain through aerodynamics.

Put another way, if you can easily plug along at 250 watts, and you only need to do 210 watts to stay in a draft, then I don't think savings of 15 watts is going to help you have more matches.

[Uncle Jam's Army]

Truth^ I've gotten more KOMz on my foil than I have on my stinner :/

You achieved those KOM's on what is considered an aero dog (I assume you are referring to the pre-2016 Foil. I rode one exclusively for almost a year). In fact, the Addict is only about 7 seconds slower than the Foil over 40k. Super stiff and responsive frame, though.

[echappist]

This is all fine, and I agree there is some benefit to same rider/different bike on an Aero/watts-saving set-up over one that isn't as much. this would actually include an even more comprehensive package regarding changes in shoes, helmet, etc to make a dramatic person in aero with a rider of the same size and same position.

I think the larger point is that this is only necessary/applicable to about .001% of the cycling population. That is, the highest-end crit racers (for example) while actually in those races. Not even necessarily when they're training.

The rest of us are being fooled a bit and having the marketing wool pulled over our eyes once more.

It's about the engine...it's about the engine...it's about the engine...

well, also in a stiff cross-wind or just when any cat-3 crit hots up and people are attacking off the front like mad.

It's about the engine and the equipment/position, with the engine playing a main role and equipment/position having a non-negligible role. But try to get that into an ad campaign...

[kgreene10]

those estimates are rather misleading. 100km in 4hr 17-18min? That's 23.25 kph or 14 mph. Watt savings varies with cube of speed, and comparisons are usually done at 30 mph in order to tease out differences between positions. So essentially, any watt savings from the Tour test needs to be octupeled (is that even a word?) to make a comparison with what manufacturers report.

few other thoughts: 2000m in 100km? That's as much elevation gain as the total of a medium mountain tour stage.

granted, aero frames really don't save that much at 25mph, and 10-15W difference would be significant, but we should also be cognizant of the fact that aero wheels save even fewer watts (more like 8-10)

Thanks for this. I hadn't noticed the speed in the test. Okay, I want an aero bike again.

[milkbaby]

For the average schmo, ride quality and handling probably trumps aero especially if a racer. Being able to fly through a corner and/or make a line adjustment confidently and avoiding crashing is probably worth a lot more than aero savings.

Aero bikes do look cool to me tho. :bike:

[echappist]

For the average schmo, ride quality and handling probably trumps aero especially if a racer. Being able to fly through a corner and/or make a line adjustment confidently and avoiding crashing is probably worth a lot more than aero savings.

Aero bikes do look cool to me tho. :bike:

i don't know how to quantify or even qualify "ride quality"

handling is much more perceptible though. For example, the old Venge was known for a low BB, which makes pedal strikes more of an issue

[Tickdoc]

But they are so fast! :-P

[JMacII]

Just ride what you like. You can't buy speed. But if people want to ride an aero frame, awesome! This is supposed to be fun. And "looks cool" is as good a reason as any other. We're not monks.

[spiderwj]

Agree with riding what you like. In my case, my bike isn't what is holding me back and surely it's not the lack of an aero frame. If my position were perfect and I ate well enough to maintain race weight I would wonder.... That said, I notice a difference on my tri bike so it would be fun to try a aero rod bike with semi-aero road helmet 😀


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk