How much faster is that new aero bike?

[Spdntrxi]

Originally Posted by 9tubes

P

Likewise, did they use the same tire setup for all? It's pretty easy to have a 25 watt difference in two tires.

.

windtunnel.. not rollingresistence. you are not going to see 25w if the tires are the same size.

[ridethecliche]

Originally Posted by fa63

Paceline Forum doesn't represent the average bike buyer For the average buyer, it is not about the 5 Watts; it is about how clean it looks. Most of these people don't work on their own bikes either so they couldn't care less about the added difficulty of maintenance.

I'd say that electronic shifting + disc brakes probably require less fiddling once the bike is properly set up... and fit to you. Good luck changing the stem from 90 to 130 otherwise for example!

Originally Posted by mattsbeers

These conversations are exhausting. Aero bikes are faster…just a fact. Add that to aero clothing and helmet and even more so. If you don’t dig them, fine. It’s like asking is a new 911st really faster that my 1988 911? Yes, obviously but sometimes that’s not the point. We need to move on people.

Relevant:
https://www.tiktok.com/@goodgirlspos...06827792911659

But also... what would we talk about instead then?

Originally Posted by Nomadmax

My question is, if the aero thing starts to pay dividends @ X mph (say 25mph for instance), does it it work the same riding 15mph into 10mph block headwind?

I'll let the engineerds on here answer this but I think it would work the same way since your relative wind-speed is 25mph.

[fa63]

The Emonda ALR had Fulcrum wheels. They used the same front tire for all testing.

Originally Posted by 9tubes

Paywall, so I can't confirm their assumptions. The OP wrote the comparison was to a "baseline Trek Emonda from 2015 - rim brakes, box rims, basically standard bike."

If that means using 32 round spokes, or even 24 round spokes, the 25 watt difference could be in the wheels alone.

Likewise, did they use the same tire setup for all? It's pretty easy to have a 25 watt difference in two tires.



.

[fa63]

I don't really care about going fast except for our Wednesday morning rides. Yesterday, I got dropped on a hill about 25 miles into the 55-mile ride. This is a drop ride; no one waits around. According to my ride file, I then chased solo for the next 5 miles averaging 24.4 mph with an average heart rate of 177 and max of 187 (my actual max is about 190). I certainly was very happy to be riding aero wheels when I barely caught the tail end of the group after 5 miles

But then I got dropped again at mile 40 No amount of aero would have saved me because my legs exploded. But at least it meant I had to ride back solo for 20 miles instead of 30!

As a heavy rider trying to keep up with faster folks (I often get dropped on hills and have to chase back on rides like these), I am always happy to have a few free Watts

Originally Posted by hernium

I would say that this all only really matters in the race. On a group ride, or training alone, power and position is all I look at these days. Maybe I should train like I race, but at the level I am at right now, what little I lose out on over an aero optimized equipment setup I can gain back over a few weeks of following a good workout plan.

[trener1]

A quibble I have with this test (perhaps a minor one), but using box shaped rims as a baseline?, come on... I raced in 2015 and pretty much no one raced on wheels like those not in 2010, definitely not in 2015, so it's not really a honest baseline.

[9tubes]

Can anyone post the article? Fair use - this is for a discussion of a scientific nature.

[HTupolev]

Originally Posted by trener1

A quibble I have with this test (perhaps a minor one), but using box shaped rims as a baseline?, come on... I raced in 2015 and pretty much no one raced on wheels like those not in 2010, definitely not in 2015, so it's not really a honest baseline.

Maybe, but are they actually referring to box-section rims? I could be wrong, but in my experience, it seems like some modern cyclists say "box" when they probably just mean "shallow."

Like, the article calls the 2015 Emonda "baseline", but none of the Emondas of that period came stock with box-section rims. They were generally shallow U-section rims.

[fignon's barber]

Relative to this discussion, I was watching stage 17 of the Vuelta yesterday. The course profile had a bit of everything (a couple mountain climbs early, rolling hills, flat parts and sprint finish was possible). The break du jour had a Euskatel and a Lotto Destiny rider, both Orbea sponsored. I thought it was interesting that one chose the Orca Aero and the other was on the Orca non- aero climbing bike.

[CAAD]

I'm willing to bet if they put on aero bars and wheels that Emonda it would be pretty close to the superbikes. At the local level, fitness trumps aero. Pro peloton where these guys are already pretty much at the peak of fitness, sure aero gains can make a difference.

[fa63]

That would have been a relatively easy test to run while they were in the wind tunnel, especially on a bike with externally routed cables. Would have indeed been really interesting to see!

Originally Posted by CAAD

I'm willing to bet if they put on aero bars and wheels that Emonda it would be pretty close to the superbikes.

[Jere]

I’d like to see how this old junker would stand up against the new ones.

[pys]

Good body position can make up for all the little marginal gains!

pys

[fa63]

What if you already have a good body position? Not that I do...

Originally Posted by pys

Good body position can make up for all the little marginal gains!

pys

[ridethecliche]

Originally Posted by Jere

I’d like to see how this old junker would stand up against the new ones.

Does it have aero bars

[ojingoh]

Originally Posted by ridethecliche

Does it have aero bars

HAHA

Some Numbers for fellow enginnerds out there:
According to authors Wilson and Schmidt in Bicycling Science 4th Ed. 2020, aerodynamic drag is mostly on the body/position of the cyclist.
Here are their aerodynamic drag numbers from page 230:

Road Bike Touring position (on tops?): 268W to go 10 m/s (or 22mph in old money)
Cd Drag Coefficient = 1.0
frontal area A = 0.4m^2
A * Cd drag area = 0.4m^2
Watts (power) to get to 10M/s 230W to overcome aero drag
95kg mass of bike and rider * 0.0045 Cg rolling resistance = 38W of wheel drag at 10m/s

Road Bike Racing position (in drops?): 200W
Cd Drag Coefficient = 0.88
frontal area A = .36^m2
A * Cd drag area = 0.32m^2
Watts (power) to get to 10M/s = 176W
81kg mass, 0.0030 Cg = 24W rolling drag @ 10m/s - lighter rider and bike, apparently