How much faster is that new aero bike?

[KonaSS]

Very interesting article on Cyclingnews that attempts to address some of the questions that I have seen bantered here on the Paceline over the past few years. How much faster are the new bikes?

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features...-head-to-head/ - might be a paywall, but I was able to access in reader mode

They compared 11 new aero(ish) bikes in a windtunnel to a baseline Trek Emonda from 2015 - rim brakes, box rims, basically standard bike.

They compared with a rider on the bike at 40kph. From this they concluded that "If we're happy to accept that our baseline Trek Emonda from 2015 is representative of your generic old bike, then the savings can be anywhere between 16.65 and 32.29 watts when compared to the fastest on test. "

A bunch of other comparisons included. Lots that could be picked apart still, but does at least give an idea of the impact of the latest bikes.

[Wunder]

Paywall

[fa63]

Here is the relevant summary chart (this is with the rider on board). The difference between the Tarmac SL8 with aero cockpit / aero wheels / aero frame and Emonda ALR with aero nothing (external cables and shallow aluminum clincher wheels) was 25 Watts.

It seems that aero bikes have more or less converged (they all tested within the margin of error of the test), but if you are riding an "old-school" bike and struggling to keep up with your fast group ride, then 25 Watts is a pretty healthy savings. Or you could put an aero handlebar and aero wheels on your Emonda ALR or similar, and save about 20 of those Watts without spending $10K+ on a new bike

[fredd]

Interesting piece, 20ish watts seems to be in accordance with other sources like tour magazine. Really compelling case for modern integrated bikes for me...

[buddybikes]

Or I can go slower and "smell the roses"

[EB]

Originally Posted by fa63

Here is the relevant summary chart (this is with the rider on board). The difference between the Tarmac SL8 with aero cockpit / aero wheels / aero frame and Emonda ALR with aero nothing (external cables and shallow aluminum clincher wheels) was 25 Watts.

It seems that aero bikes have more or less converged (they all tested within the margin of error of the test), but if you are riding an "old-school" bike and struggling to keep up with your fast group ride, then 25 Watts is a pretty healthy savings. Or you could put an aero handlebar and aero wheels on your Emonda ALR or similar, and save about 20 of those Watts without spending $10K+ on a new bike

Wait - to be clear - the basis of the comparison didn't have aero wheels or an aero handlebar? And 20 of the 25 watts are from those two items? If that's the case this sounds more like an argument against modern integrated aero frames.

[fa63]

20 Watts is a rough guess, but yes, the majority of the aero gains do not come from the frame itself.

Originally Posted by EB

Wait - to be clear - the basis of the comparison didn't have aero wheels or an aero handlebar? And 20 of the 25 watts are from those two items? If that's the case this sounds more like an argument against modern integrated aero frames.

[Likes2ridefar]

Originally Posted by EB

If that's the case this sounds more like an argument against modern integrated aero frames.

Sounds about right.

[fa63]

5-10 Watts you might get from an aero frame isn't important for most people who don't race or care about going as fast as possible. But 5 W at 40 kph is 10 W at 50 kph. If it is more like 10 W at 40 kph, then it is 20 W at 50 kph. I would take 20 free Watts if I am trying to close a gap in a race or a fast group ride!

[ojingoh]

Just thinking about this yesterday on a ride.

I know Tour magazine tests/used to test entire bikes. I don’t recall if there’s handlebar testing with and without exposed brake/shifter cables, however.

Does anyone have any data about an aero handlebar’s measured impact on aerodynamics?

[fa63]

Silca (Josh Poertner) say 7-10 W for an aero handlebar over a round one:

https://silca.cc/blogs/silca/top-10-...ts-on-the-bike

It doesn't say what speeds they were tested at, but I think the standard is 45 kph / 28 mph, so it would be a little less at 40 kph.

I think the difference between the Zipp and Vision handlebar is mostly due to the hidden cables in the latter.

Originally Posted by ojingoh

Just thinking about this yesterday on a ride.

I know Tour magazine tests/used to test entire bikes. I don’t recall if there’s handlebar testing with and without exposed brake/shifter cables, however.

Does anyone have any data about an aero handlebar’s measured impact on aerodynamics?

[makoti]

Me and my round tubed, steel framed, lugged beauty of a bike will catch you at the rest stop, I guess

[El Chaba]

The results are pretty much what I would expect….That is, the vast majority of the savings are from aero wheels. The question I am left with is, “ They want us to tolerate internal routing for 5watts @ 40 kmph?”…..The next time I get dropped from the group ride at the local wind tunnel, I will reconsider my stand….

[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.

[bikinchris]

I would prefer to have my cables exposed and make all of my adjustments easy. I haven't been able to maintain 25mph in around 35 years.