Fastest bike

Lifeboy123

Reading bike reviews ' exceptional fast rig, one quick bike'

Other than these writers subjective statements or manufacturers claims is there a benchmark to measure which bike is faster than another ( assuming everything is constant i.e same size frame and eqivalet spec both pedalled by the same cyclist at same output)

Ignoring aero frames which bike frame is the most efficient on a tour bike
I.e quickest for climbing and descending .... Cervelo R5, Cannoldale Super Six EVO, Canyon 9 SLX, Madone 5, Boardman SLR etc

smoggysteve

When you read them comments, they don't mean straight line speed. They mean more things like, the abilty to get the power transmitted through it. Stiffness and weight. Yes an aero bike is supposedly faster in a straight line but they aint better at climbing. Some aero frames are actually heavier than standard designs which would therfore make a better climbing bike. A bike said to be a quick bike would be light and the stiffness would mean that more energy goes into propulsion rather than being absorbed by the bike.

Grill

There's no easy way to compare. Of the aero bikes, Cervelo, Giant, Scott, and Trek all say theirs is the fastest, but that depends on yaw angles and some companies tunnel test without a rider (some, like Canyon, don't even tunnel, just use CFD).

In short, aero or not there is no answer. BB, HT, CS stiffness all play their parts as does geometry, but there is no right or wrong answer.

If that's not good enough for you just dump a bunch of cash on a Fascenario 0.6.

imposter2.0

Lifeboy123 wrote:

Ignoring aero frames which bike frame is the most efficient on a tour bike
I.e quickest for climbing and descending .... Cervelo R5, Cannoldale Super Six EVO, Canyon 9 SLX, Madone 5, Boardman SLR etc

Very little - if any - noticeable difference between any of them. Simply choose whichever particular pile of marketing bollox you prefer to believe and go with that.

Lifeboy123

Any Science in measuring Forward Propulsion is what I''d be more interested in than wind tunnel tests.

I guess then the only way to find out is get out and ride but owning a cheaper sub £1k carbon bike and a noticeably stiffer but similar weight £4k pro carbon bike there appears to be barely any noticeable difference

cougie

The top bikes are all much of a muchness.

If one bike was substantially better then it would win more races.
As someone once said - it's not about the bike.

BrandonA

Lifeboy123 wrote:

Any Science in measuring Forward Propulsion is what I''d be more interested in than wind tunnel tests.

I guess then the only way to find out is get out and ride but owning a cheaper sub £1k carbon bike and a noticeably stiffer but similar weight £4k pro carbon bike there appears to be barely any noticeable difference

I have. Specialized Tarmac Pro and an S Works Venge. There are huge differences in the way they perform and feel.

The better groupset on the Venge makes breaking and shifting smoother, more responsive and therefore gives you more confidence to throw it down a hill or around a tight bend at speed.

If you stand up and pedal, you can feel the extra weight of the Tarmacso this will take more energy to ride. Asks the flex on the a tarmac is huge, when you corner at speed you can sometimes hear the spoke magnet hitting the sensor.

Having said the above I don't know how much quicker the Venge is as I don't ride the Tarmac that much anymore and when I do it will be in poor weather conditions which would make the test unfair.

The biggest factor on a bike is the rider and how they feel and how fast they are. As others have said you pick a bike you like and enjoy it. What I'm saying is you can't compare a cheap carbon bike, with an expensive one as they are not comparable as they are stiffer, might have different ride positions, are a lot lighter and come with much better components.

hatch87

I'm surprised there isn't some sort of standard test, sort of like a 200w constant power in a wind tunnel with a 5mph head wind. Maybe even a second test to allow for a 10% gradient with the same 200w.

When you buy a bike its normally a leap of faith, a quick test ride up and down the road of the lbs isn't really enough to give you an idea on how it will perform on long rides and up graded hills.

Grill

BrandonA wrote:

Lifeboy123 wrote:

Any Science in measuring Forward Propulsion is what I''d be more interested in than wind tunnel tests.

I guess then the only way to find out is get out and ride but owning a cheaper sub £1k carbon bike and a noticeably stiffer but similar weight £4k pro carbon bike there appears to be barely any noticeable difference

I have. Specialized Tarmac Pro and an S Works Venge. There are huge differences in the way they perform and feel.

The better groupset on the Venge makes breaking and shifting smoother, more responsive and therefore gives you more confidence to throw it down a hill or around a tight bend at speed.

If you stand up and pedal, you can feel the extra weight of the Tarmacso this will take more energy to ride. Asks the flex on the a tarmac is huge, when you corner at speed you can sometimes hear the spoke magnet hitting the sensor.

Having said the above I don't know how much quicker the Venge is as I don't ride the Tarmac that much anymore and when I do it will be in poor weather conditions which would make the test unfair.

The biggest factor on a bike is the rider and how they feel and how fast they are. As others have said you pick a bike you like and enjoy it. What I'm saying is you can't compare a cheap carbon bike, with an expensive one as they are not comparable as they are stiffer, might have different ride positions, are a lot lighter and come with much better components.

Apple and oranges mate. Compare an S-Works Tarmac to an S-Works Venge and then get back to me.

imposter2.0

BrandonA wrote:

If you stand up and pedal, you can feel the extra weight of the Tarmacso this will take more energy to ride. Asks the flex on the a tarmac is huge, when you corner at speed you can sometimes hear the spoke magnet hitting the sensor.

Are you making this up? I ride crits on my Tarmac - no hint of any flex anywhere. Besides, any flex of the type you mention would be in the wheels, not the frame. Also, the Venge frame is heavier than the Tarmac, so not sure what 'extra weight' you are referring to...

bernithebiker

Grill wrote:

Apple and oranges mate. Compare an S-Works Tarmac to an S-Works Venge and then get back to me.

Excellent!

bernithebiker

I have an Sworks SL4 Tarmac and I'm very happy with it.

But I would think that if I rode Alpe d'Huez (12km 8%) on a Super 6 Evo, R5, Madone, Canyon 9 SLX, with the same wheels, components and position as my bike, there'd be only a few seconds difference in each (over 55 mins).

So in end it boils down to price and colour and that 'desire' factor.

(The OP said ignore aero bikes, but I'd like to try the above on a Venge Sworks or Giant Propel, etc. to see what difference they make - I suspect I'd be a bit slower (i.e. up to 1 minute), but that's just a guess......

Grill

bernithebiker wrote:

I have an Sworks SL4 Tarmac and I'm very happy with it.

But I would think that if I rode Alpe d'Huez (12km 8%) on a Super 6 Evo, R5, Madone, Canyon 9 SLX, with the same wheels, components and position as my bike, there'd be only a few seconds difference in each (over 55 mins).

So in end it boils down to price and colour and that 'desire' factor.

(The OP said ignore aero bikes, but I'd like to try the above on a Venge Sworks or Giant Propel, etc. to see what difference they make - I suspect I'd be a bit slower (i.e. up to 1 minute), but that's just a guess......

You wouldn't be. A few seconds max that you'd make up on the descent.

bernithebiker

Grill wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

I have an Sworks SL4 Tarmac and I'm very happy with it.

But I would think that if I rode Alpe d'Huez (12km 8%) on a Super 6 Evo, R5, Madone, Canyon 9 SLX, with the same wheels, components and position as my bike, there'd be only a few seconds difference in each (over 55 mins).

So in end it boils down to price and colour and that 'desire' factor.

(The OP said ignore aero bikes, but I'd like to try the above on a Venge Sworks or Giant Propel, etc. to see what difference they make - I suspect I'd be a bit slower (i.e. up to 1 minute), but that's just a guess......

You wouldn't be. A few seconds max that you'd make up on the descent.

If that's the case, then I should probably have bought a Venge, I guess...?!

And yet, in the Tour de France this year, there were far more SL4's in the peloton than Venges.

I honestly don't know why, but there must be a reason....?

Grill

Yup, comfort. You can't get the same compliance on aero shaped tubing as round tubing. The sprinters go for aero bikes as the gains at speed can make or break the finish and they don't have to worry about GC. Cav uses 808's which are heavy as balls for the same reason.
There's also the issue of weight (especially for Spec), but as you can easily build most bikes to the UCI limit of 6.8kg it's not as big a deal.

PhunkyPhil

hatch87 wrote:

I'm surprised there isn't some sort of standard test, sort of like a 200w constant power in a wind tunnel with a 5mph head wind. Maybe even a second test to allow for a 10% gradient with the same 200w.

When you buy a bike its normally a leap of faith, a quick test ride up and down the road of the lbs isn't really enough to give you an idea on how it will perform on long rides and up graded hills.

Who would pay for the tests??? Its not in the manufactures interestes for all bikes to be tested equally.

Cervelo test their S5 bikes with a full head wind and its the most aerodynamic bike apparently.

Specialized tested and designed the venge to be more aerodynamic with winds coming at angles and beats the S5 on these tests.

I'm sure other bikes have similar strange angles and can prove they are better.

The strength of the bike also comes into play as you could make a very aero bike but if it bend it won't be fast

dilemna

I reckon Chris Hoy, Cav, Wiggo, Spartacus on Apollos or Carreras would be way faster than all on this thread with their Venges, S-Works, Cervelos, etc. on their daily commutes.

LMAO.

Speed is all in the legs.

bernithebiker

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Chris Hoy, Cav, Wiggo, Spartacus on Apollos or Carreras would be way faster than all on this thread with their Venges, S-Works, Cervelos, etc. on their daily commutes.

LMAO.

Speed is all in the legs.

Well of course, but you've got to play with the hand you were dealt with. Noone on this forum will be challenging any of those named above in their lifetimes. But if you produce say 250W max over 5 minutes, it's interesting to know if different frames will handle those 250W differently and give you more or less speed.

Because if you can only knock out 250W compared to the 450+ of the pros, small gains in weight/aero are even more relevant and important to you.

navrig

The fastest one is the one you like the look of more.

Grill

bernithebiker wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Chris Hoy, Cav, Wiggo, Spartacus on Apollos or Carreras would be way faster than all on this thread with their Venges, S-Works, Cervelos, etc. on their daily commutes.

LMAO.

Speed is all in the legs.

Well of course, but you've got to play with the hand you were dealt with. Noone on this forum will be challenging any of those named above in their lifetimes. But if you produce say 250W max over 5 minutes, it's interesting to know if different frames will handle those 250W differently and give you more or less speed.

Because if you can only knock out 250W compared to the 450+ of the pros, small gains in weight/aero are even more relevant and important to you.

I would certainly agree when it comes to TTs. I've seen some amazing times knocked out at 250w due to being incredibly aero. On the road the aero advantage is mostly negligible.

VmanF3

Everyone knows that black bikes are the fastest...

DavidJB

The one with the fastest rider on it.