Aero road bike vs standard road bike?

GGBiker

In theory the drag reduction with some of the new aero frames (giant propel, cervelo s5, felt AR) is significant, equating to maybe an extra 20-30 watts at 25mph.

I've noticed that these bikes have slightly longer head tubes vs a pure race bike like the cannondale supersix. When I see people riding the supersix they are generally very low, back almost horizontal. I've also noticed that a lot of people who win local races seem to be on this bike, may just be popular but might it just be faster as well?

Any opinions on whether getting low on the supersix would be actually more aero overall compared to a very slightly higher position on the others due to the reduction in frontal body area in a good position (the rider creates 80% of the drag vs 20% bike).

Difficult to quantify but any opinions on this?

cougie

In theory maybe. But was that measured with a rider on messing up the air flow ?

Its really not about the bike. Was Contador on a Venge in the Vuelta ?
Was Nibali on one in the Tour ? (I dont think he was anyway).

Look at how thin a bike is head on compared to the rider. Any benefits between aero and non aero frames are minimal.

Work on your position - dont try to buy speed with a frame.

ilm_zero7

its not as simple as that - I have owned a Felt AR and traded up to the Wilier AiR - need no convincing about the benefits at all - but the reason you dont see Pro's on them is the courses really dont suit - Qatar (the venue for the dullest world championships ever in 2016)is as flat as a pancake, and you do see the Pro's n the Propel etc for that reason.

... and as I have road bikes and an aero road bike I would choose which to ride a TT on differently to a lumpy bumpy road race (if it were not in Qatar) - so the reason the OP says he has seen more winners on road bikes is because they are all rounders. but if you are solo the aero road bikes are without doubt faster on the flat

bernithebiker

Yes, but the most important factor in reducing your Cd is you, the rider, and your frontal area.

If you want to be aero you need to get as low as realistically possible.

That is the 1st and biggest consideration.

Changing the shape of your frame's tubes a bit, is not going to give you '30W', unless you spend most of your time above 30mph, (highly unlikely).

I did not see 1 Venge on the Vuelta, maybe 1 on the TdFrance? Against about 60 Tarmacs…...

gloomyandy

An interesting team to look at is Garmin. They seemed to switch between S5 and R5 bikes on a pretty regular basis depending upon the sort of course for that day. The other obvious thing is that the bulk of the riding on a pro tour is spent close to other riders, so the benefits of an aero frame are probably less important than they will be to a solo rider or one that rides in a smaller group.

ai_1

In group racing there's not a lot to be gained from riding an aero bike. If you're in a fast break or sprinting then aerodynamic advantages come into play and so you will see sprinters and some others on aero bikes but in the pelaton or on the climbs minor drag reduction is fairly irrelevant.

I have no doubt that aero bikes provide a benefit on flatter terrain when riding solo. However, standardised test methods are needed to quantify these benefits comparably.

ilm_zero7

bernithebiker wrote:

Changing the shape of your frame's tubes a bit, is not going to give you '30W', unless you spend most of your time above 30mph, (highly unlikely)...

our weekend long ride is around 100k and we normally return 36-38 kph average, but the aero bikes have the advantage at that pace

dennisn

GGBiker wrote:

I've also noticed that a lot of people who win local races seem to be on this bike, may just be popular but might it just be faster as well?

FWIW I think you're grasping at straws. You're not going to win the the "local races" by simply buying an aero frame.

bernithebiker

ILM Zero7 wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Changing the shape of your frame's tubes a bit, is not going to give you '30W', unless you spend most of your time above 30mph, (highly unlikely)...

our weekend long ride is around 100k and we normally return 36-38 kph average, but the aero bikes have the advantage at that pace

Yes, but 36km/h is a lot less than 30mph. What kind of denivele would you have on a ride like that? eg. a 100km ride round our way would have at least 1000m,up to 1500m.

cougie

So thats 22 mph - with how many of you pulling ? Its a very good speed - but the boys who win races will be putting big miles in - not 60 milers.

Grill

GGBiker wrote:

In theory the drag reduction with some of the new aero frames (giant propel, cervelo s5, felt AR) is significant, equating to maybe an extra 20-30 watts at 25mph.

Thanks for this. I really needed a laugh today.

FransJacques

Grill wrote:

GGBiker wrote:

In theory the drag reduction with some of the new aero frames (giant propel, cervelo s5, felt AR) is significant, equating to maybe an extra 20-30 watts at 25mph.

Thanks for this. I really needed a laugh today.

You really don't think it adds anything? You'd *never* get a job at Sky with a view like that :-) You gotta believe it all works...

Note Cav's WC winning set up - one-piece suit, aero bike, aero wheels, helmet cover. Call it psychological but there's certainly a market for it.

Grill

FransJacques wrote:

Grill wrote:

GGBiker wrote:

In theory the drag reduction with some of the new aero frames (giant propel, cervelo s5, felt AR) is significant, equating to maybe an extra 20-30 watts at 25mph.

Thanks for this. I really needed a laugh today.

You really don't think it adds anything? You'd *never* get a job at Sky with a view like that :-) You gotta believe it all works...

Note Cav's WC winning set up - one-piece suit, aero bike, aero wheels, helmet cover. Call it psychological but there's certainly a market for it.

Skinsuit, wheels, helmet all have waaaaay more effect on overall drag than the frame.

dennisn

FransJacques wrote:

Grill wrote:

GGBiker wrote:

In theory the drag reduction with some of the new aero frames (giant propel, cervelo s5, felt AR) is significant, equating to maybe an extra 20-30 watts at 25mph.

Thanks for this. I really needed a laugh today.

You really don't think it adds anything? You'd *never* get a job at Sky with a view like that :-) You gotta believe it all works...

Note Cav's WC winning set up - one-piece suit, aero bike, aero wheels, helmet cover. Call it psychological but there's certainly a market for it.

dennisn

FransJacques wrote:

Grill wrote:

GGBiker wrote:

In theory the drag reduction with some of the new aero frames (giant propel, cervelo s5, felt AR) is significant, equating to maybe an extra 20-30 watts at 25mph.

Thanks for this. I really needed a laugh today.

You really don't think it adds anything? You'd *never* get a job at Sky with a view like that :-) You gotta believe it all works...

Note Cav's WC winning set up - one-piece suit, aero bike, aero wheels, helmet cover. Call it psychological but there's certainly a market for it.

No, not at all. You don't have to believe it. You have to SAY you believe it.

There certainly is a market for it. So Sky says it's great(it's their sponsor). The riders wear it and ride on it(they get paid to say it's great). The manufacturers tell you it's the best yet(duh). Then along comes Joe Rider, who sucks it all up and gladly shells out big bucks because he has convinced himself that it's the road to faster cycling and race glory. :roll:

greasedscotsman

dennisn wrote:

No, not at all. You don't have to believe it. You have to SAY you believe it.

There certainly is a market for it. So Sky says it's great(it's their sponsor). The riders wear it and ride on it(they get paid to say it's great). The manufacturers tell you it's the best yet(duh). Then along comes Joe Rider, who sucks it all up and gladly shells out big bucks because he has convinced himself that it's the road to faster cycling and race glory. :roll:

And yet, check out UKSI bikes, they look pretty aero me. Sure, you can buy one if you have the money, but the only reason you can do that is the UCI regulations. Up until fairly recently, the only way to get one was to be a member of the British team. Maybe there is something in it after all?

cycleclinic

the poster here saying aero frames are pointless must therefore be on shallowed rimmed high spoke count wheels then. Aero frames make a difference but it is another one of the marginal gains. With aero wheels, stiff BB area and rear triangle, low Cr tyres, and the aero frame you have some advantage over those that don't if thats important to you. A good position and aero heltmet and skinsuit are essential to make the most of these smaller gains but gains they are. It really does depend how seriously you want every last Watt of power saved. Pro's ride what ever the sponser want them too but the differences between the top frames is not so huge especially when you are in a race pack.

I'm still on a round tubed steel bike for racing. As it turns out I am not that good at road racing so buying a aero frame won't help me much.

Grill

Cav won sprints on the old Dogma. Nothing less aero than that.

dennisn

greasedscotsman wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No, not at all. You don't have to believe it. You have to SAY you believe it.

There certainly is a market for it. So Sky says it's great(it's their sponsor). The riders wear it and ride on it(they get paid to say it's great). The manufacturers tell you it's the best yet(duh). Then along comes Joe Rider, who sucks it all up and gladly shells out big bucks because he has convinced himself that it's the road to faster cycling and race glory. :roll:

And yet, check out UKSI bikes, they look pretty aero me. Sure, you can buy one if you have the money, but the only reason you can do that is the UCI regulations. Up until fairly recently, the only way to get one was to be a member of the British team. Maybe there is something in it after all?

I'm thinking that the "something in it after all?" is bike manufacturers. Like car makers they need to produce something new AND DIFFERENT LOOKING on a regular basis or people will simply keep their old bike or car longer. Why buy new if it LOOKS like it did 10 years ago. We're talking big, big money here if manufacturers can convince, bribe, cajole, pressure, etc. UCI to approve this or that change.
I don't see it as a bad thing. It promotes bicycle development.

greasedscotsman

dennisn wrote:

I'm thinking that the "something in it after all?" is bike manufacturers. Like car makers they need to produce something new AND DIFFERENT LOOKING on a regular basis or people will simply keep their old bike or car longer. Why buy new if it LOOKS like it did 10 years ago. We're talking big, big money here if manufacturers can convince, bribe, cajole, pressure, etc. UCI to approve this or that change.
I don't see it as a bad thing. It promotes bicycle development.

The UKSI aren't trying to sell bikes to anyone. All they are trying to do is build the best bike for the British team to race on. They could have built anything and yet they went for an aero frameset.

dennisn

greasedscotsman wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I'm thinking that the "something in it after all?" is bike manufacturers. Like car makers they need to produce something new AND DIFFERENT LOOKING on a regular basis or people will simply keep their old bike or car longer. Why buy new if it LOOKS like it did 10 years ago. We're talking big, big money here if manufacturers can convince, bribe, cajole, pressure, etc. UCI to approve this or that change.
I don't see it as a bad thing. It promotes bicycle development.

The UKSI aren't trying to sell bikes to anyone. All they are trying to do is build the best bike for the British team to race on. They could have built anything and yet they went for an aero frameset.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't catch the meaning of UKSI. Still, don't the bikes need to be approved by UCI? :?

Grill

greasedscotsman wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I'm thinking that the "something in it after all?" is bike manufacturers. Like car makers they need to produce something new AND DIFFERENT LOOKING on a regular basis or people will simply keep their old bike or car longer. Why buy new if it LOOKS like it did 10 years ago. We're talking big, big money here if manufacturers can convince, bribe, cajole, pressure, etc. UCI to approve this or that change.
I don't see it as a bad thing. It promotes bicycle development.

The UKSI aren't trying to sell bikes to anyone. All they are trying to do is build the best bike for the British team to race on. They could have built anything and yet they went for an aero frameset.

The aero credentials of the UKSI frames are dubious at best. All they did was use NACA shapes and undersize the crap out of the frame in an effort to reduce drag, but I'd wager that it's no better in the tunnel than current aero models. I know their TT frame is slower than the rest of the crop, but it doesn't really matter as it depends who's riding it.

greasedscotsman

Grill wrote:

The aero credentials of the UKSI frames are dubious at best. All they did was use NACA shapes and undersize the crap out of the frame in an effort to reduce drag, but I'd wager that it's no better in the tunnel than current aero models. I know their TT frame is slower than the rest of the crop, but it doesn't really matter as it depends who's riding it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that an aero frameset (or any other aero equipment) is going to turn you into a TdF winner. Or even a 4th cat road race winner. My post is in response to Dennisn's suggestion that it's just a marketing gimmick. Here is a manufacturer who isn't interested in selling bikes and what did they make? An aero frameset.

I'm not suggesting this means everyone should rush out and buy one. I'm not suggesting that the UKSI frame is the best out there. I'm just suggesting that maybe aero kit isn't such a silly idea. I can't see why people object to it so much.

Bobbinogs

Grill wrote:

FransJacques wrote:

...

Note Cav's WC winning set up - one-piece suit, aero bike, aero wheels, helmet cover. Call it psychological but there's certainly a market for it.

Skinsuit, wheels, helmet all have waaaaay more effect on overall drag than the frame.

As does having about 7 team mates sat in front of you for the whole route (bar the last 200m), burying themselves. I am sure Cav's getup for the day would given him a slight advantage but not that much over the 200m that the wind got to it. He looked the business though and, as stated, it probably helped his mindset...whilst dispiriting the others (he was in his pomp at the time).

Grill

greasedscotsman wrote:

Grill wrote:

The aero credentials of the UKSI frames are dubious at best. All they did was use NACA shapes and undersize the crap out of the frame in an effort to reduce drag, but I'd wager that it's no better in the tunnel than current aero models. I know their TT frame is slower than the rest of the crop, but it doesn't really matter as it depends who's riding it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that an aero frameset (or any other aero equipment) is going to turn you into a TdF winner. Or even a 4th cat road race winner. My post is in response to Dennisn's suggestion that it's just a marketing gimmick. Here is a manufacturer who isn't interested in selling bikes and what did they make? An aero frameset.

I'm not suggesting this means everyone should rush out and buy one. I'm not suggesting that the UKSI frame is the best out there. I'm just suggesting that maybe aero kit isn't such a silly idea. I can't see why people object to it so much.

Oh it definitely has it's place, it's just has the worst ROI when it comes to aero gains. I've had two Foils and thought they were fantastic, but I didn't buy them because they were aero. Bobbings makes a great point about sprinters being protected and only leveraging the minute aero advantage over the last 200m at 60-70kph. To us mere mortals it won't make much difference.

vinnymarsden

I had a Ribble evo carbon pro…good bike..got me across the C2C and was pleasant ride , however I have subsequently upgraded to a Scott Foil, with Di2 group set….fitted Fulcrum wheel set, and a few carbon bits like bars/stem etc.
I am merely a layman when it comes to measuring Aero resistance etc…I only just understand the Cd thing, so speaking as just that…a layman I would wholeheartedly suggest that, at least in my case the Scott aero frame has made a big difference to my overall rolling speeds etc, now I am not naive enough to think my extra effort/time on bike hasn't played a part, but overall the Scott just feels easier to ride than the Ribble was…..
Only my opinion..none of it based in scientific fact….just my impression/feeling since getting the Scott

cougie

So you've gone from a 1 grand bike to a what - 7 grand bike ?
You'd hope that the bike would be a little bit faster - but you have more miles in the legs too...

Best improvement in speed I ever got was a new pair of shades. I was as strong as an ox all day through.

earth

My take on this is an aero road bike may not be necessary to the enthusiast/amature competitor but:

1. The cost doesn't have to be much more than a standard budget carbon bike. Why should it be? It's just a slightly different frame shape and once the molds are made they can churn them out and recoup the dev costs. The Propel is proof of this.

2. Stiffness and weight can be on par with a standard frame.

So whats left? Comfort maybe.

The aero benefits might not be much but I only produce 200 watts continuously so I want to make as much of that as possible and unlike a pro I do a lot of my rides solo.

cougie

Usually aero isnt as light as a standard frame - longer tube sections and whatnot.

If you like the look of an aero bike - go for it - but in our real world - we won't notice an improvement in speed.

jordan_217

I have nothing to add to this thread other than to tell you that my Scott Addict got delivered today

As you were….

rolf_f

I guess it depends on your priorities. If, like Cav, your career might depend on beating someone else by half a tyre width, the benefits of an aero frame may well be worth any other inconvenience caused. Otherwise probably not.