Aero road bike vs standard road bike?

greasedscotsman

Grill wrote:

Oh it definitely has it's place, it's just has the worst ROI when it comes to aero gains.

Do you think? Is buying a lightweight bike any worse?

greasedscotsman

earth wrote:

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.

No idea how many watts I can produce, but totally agree with this!

Grill

greasedscotsman wrote:

Grill wrote:

Oh it definitely has it's place, it's just has the worst ROI when it comes to aero gains.

Do you think? Is buying a lightweight bike any worse?

If you're buying a lightweight frame for the sole purpose of going faster uphill, then no.

bernithebiker

earth wrote:

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.

I would agree that you need to make every watt count, which is why I've worked on my position a lot this year - longer and lower, with a narrower handlebar.

Then a Giro Attack Shield instead of Sworks helmet. Then aero type, very snug fitting tops and shorts with no flaps or creases. Wheels are 48mm deep carbon with bladed carbon spokes.

These things make tangible differences.

To my mind the frame is last on the list. To that end I ride a Tarmac and not a Venge, because I also value handling, responsiveness and I prefer the look.

Grill

I dropped over 2 minutes on last years 10 mile PB purely on position and a better skinsuit (same wattage). Reckon I could find another 20 seconds by further refining my position.

cougie

What was the difference between the skinsuits Grill ?

Grill

Massive difference between skinsuits. I went from a standard short sleeve Endura club skinsuit to a Castelli Body Paint 2 skinsuit. Long sleeve is always faster and the cut and material produce a lot less drag. When RST changed their race team skinsuits, they found a 10w difference between old and new.

Old:


New:

jordan_217

Grill wrote:

Massive difference between skinsuits. I went from a standard short sleeve Endura club skinsuit to a Castelli Body Paint 2 skinsuit. Long sleeve is always faster and the cut and material produce a lot less drag. When RST changed their race team skinsuits, they found a 10w difference between old and new.

Old:


New:

Is the skinsuit the only discerning factor though? There seems to be quite a few changes in those pics - bike, helmet, wheels, shoe covers and position.

I'm not trying to pick holes in what you've posted. I'm interested in knowing whether you've compared the difference in the skinsuits alone?

Grill

The change in frame allowed for a better position. The helmets are almost identical (the Selector is just an expensive Javelin) and the change in position would have resulted in me changing to the shallow tail if I still had the Selector. The old RZR is actually quicker than the trispoke and the difference in discs is weight as opposed to drag (which is offset by the trispoke being heavier than the RZR). Shoe covers are negligible unless you plump for the Smart ones, so it really comes down to skinsuit and position. Deductive reasoning 101.

tom3

Those two photos show two huge changes to me surely?

1. weight loss
2. position (draw a line on your back angle).

Grill

tom3 wrote:

Those two photos show two huge changes to me surely?

1. weight loss
2. position (draw a line on your back angle).

1. Nope, I'm heavier in the second photo
2. Absolutely, which is my point that the frame should be the last thing to change for true aero gains.

tom3

interesting, Id say you look in better shape physically in the second photo. the black skinsuit must be slimming!

I will be taking the new foil out for its first ride tonight/tmrw. As per the title thread I am hoping I have struck a balance between the two.

Grill

It's a lot tighter so must be pushing things in!

Foil is a great bike. If I didn't have so many bikes I wouldn't have sold mine.

cougie

I'm so getting a black top and hiding my belly !

bernithebiker

tom3 wrote:

Those two photos show two huge changes to me surely?

1. weight loss
2. position (draw a line on your back angle).

I was gonna say the same thing!

greasedscotsman

Grill wrote:

If you're buying a lightweight frame for the sole purpose of going faster uphill, then no.

OK, so if you live in Bourg-d'Oisans. But for the rest of us...

greasedscotsman

bernithebiker wrote:

To my mind the frame is last on the list. To that end I ride a Tarmac and not a Venge, because I also value handling, responsiveness and I prefer the look.

Is the Venge really that bad?

(Although I do agree with you on the looks...)

greasedscotsman

Grill wrote:

2. Absolutely, which is my point that the frame should be the last thing to change for true aero gains.

This maybe true, but this...

Grill wrote:

The change in frame allowed for a better position. The helmets are almost identical (the Selector is just an expensive Javelin) and the change in position would have resulted in me changing to the shallow tail if I still had the Selector. The old RZR is actually quicker than the trispoke and the difference in discs is weight as opposed to drag (which is offset by the trispoke being heavier than the RZR). Shoe covers are negligible unless you plump for the Smart ones, so it really comes down to skinsuit and position. Deductive reasoning 101.

...isn't proof.

londoncommuter

Not trying to advertise Cervelo (second post of the day with a link to them) but this is quite a reasoned article:

http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/t ... -aero.html

Above a 5% slope and light is best.

greasedscotsman

But then they calculate what the time difference would be on the 2007 Etape stage.



And the aero bike is 35 seconds faster.

Grill

greasedscotsman wrote:

But then they calculate what the time difference would be on the 2007 Etape stage.



And the aero bike is 35 seconds faster.

So 3 seconds faster on a 10? Wow. :roll:

bernithebiker

greasedscotsman wrote:

But then they calculate what the time difference would be on the 2007 Etape stage.



And the aero bike is 35 seconds faster.

Which also assumes that the aero bike descends and handles and brakes as well as the non-aero one, which is doubtful, IMO.

greasedscotsman

Grill wrote:

So 3 seconds faster on a 10? Wow. :roll:

You're missing the point. This is a course with over 4000 metres of climbing. You would expect the lightweight bike to be quicker, based on the 5% slope, light is best as quoted by Londoncommuter. But it's not.

londoncommuter

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to conclude either way, just highlighting the 5% bit. Personally I'm torn 50/50 between believing the aero stuff completely and dismissing it as marketing nonsense....

Tucking in behind your clubmates on the flat and having a nice light bike for the hills is surely the best compromise!

Grill

greasedscotsman wrote:

Grill wrote:

So 3 seconds faster on a 10? Wow. :roll:

You're missing the point. This is a course with over 4000 metres of climbing. You would expect the lightweight bike to be quicker, based on the 5% slope, light is best as quoted by Londoncommuter. But it's not.

And my point is if you're buying an aero bike to go faster, save your money. You'd save 35 seconds by going gloveless.

izza

greasedscotsman wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

To my mind the frame is last on the list. To that end I ride a Tarmac and not a Venge, because I also value handling, responsiveness and I prefer the look.

Is the Venge really that bad?

(Although I do agree with you on the looks...)

Whilst agree in terms of it being personal choice and sitting in a chaingang will massively overshadow any aero benefits

1) I personally prefer looks of Venge to Tarmac
2) Sharper handling is not better - it is a personal preference. I disliked the way the Tarmac handled and preferred less aggressive turning of the Venge

Horses for courses; if you're torn between the two go for a test ride.

greasedscotsman

Grill wrote:

And my point is if you're buying an aero bike to go faster, save your money. You'd save 35 seconds by going gloveless.

The Cervelo article uses a comparison between a R3 SL and a Soloist SL, neither of which were particularly cheap. It's not a case, in this example, of the aero bike being more expensive.

I don't think anyone in this thread has made claims for aero kit making a massive difference. It just really depends if it's that important to you. For many, it probably isn't. You seem happy enough to spend the cash (or maybe you're sponsored, I dunno...) on lots of aero kit just to ride up and down a dual carriageway, what's wrong with that?

And why ride nearly 200km without mitts? What you need is a pair of these...

Grill

Those only test faster with the matching skinsuit

dennisn

londoncommuter wrote:

Personally I'm torn 50/50 between believing the aero stuff completely and dismissing it as marketing nonsense....

I vote for somewhere in between the two. Keyword "somewhere".
Although, in the course of my life I have learned that NOTHING is a good as the brochure leads you to believe.

earth

earth wrote:

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.

I'm replying to my own post here

Forgot handling as a difference between aero and non-aero road bikes. But isn't the aim of an aero road bike is to have some aero benefits without being so uncompromising as to reduce the handling like a TT bike does?