Aerobike climbing position

SpeedyMcBride

Hello all!

Well I recently got an aero frame (still a few months for it to be finished...wheels etc)
Since aerobikes have such an aggressive geometry and positioning, I was wondering if anybody who has experienced riding an aero frame has any judgement on it's "feel" when you're climbing.

So any major disadvantages without the whole "weight vs aerodynamics" argument.

Was curious as there's no articles or posts.

e17blade

I ride a Canyon Aeroad and have no problems with it when climbing at all - the only problems are with the rider! It's a really good position for me on the tops. If it's good enough for Valverde and Purito in the mountains too then that says something when they could ride an Ultimate if they wanted to.

This is my bike: viewtopic.php?t=13030236

bristolpete

Another big industry bums on bikes issue here, much like disc brakes. Aero bikes can and do climb. The recent raft of aero bikes like the propel, aeroroad, venge vias and bikes of this ilk are far better climbing bikes than aero bikes from 09-12 such as Cervelo S2 and so on. To my mind, the Propel is stiffer than a nuns lady garden and goes up hill in a dystopian power and fashion, it does not however dance on the hills like a dedicated climber like a TCR or Tarmac.

fenix

I have an aero bike but the position is the same as my normal Road bike? So it's just the same climbing.

DanTe1977

E17blade could I ask what height you are and what length stem you're running?
I've got the same bike n size and interested in comparisons as I feel it's just a tiny bit big for me.
Did reply to your bike pic thread but it dosnt seem to be showing up.
Nice in the red btw!

thegreatdivide

Fenix wrote:

I have an aero bike but the position is the same as my normal Road bike? So it's just the same climbing.

Bingo.

ugo.santalucia

SpeedyMcBride wrote:

So any major disadvantages without the whole "weight vs aerodynamics" argument.

Was curious as there's no articles or posts.

Most likely because there is nothing to talk about on the subject...

e17blade

DanTe1977 wrote:

E17blade could I ask what height you are and what length stem you're running?
I've got the same bike n size and interested in comparisons as I feel it's just a tiny bit big for me.
Did reply to your bike pic thread but it dosnt seem to be showing up.
Nice in the red btw!

I am 6'2" and am running a 110mm stem. The XL is a big bike and at first I was a bit sceptical despite all the measurements etc saying it was the right size and wondered if a L would have been better. However now I am used to it ,if I go back to a slightly smaller frame I just feel cramped. I'd go XL again if I had the choice.

okgo

Marketers wet dream this place.

Nearly any road bike frame that weighs similar to another one is going to climb very similarly, whether its been a Raleigh, Cervelo, S Works, steel genesis, the only thing that has made ANY different to the time up the hill is the person pushing the pedals round, in fact I've gone up some cimbs faster on my single speed genesis than I ever managed on a carbon aero cervelo despite the fact it has round tubes and weighs 3kg more.

The stresses of the average rider going up a hill is going to be so far from the limits of any frame in terms of stiffness or whatever, that it makes almost no odds. Cervelo produce these white papers on aero over weight, but notice the tiny differences over long climbs and you start to see that straws are being clutched at somewhat to make any actual point.

Anonymous

okgo wrote:

Cervelo produce these white papers on aero over weight, but notice the tiny differences over long climbs and you start to see that straws are being clutched at somewhat to make any actual point.

Agree.

Consider that all the tour riders will be on bikes that are 6.8kg if not slightly more the whole lighter climbing bike is pretty much debunked. Any 2 bikes of equal weight will climb just as well as each other. The wheels will make more difference if anything.