Aero vs Standard Road

Grill

Only a 900g more than my steel aero bike... bargain. :P

Ste_S

Mr Dog wrote:

You're spot on Cookie Monster. The difference between the two bikes is nearly 700g. But like a lot of people I'm a sucker for marketing. I blame Cervelo for getting me hooked ;-)

Cervelo are actually quite bad at aero. Sure they wind tunnel test their frames, but they have a short reach and a high stack which puts the rider into a default upright position negating any aero benefits from the frame. If you look at all the pros on Cervelos, they're mostly using slammed 140mm -17deg stems with a tiny top cap to get low and stretched on the bike.

They seem to have sorted this on the S5 after pros complained, but the R2/3/5 and S2/3 all still have the default 'upright' geometry

gsk82

does anyone else think that this thread reads like one guy with five usernames talking to himself?

bristolpete

Ste_S wrote:

Mr Dog wrote:

You're spot on Cookie Monster. The difference between the two bikes is nearly 700g. But like a lot of people I'm a sucker for marketing. I blame Cervelo for getting me hooked ;-)

Cervelo are actually quite bad at aero. Sure they wind tunnel test their frames, but they have a short reach and a high stack which puts the rider into a default upright position negating any aero benefits from the frame. If you look at all the pros on Cervelos, they're mostly using slammed 140mm -17deg stems with a tiny top cap to get low and stretched on the bike.

They seem to have sorted this on the S5 after pros complained, but the R2/3/5 and S2/3 all still have the default 'upright' geometry

The geo changed to get bottoms on bikes and sell more. Its a fact ! I think they parted company after this as its a chicken and egg thing. Sell more to sustain being in business, which means geo changes to accomadate the buying public but alienate the hardcore rider with a taller front end. Still lovely bikes though and 173cm HT on a 56 frame not massive compared to say a defy and so on ?

bernithebiker

I went from a 54 Sworks Tarmac (140mm HT) to a 52 to get a lower front end (120mm). Low front ends aren't that easy to find these days.....

Ste_S

bristolpete wrote:

Ste_S wrote:

Mr Dog wrote:

You're spot on Cookie Monster. The difference between the two bikes is nearly 700g. But like a lot of people I'm a sucker for marketing. I blame Cervelo for getting me hooked ;-)

Cervelo are actually quite bad at aero. Sure they wind tunnel test their frames, but they have a short reach and a high stack which puts the rider into a default upright position negating any aero benefits from the frame. If you look at all the pros on Cervelos, they're mostly using slammed 140mm -17deg stems with a tiny top cap to get low and stretched on the bike.

They seem to have sorted this on the S5 after pros complained, but the R2/3/5 and S2/3 all still have the default 'upright' geometry

The geo changed to get bottoms on bikes and sell more. Its a fact ! I think they parted company after this as its a chicken and egg thing. Sell more to sustain being in business, which means geo changes to accomadate the buying public but alienate the hardcore rider with a taller front end. Still lovely bikes though and 173cm HT on a 56 frame not massive compared to say a defy and so on ?

The reach on that 56cm is quite short though.
Perhaps I should of said in my original post, depsite the upright geo I'm picking up a 56cm R2 tomorrow precisely because they're still lovely frames. Have already bought a 130mm -6deg stem to put on it to start with, and I'm not ruling out 140mm and/or -17deg in the future

GGBiker

PedroJake wrote:

Fwiw, I bought my Propel for three reasons;

To TT on with clip ons fitted
To road race
To use on club runs as the 'Sunday best'

At first I loved this bike, as well as the compliments and comments I got. Set PBs on 10 mile TTs, all was good. I used it in 3-4 RR's, and if I'm honest I found the gearing heavy on the hilly circuits.

I took the propel out yesterday for the first time this year- a club reliability trial with the fast guys. On the flat, the thing absolutely flys, especially with the 50's I have fitted. Once I hit the hills on it though, I went out the back, dropped, big style, and wished I was on my winter Ribble, mudguards and all.....

And for me, this is the thing. It's stiff, fast and aggressive. But it's no lightweight. I kind of think of it as a luxury to have in the 'stable', for when I'd want to go out for fast flat runs -but if buying again would I purchase one as my all round bike? The answer is no.

I've since bought a dedicated TT bike, as this is what I want to focus on this year. As such, I'm now thinking the Propel as being surplus to requirements. In short, I don't think it's ideal for TT RR or Sunday hilly runs. That's just my experience however, and it might be that a stronger rider than me might say different. Having hastily sold my pinarello, I'm investing in a better 'standard bike'

There is no way that a few hundred grams of frame weight makes any difference between getting dropped or hanging in with a fast group or race, getting dropped is due to a simple wattage deficit. Unless you're on steep climbs above 10% the weight is not significant, aero is more beneficial.
You get dropped when you are likely 50w plus weaker than the group because even if you are just a bit weaker you can hang in by not doing any work on the front.

Like a lot of people I have spent a good deal of money learning this lesson. The only thing that really helps is solid and consistent training, anything else is just polishing a turd. Obviously if you need new gear it makes sense to buy something that gives a little advantage as long as it isn't wildly expensive (of course if you have lots of cash you can spend it how you like!)

pedrojake

GGBiker wrote:

PedroJake wrote:

Fwiw, I bought my Propel for three reasons;

To TT on with clip ons fitted
To road race
To use on club runs as the 'Sunday best'

At first I loved this bike, as well as the compliments and comments I got. Set PBs on 10 mile TTs, all was good. I used it in 3-4 RR's, and if I'm honest I found the gearing heavy on the hilly circuits.

I took the propel out yesterday for the first time this year- a club reliability trial with the fast guys. On the flat, the thing absolutely flys, especially with the 50's I have fitted. Once I hit the hills on it though, I went out the back, dropped, big style, and wished I was on my winter Ribble, mudguards and all.....

And for me, this is the thing. It's stiff, fast and aggressive. But it's no lightweight. I kind of think of it as a luxury to have in the 'stable', for when I'd want to go out for fast flat runs -but if buying again would I purchase one as my all round bike? The answer is no.

I've since bought a dedicated TT bike, as this is what I want to focus on this year. As such, I'm now thinking the Propel as being surplus to requirements. In short, I don't think it's ideal for TT RR or Sunday hilly runs. That's just my experience however, and it might be that a stronger rider than me might say different. Having hastily sold my pinarello, I'm investing in a better 'standard bike'

There is no way that a few hundred grams of frame weight makes any difference between getting dropped or hanging in with a fast group or race, getting dropped is due to a simple wattage deficit. Unless you're on steep climbs above 10% the weight is not significant, aero is more beneficial.
You get dropped when you are likely 50w plus weaker than the group because even if you are just a bit weaker you can hang in by not doing any work on the front.

Like a lot of people I have spent a good deal of money learning this lesson. The only thing that really helps is solid and consistent training, anything else is just polishing a turd. Obviously if you need new gear it makes sense to buy something that gives a little advantage as long as it isn't wildly expensive (of course if you have lots of cash you can spend it how you like!)

Yeah, I'll give you that a few hundred grams frame weight wouldn't be a massive difference, also that at the minute fitness wise I'd prob have been dropped at some stage with the same group. The point I was making is that in my case I'd bought an 'aero' bike for 10/25 TT's and RR's which are generally 25-40 miles, and have the bike set up accordingly- heavily geared and 50mm wheels, as well as a more aggressive set up, and once I hit around 50 miles I was feeling it. I've put in 2 or 3 reliability trials earlier in the year on my ribble and it felt easier on it. As I say, my experience is that the Propel is a harsher ride and I find it a more difficult ride in a hilly environment than my other 'non-aero' bikes. Sure, I could go with lighter wheel set, water down the gears with a compact, shorten the stem, but then what's the point of the aero frame in the first place? Oh, and not doing the turn on the front doesn't tend to be an option in this group!