New bike - aero or lightweight?
joenobody
Posts: 563
So, I'm just about in the position to buy a new bike and now have to decide between aero or lightweight. Specifically, from Argon 18, the Nitrogen or Gallium Pro. Will be used for general riding and multi-sport events (where I'm not expecting to be finishing close to a podium place)
Both will be significantly lighter than my current bike (Boardman Road Comp), and the Nitrogen weighs around just 200g more than the Gallium, so I feel weight isn't too much of a qualifier. Maybe I'm wrong?
Wheels, groupset, etc will be the same regardless of frame choice.
I guess that really just leaves position - would I be sacrificing general comfort for potential (but perhaps unlikely/minimal) aero gains? Should I even be worried about potential aero gains, instead focusing on the engine (which I'm trying to do anyway)?
Both will be significantly lighter than my current bike (Boardman Road Comp), and the Nitrogen weighs around just 200g more than the Gallium, so I feel weight isn't too much of a qualifier. Maybe I'm wrong?
Wheels, groupset, etc will be the same regardless of frame choice.
I guess that really just leaves position - would I be sacrificing general comfort for potential (but perhaps unlikely/minimal) aero gains? Should I even be worried about potential aero gains, instead focusing on the engine (which I'm trying to do anyway)?
0
Comments
-
The one that fits best, or if you can't decide that, the one that look best?0
-
If you can hold an average speed of over 20mph (on your own not in a bunch) then the aero bike may be of use to you otherwise you are unlikely to notice any great benefit. Being aero has more to do with your position on top of it than the bike itself. You could probably go faster on a lighter more complient bike if you can get a good position on it and it will be a damn sight easier to get up hills on. Again its not so much about the weight but the geometry and stiffness that lightweight bikes have over aero.
For me I have been looking at a new bike and I was split between another Bianchi (xr1) Scott Foil or a Cervélo S3. I decided to scrap aero and go for a Teammachine instead. I would have gone for a Bianchi Specialissima but I don't $hit solid gold nuggets to pay for one.0 -
That's kind of what I was thinking - I'm probably not in a position to make the most of what the aero bike would offer. I'd like to end that sentence with "yet", but I'm far enough away from there that it's going to take some time to get there...SmoggySteve wrote:If you can hold an average speed of over 20mph (on your own not in a bunch) then the aero bike may be of use to you otherwise you are unlikely to notice any great benefit. Being aero has more to do with your position on top of it than the bike itself. You could probably go faster on a lighter more complient bike if you can get a good position on it and it will be a damn sight easier to get up hills on. Again its not so much about the weight but the geometry and stiffness that lightweight bikes have over aero.
For me I have been looking at a new bike and I was split between another Bianchi (xr1) Scott Foil or a Cervélo S3. I decided to scrap aero and go for a Teammachine instead. I would have gone for a Bianchi Specialissima but I don't $hit solid gold nuggets to pay for one.0 -
200g is nothing .. its doubtful you would notice the difference in weight ... or the difference in aero ....... so I would choose the best looking.
if it was 1kg+ ... then I would choose the light weight one.0 -
Aero, they look sexier :P0
-
-
GCN did a thing about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz52XW6CMM
FWIW - I'd get the one you like the look of the most, the more you want to ride it the more riding you will do.0 -
SmoggySteve wrote:
OOh handbags !
Aero bikes are a BS marketing ploy. Just look at a pic of the average rider on a bike head on. Note how much of the surface area is the bloke rather than the tiny amount of bike.
IF you are a pro and you have your position dialled in and wear skintight lycra and your job depends on UCI points - then go for the aero bike.
If you're a bloke riding around generally - you'd not be able to measure any improvements. Same thing with the weight issue. 200gr on a bike is not going to be measurable unless you're chris froome on a starvation diet and racing uphill.0 -
Fenix wrote:SmoggySteve wrote:
OOh handbags !
Aero bikes are a BS marketing ploy. Just look at a pic of the average rider on a bike head on. Note how much of the surface area is the bloke rather than the tiny amount of bike.
IF you are a pro and you have your position dialled in and wear skintight lycra and your job depends on UCI points - then go for the aero bike.
If you're a bloke riding around generally - you'd not be able to measure any improvements. Same thing with the weight issue. 200gr on a bike is not going to be measurable unless you're chris froome on a starvation diet and racing uphill.
Im sure I pretty much said that originally. I also said the geometry plays more a part in climbing than weight. Why buy a aero bike which is long and low compared to a lightweight bike which makes it less comfortable to climb with.
Trying to be smart and you hadn't even read what I proposed earlier. I also said I had looked at an aero bike and changed my mind to a lightweight one.
Another thing on the "buy which one you like the look of better" Some bikes can look nice and be a complete dog. The Trek emonda and the Canyon Ultimate look dull as hell to me but they are amazing bikes. So looks count for nothing if the ride is shite!0 -
Raced an endurance geo bike last year and did ok, dont think I would have been any faster on an aero bike to be honest.
Fit for me is the number 1 consideration, if you can get a good position on both then its how it rides second and possibly weight 3rd, aero for an amateur is all about looks IMO (I have just bought a semi-aero bike
) Obsessed is a word used by the lazy to describe the dedicated!0 -
JesseD wrote:Raced an endurance geo bike last year and did ok, dont think I would have been any faster on an aero bike to be honest.
Fit for me is the number 1 consideration, if you can get a good position on both then its how it rides second and possibly weight 3rd, aero for an amateur is all about looks IMO (I have just bought a semi-aero bike)
I had a snazzy reply, but it didn't post or something. I'll try again in brief......
The data does support aero AND weight. Depend on your normal route. The teams carry several bikes to tours.
For a hobbyist, an aero frame WILL give results. Enough for the cost difference? Up to the person buying it.
Today I did a 10 mi lunch ride. Outbound was with the wind at a 23 mph pace. Inbound into the wind was a lovely and slow 16 to 17 mph pace.
You can't tell me that even for a hobbyist that an aero frame wouldn't make a difference then.
Specialized and GCN both have hard data supporting the gains. It's just up to you to decide if the fit and cost are a match.
Same for weight. GCN did a segment on that, had the guys pedal at a set power and put some weights in a backpack for a climb.
Again, lower weight works. But at what cost. Are you big and could lose body weight? Is your area hilly or flat.
One caveat I have here..........if you have the cash...and the bike fits....you can buy an aero bike right at the UCI weight limit.
Most hobbyists don't have the arm strength or core strength to stay down in the drops for a few hours. So there, I can see the aero argument.0 -
I know you have asked aero v light but I always focus on intended purpose, physiology, riding style etc. I am small and light and will never have an ftp of 400 so frame stiffness is more important to me than a lighter frame. I live in an area with crappy road surfaces so comfort and ride quality gets thrown into the mix. I also climb a lot and spend more time with hands on the bar tops so aero is pointless as I spend little time in an aero position. Point is there are lots of other factors to consider when choosing a bike that is right for you, personally I find the aero v light debate can be a bit limiting.0
-
burnthesheep wrote:The data does support aero AND weight. Depend on your normal route. The teams carry several bikes to tours.
For a hobbyist, an aero frame WILL give results. Enough for the cost difference? Up to the person buying it.
Today I did a 10 mi lunch ride. Outbound was with the wind at a 23 mph pace. Inbound into the wind was a lovely and slow 16 to 17 mph pace.
You can't tell me that even for a hobbyist that an aero frame wouldn't make a difference then.
Not when the bike generally accounts for less than 20% of the total frontal area of combined bike and rider, no.burnthesheep wrote:Most hobbyists don't have the arm strength or core strength to stay down in the drops for a few hours. So there, I can see the aero argument.
Not sure what your setup is like, but generally speaking, riding on the drops should require no more effort than riding on the hoods or the tops. Unless of course your fit is poor. But that is not the fault of your core or arms, it's the fault of poor fit.0 -
Both. I've had my Foil as light as 6.3kg, that's with pedals, bottle cages and Garmin mount. 'Manufacturer weight' without pedals and accessories it was 6.1kg.
It currently weighs just under 6.7kg as I changed wheels to Fulcrum Zero Night that aren't as light as my old Zipp 202's.0 -
NorvernRob wrote:Both. I've had my Foil as light as 6.3kg, that's with pedals, bottle cages and Garmin mount. 'Manufacturer weight' without pedals and accessories it was 6.1kg.
It currently weighs just under 6.7kg as I changed wheels to Fulcrum Zero Night that aren't as light as my old Zipp 202's.
Why would you run climbing wheels on an aero bike?
If you're going to buy an aero bike, use it for what it's meant for. Same goes if you buy a climbing bike.
I went from a low 6kg Scott Addict Team to my 7kg Cervelo S5. I'm a 93kg power rider and the Scott would flex all over the place, whereas the S5 just takes the punishment and goes. It works as it should for me.
If I were a 65kg whippet, I would have kept the Scott.0 -
Ryan_W wrote:NorvernRob wrote:Both. I've had my Foil as light as 6.3kg, that's with pedals, bottle cages and Garmin mount. 'Manufacturer weight' without pedals and accessories it was 6.1kg.
It currently weighs just under 6.7kg as I changed wheels to Fulcrum Zero Night that aren't as light as my old Zipp 202's.
Why would you run climbing wheels on an aero bike?
If you're going to buy an aero bike, use it for what it's meant for. Same goes if you buy a climbing bike.
I went from a low 6kg Scott Addict Team to my 7kg Cervelo S5. I'm a 93kg power rider and the Scott would flex all over the place, whereas the S5 just takes the punishment and goes. It works as it should for me.
If I were a 65kg whippet, I would have kept the Scott.
It's stiff and doesn't weigh much, why isn't it a climbing bike too?
I used to have 52mm carbon wheels on it, but I do a lot of riding in the Peak District and found it a handful at times when the wind was really blowing. I get more benefit from stiff wheels with good braking.0 -
NorvernRob wrote:Ryan_W wrote:NorvernRob wrote:Both. I've had my Foil as light as 6.3kg, that's with pedals, bottle cages and Garmin mount. 'Manufacturer weight' without pedals and accessories it was 6.1kg.
It currently weighs just under 6.7kg as I changed wheels to Fulcrum Zero Night that aren't as light as my old Zipp 202's.
Why would you run climbing wheels on an aero bike?
If you're going to buy an aero bike, use it for what it's meant for. Same goes if you buy a climbing bike.
I went from a low 6kg Scott Addict Team to my 7kg Cervelo S5. I'm a 93kg power rider and the Scott would flex all over the place, whereas the S5 just takes the punishment and goes. It works as it should for me.
If I were a 65kg whippet, I would have kept the Scott.
It's stiff and doesn't weigh much, why isn't it a climbing bike too?
I used to have 52mm carbon wheels on it, but I do a lot of riding in the Peak District and found it a handful at times when the wind was really blowing. I get more benefit from stiff wheels with good braking.
Lightweight bikes aimed at climbing have a geometry more suited to hills. Its not just about the weight but its compliance and ability to grind out steep climbs for a few km and remain relatively comfortable compared to aero frames designed for speed above all else0 -
SmoggySteve wrote:Lightweight bikes aimed at climbing have a geometry more suited to hills. Its not just about the weight but its compliance and ability to grind out steep climbs for a few km and remain relatively comfortable compared to aero frames designed for speed above all else
Can someone name a bike which has 'climbing-specific' geometry? I've no idea WTF that actually means...0 -
Imposter wrote:SmoggySteve wrote:Lightweight bikes aimed at climbing have a geometry more suited to hills. Its not just about the weight but its compliance and ability to grind out steep climbs for a few km and remain relatively comfortable compared to aero frames designed for speed above all else
Can someone name a bike which has 'climbing-specific' geometry? I've no idea WTF that actually means...
Where did you get climbing specific from? Nobody said that. You're making sh1t up again. I said geometry more suited to climbing. There is a difference. Same as a bike with a more endurance focus. Is this all new to you?
An aero bike generally will be longer and lower in the same way a TT bike will if not so dramatic. A bike which will help when it comes to getting up hills with give you more ability to sit up and further back. Ever tried tackling a 10% climb on the drops? Give it a go compared to sitting up with you hands on the hoods or even just the bars. Its not very comfortable to do for a long period. You might get away with it for a short bit but you wouldn't take on the Alpe D'huez that way.
If there was a one size fits all bike then why would there be so many types of geometry around? If you think its marketing bs then you are very naive indeed.
Also lightweight bikes will be very stiff and more complient in different areas than an aero bike. If you just made all bikes mega stiff everywhere then they wouldn't be very comfortable. Pretty much how the first aero frames used to be.0 -
The nitrogen has a flippable seat post for road/TT positions so with what your wanting to do with it, it maybe better.eating parmos since 1981
Canyon Ultimate CF SLX Aero 09
Cervelo P5 EPS
www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=130387990 -
I'll take on any hobbyist rockin up to a race on a a la mode aero bike against my Caad10... if one the usual suspect big hitters have changed frames over the winter, I'll finish even further back in the bunch then.....0
-
JGSI wrote:I'll take on any hobbyist rockin up to a race on a a la mode aero bike against my Caad10... if one the usual suspect big hitters have changed frames over the winter, I'll finish even further back in the bunch then.....
Canyon Aeroad? Its nearly as good as my Cannondale SS EvoI'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
SmoggySteve wrote:
Where did you get climbing specific from? Nobody said that. You're making sh1t up again. I said geometry more suited to climbing. There is a difference.
You love your ad hominems , don't you. Let me rephrase it then, 'smoggy' - can you name a bike with a 'geometry more suited to climbing'? More suited than what?
I think you may be the one with the sh1t problem here.0 -
Good to see the OP hasn't said anything in 21 posts...
We do love a good rant on here.
Buy a CAAD12. Best bike the in the universe, ever. IDSTNA!0 -
ad hominems.
Had to Google the meaning of this
0 -
Smoggy loves emmurf1480 wrote:ad hominems.
Had to Google the meaning of this
0 -
SmoggySteve wrote:NorvernRob wrote:Ryan_W wrote:NorvernRob wrote:Both. I've had my Foil as light as 6.3kg, that's with pedals, bottle cages and Garmin mount. 'Manufacturer weight' without pedals and accessories it was 6.1kg.
It currently weighs just under 6.7kg as I changed wheels to Fulcrum Zero Night that aren't as light as my old Zipp 202's.
Why would you run climbing wheels on an aero bike?
If you're going to buy an aero bike, use it for what it's meant for. Same goes if you buy a climbing bike.
I went from a low 6kg Scott Addict Team to my 7kg Cervelo S5. I'm a 93kg power rider and the Scott would flex all over the place, whereas the S5 just takes the punishment and goes. It works as it should for me.
If I were a 65kg whippet, I would have kept the Scott.
It's stiff and doesn't weigh much, why isn't it a climbing bike too?
I used to have 52mm carbon wheels on it, but I do a lot of riding in the Peak District and found it a handful at times when the wind was really blowing. I get more benefit from stiff wheels with good braking.
Lightweight bikes aimed at climbing have a geometry more suited to hills. Its not just about the weight but its compliance and ability to grind out steep climbs for a few km and remain relatively comfortable compared to aero frames designed for speed above all else
Sounds like manufacturer gumf to me, I've spent near full days in the Peaks on the Foil with no issues whatsoever.0 -
SmoggySteve wrote:
Lightweight bikes aimed at climbing have a geometry more suited to hills. Its not just about the weight but its compliance and ability to grind out steep climbs for a few km and remain relatively comfortable compared to aero frames designed for speed above all else
Compliance ? On a steep hill ? And I'm not sure any steep climb of a few km is going to be comfortable. The incline is your problem - not the compliance of the frame. Unless we are talking of a steep climb over a few kms of cobbles ?
I suspect the vast majority of aero frames aren't designed for speed above all else. More likely designed to look like they'll be fast.0
