New bike - aero or lightweight?
Comments
-
What he said ^^0
-
You all need one of each, of course.Pegoretti
Colnago
Cervelo
Campagnolo0 -
on-yer-bike wrote:You all need one of each, of course.
This x1,000,000...
Any excuse to buy more bikes / stuff!0 -
burnthesheep wrote: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.
The data that supports aero and weight is there, I cannot disagree with it, however for amateurs (and I am taking the top 1st Cats and Elite riders out of this) the gains will be very marginal, the same for weight as most of us can do with losing a few pounds from around our midsections rather than the bike, that’s why I said the most important factor above anything else is fit.
Most aero bikes are pretty aggressive in their geometry, long and low usually and this for a lot of people means they don’t fit them unless they compromise either position (too aggressive to get the power out properly over X amount of time, supported by your comment about not being able to ride in the drops for any length of time), or they chuck a load of spacers under the stem and end up in the same position they would have been in on an endurance orientated machine. So IMO people at our level buy aero bikes because they like the look of them as opposed to the fact they will bring real life gains that are measurable.
I raced all last year on a Felt Z75 (Felts low range alu endurance bike, weight around 11kg ) and with some success, and at no time did I feel disadvantaged against the guys on £5k aero machines with all the bells and whistles, I am not a small guy at 14st but do have a good position on the bike and can ride in the drops for a long time with a flat back, the only times I was beaten by the guys on the fancy bikes was if they were either fitter/lighter than me (climbs) or I messed up tactically (which I did a fair bit). That said I won the Vets crit champs for where I live on the Felt beating guys fancy bikes, using my strength on the flats and in the sprints (won a couple of races that way).
Would have having an aero bike have helped me win more races or have gone that much faster, I honestly don’t think it would, more/better structured training definitely would have as would being better tactically, I really don’t think (unless you are at the pinnacle of the sport) that an aero road bike matters that much, especially in mass start events or road races unless you are planning on a solo breakaway and even then it boils down to the legs and how aero you are on the bike.
But that said I have just bought a Kuota Kougar which is their version of a semi aero bike, I bought it not because it was aero but because I got a fantastic deal, it fits me perfectly and I like the look of it, I am not kidding myself the aero properties will make me faster, the stiffness in the BB and headtube might have some effect and I think as its full carbon it may be more comfortable over longer distances however the aero shaped tubes will in real life terms make very little difference.
I am not knocking anyone who buys an aero bike, they generally look amazing, however buying one under the pretence it will make you faster is madness, unless the geometry does fit you perfectly and you can get a comfortable good position on it, and even then its more about how you fit on the bike than the actual aero properties of the bike itself.
Perfect example of this at amateur level is one of the best amateur race bikes is the CAAD12 or the Supersix, neither of which are aero.Obsessed is a word used by the lazy to describe the dedicated!0 -
I'm faster on my aero bike than on my standard racing bike, that is a proven fact.
I used to commute on my 6.4kg Addict and now on my 8kg CAAD12 Disc.
I've done the same ride a few times on my 7kg S5 and I PB'd pretty much every segment along the way. I may add there's no hills to speak of, but like for like, the aero bike made a difference, and I'm by no means a Cat1 rider, more like 3/4 with a 290w FTP.0 -
Ryan_W wrote:I'm faster on my aero bike than on my standard racing bike, that is a proven fact.
It's only a proven fact if you can offer proof.0 -
I think you (OP) are asking yourself the wrong question.
It's not aero vs lightweight but rather "endurance vs race".
IMHO if you're not planning on getting on the podium, the marginal gains from total bike weight/aerodynamics arent a huge factor. There are better gains to be made from regular quality use of the leg muscles and losing midrift flab, particularly if you're aiming to improve on hills.
If good distances and very frequent cycling are your aims, then "endurance-fit" bikes are better geometrically around the bits you're going to be sitting on or using the most.
If you're planning on getting from A to B swiftly, then something with a more "race-fit" geometry might suit better.
If you still can't quite make up your mind, go for the nicer looking one
:-) 0 -
Ryan_W wrote:I'm faster on my aero bike than on my standard racing bike, that is a proven fact.
Me too.
But...
...I only ever ride my aero bike on warm dry light days when I'm wearing the bare minimum of cycle clothing, as opposed to my standard bike on cold dark wet winter nights when I'm weighed down by batteries, lights, extra tubes and tools, overshoes, and 1007 layers of winter clothing. My standard bike goes a lot faster in the summer.0 -
Ryan_W wrote:
Different rides on different bikes on different days doesn't really constitute proof in any meaningful sense - that's all I'm trying to say.0 -
Maybe go for both, lightweight and aero.....
Or just post another pic of your aero bike because it makes you smile.....
0 -
Lawks! I haven't seen this amount of "me me me" since Katie Price tried to get on every single last reality show.
Or since my last "me me me" post.0 -
Gromson wrote:Lawks! I haven't seen this amount of "me me me" since Katie Price tried to get on every single last reality show.
Or since my last "me me me" post.
Sorry, thought this was a bike forum :oops:0 -
JesseD wrote:I raced all last year
For your races, what % of the time were you protected by wind in a group or were following at least one person versus being dead alone and on your own?
I bought the Propel because I plan to also do Ironmans and it's a very very popular dual duty bike in the triathlon world. I can't afford two bikes. I also do 95% of my rides alone, no draft and no group to get wind from.
And in a race where drafting is banned, every advantage over that 3 hours of riding is critical. You're not going to do so well putting TT bars on a tube frame endurance bike.
I want to do a team Ironman and be the bike rider. But our swimmer isn't so quick. Our runner is ok. To make up for the swimmer I know I'll have to crank our the 56 mi at about 20 mi/hr including hills. Meaning my average flats speed will be around 22. It's the same route year to year and I can train for the distance and elevation difference pretty easily.
That's definitely aero frame territory if you ask me. It seems also that individual TT in cycling gets a "free pass" when the equipment and ability argument comes up. It feels that way. We're accepting of the bloke who has only ever ridden 5km to work buying a TT bike and helmet and starting to ride. We're not too accepting of riders wanting to buy a weight weenie or an aero frame who aren't a categorized racer. Just feels that way.
I can hold very near 20 mph now, alone, on the bike for a few hours without TT bars. I held two hours in the drops with back flat last week. Then again, before I took up riding I had lifted weights and had reasonably fit arms.
I find it very interesting that the equipment debate in cycling is totally opposite as golf. In golf I'd be the equivalent of a Cat 1 rider. I've taught and given lessons and competed in my younger days. I got to play with Webb Simpson once or twice in a tournament before he was a US Open winner. I would highly recommend a guy shooting in the 90's or around 100 to go out and get fit for proper fitting clubs and take advantage of the new technology in drivers and irons. Your 20 year old irons have too small of a sweet spot that a novice can't utilize. The new clubs have a bigger tolerance for error in the swing on the club face and are lighter. That expensive set of iron shafts custom to you could reduce your error by a few degrees, or up to 5 yards left or right at 160 yds or so. That's the difference between hitting the green or hitting the beach.
Sure, McIlroy could break par with hickory sticks......but someone with only 4 hours a week to dedicate has to choose their advantage. And if they have the cash for a huge new driver and fitted irons and the expensive high-spin golf balls..........then hell yes buy them.
I don't have an issue with "buying speed".0 -
BTS - its not so much aero bike territory as TT or tribike territory. Tribars will buy you far more time than aero tubing. You're the vast bulk of wind resistance. Not the frame.
(btw not implying you're a chubby chubster or anything - but its always the rider that is bulkier than the bike)
Nice bikes there Ryan - but does the Cervelo maybe put you in a lower, narrower, more aero position maybe ? Or just encourages you to try harder ?0 -
Fenix wrote:Nice bikes there Ryan - but does the Cervelo maybe put you in a lower, narrower, more aero position maybe ? Or just encourages you to try harder ?
Thanks.
The Scott and Cervelo actually have very similar geos, but the Scott has a longer reach and head tube!
I would say it's down to the Cervelo being designed with aerodynamics at the forefront of it's use over the past 7 years...
0 -
No problem!
I do admit myself that 50% of the reason was "the look" and being an engineer that just likes technology.
I started riding in June last year at 180 lb. Now I'm 165 lb. There's about 5 lb left to lose but I'm not willing, beer is too damn good. I'm sure the beer diet costs me a few watts, but whatever. Drink trippels, don't ride triples.0 -
If you can only nearly ride at 20 mph after 7 months on a normal road bike. It's time to get the credit card out.0
-
Talk of different geometry between aero and non-aero bikes is a bit of a red herring. They aren't THAT different. In fact most are very similar. Certainly nothing you couldn't adjust with a different stem / bars and seat position.
A non aero bike could be made much more aero than an aero one simply by dialling in an aggressive position.
IMO the frame is right at the bottom of the list. When you've got your position sorted, you're not wearing flappy clothes, decent helmet, good set of wheels, even decent handlebar, THEN think about the frame, and even then, if you're not riding above 20mph most of the time, it probably isn't worth the effort.0 -
Thanks for the input everyone. I'm not sure I'm any closer to a decision, but at least I have info to cover both sides of the argument.
I'm leaning more towards the Nitrogen, based on looks, but the idea that I'd look a bit of a tit (all the kit, still sh*t) riding an aero bike slowly (relatively speaking) is providing some counter balance. Both frames come with reversible seat posts, so I could get a more forward/tri-focused position on either. I should take a close look at the geometry for both, the difference may not be all that much. On price, the Nitrogen is cheaper (£2000) than the Gallium Pro (£2100). I suppose a better comparison for price is Nitrogen vs Gallium (£1500), or Nitrogen Pro (£3200) vs Gallium Pro.
I have a friend who rides the South Downs from Brighton on his Cervelo S5 - it's lighter than his Cube, so arguably better suited to climbing in that respect at least. On the other hand another friend rides North Devon (not known for it's lack of hills) daily on his R3. I guess the situation here is that the first is happy with what he has and how he rides it, but might see some benefit for a riding a different, lighter, non-aero bike, while the other has decided that he wants to maximise whatever gains his bike can offer the riding he does. It may be relevant that the former is still planning to take part in triathlons, while the latter is only focused on riding.
Also, it might finally come down to whether a retailer is prepared to sell me a frameset that's funded part by Cyclescheme and part cash. If that's not possible then I'll probably have to go elsewhere and buy a complete bike. I know Evans will do part CS/part cash, and BMC (probably a Teammachine) was on the shortlist before I settled on Argon18...0 -
Ryan_W wrote:Maybe go for both, lightweight and aero.....
Except you've just negated all the bike's aero by clipping the garmin on the front.
I'd wager (with someone elses money) that a non aero bike without a garmin will be more aero than an aero bike with a garmin on the front.0 -
I had the opportunity to ride a K8-S at a corporate event last year. Bikes for the event were provided by an outfit that rented only high-end Pinarellos (F8s and more K8s). I had a chat with the mechanic who was setting up the bikes and, while it is only his opinion, he said that my biggest investment should be in the frame first, then the wheels. All else might provide some difference, but limited compared to those two, and could be upgraded as and when I have the opportunity to do so. It's a view that makes a lot of sense to me, and I'm inclined to believe he knows what he was talking about based on his apparent familiarity with top end bikes. My clothes aren't flappy, helmet is a Kask Mojito, wheels are/will be Pro Lite Bortola a21s (reasonable weight for the price, which some aero cues), cockpit initially would likely be at the budget end of the market.bernithebiker wrote:IMO the frame is right at the bottom of the list. When you've got your position sorted, you're not wearing flappy clothes, decent helmet, good set of wheels, even decent handlebar, THEN think about the frame, and even then, if you're not riding above 20mph most of the time, it probably isn't worth the effort.0 -
darkhairedlord wrote:Except you've just negated all the bike's aero by clipping the garmin on the front.
I'd wager (with someone elses money) that a non aero bike without a garmin will be more aero than an aero bike with a garmin on the front.
Has your account been hijacked..?0 -
Looks like Argon 18 sizing chart it appears that the bikes have the same geometry. The differences then appear to be the tube shape, brake positions and carbon spec. If that's truly the case then I think that puts the Nitrogen firmly in the lead.JoeNobody wrote:I should take a close look at the geometry for both, the difference may not be all that much.0 -
JesseD wrote:I raced all last year on a Felt Z75 (Felts low range alu endurance bike, weight around 11kg ) and with some success, and at no time did I feel disadvantaged against the guys on £5k aero machines with all the bells and whistles, I am not a small guy at 14st but do have a good position on the bike and can ride in the drops for a long time with a flat back, the only times I was beaten by the guys on the fancy bikes was if they were either fitter/lighter than me (climbs) or I messed up tactically (which I did a fair bit). That said I won the Vets crit champs for where I live on the Felt beating guys fancy bikes, using my strength on the flats and in the sprints (won a couple of races that way).
Would have having an aero bike have helped me win more races or have gone that much faster, I honestly don’t think it would, more/better structured training definitely would have as would being better tactically, I really don’t think (unless you are at the pinnacle of the sport) that an aero road bike matters that much, especially in mass start events or road races unless you are planning on a solo breakaway and even then it boils down to the legs and how aero you are on the bike.
however buying one under the pretence it will make you faster is madness, unless the geometry does fit you perfectly and you can get a comfortable good position on it, and even then its more about how you fit on the bike than the actual aero properties of the bike itself.
You're evidence doesn't 100% support your assertions though. You're argument seems to be that at amateur level fitness and tactics make more difference than anything, there's no disputing that, but that doesn't really disprove the suggestion that someone riding an aero bike might be significantly faster over a 10km TT than a light climber's bike. If what you want is to be quicker (when compared to yourself over the same distance) then it might not be 'madness' to buy an aero bike
I bought a supersix though 0 -
red army faction? nah, no hi-jacking here.Imposter wrote:darkhairedlord wrote:Except you've just negated all the bike's aero by clipping the garmin on the front.
I'd wager (with someone elses money) that a non aero bike without a garmin will be more aero than an aero bike with a garmin on the front.
Has your account been hijacked..?0 -
Go with the Nitrogen (Pro if you're willing to spend the extra).
Amazing bikes and I was so close to buying one.0 -
darkhairedlord wrote:Ryan_W wrote:Maybe go for both, lightweight and aero.....
Except you've just negated all the bike's aero by clipping the garmin on the front.
I'd wager (with someone elses money) that a non aero bike without a garmin will be more aero than an aero bike with a garmin on the front.
Sorry Mr Windtunnel.... I'm sure you're right :roll:0 -
Ryan_W wrote:
Sorry Mr Windtunnel.... I'm sure you're right :roll:
its not just Mr Windtunnel you have offended .. Mr Scales is p155ed as well .... the edge 1000 + kedge mount is 183g
put that on your bike and now the light weight bike is only 30g lighter than the aero :shock: ... to compensate you are going to have to pour 30ml out of your water bottle ! or have a really small poo before you ride0 -
Buy what you like the look of.
I've gone from numerous aero bikes to a non aero bike and I cannot tell the difference. Then again, who measures their training rides in avg speed?Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0
