Time to buy an aero bike?

Andymaxy

A fan of canyon here excited for their expansion. I'm a big fan of aero bikes and want to invest in one. The problem is that most aero bikes out there are quite old and haven't been updated for a while.

Generally, canyons bike updates every three years, however, this is the fourth year canyon have been running their current aeroad, so it should be updated soon. We haven't seen a frame from canyon at the tour so it won't be at least till very late 2018 that they release it(as canyon usually show new bikes at the tour)

I know giant propel has just been updated, but it looks kinda of ugly, and is significantly more expensive for comparable models.

What do you guys think, if I have to get a new race bike, buy an aero bike right now or to buy a climbing bike instead? It seems like that despite being a few years old, the aeroad is still the lightest aero bike there, and I don't know how much better the next generation can be, so it's difficult to make that decision

StillGoing

Hang on, Wilier, Merida, Scott etc have all recently updated their aero models.

fenix

As someone who owns an aero bike - don't let it fool you. I bought mine because it looked pretty.

Once you put the ungainly human on top of a bike - you won't notice any difference in speed aero vs normal bike.

Also - its not really about the bike - its about you. Buy the bike you like the look of, but accept that it will be out of date fairly shortly, but you won't be at any speed disadvantage.

bianchi_dave

With the newer 'aero' bikes it really is a case of having your cake and eating it. Recent bikes like the Scott Foil, Specialized Venge Vias etc are just as comfortable and near as damned as light as a 'climbing' bike. I have the new Foil Premium and its by far the best frame I've ever had - every bit as comfortable as my Solace (endurance/comfort bike) but looks cooler (to me).

Never experienced Canyon but most manufacturers tend to follow successful trends so I'd imagine their next 'aero' bike would very likely be along the lines of the Foil and Vias, meaning the buyer who wants aero does not have to compromise on comfort/weight.

As Fenix says, aero is more about the human - your own position on the bike makes a huge difference but an aero frame helps here with the lower head tube. I simply can't get as low as I'd like on the Solace, hence -17 degree slammed stem.

kingpinsam

The next generation of bikes should be very interesting now the UCI have removed the 3:1 rule, but you'll be waiting at least a year, maybe 2. If I were in the market I'd be looking to pick up a 2017 Foil at sale prices, and then look to replace again in a couple of years if there are significant changes. Virtually no point buying a "climbing" bike unless you're regularly doing extreme gradients.

mfin

The original post seems to be bought into the gains of aero bikes AND bought into the marketing of them getting faster and faster. In the real world most of it is crap. Watch any major race and you can see aero bikes don't seem to offer much advantage at all, in fact stacks of pros just don't use them and you'd think they would want to be faster or at least go the same speed for less effort.

The fact is, the best reason to buy an aero bike is liking the look of them, nothing else.

nickbotfield

mfin wrote:

Watch any major race and you can see aero bikes don't seem to offer much advantage at all, in fact stacks of pros just don't use them and you'd think they would want to be faster or at least go the same speed for less effort.

Pros are just as weird and sheep-like as the rest of us though. One of the pro bike checks on GCN (I can't remember who it was) had the rider discussing how his climbing bike was so much lighter than the aero bike he rode, but when they weighed them there was about 100g difference between the two!

mfin

nickbotfield wrote:

mfin wrote:

Watch any major race and you can see aero bikes don't seem to offer much advantage at all, in fact stacks of pros just don't use them and you'd think they would want to be faster or at least go the same speed for less effort.

Pros are just as weird and sheep-like as the rest of us though. One of the pro bike checks on GCN (I can't remember who it was) had the rider discussing how his climbing bike was so much lighter than the aero bike he rode, but when they weighed them there was about 100g difference between the two!

I didn't say it was the pros choosing not to use them, just that they don't. Think of it this way, would a team let its riders ride a slower bike and put themselves at significant disadvantage when they could be on a quicker bike? No, of course they wouldn't. So the aero bikes are not significantly quicker.

Add this to the fact races are not won on aero bikes any more that non-aero ones and you can conclude they don't make much difference really.

If joe bloggs wants to ride one because he likes the look of it, no problem.

What is of much more interest on speed is having a bike with better power transfer, but that can't be measured, so you have to ride the bikes to find out. Then, you get people who have no real perception of power transfer anyway, but what so many people can have is a perception of an aero bike looking fast to them in a photo and also buying into the marketing as significant fact that will affect their speed when they ride it.

dannbodge

You'd probably be surprised how many pros do ride them
Watch the GCN mechanic truck tours.
Most teams have aero bike/wheels for "flat" stages and lighter bikes/wheels for mountains.

Bora use the SW Venge for flat days and the SW tarmac for mountains.

cougie

Still doesn't mean much. Maybe it's sponsor orders. They need to convince us we need these bikes to improve our speeeeed even if the average amateur user is probably twice the weight of the pro rider.

poptart242

Have ridden or owned: Cannondales Supersix & CAAD8, Giant Defy (carbon and alu), Canyons Aeroad and Ultimate, and the new Scott Foil.

By far and away the most comfortable of them is the Foil. And the best looking (subjective of course). And that's why I bought it!

Don't buy the marketing hype, I don't feel any faster on it, but *maybe* I push harder on it because I'm more comfortable and I like how it looks.

burnthesheep

Lots of haters on this subject "gain too small" or "riders aren't fast enough" or "in a group doesn't matter".

I'll say this. I did do a large mass sportive recently. You can't win a sportive really, it's not a race. But came home in front in the breakaway group. If you're taking a few minutes turn up front at 23 to 27mph in the flat, yeah.......any aero gain you can get will save you some kj for later in the ride. Just FWIW. I also want to put TT bars on it at some point also, and watts are watts. It takes a long time to train 10 to 20 watts versus plunking down a credit card.

One thing to clarify though........geometry of an aero bike if setup correctly will be much more aggressive for the "big ungainly rider" than an endurance or climbing bike.

Meaning, it's not just the pretty airfoil shapes. It's how the rider is sitting atop the pretty bike. And there's only so "aero" in rider stance you can make a climber.

Also, if riding solo...........you really need to get into the drops much more often if you really want to use one, and if it's a flat ride.........don't wear flappy club kits. It matters.

ryan_w-2

Gotta love the guy on an aero bike with 80mm of headset spacers wearing flappy clothing..

(Don't be that guy).

But buy one, they look cool.

imposter2.0

burnthesheep wrote:

Lots of haters on this subject "gain too small" or "riders aren't fast enough" or "in a group doesn't matter".

Get a grip mate. They're not 'haters' - they're just people with a different opinion to you.

burnthesheep

Imposter wrote:

burnthesheep wrote:

Lots of haters on this subject "gain too small" or "riders aren't fast enough" or "in a group doesn't matter".

Get a grip mate. They're not 'haters' - they're just people with a different opinion to you.

Colloquialism mate. It's that hipster language. I'm not implying people actually hate people who have a different opinion. It's meant to be in good fun.

fenix

BTS I think you're agreeing with me - its bugger all about the tiny bike - its the human on top that makes the difference.

And probably best if you dont use hater if you don't mean hater. Leads to misunderstandings....

imposter2.0

burnthesheep wrote:

Colloquialism mate. It's that hipster language. I'm not implying people actually hate people who have a different opinion. It's meant to be in good fun.

If it's in good fun, then stop saying 'haters'. It's the wrong term, colloquial or not.

ZMC888

I think it really depends on where you live. Where I live the roads are mostly very flat, very smooth and mostly dry with hills and small mountains about 50km away. Some of the roads you can really have a lot of fun, and with a tailwind and clip-ons you can really rip along at 40-50km/h on your own, you can get better clothes, faster tires, and it all adds up into more speed - addictive and provable with data. So same as the OP I was thinking get an aero bike with clip-ons, basically a bit like a TT bike but cheaper and more real world useable.

However in the UK with rough and twisty roads I wouldn't even bother putting on clip-ons or care if my bike was aero, standard/climbing or enduro particularly.

kingrollo

You have to draw a line in the sand - and say I will buy the bike I liked the most at the given time.
If they bring out a new super duper one two moths later thats just how it is.......

Personally I like Kuota as they are good reasonably priced bikes - but they don't change year on year and the changes are wholesale when they do...

burnthesheep

Fair enough, point taken. I'm also on some US-based forums where it's quite common and used in jest. So that's the source. But bad habits usually manifest themselves at all the wrong times.

e17blade

I had an Aeroad for a few years.... until it got nicked. Really liked it - unless it was windy - and then I hated it. I probably could have had better wheels, but that was my experience.

The insurers limited my choice a fair bit so I pretty much had to get a Giant. I went straight out to test ride a Propel.... and a TCR, while I was there, just out of interest. I liked the Propel a lot. It's a fast bike and it felt more stable than the Aeroad. Job done.

But then I rode the TCR and .... wow! What a bike. I have now left the aero bike movement and ride a TCR Advanced SL. In the mountains, in crits, everywhere - I find it much nicer, faster and fun to ride. The handling in particular is unbelievably good.

So... I'd say, test ride as many bikes as you can. If I hadn't done the test rides I would now have the 'wrong' bike for me.

trivial_poursuivant

If you want a true idea of how comfortable the Scott Foil is, Mathew Hayman won the 2016 Paris Roubaix on one. An aero bike on cobbles! If that isn’t proof I don’t know what is.

gsk82

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

If you want a true idea of how comfortable the Scott Foil is, Mathew Hayman won the 2016 Paris Roubaix on one. An aero bike on cobbles! If that isn’t proof I don’t know what is.

The pros ride what theyre told to ride. I can't imagine any race bike will be comfortable at roubaix. The most comfortable will be whatever you're used to.

trivial_poursuivant

gsk82 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

If you want a true idea of how comfortable the Scott Foil is, Mathew Hayman won the 2016 Paris Roubaix on one. An aero bike on cobbles! If that isn’t proof I don’t know what is.

The pros ride what theyre told to ride. I can't imagine any race bike will be comfortable at roubaix. The most comfortable will be whatever you're used to.

Your missing the point. The fact one of the most arduous road races on the calendar was won by a rider on a Foil when many other manufacturers have extra comfort features like the Dogma K suspension or Bianchi Countervail tech, a bike which you would suggest needs a nice silky smooth road for it to perform not only survived cobbles it meant the rider was able to win on it. You can say all the blah about riders being told what to ride but I’m pointing out that instead of the bike being a hindering factor it was anything but.

StillGoing

Dannbodge wrote:

You'd probably be surprised how many pros do ride them
Watch the GCN mechanic truck tours.
Most teams have aero bike/wheels for "flat" stages and lighter bikes/wheels for mountains.

Bora use the SW Venge for flat days and the SW tarmac for mountains.

The Merida supplied teams also have the Scultura, Reacto and Warp bikes available to riders depending on the terrain.

rolf_f

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

If you want a true idea of how comfortable the Scott Foil is, Mathew Hayman won the 2016 Paris Roubaix on one. An aero bike on cobbles! If that isn’t proof I don’t know what is.

The pros ride what theyre told to ride. I can't imagine any race bike will be comfortable at roubaix. The most comfortable will be whatever you're used to.

Your missing the point. The fact one of the most arduous road races on the calendar was won by a rider on a Foil when many other manufacturers have extra comfort features like the Dogma K suspension or Bianchi Countervail tech, a bike which you would suggest needs a nice silky smooth road for it to perform not only survived cobbles it meant the rider was able to win on it. You can say all the blah about riders being told what to ride but I’m pointing out that instead of the bike being a hindering factor it was anything but.

But really it doesn't prove anything other than the difference between an aero bike and a non aero bike on cobbles is less than the difference between Matthew Hayman and his rivals. Your reasoning could equally suggest that Pinarello and Bianchis comfort features don't make any difference. Of course, in reality there is no meaningful data here so we can't "prove" anything!

This thread is a great justification for pro teams to keep using aero bikes whether they make a difference or not. The "Pros use aero bikes so they must be good" line clearly does sell bikes and if aero bikes are more expensive than non aero then that is a commercial benefit.

lettingthedaysgoby

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

If you want a true idea of how comfortable the Scott Foil is, Mathew Hayman won the 2016 Paris Roubaix on one. An aero bike on cobbles! If that isn’t proof I don’t know what is.

That could just mean Matt Hayman is hard as nails

mrb123

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

If you want a true idea of how comfortable the Scott Foil is, Mathew Hayman won the 2016 Paris Roubaix on one. An aero bike on cobbles! If that isn’t proof I don’t know what is.

That could just mean Matt Hayman is hard as nails

Exactly.

Comfort and speed are two different things. He may simply have decided he was willing to accept an absolute boneshaker of a ride on the cobbled sectors for a tiny bit more speed elsewhere.

ayjaycee

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

If you want a true idea of how comfortable the Scott Foil is, Mathew Hayman won the 2016 Paris Roubaix on one. An aero bike on cobbles! If that isn’t proof I don’t know what is.

That could just mean Matt Hayman is hard as nails

Totally agree. Using the Aeroad for that race was in all likelihood a case of willingness to accept a kicking from the bike in return for any speed advantage and / or kudos for the brand by doing well on an aero bike over such terrain. Pro cyclists seem to be able to put up with a lot more than us mere mortals in pursuit of glory. I borrowed a top end Pinarello a couple of years ago and rode 100Km over some smooth and roughish road surfaces which wouldn't have bothered me on my Synapse. Unfortunately, I felt every lump and bump on the Pinarello and was achy (is that a word?) as well as well as cream crackered by the end. I was also full of admiration for anybody who could put up with it going all out for 200Km several days running.

bigmat

Have any of you posters ridden Roubaix cobbles? Seriously, the difference between an "aero" frame and a "comfort" frame will make **** all difference. Its just gimmicks to sell bikes. The Sky riders reportedly locked out the suspension on their Pinarellos anyway. Tyre selection / pressure far more important. Aero frames are marginal gains. They look nice, and are the latest thing, but its pretty obvious that they won't make a huge amount of difference once you put the average rider on top.

I should add that I'm talking about all the profiled tubes, hidden brakes etc etc. I do accept that aggressive race geometry will make a big difference (but then all race bikes should have that!)

trivial_poursuivant

A lot of people replying obviously have little understanding of bikes. Sure Mathew Hayman must’ve hard as nails but even that wouldn’t matter if the bike was bouncing all over the place. Aero bikes used to be harsh uncomfortable uncompromising things that were too stiff. Even the hardest of riders will struggle if the bike is making it difficult to ride straight. The reason you can buy gran fondo type bikes is they are meant to be more compliant and offer a smoother ride. Adding suspension or anti vibration technology as a lot of brands do is not seen on a Foil but yet it is obviously comfortable enough to tackle difficult roads and surfaces. Fatigue from vibration or constantly fighting the bike is going to wear any rider out and if it wasn’t likely to deliver a rider to the finish in a good condition he ain’t going to ride it, no matter how hard you think he is. He is still a human. Most of his race will be spent sat in a peloton shielded from the wind so the aero benefit is only going to really help at a finish or on a breakaway. If your already beaten up then it’s of little benefit.

Getting past that and back to the point. Aero bikes are a lot more comfortable and compliant than of only a few years ago. So don’t worry about crap roads or weather. It can handle it without beating you up. And if your not convinced apply rule 5 and move along.