Time to buy an aero bike?

mfin

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

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.

And you obviously:
(1) Are a marketer's dream
(2) Re-project the marketing that you buy into to then make up new logic
(3) Suffer from confirmation bias to the extreme

ayjaycee

mfin wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

etc. etc.

And you obviously:
(1) Are a marketer's dream
(2) Re-project the marketing you buy into to make up new logic
(3) Suffer from confirmation bias to the extreme

+1 to the above by mfin. Also TP really lost it for me when they started mentioning the so called 'rules' - whatever Rule #5 is, it's very likely to be total ballox like most of the others and therefore doesn't do much to help the debate.

supermurph09

burnthesheep wrote:

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.

You'll get a lot more satisfaction on adding watts to spending money though?

Also, if you base your decision that Giant / Scott / Canyon have said that Bike XYZ will save you 5 watts over Bike ABC then that's just madness. More often than not they are lab conditions with riders in optimised positions not your average sportive rider who's position and zip tied on number will negate any aero gain anyway.

Aero bikes look great, buy them for that reason.

darkhairedlord

you'll look faster but the reduction in comfort will make you slower.
However, by just sitting on a fast looking bike you are making a statement you will feel obliged to meet; this will make you faster.

mouth

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.

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

Yes. Also no. Watching pro's is essentially a false yard stick. Cav probably wouldn't use one on a TT stage at Le Tour, but I bet Froome would. Only those with actual ambitions of winning the stage or making a time gain on that particular day would suffer it IMO. Some riders will choose not to use aero simply because it makes them uncomfortable. No point in suffering if you're not interested in winning that day and being crouched, added the risk through lack of control, could well do more damage than expending a little extra energy on a standard frame. In a word, Cav ain't gonna try and save 10 seconds when he has a much greater chance of hurting himself.

I love lookin' at aero stuff but doubt I'll ever have one.

ryan_w-2

You lot talk some s**t don't you

I've done LEJOG on my S5 and didn't once wish I was on a comfy endurance bike.

If you have a correctly fitting bike, you'll be fine on most.

mfin

Mouth 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.

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

Yes. Also no. Watching pro's is essentially a false yard stick. Cav probably wouldn't use one on a TT stage at Le Tour, but I bet Froome would. Only those with actual ambitions of winning the stage or making a time gain on that particular day would suffer it IMO. Some riders will choose not to use aero simply because it makes them uncomfortable. No point in suffering if you're not interested in winning that day and being crouched, added the risk through lack of control, could well do more damage than expending a little extra energy on a standard frame. In a word, Cav ain't gonna try and save 10 seconds when he has a much greater chance of hurting himself.

I love lookin' at aero stuff but doubt I'll ever have one.

Ah, another example of thinking something out then using confirmation bias to confirm it. Well done.

trivial_poursuivant

mfin wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

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.

And you obviously:
(1) Are a marketer's dream
(2) Re-project the marketing that you buy into to then make up new logic
(3) Suffer from confirmation bias to the extreme

Utter bollox.

1. I was just pointing out an aero frame is not less comfortable than a non aero frame. Im not saying they are better or faster, Im saying they are no less comfortable. How is that a marketers dream?

2. I dont own an aero bike other than my TT bike which is quite aero for a reason. I wonder why?

3. Are you some sort of Aero denyer? refusing to believe in the benefits of having a frame designed to cut through air better. Yes a rider sat on top will cause more drag than the frame but thats not the point. If there was no truth in it then TT bikes, helmets, speed suits, disc wheels, wouldn't exist, or are they are all just marketing mumbo jumbo?

kingstongraham

I think you'll find Cavendish uses a TT bike on TT stages.

fenix

Mouth 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.

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

Yes. Also no. Watching pro's is essentially a false yard stick. Cav probably wouldn't use one on a TT stage at Le Tour, but I bet Froome would. Only those with actual ambitions of winning the stage or making a time gain on that particular day would suffer it IMO. Some riders will choose not to use aero simply because it makes them uncomfortable. No point in suffering if you're not interested in winning that day and being crouched, added the risk through lack of control, could well do more damage than expending a little extra energy on a standard frame. In a word, Cav ain't gonna try and save 10 seconds when he has a much greater chance of hurting himself.

I love lookin' at aero stuff but doubt I'll ever have one.

When Cav was on Specialized he did use the aero bike for all his road stages - he was on the Venge when the likes of Nibali were on Tarmacs. Not seen him race enough on Cervelos to clock what he uses there....

If you're a pro and an aero bike makes a 2 Watt difference - then you'd probably go for it.
If you're an amateur then it's neither here nor there on the club run.

As has been said - buy the pretty one.

Matthewfalle

I loved my Soloist before the power of my mighty legs killed and tha was a very early aero bike - in no way did I find it uncomfortable.

I used it for racin' trainin' and communtin' and it were great.

I'd have another aero bike tomorrow if I have the spare spondoolies.

mfin

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

mfin wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

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.

And you obviously:
(1) Are a marketer's dream
(2) Re-project the marketing that you buy into to then make up new logic
(3) Suffer from confirmation bias to the extreme

Utter bollox.

1. I was just pointing out an aero frame is not less comfortable than a non aero frame. Im not saying they are better or faster, Im saying they are no less comfortable. How is that a marketers dream?

2. I dont own an aero bike other than my TT bike which is quite aero for a reason. I wonder why?

3. Are you some sort of Aero denyer? refusing to believe in the benefits of having a frame designed to cut through air better. Yes a rider sat on top will cause more drag than the frame but thats not the point. If there was no truth in it then TT bikes, helmets, speed suits, disc wheels, wouldn't exist, or are they are all just marketing mumbo jumbo?

No, you were busy projecting the marketing you readily accept in all sorts of directions. You've just said "an aero frame is not less comfortable than a non aero frame" - that is a sweeping generalisation that you can't back up. Then, "I am saying they are no less comfortable", really? All of them? Which ones? Stop making things up.
(I'll point out here I am NOT saying the opposite, just that I'm not daft enough to accept any sort of generalisation like that, because it simply won't be fact).

As for being an "aero denier", nope, I understand things move through air and there's drag.

In some cases Aero Bike A will be more comfortable than Non-Aero bike B.
In some cases Non-Aero bike C will be more comfortable than Aero bike D.

By your statements Non-Aero bike C will never be more comfortable than Aero bike D, because Aero bikes are as comfortable as Non-Aero bikes. But that's stupid, everyone can see that.

As I said before, and you've just confirmed, you obviously:

(1) Are a marketer's dream
(2) Re-project the marketing that you buy into to then make up new logic
(3) Suffer from confirmation bias to the extreme.

oh and (4) Should chill out. Big kiss.

trivial_poursuivant

mfin wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

mfin wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

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.

And you obviously:
(1) Are a marketer's dream
(2) Re-project the marketing that you buy into to then make up new logic
(3) Suffer from confirmation bias to the extreme

Utter bollox.

1. I was just pointing out an aero frame is not less comfortable than a non aero frame. Im not saying they are better or faster, Im saying they are no less comfortable. How is that a marketers dream?

2. I dont own an aero bike other than my TT bike which is quite aero for a reason. I wonder why?

3. Are you some sort of Aero denyer? refusing to believe in the benefits of having a frame designed to cut through air better. Yes a rider sat on top will cause more drag than the frame but thats not the point. If there was no truth in it then TT bikes, helmets, speed suits, disc wheels, wouldn't exist, or are they are all just marketing mumbo jumbo?

No, you were busy projecting the marketing you readily accept in all sorts of directions. You've just said "and aero frame is not less comfortable than a non aero frame" - that's a sweeping generalisation that you can't back up. "I am saying they are no less comfortable", really? All of them? Which ones? Stop making things up. (I'll point out here I am NOT saying the opposite, just that I'm not daft enough to accept any sort of generalisation like that, because it won't be fact).

As for being an "aero denier", nope, I understand things move through air and there's drag.

As I said before, and you've just confirmed, you obviously:

(1) Are a marketer's dream
(2) Re-project the marketing that you buy into to then make up new logic
(3) Suffer from confirmation bias to the extreme.

oh and (4) Should chill out. Big kiss.

I didn’t say all aero frames, I didn’t say no aero frames. That’s generalisation. There are bikes of all types that are good and bad. I take the point of view that an aero bike of no particular brand is not going to be more uncomfortable than a no. Aero bike of any particular brand.

I would think a marketers dream would be the sort that buys into any sensational claims made about x being better than y and foolishly going with that. What I am saying is the exact opposite.

mfin

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

I didn’t say all aero frames, I didn’t say no aero frames. That’s generalisation. There are bikes of all types that are good and bad. I take the point of view that an aero bike of no particular brand is not going to be more uncomfortable than a no. Aero bike of any particular brand.

When you say "I take the point of view that an aero bike of no particular brand is not going to be more uncomfortable than a no. Aero bike of any particular brand" that is a sweeping generalisation, can't you see it? I think everyone else can see how that is still nothing but a generalisation.

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

I would think a marketers dream would be the sort that buys into any sensational claims made about x being better than y and foolishly going with that. What I am saying is the exact opposite.

Well you are buying into the marketing aren't you? Most manufacturers don't go around telling you how uncomfortable their bikes are do they, they say how they are comfortable and fast, and you're accepting that.

If you wanna believe things you read and back it up with a big dollop of confirmation bias just cos you've ridden a couple of bikes and seen a few races where someone has ridden a certain bike then go ahead, it's obvious to all that's the trap you are falling into.

Anyway, as said before on the topic, and to get back to it...

Buy one if you like the look of it, or even buy one if you get sucked in by the marketing, it doesn't matter. Just don't buy one expecting to be faster as there are way more factors in play than your frame being slightly more aero.

trivial_poursuivant

mfin wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

I didn’t say all aero frames, I didn’t say no aero frames. That’s generalisation. There are bikes of all types that are good and bad. I take the point of view that an aero bike of no particular brand is not going to be more uncomfortable than a no. Aero bike of any particular brand.

When you say "I take the point of view that an aero bike of no particular brand is not going to be more uncomfortable than a no. Aero bike of any particular brand" that is a sweeping generalisation, can't you see it? I think everyone else can see how that is still nothing but a generalisation.

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

I would think a marketers dream would be the sort that buys into any sensational claims made about x being better than y and foolishly going with that. What I am saying is the exact opposite.

Well you are buying into the marketing aren't you? Most manufacturers don't go around telling you how uncomfortable their bikes are do they, they say how they are comfortable and fast, and you're accepting that.

If you wanna believe things you read and back it up with a big dollop of confirmation bias just cos you've ridden a couple of bikes and seen a few races where someone has ridden a certain bike then go ahead, it's obvious to all that's the trap you are falling into.

Anyway, as said before on the topic, and to get back to it...

Buy one if you like the look of it, or even buy one if you get sucked in by the marketing, it doesn't matter. Just don't buy one expecting to be faster as there are way more factors in play than your frame being slightly more aero.

You are just a sad cynical dumbass ain’t ya. I’ll leave you to it. Feel free to try and have some unwarranted self given sense of superiority.

mfin

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

You are just a sad cynical dumbass ain’t ya. I’ll leave you to it. Feel free to try and have some unwarranted self given sense of superiority.

Ah I see, you think it's about something else when it's actually just about your logic simply not being founded on anything but you naively buying into marketing descriptions, you suffering from confirmation bias, and followed in turn by you making sweeping generalisations that illustrate this. Generalisations which I have just quoted.

The insults don't make sense I'm afraid, but yes, leave others to it if you have nothing to contribute that stands up to basic logic.

ZMC888

Aero makes a difference, it's not just pretty. If your local roads are so twisty and rough that it makes no difference if you ride an aero bike then fine. Seems loads of people are in denial because they simply can justify not spending. :twisted:

'But the pros don't use them much' is a nonsense argument - they ride in a peloton and have the big names have sacrificial team mates to ride behind and save 30-50% of their energy. Riding on your own on smooth straight flat roads is best done on a TT bike, that's why they ride 'em in TT's . But an aero bike isn't far behind with clip-ons and deep section wheels and only slows you a tad up the hills. If they are nearly or as comfortable as a climbing bike, I'm in. Sure I'll keep my shallow wheels and climbing bike for mountain holidays and awkward green lanes, but N+1.

Matthewfalle

ZMC888 wrote:

Aero makes a difference, it's not just pretty. If your local roads are so twisty and rough that it makes no difference if you ride an aero bike then fine. Seems loads of people are in denial because they simply can justify not spending. :twisted:

'But the pros don't use them much' is a nonsense argument - they ride in a peloton and have the big names have sacrificial team mates to ride behind and save 30-50% of their energy. Riding on your own on smooth straight flat roads is best done on a TT bike, that's why they ride 'em in TT's . But an aero bike isn't far behind with clip-ons and deep section wheels and only slows you a tad up the hills. If they are nearly or as comfortable as a climbing bike, I'm in. Sure I'll keep my shallow wheels and climbing bike for mountain holidays and awkward green lanes, but N+1.

My aero bike was as comfortable as my Madone if that helps opening your wallet.

fat daddy

aero bikes are quicker ...... a couple of the lads on the club ride have them and they regularly get to the coffee shop 1-3 seconds before the rest of us

so its definitely worth getting one

Matthewfalle

I don't think he's talking about club rides or coffee shop rides I think he may be looking at proper racing, on the roads, with other people (real) around you.

You could turn up on a Penny Farthing to most club runs or coffee runs and not really have too much trouble keeping up.

shortfall

fat daddy wrote:

aero bikes are quicker ...... a couple of the lads on the club ride have them and they regularly get to the coffee shop 1-3 seconds before the rest of us

so its definitely worth getting one

I liked that.

imposter2.0

Matthewfalle wrote:

I don't think he's talking about club rides or coffee shop rides I think he may be looking at proper racing, on the roads, with other people (real) around you.

You could turn up on a Penny Farthing to most club runs or coffee runs and not really have too much trouble keeping up.

Ironically, you will probably see a larger number of aero bikes on club runs than you will in regional races...

svetty

Imposter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I don't think he's talking about club rides or coffee shop rides I think he may be looking at proper racing, on the roads, with other people (real) around you.

You could turn up on a Penny Farthing to most club runs or coffee runs and not really have too much trouble keeping up.

Ironically, you will probably see a larger number of aero bikes on club runs than you will in regional races...

[trolling mode] Do you mean a greater absolute number or larger as a proportion of bikes in each respective scenario? [/trolling mode]

imposter2.0

Svetty wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I don't think he's talking about club rides or coffee shop rides I think he may be looking at proper racing, on the roads, with other people (real) around you.

You could turn up on a Penny Farthing to most club runs or coffee runs and not really have too much trouble keeping up.

Ironically, you will probably see a larger number of aero bikes on club runs than you will in regional races...

[trolling mode] Do you mean a greater absolute number or larger as a proportion of bikes in each respective scenario? [/trolling mode]

Ha ha - fair point.. I probably mean larger proportion in each scenario. I think...

fenix

ZMC888 wrote:

Aero makes a difference, it's not just pretty. If your local roads are so twisty and rough that it makes no difference if you ride an aero bike then fine. Seems loads of people are in denial because they simply can justify not spending. :twisted:
:

A measurable difference though ? Not in a wind tunnel - but out on the roads ? I have an aero bike and I'm not kidding myself it's faster. Theoretically a little bit less drag will help, but it's not going to be noticed with me riding it.

burnthesheep

Imposter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I don't think he's talking about club rides or coffee shop rides I think he may be looking at proper racing, on the roads, with other people (real) around you.

You could turn up on a Penny Farthing to most club runs or coffee runs and not really have too much trouble keeping up.

Ironically, you will probably see a larger number of aero bikes on club runs than you will in regional races...

Regional anomaly? The 50 mi sportive I did recently had about 150 to 200 riders in that group. It was a fundraiser for a girl hit by a car last year still in care. She was a triathlete but rode road bikes also. So a lot of TT bikes were out. Otherwise? I'd say the ratio of aero to non-aero was very heavily weighted in the favor of "non".

The only time in that event my Propel helped me was taking a few turns up front in a breakaway group. Other than that, sitting in doesn't help.

But, 90% of my rides are done alone. Spending a couple hours at 21-22 mph, it probably does something small. Or descending a decent mountain grade for 10 to 15 minutes at a rate you still must pedal, it could help. The true savings are likely in the last mile of a race. If you're trying to do a long break for the line OR you're going to have a spot to bunch sprint..........then spending a minute at 600w+ or a sprint at 1200w+ it should make a difference. That's what it's made for.

Not sure many club riders do that though. I bought it with the expectation to train and race.

It still doesn't matter though, it's not my money. It's your money. Buy what makes you happy. Logic and statistics doesn't necessarily drive all purchases. A bike itself is a bit more of a passion purchase. By the "aero bike" logic presented here...........nobody would ever own any kind of wedding rings or bother with grand ceremonies. Why bother if the divorce rate is greater than 50% anyway.

stueys

As a general rule I get why aero bikes would be more uncomfortable than ‘normal’bikes. If you are shaping the frame to be aero at the expense of everything else then its logical to assume that an aero foil would take precedence over compliance. Clearly not a blanket rule but not without logic.

From my perspective I ride an R5 which I run 50mm deep wheels and an aero bar on. The wheels definitely make a noticeable difference to pace, the aero bar might but I can’t really detect it if so. I think an aero frame would probably make less difference than the bars but I’d certainly look at one if I wasn’t trading compromises elsewhere, why not?

cycleclinic

aero bikes do work that are part of the aero puzzle the most expensive part. you get an aero bike if you can maitina a good position, have aero clothing/helmet and have aero wheels. it all adds up by it self one part is not significant all together the difference is noticeable. A good position is essential though. you can waste all the money you spend by sitting upright on the thing.

"aero" frames should allow the rider to adopt a good position so get the right size.

The Look I have is comfortable enough for a 24hr TT and I mean comfortable.