Aero Endurance

mbrune

With the constant upgrades to Aero frames to make them much more comfortable and compliant (where you want it) than they used to be, I'm wondering if the market is going to start to shift so that all bikes are far more aero. It seems well established that aero gains trump weight when it comes to the performance gains that a frame can provide, so it just seems natural that manufactures/engineers would start working aero considerations into all of their models. I recognize that endurance oriented frames have their own technology to dampen vibration and some of those depend on tube shapes, however, with specialized coming out with their future shock, and trek building the isospeed system it seems like we're opening the door to harsher tube shapes and bottom bracket stiffness while also being able to balance compliance and long distance comfort. Trek has already integrated isospeed into the Madone, so why not integrate some aero shapes into those larger frames?

So what do you think? Are all frames going to be aero minded in the future, or do manufacturers continue to assume that larger frames are for people who ride upright and that aero frames are unnecessary in those situations. (for the record I'm a tall rider with a short torso and fit better on "endurance" frames, race frames are far to stretched out for me and if I get a shorter frame the drop is severe. Also it seems like for sportive riders who want to be competitive an aero endurance frame would hit the market well.

pamplemoose

I think it's already started to happen. Specialized's new Tarmac has a whole bunch of aero features. Bianchi's Oltre bikes have always been something that isn't quite a dedicated 'aero bike' as well.

chris_bass

it'll probably come down to marketing and having a "range" of bikes.

They'll want people to have as many bikes as they can, why have a relaxed bike and an aero bike if the relaxed one also has aero features and you could flip the stem etc to make it more racy and it'd suit 90% of people.

mbrune

Chris Bass wrote:

it'll probably come down to marketing and having a "range" of bikes.

They'll want people to have as many bikes as they can, why have a relaxed bike and an aero bike if the relaxed one also has aero features and you could flip the stem etc to make it more racy and it'd suit 90% of people.

I can see your point, though I also think if a huge proportion of the market would buy your company's product because it meets their need better than any other company's product, how can you not make the product? You'd kill the competition until they caught up. I just bought a new bike, and aero was a consideration, but unfortunately I couldn't find a nice balance between aerodynamics, fit, comfort, and price. I still think dedicated cyclist who own multiple bikes will want a more upright bike for long days and an aggressive bike for racing, the market you'd be cornering would be specific to those people who generally only own one bike anyway.

I could be totally wrong, but I know if I could have found an aero bike that was a good fit (higher head tube, shorter reach) that was comfortable for long rides, and wasn't outside my $3000 price range I would have bought it. I was tempted by the madone 9.0 because they had the h2 fit (better for my body), this year they dumbed down the tech in that same model bike which I wasn't thrilled with while maintaining the price. All the higher end madones now sport a lower longer fit than the 9.0 did. So no longer a good fit for me unless I bought a lesser product (not to mention that lesser product was over $1000 more than the bike I purchased because I could get a 2018 of a different bike on a discount)

All I'm saying is if an aero endurance bike existed at a reasonable price, I would have seriously considered it. I did look at the Cube Agree for that reason, but determined the rear chainstay was so short and my feet so large that I would have struck the chainstay on every pedal stroke.

sloppyschleckonds

I don't understand whats going on here

bristolpete

The waters are so muddied now it is almost moot. The tagline long days in the saddle are moot to many as how long is long. I have zoned in on middle distance fast rides 40-60 miles in 2-2.5 hours which to some people are 'all day epics' which might warrant an endurance bike.

Ben6899

If a bike fits you properly then that should be regardless of whether it's "aero" or not.

I say "should"; I mean "will".

mbrune

bristolpete wrote:

The waters are so muddied now it is almost moot. The tagline long days in the saddle are moot to many as how long is long. I have zoned in on middle distance fast rides 40-60 miles in 2-2.5 hours which to some people are 'all day epics' which might warrant an endurance bike.

Very true, each rider has their own expectation as well as body geometry and flexibility. I agree it's mixing more and more, I'm just surprised we don't see those aero tube shapes on more upright "endurance" bikes. I know the difference in performance isn't massive for most consumers, but just wonder why not, and if that's also coming.

bristolpete

mbrune wrote:

bristolpete wrote:

The waters are so muddied now it is almost moot. The tagline long days in the saddle are moot to many as how long is long. I have zoned in on middle distance fast rides 40-60 miles in 2-2.5 hours which to some people are 'all day epics' which might warrant an endurance bike.

Very true, each rider has their own expectation as well as body geometry and flexibility. I agree it's mixing more and more, I'm just surprised we don't see those aero tube shapes on more upright "endurance" bikes. I know the difference in performance isn't massive for most consumers, but just wonder why not, and if that's also coming.

They already have arrived. Scott foil, dogma f8 / f10, cervelo r5 even the new Defy has kamtail tubing.

Ultimately the marketing men want us to own all three formats aero, hill and endurance but some bikes transcend that and do it all well. I have done some point to point riding this here and two rides aero and psuedo aero are very similar but the difference in power output was 40 watts apart, less watts on the aero bike.

svetty

mbrune wrote:

I'm just surprised we don't see those aero tube shapes on more upright "endurance" bikes. I know the difference in performance isn't massive for most consumers, but just wonder why not, and if that's also coming.

Given that the rider is by far the largest component contributing to air resistance there is next to no point in having aero tubing or design features in a 'sit up and beg' endurance frame.