aero or normal road bike?

2»

Comments

  • shipley
    shipley Posts: 549
    Guess I’m a lucky boy then :lol:

    Sorry, typo...it’s actually 4kph average. In the 7 rides (flat and 50km average) since I bought it that difference has been consistent,

    The Colnagos are used for much longer rides, events, and climbs, and the Madone has been tucked up since October so I will report back in the summer when it reappears.

    Hopefully that puts it in better context.
  • shalant
    shalant Posts: 16
    is it worth it to stretch my budget and overspend on dura-ace?
  • 12sp EPS
  • 12sp EPS

    Not available until April is what I hear.
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    Shipley wrote:
    Guess I’m a lucky boy then :lol:

    Sorry, typo...it’s actually 4kph average. In the 7 rides (flat and 50km average) since I bought it that difference has been consistent,

    The Colnagos are used for much longer rides, events, and climbs, and the Madone has been tucked up since October so I will report back in the summer when it reappears.

    Hopefully that puts it in better context.

    So your new toy is faster than the old ones providing you ride shorter flatter routes ? ;-)

    I'm putting it down to new product advantage or every Pro team would be on Trek.
  • Glad you like your Madone, its a nice bike and if you enjoy riding it faster then all is good with the world.
    If i ever bought a pure speed road bike it would definitely be on my shortlist, however my priorities are currently on bikes that can take bigger tyres for our shoddy road system.

    This guy has done some tests with a trek madone, not perfect science but certainly better than random anecdotes:
    https://youtu.be/neFnyAE_noQ
    and
    https://youtu.be/k3ngeYfVTp4

    The madone is an aero bike for sure but not as aero as you would believe.

    This guy had some better results for the madone but still nowhere near the 4kph or the 6mph(tt bike difference)
    http://www.wheelworx.ie/blog/is-a-tri-b ... ch-faster/
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    Pity the last guy didn't use the same wheels on all of the bikes.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    I see that sort of difference between my aero bike and my CdF with 38mm gravel tyres on the road...

    I would normally suggest a non-aero bike with two wheelsets but I didn't follow that advice. I went aero because I found a very good deal on the frame. It's much faster than the non aero bike it replaced and also much lighter as the last one was a low spec model, so to me I have saved ~700-800g and have pretend aero benefits. I think most of the benefits I feel are weight (on big steep climbs), stiffness, and a more aero/efficient pedalling position. I'm sure I could have had those benefits on a non-aero bike if I'd tried though. The downsides are the aero seatpost vibrating my underside into a million pieces, and the fact I run it slammed and can't hold onto the bars after 3-4hrs... hey ho, one is usually worse than the other and it blocks the pain out
  • philbar72
    philbar72 Posts: 2,229
    shalant wrote:
    is it worth it to stretch my budget and overspend on dura-ace?

    the mechanical is the best performing mechanical groupset I've had. doesn't miss a beat and is a lot more ergonomic in terms of shifting than my previous Shimano/ sram setups.
  • shalant
    shalant Posts: 16
    allright gents. i think i'm going to overspend and get the dura-ace aero version. it's got carbon bars and great reviews online. got a one year interest-free CC, gonna make large monthly payments. YOLO!
  • Tyresome
    Tyresome Posts: 113
    Aero is great, until you hit a cross wind, and you haven’t got a crew riding echelon to help you out. Giant have a Propel out at the moment which is very nicely designed with a deeper section rim on the rear than the front, which helps with the twitchy front end in a cross wind issue.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Tyresome wrote:
    Aero is great, until you hit a cross wind, and you haven’t got a crew riding echelon to help you out. Giant have a Propel out at the moment which is very nicely designed with a deeper section rim on the rear than the front, which helps with the twitchy front end in a cross wind issue.

    Sounds like you've never actually ridden an aero bike, Nick..
  • pilot_pete
    pilot_pete Posts: 2,120
    Tyresome wrote:
    Aero is great, until you hit a cross wind, and you haven’t got a crew riding echelon to help you out. Giant have a Propel out at the moment which is very nicely designed with a deeper section rim on the rear than the front, which helps with the twitchy front end in a cross wind issue.

    That’s a bit of a sweeping statement there Tyresome. So is the fact you aren’t part of an echelon in a crosswind an issue? The same is true on a non aero bike. Your point is?

    Or are you talking about twitchy handling in a crosswind? I don’t think an aero frame is any worse in that regard. What does make a difference is the depth of wheels and the design of the rims in question that can make for twitchy handling in a crosswind. But, other factors come into that too, such as the weight of the rider. Lighter riders on exactly the same machine will be more affected than heavier riders. Certain rim designs were more susceptible to crosswinds than more modern toroidal designs adopted today.

    I can ride happily on windy days on 50/60mm deep sections rims with little adverse effect in crosswinds (and it is only really gusty crosswinds rather than steady that have a negative effect), but my deeper rims are affected more noticeably and I wouldn’t choose them to use specifically on a day with howling winds up on exposed hills (which I got caught out in once but survived...)

    So your blanket statement adds little value; you could easily say that on a ride into a really stiff headwind you are at a disadvantage without a peloton to shield you. Yea? So what, just means you have to work harder into the wind. :roll:

    PP