Aero Vs standard road bike

The aero effect is largely aesthetic. Buy one if you like the look of it, but don't expect it to change your life. Riding comfort comes from many other factors (like fit, tyre choice/pressure, etc), most of which are unrelated to frame design.

There will be some aero advantage due to the frame and this advantage will be greater the faster you ride but it will always be quite small compared to total drag. The potential downsides, in my opinion, are primarily weight and price. Aero bikes use less structurally efficient shapes because they are instead optimised for aerodynamics and therefore either more material or stronger/more rigid material must be used to achieve similar stiffness and strength. It also makes it harder to design in other properties like flex for comfort but I think tyres are more important in that respect anyway.
I'm not sure an aero bike is worthwhile for solo recreational riding and there's little point if you ride in large groups. There is some argument for one if you're considering using your road bike for time trials or duathlon/triathlon too. This was the decision I was debating in spring as I do some duathlons and adventure races and I plan to do some triathlons as soon as I get my swimming improved a little. In the end I decided to go for a very light and stiff non-aero road bike instead. The aero options were all a bit to expensive, seemed compromised on weight/stiffness or didn't suot me for fit. I considered the Felt AR4, Boardman AiR, Cervelo S2& S3 and Rose CW and was tempted by all of them but ended up with a Canyon Ultimate CF SL 9.0 and after a couple of months on it I'm very happy with that decision.
Oh, one other thing: If I got an aero bike I know my friends would try and point to that any time I beat them in a sprint or race and they'd use it as ammunition to slag me if I lost!

P.S.
Well done on the Wicklow 200. It's a tough one. I did it last year but wasn't able to make it this year.

I can give you a few reasons

1) It looks like a bad joke

2) With all that extra surface area exposed to side winds, handling will suffer on those (many) breezy days

3) As pointed out earlier, the aerodynamics of a frame account for almost nothing in the overall picture, not worth having a frame that looks like that if it only saves you half a watt... think of the resale value, you might have bizarre taste, but most people would find that thing rather ugly

johnmolloy wrote:

Thanks everyone for the replies, really appreciate that and interesting to hear. Funnily enough the Scott Foil and Canyon Ultimate Cf 9.0 are right at the top of list too. I discounted the canyon based purely on looks as the white bar tape and saddle just are not for me although I think it would be an excellent bike. The Scott foil 20 was a bit heavier than I would like and read a review about the brakes and wheels not being the best and I would not have the cash to upgrade them, maybe u disagree?

But basically I narrowed it down to the 2 Rose bikes because I feel they offer good value for money, like Canyon, and probably most importantly I like the look of them best!

Yeah wicklow 200 was a toughie, rained solid for the first 100km had some serious doubts whether I was gonna make it,but thankfully weather improved and there was a tail wind for the second 100km and that always makes life easier.

I wouldn't let the saddle and bar tape aesthetics put you off the Canyon. They're amongst the easiest things to change. The tape is only about €12 and 20mins work. The saddle is even easirr but will cost a bit depending on what you go for. I've fairly specific saddle preferences so changed mine after the first ride to my usual Specialised Romim Evo Expert. You can always sell on the supplied Fizik Antares. It's a good saddle, just doesn't suit me.

I wouldn't agreed with Ugos opinion on the Rose. I quite like it and if the geometry suits you I don't think it's so easy to rule out. But unless you're sure I think the Canyon is a safer option.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Not sure about the handlebar: if you have 3 or 4 fingers like Mickey Mouse and the Simpsons then fine, but if you have 5, you might have to chop your small finger to fit in such a shallow curve... I think it's a woman handlebar...
That said, a set of bars is 20-30 quid, so no big a deal

You really don't like it, do you?

I'm not a massive fan either but I think one of the biggest contributors to the ugliness of that particular bike is the teeny stem, it can't be any longer than 90mm.

<edit> I was talking about the stem on the CW - but yes, the handlebars on the CRS are just weird.

neeb wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Not sure about the handlebar: if you have 3 or 4 fingers like Mickey Mouse and the Simpsons then fine, but if you have 5, you might have to chop your small finger to fit in such a shallow curve... I think it's a woman handlebar...
That said, a set of bars is 20-30 quid, so no big a deal

You really don't like it, do you?

I'm not a massive fan either but I think one of the biggest contributors to the ugliness of that particular bike is the teeny stem, it can't be any longer than 90mm.

That's merely aesthetics and down to personal taste. I have a 90mm stem and think my bike looks great with it. Long stems look a bit stupid to me - like the frames too small. Probably partly because I'm used to a short stem but really it's an insignificant part of a bikes overall appearance.

Rolf F wrote:

That's merely aesthetics and down to personal taste. I have a 90mm stem and think my bike looks great with it. Long stems look a bit stupid to me - like the frames too small. Probably partly because I'm used to a short stem but really it's an insignificant part of a bikes overall appearance.

It will also influence handling, although of course it's not only the length of the stem that matters but the total distance that the hoods and the drops are beyond the steering axis.

But handling is also down to personal taste to some extent.

monkimark wrote:

The bars are the same on the spec sheet but not in the pictures - I think the non-aero bike has the specified bar.

If I remember correctly the bar shown depends on the bar tape selected. The picture on their website is a composite of the components and they don't have a graphic to cover all combinations of bar shape and tape colour. So not all changes are reflected in the picture.

It's in the 'step by step configure' option.

There is certainly no point in riding an aero bike without an aero helmet, skin tight clothes, a race position and at least 35mm rims. It makes me despair when I see a big rider with a big yellow jacket riding a Scott Foil or something. A 13.5 stone, powerful friend has a Cervelo S3 with 50 mm rims and he says its damn right scary riding it on a windy day.

on-yer-bike wrote:

There is certainly no point in riding an aero bike without an aero helmet, skin tight clothes, a race position and at least 35mm rims. It makes me despair when I see a big rider with a big yellow jacket riding a Scott Foil or something. A 13.5 stone, powerful friend has a Cervelo S3 with 50 mm rims and he says its damn right scary riding it on a windy day.

It's fine to train like that but not much point having an aero bike if you'll race that way.

The change in drag coefficent of an aero frame compared to a round tubes frame is around the same a going from a 36H mavic OP rimmed wheelset to a set of 50mm toroidal rimmed wheels perhaps a bit more.

In fact the time saving is greater at lower power out puts than larger ones (maths works in funny ways).

As with all things marginal enough marginal gains add up to something more but it is expensive and unless you are competing it may not be worth it as it will not make riding more fun. I have "fast" bikes and "slower" ones, they are all equally enjoyable to ride and non of them stop me keeping up with a quick club run, thats not a brag but an illustration of how marginal marginal gains actually are especially if you are sheltering in a group. For competition then that assesment changes.