# Real world Aero frame



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

Anyone know of any testing of aero frames in real world non-TT conditions? Like corrected for the same body positioning, with water bottles, normal wind yaw, etc.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Aeroweenie.com - Time Trial and Triathlon Aerodynamics Links and Data

links to some studies that are not time trial (aero road bikes). Not too sure what you mean by 'real world' as a wind tunnel exists in the real world and is the most accurate way to assess drag.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> Aeroweenie.com - Time Trial and Triathlon Aerodynamics Links and Data
> 
> links to some studies that are not time trial (aero road bikes). Not too sure what you mean by 'real world' as a wind tunnel exists in the real world and is the most accurate way to assess drag.



My point about real world was that the aero frame tests tend to be done without water bottles, without correcting to have the same body positioning, etc.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Wesquire said:


> My point about real world was that the aero frame tests tend to be done without water bottles, without correcting to have the same body positioning, etc.


You mean real world comparison like this?


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

bvber said:


> You mean real world comparison like this?


Wind tunnel is fine with me, but I'd like to see it with normal setups on the bike. Like, with a cyclometer, water bottles, non skin suit, no TT helmet, etc. Just set up an Aero frame just like how it would normally be taken out on the road for an enthusiast, then do the exact same setup with a round tube bike with the same components. Make sure rider position is the same for both. Use realistic yaw angles and speed. I would imagine that a lot of the claimed aero advantage comes from rider position, and I would imagine things like water bottles would negate a lot of the frame advantage too.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

The problem is that frames don't mean squat. 

You're not seeing anyone put out data that isolates the frame for a reason. Even Spec. flat out refused to release that information after they said they came here to do exactly that. Why? Because frames don't mean squat. Their new Venge frame is not that fast at all, no frame is super fast. It's how the cockpit is setup on the frame that makes more difference than the frame itself.

If you have an aero frame but have a stem that's anything above -17, meaning if the stem is not either perfectly horizontal or pointing down, you've wasted your money on the frame. There's a reason the new Venge mandates a -17 stem and puts riser handlebars and such to compensate. They have to have that in order to meet the claims about the bike.

Seriously. The frame means almost nothing. How comfortable you are on the frame will translate to more power and savings than how the tubes are shaped. I'm not talking your aero position, I'm talking straight comfort. Just being comfortable will net you more power and aero savings than a top of the line aero frame. The frames mean almost nothing in this game, less than is even worth talking about.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

MMsRepBike said:


> The problem is that frames don't mean squat.
> 
> You're not seeing anyone put out data that isolates the frame for a reason. Even Spec. flat out refused to release that information after they said they came here to do exactly that. Why? Because frames don't mean squat. Their new Venge frame is not that fast at all, no frame is super fast. It's how the cockpit is setup on the frame that makes more difference than the frame itself.
> 
> ...


My instinct would be to agree with this. I just want some data. I guess Aero wheels make more difference than you'd expect too though. But the wheels don't have as much interference like your legs, body, waterbottles, etc being in the way either. The only thing that makes sense to me is the narrower frontal area. If there is any difference, you'd think it is entirely mitigated by even the smallest difference in your day to day performance variation, slight changes in body position, or even just having 2 water bottles instead of 1.

Also worth noting is that independent tests have shown about 40g of drag difference between a round tube road bike and a TT bike. That data is a couple years old, but specialized and others would have you believe that there's now 200-300g drag difference. I doubt that there's more than a couple g drag difference between a new venge and a shiv from a couple years ago. On the other hand, different tires have more Aero difference than I'd expect too.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

If you are looking to be more aero during your weekend ride or commute, this may be more economical and effective than aero frame.


----------



## TricrossRich (Mar 26, 2014)

A few months ago, I complied a bunch of data from my personal rides to compare the differences between the there bikes I've owned.

1. Specialized Tricross









2. Specialized Allez Comp









3. Specialized Venge Pro









The Strava segment that I used was a downhill segment that is .5 mile long and drops 7%. I chose this because I thought it offered a few advantages. First, its downhill and fairly steep, so I think it tends to eliminate variables in pedaling and strength. Its the type of hill that you come into with some speed and you simply tuck and fly down it. Second, I've done it a LOT.. 84 times over the course of the last 2.5 years and I've done it using each of the bikes. I've owned. I figured that using a segment with a larger sampling would also smooth out differences of variation. 

As far as the bikes go, they were all set up readably similar.... all bikes had 2 bottle cages with a bottle and storage container. Both the Allez and Tricross were using 50mm aero wheels, while the Venge has 60mm wheels (although, some of the Venge results did come while I was running the 50's). For the most part, my fit has remained similar, but as you can see the stems on the Venge and Allez are slammed now, they haven't always been and in any case, with all 3 bikes, I'd drop down and tuck as closely to the top tubs as I could, so handlebar position and normal ride height shouldn't effect the numbers too much. In terms of tires... all of the Tricross times were done using GP4000s II's and all of the Venge and Allez times were done using S-Works Turbo tires.

here's the chart comparing time vs. speed










You can clearly see there are trends present... The Venge has the most samples and is represented across the whole spectrum, but its also clear that ONLY the Venge is present at the absolute fastest end of the spectrum. The Allez begins to show up a few mph slower and a few second slower and the Tricross again, a few mph slower and seconds slower. Is it possible to eliminate all variables and make the tests solely about the frames, no... but at the same time its real world and there's a clearly a difference. We're not talking about much in terms of time difference, but we're also only looking at a segment that's half a mile 4 seconds across a 40 second segment is a 10% difference. It's also clear that there are times for the Venge at the very slowest end of the chart, which are probably days that I was tired, or talking to a buddy or just not going for it as I started into the segment, so its pretty clear at that rider effort level is the biggest influence.... but at the same time, if you WANT to be at the fast end of the spectrum, it's clear that the aero set up gives you an advantage.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

The new Trek Madone white paper might be the closest to what you are looking for.
http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netd...2015/06/TK15_Launch_Madone_Whitepaper_min.pdf

The Felt AR Wind Tunnel paper also has some good information.
http://aerogeeks.com/wp-content/upl...-ar-v-comp-aero-test-procedure-rev-b-1-ag.pdf

I disagree that the frame means nothing. Everything contributes to CdA and improvements to any part subtract from the total. Yes, the rider position and clothing is by far the biggest contributor but wheels make a difference and so does the frame.

Edit: I do agree that most likely variations in your form on a particular day will trump differences from aero wheels or an aero frame. But all else being equal you will be faster on the aero frame. It's definitely not cost effective to replace your frame with an aero one, but if you are already shopping for a new frame it would be foolish not to consider aero options.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

cobra_kai said:


> The new Trek Madone white paper might be the closest to what you are looking for.
> http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netd...2015/06/TK15_Launch_Madone_Whitepaper_min.pdf
> 
> The Felt AR Wind Tunnel paper also has some good information.
> ...


I just don't buy the manufacturer data for a second.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> I just don't buy the manufacturer data for a second.


Well in that case there isn't a whole lot of independent test data out there. The only one I am really aware of is the Tour test, which has it's own issues, see some discussion here: TOUR MAG AERO TEST 2016 - Weight Weenies. I think Velo Magazine did a test this year but I can't find the link right now.

For what it's worth at least in the two papers I linked the data lines up decently between the two wind tunnel tests.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

MMsRepBike said:


> The problem is that frames don't mean squat.
> 
> You're not seeing anyone put out data that isolates the frame for a reason. Even Spec. flat out refused to release that information after they said they came here to do exactly that. Why? Because frames don't mean squat. Their new Venge frame is not that fast at all, no frame is super fast. It's how the cockpit is setup on the frame that makes more difference than the frame itself.
> 
> ...


you've got a few false dichotomies there - the cockpit setup obviously contributes to the drag produced by a frame since it's a leading edge, but it doesn't mean the frame design doesn't affect overall drag. I don't think there's much dispute that a well-designed aero frame can save approx 60-120 seconds/40km over a standard round frame holding rider position and wheels constant. The upper figure would be for aero bars etc. 

That might not sound like much, but it's more time savings that people are willing to pay thousand for in terms of a few hundred gram savings for ascent time savings in a lot of contexts.

It's also possible to get comfortable on an aero frame.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> you've got a few false dichotomies there - the cockpit setup obviously contributes to the drag produced by a frame since it's a leading edge, but it doesn't mean the frame design doesn't affect overall drag. I don't think there's much dispute that a well-designed aero frame can save approx 60-120 seconds/40km over a standard round frame holding rider position and wheels constant. The upper figure would be for aero bars etc.
> 
> That might not sound like much, but it's more time savings that people are willing to pay thousand for in terms of a few hundred gram savings for ascent time savings in a lot of contexts.
> 
> It's also possible to get comfortable on an aero frame.


I dispute that. As I pointed out before, the only independent test I've found on this indicated only a ~17 second savings. However, the study is several years old. Aero frame manufacturers would have you believe that even between 2 premium Aero frames, there could be 200g drag difference. This is just nonsense.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> I dispute that. As I pointed out before, the only independent test I've found on this indicated only a ~17 second savings. However, the study is several years old. Aero frame manufacturers would have you believe that even between 2 premium Aero frames, there could be 200g drag difference. This is just nonsense.


Link to the test? What about the tour test I linked?


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

Can't find the study itself right now. It was VeloNews. Here were the results though. Buying Time: Which Aero Equipment Offers the Most Benefits? | ACTIVE. 

I can't read the details of the tour mag test so I can't comment on it other than to say it appears their "round tube frame" numbers were pulled from thin air. They should compare actual round tube frame bikes to the aero frame bikes. A "round tube frame" could mean a commuter frame for all we know.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

From stevesbike's link, Tom A (Blather 'bout Bikes) did a chung test on two cervelo tri frames: Something borrowed...something FAST!: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums. He found about 2.5 seconds per kilometer difference between the two which be right in the middle of the 60-120 seconds over between two tri frames, now imagine the difference to a round tubed frame.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> Can't find the study itself right now. It was VeloNews. Here were the results though. Buying Time: Which Aero Equipment Offers the Most Benefits? | ACTIVE.
> 
> I can't read the details of the tour mag test so I can't comment on it other than to say it appears their "round tube frame" numbers were pulled from thin air. They should compare actual round tube frame bikes to the aero frame bikes. A "round tube frame" could mean a commuter frame for all we know.


I'm not sure what round tubed bike they used, but even between the aero bikes there was about 90 seconds from best to worst over 100k when using the same wheels.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

cobra_kai said:


> From stevesbike's link, Tom A (Blather 'bout Bikes) did a chung test on two cervelo tri frames: Something borrowed...something FAST!: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums. He found about 2.5 seconds per kilometer difference between the two which be right in the middle of the 60-120 seconds over between two tri frames, now imagine the difference to a round tubed frame.


If those results were even remotely true, Specialized would be advertising 6-7 seconds gained per km.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> If those results were even remotely true, Specialized would be advertising 6-7 seconds gained per km.


I don't know what to tell you. You don't believe the manufacturer data. You don't believe the third party data except for one study that you can't find the details of because it supports your argument. If you're an aero flat earther just say it and I can check out of this thread.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

.....


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

cobra_kai said:


> I'm not sure what round tubed bike they used, but even between the aero bikes there was about 90 seconds from best to worst over 100k when using the same wheels.


When you are dealing with % variation that small, you have to consider the margin of error. Bike Radar's aero helmet test has been roundly debunked, and that was a lot more simple of a setup than messing with a dozen different bikes, getting them in the same position at the same angle, getting the dummy on right, etc. To be even remotely convincing, they'd need to cycle through all the bikes several times with consistent results each time.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

cobra_kai said:


> I don't know what to tell you. You don't believe the manufacturer data. You don't believe the third party data except for one study that you can't find the details of because it supports your argument. If you're an aero flat earther just say it and I can check out of this thread.


Do you believe the manufacturer data? Why are none of the independent tests consistent? I don't believe my study either. The whole point is you are dealing with things with such small margins for error that none of the studies should be taken seriously.

Beyond that, it just doesn't make sense. How could a frame make more difference than switching from a vented helmet (that basically acts as a sail) to a TT helmet? How could a frame make more difference than riding in the hoods vs drops? It doesn't add up. Especially in real world conditions. The leading edge of the frame is virtually nothing in comparison to the leading edge of a helmet or your body.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> Do you believe the manufacturer data? Why are none of the independent tests consistent? I don't believe my study either. The whole point is you are dealing with things with such small margins for error that none of the studies should be taken seriously.
> 
> Beyond that, it just doesn't make sense. How could a frame make more difference than switching from a vented helmet (that basically acts as a sail) to a TT helmet? How could a frame make more difference than riding in the hoods vs drops? It doesn't add up. Especially in real world conditions. The leading edge of the frame is virtually nothing in comparison to the leading edge of a helmet or your body.


I don't necessarily believe the extent of their claims but I believe there is a performance advantage to an aero frame.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

cobra_kai said:


> I don't necessarily believe the extent of their claims but I believe there is a performance advantage to an aero frame.


I do too, i just think the difference is much smaller than portrayed. 5-10 watts at best in perfect conditions.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> I do too, i just think the difference is much smaller than portrayed. 5-10 watts at best in perfect conditions.


Yes, that sounds reasonable, especially at mortal speeds. Don't forget the wind tunnel tests are usually at 30 mph which exaggerates the differences in wattage/drag.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

cobra_kai said:


> Yes, that sounds reasonable, especially at mortal speeds. Don't forget the wind tunnel tests are usually at 30 mph which exaggerates the differences in wattage/drag.


Correct me if I'm wrong but those tests have steady direction of wind unlike the real world situation where the roads are not straight for long and depending on the turn, the wind facing orientation changes unless it's absolutely calm with 0 mph wind for the whole ride, which I've never heard of.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

bvber said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but those tests have steady direction of wind unlike the real world situation where the roads are not straight for long and depending on the turn, the wind facing orientation changes unless it's absolutely calm with 0 mph wind for the whole ride, which I've never heard of.


Wind tunnel tests are generally performed with sweeps from -20 to 20 degrees of yaw, typically either in 2.5 or 5 degree increments. This range accounts for pretty much all of the yaw conditions seen in real world riding unless you are out in very extreme conditions. See: FLO Cycling - Wheel Design Series Step 1 - Data Collection and FLO Cycling - Wheel Design Series Step 2 - Data Analysis


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

stevesbike said:


> I don't think there's much dispute that a well-designed aero frame can save approx 60-120 seconds/40km over a standard round frame holding rider position and wheels constant. The upper figure would be for aero bars etc.
> .


I do. Let's see your proof. I can't wait for you to pull out something from Specialized so I can tear you apart.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

MMsRepBike said:


> I do. Let's see your proof. I can't wait for you to pull out something from Specialized so I can tear you apart.


Tour magazine does independent testing using a large number of frames, utilizing a rider mannequin so incorporating rider/bike interactions in controlled position etc. They tested aero bikes from various makers against the same manufacturer's traditional frame, e.g., Cervelo S5 vs R5. The S5 was the fastest bike of the test. They published both wind tunnel numbers and comparative times over a simulated route involving a fairly hilly course (they wanted to test weight vs. aero). You are free to take their wind tunnel data and run your own tests at analytic cycling or wherever you'd like to estimate time savings on various courses. It's pretty straightforward to utilize whatever distribution you'd like to model wind & yaw angle. In general, for most realistic estimates this will only help the aero frame's advantage. Not sure why you assert Tour pulls the numbers out of thin air - I always find it helpful to actually know what I'm talking about before making baseless assumptions....


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> Tour magazine does independent testing using a large number of frames, utilizing a rider mannequin so incorporating rider/bike interactions in controlled position etc. They tested aero bikes from various makers against the same manufacturer's traditional frame, e.g., Cervelo S5 vs R5. The S5 was the fastest bike of the test. They published both wind tunnel numbers and comparative times over a simulated route involving a fairly hilly course (they wanted to test weight vs. aero). You are free to take their wind tunnel data and run your own tests at analytic cycling or wherever you'd like to estimate time savings on various courses. It's pretty straightforward to utilize whatever distribution you'd like to model wind & yaw angle. In general, for most realistic estimates this will only help the aero frame's advantage. Not sure why you assert Tour pulls the numbers out of thin air - I always find it helpful to actually know what I'm talking about before making baseless assumptions....


They pulled the "round tube" number out of thin air. As I said earlier. Even tiny changes in setup of the dummy or bike makes the test completely inaccurate. The margins of error are almost nothing. If they do the test again, with actual round tube bikes included, and cycle through them several times with consistent results each time...I will believe it. I'm not doubting that aero frames have an advantage, but the advantage has been stated anywhere from 15 sec over 40k to over 3 minutes. Again, I direct you to the bike radar helmet test where they couldn't even get accurate results with something much smaller and much less complicated than full bikes with dummies turning the cranks.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Wesquire said:


> *Do you believe the manufacturer data? Why are none of the independent tests consistent? I don't believe my study either. The whole point is you are dealing with things with such small margins for error that none of the studies should be taken seriously.*
> 
> Beyond that, it just doesn't make sense. How could a frame make more difference than switching from a vented helmet (that basically acts as a sail) to a TT helmet? How could a frame make more difference than riding in the hoods vs drops? It doesn't add up. Especially in real world conditions. The leading edge of the frame is virtually nothing in comparison to the leading edge of a helmet or your body.


And there in lies a major problem with "aero claims" and their verification. Because there is low robustness AND low precision from independent testers, the quality of the data is weak. To be blunt, outside of Tour magazine, nobody else tests these frames, other than the manufacturers (and it's a guarantee that manufacturers' data is inflated).

This is not to say aero doesn't make a difference though, however what that actual difference is,,, seems to be not consistent.

Also, Tour magazine did seem to pull the "round tube" drag figure out of thin air. Tour didn't state what this round tube frame bike was. They just threw up a drag figure for round tube. Interestingly, also in the same test, Tour did show that aero wheels had a *bigger* advantageous effect for round tube frame than for aero frames.

But I think that "total aerodynamics" (bike, rider, gears, clothing) is a very specific set up to a specific rider. Specificity is the name of the game in aerodynamics when everything is taken in totality. If you look at Motogp motorcycle design, it's often designed with one rider (the lead factory rider) in mind, and the rest of the other riders will have to adjust, and data does show that different riders get vary aero speed (top end speed). Yet, bicycle manufacturers are making it sound like that ANY rider can jump on their frames and reap equal aero benefits, which is not true at all.

The science of aero slipstreaming is a complicated one, and also a specific one. Take the low slung bubble aero bicycle that set the speed record. The whole thing is so sleek that the drag from one wheel protruding out of the frame is more then the drag of the entire bike. If you change the design at this wheel/frame junction just a bit, you can change the total drag of the entire vehicle drastically. What I'm trying to say is aerodynamics is very specific, and the bicycle/rider interaction seems to be like a "wide open" variable, and any little changes in the bike/rider profile can dramatically alter the aero property of the whole package. And surely no two riders who jump on a frame will imprint the exact total aero package due to this rider-bike interaction.

One thing is for sure, there has been ZERO road race that can be argued to be determined by frame design. So this begs the question, how important is aero in a real world road race? Probably almost zero importance, I said "almost zero" to allow room for that rare instance where a solo breakaway rider might win. In every of these aero frame discussion, I keep asking anyone to show me that aero frame makes a difference in any road race. No one has make this case for me yet. So I can only conclude that aero frame isn't all that important. Yet, the lengthy discussions in these sort of threads would have you believe that aero is an important factor to winning or losing.

edit:
Take Cervelo. Cervelo is often used as glowing example of aerodynamics, and some folks will often quote their data as gospel. Well if Cervelo is all that great, then shouldn't they at least win some races? Heck, Canyon and Scott have won more races then Cervelo, but Cervelo keeps coming up as the golden child of aerodynamics whenever aero frame discussions come up. They have no win, no even podium to show,... but plenty of wind tunnel data proving how their frame is the fastest, or whatever.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> They pulled the "round tube" number out of thin air. As I said earlier. Even tiny changes in setup of the dummy or bike makes the test completely inaccurate. The margins of error are almost nothing. If they do the test again, with actual round tube bikes included, and cycle through them several times with consistent results each time...I will believe it. I'm not doubting that aero frames have an advantage, but the advantage has been stated anywhere from 15 sec over 40k to over 3 minutes. Again, I direct you to the bike radar helmet test where they couldn't even get accurate results with something much smaller and much less complicated than full bikes with dummies turning the cranks.


Tour didn't pull the round tube data out of thin air. In their test I was referring to, they tested the following bikes in the wind tunnel with identical setup and rider dummy. The point of that is to use a constant position.

You're also distorting the helmet results - the reason for the variability was rider position, which was not controlled for. Drag is highly affected by head tilt. Unless you ride doing a wheelie the whole time, it's not comparable to frame results. 

Cervelo S5
Merida Reacto EVO
BMC Time Machine TMRO1
Giant Propel Advanced SLO
Specialized S-Works Venge
Simplon Nexico
Scott Foil Team
Cervelo R5
Canyon Aeroad CF
Neil Pryde Bura S1
Scott Addict SL
Neil Pryde Alize
Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
Giant TCR Advanced SL
Ridley Noah Fast
BMC Time Machine SLR 01
Rose Xeon CW-8800
Simplon Pavo 3
Storck Fascenario 0.6
Storck Aerario
Specialized S-Works Tarmac
Ridley Helium SL
Rose Xeon CR5
Merida Scultura CF Team


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> Tour didn't pull the round tube data out of thin air. In their test I was referring to, they tested the following bikes in the wind tunnel with identical setup and rider dummy. The point of that is to use a constant position.
> 
> You're also distorting the helmet results - the reason for the variability was rider position, which was not controlled for. Drag is highly affected by head tilt. Unless you ride doing a wheelie the whole time, it's not comparable to frame results.
> 
> ...


So which one of those bikes gave them the "round tube" number? Which wheels were on it at the time? There was no rider in the helmet test. What are you smoking?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> So which one of those bikes gave them the "round tube" number? Which wheels were on it at the time? There was no rider in the helmet test. What are you smoking?


you need to read the statement from Giro and Faster, the wind tunnel company that ran the bike radar tests. The methodology was flawed - even the wind tunnel company said do. The head angle wasn't even representative of real riding. The variability I was referring to was the variance between drag #s from proper protocols vs. the bike radar useless tests, so it's actually error.

Re Tour, spend some time looking at the details if you don't know them. They use a variety of wheels across frames tested to examine the interactions.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> you need to read the statement from Giro and Faster, the wind tunnel company that ran the bike radar tests. The methodology was flawed - even the wind tunnel company said do. The head angle wasn't even representative of real riding. The variability I was referring to was the variance between drag #s from proper protocols vs. the bike radar useless tests, so it's actually error.
> 
> Re Tour, spend some time looking at the details if you don't know them. They use a variety of wheels across frames tested to examine the interactions.


I've been saying they messed up the helmet test the whole time. That's my whole point. Did you not read this thread? The tour test used the stock wheels and 404s. It didn't say which wheels were used on the "round tube" number. You still haven't made a point.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> I've been saying they messed up the helmet test the whole time. That's my whole point. Did you not read this thread? The tour test used the stock wheels and 404s. It didn't say which wheels were used on the "round tube" number. You still haven't made a point.


you asked about independent testing and a bunch of us have pointed you to the Tour tests. I'm not sure why you are hung up about a single data point from their tests - they have a variety of tests. I referenced a 2014 test, which provides drag #s for a variety of setups, including most of the major brands that sell both a traditional frame and an aero frame (e.g., venge vs. tarmac). 

They make a number of reasonable testing decisions, including providing data for both the stock wheelset that comes with a full bike and a reference wheelset. The former provides useful consumer information for buyers who are interested in comparing stock setups. The latter provides comparative data for consumers who want to know differences among frames. Sure, there's interaction effects between a particular wheelset and a frame, so the choice of a 404 might present different comparative results than another wheelset, but it's a reasonable approach since it represents a consumer who might purchase an aftermarket high end aero wheelset. 

Tour presents #s for all their results and not just something like 'time savings' so you can make whatever comparisons you want. They specifically identify the results in terms of what wheelsets were used to obtain them - you just need to look at their text, see what symbols correspond to on figures etc. 

They obviously can't test every possible configuration, so if you want more than what could reasonably be done by a magazine, you'd have to rent some wind tunnel time or use alphamantis to do it on the track.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> you asked about independent testing and a bunch of us have pointed you to the Tour tests. I'm not sure why you are hung up about a single data point from their tests - they have a variety of tests. I referenced a 2014 test, which provides drag #s for a variety of setups, including most of the major brands that sell both a traditional frame and an aero frame (e.g., venge vs. tarmac).
> 
> They make a number of reasonable testing decisions, including providing data for both the stock wheelset that comes with a full bike and a reference wheelset. The former provides useful consumer information for buyers who are interested in comparing stock setups. The latter provides comparative data for consumers who want to know differences among frames. Sure, there's interaction effects between a particular wheelset and a frame, so the choice of a 404 might present different comparative results than another wheelset, but it's a reasonable approach since it represents a consumer who might purchase an aftermarket high end aero wheelset.
> 
> ...


You are still missing the point. I'm fine with how they decided to configure the bikes and what measurements they took and published. My point is that the margin of error is too small and there's too many things that you can have off when messing with full frames, a dummy turning cranks, changing wheels, etc. They also didn't give any basis for their "round tube" number. If they cycled through the bikes several times and got consistent results each time, I'd be persuaded. Simple as that.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Wesquire said:


> I've been saying they messed up the helmet test the whole time. That's my whole point.


Looks like the "whole point" is that you don't believe aero frames provide any real world advantage. 

If someone took the time and money to make "real world tests", everyone would say the results were BS b/c they were not performed in a controlled environment. 

Like a bunch of other threads (disc brakes, mirrors, etc.), it boils down to preferences. If you don't personally like it, don't buy it.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

crit_boy said:


> Looks like the "whole point" is that you don't believe aero frames provide any real world advantage.
> 
> If someone took the time and money to make "real world tests", everyone would say the results were BS b/c they were not performed in a controlled environment.
> 
> Like a bunch of other threads (disc brakes, mirrors, etc.), it boils down to preferences. If you don't personally like it, don't buy it.


I've never doubted that there's an advantage. I just don't buy the marketing claims and the inconsistent third party tests.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

crit_boy said:


> Looks like the "whole point" is that you don't believe aero frames provide any real world advantage.
> 
> If someone took the time and money to make "real world tests", everyone would say the results were BS b/c they were not performed in a controlled environment.
> 
> Like a bunch of other threads (disc brakes, mirrors, etc.), it boils down to preferences. If you don't personally like it, don't buy it.


In a solo TT, I can see the advantage of having an aero frame, along with aero bars, aero helmet, skinsuit, shoe covers, and extensive time spent in a wind tunnel to optimize one particular rider to his particular frame so that he can reap the benefit of this total "aero package". But don't expect the weekend warriors to get this preferential treatment. Weekend warriors' data will have to come from company literature or maybe Tour magazine, and probably his gut feeling and guesses.

But in a context of a road race, what percent of a win would you say could be attributed to the frame? Cervelo is the golden poster child of aero frame, and how many major podiums (nevermind wins) have they got this year? I know the answer, "it's many factors", yes, I know. But I'm just curious if, in your own estimate, you could put a percentage number of the frame. 

There is a strong trendy gospel like belief in aero frame. But ultimately, if it can't be shown convincingly that a design can contribute much to a win, then maybe it's time we shouldn't pay that much weight in frame design. As long as the frame is within "ballpark" design, it's good enough to race on, and if you can't win on it, chances are you won't win on any other frame either.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

aclinjury said:


> In a solo TT, I can see the advantage of having an aero frame, along with aero bars, aero helmet, skinsuit, shoe covers, and extensive time spent in a wind tunnel to set up one particular rider so that he can reap the benefit of this total "aero package".
> 
> But in a context of a road race, what percent of a win would you say could be attributed to the frame? Cervelo is the golden poster child of aero frame, and how many major podiums (nevermind wins) have they got this year? I know the answer, "it's many factors", yes, I know. But I'm just curious if, in your own estimate, you could put a percentage number of the frame.
> 
> There is a strong trendy gospel like belief in aero frame. But ultimately, if it can't be shown convincingly that a design can contribute much to a win, then maybe it's time we shouldn't pay that much weight in frame design. As long as the frame is within "ballpark" design, it's good enough to race on, and if you can't win on it, chances are you won't win on any other frame either.


If it made the type of difference they claim, none of the specialized riders would ever use the Tarmac. It would make no sense.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> If it made the type of difference they claim, none of the specialized riders would ever use the Tarmac. It would make no sense.


Sounds like you're just more interested in voicing your bias against aero frames than asking a realy question about them. Now you show your bias by neglecting the fact that sprinters who have the option between a traditional and aero frame almost always choose the aero one. Does Cavendish sprint on a Tarmac? Does Kittel sprint on a Tarmac? They both sprint on a venge. Boonen typically races on a venge except for some of the classics. 

Why do sprinters increasingly wear skinsuits on 5 hour Tour stages? Of course, an aero frame contributes to sprint placing. There was a thread a while ago on estimates of CdA and sprint placings.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> Sounds like you're just more interested in voicing your bias against aero frames than asking a realy question about them. Now you show your bias by neglecting the fact that sprinters who have the option between a traditional and aero frame almost always choose the aero one. Does Cavendish sprint on a Tarmac? Does Kittel sprint on a Tarmac? They both sprint on a venge. Boonen typically races on a venge except for some of the classics.
> 
> Why do sprinters increasingly wear skinsuits on 5 hour Tour stages? Of course, an aero frame contributes to sprint placing. There was a thread a while ago on estimates of CdA and sprint placings.


Most sprinters frequently do use Tarmacs. Look at Sagan. And do you think the manufacturers would be okay with them not putting the sprinters on aero frames most of the time? Of course not.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> Most sprinters frequently do use Tarmacs. Look at Sagan. And do you think the manufacturers would be okay with them not putting the sprinters on aero frames most of the time? Of course not.


Again, not true. Sagan won the green jersey last year on a venge. He only rides a tarmac on non-sprint stages or classics involving cobbles etc. Cavendish also raced on a venge at the Tour. Greipel, who won 4 stages, won them all on a Ridley Noah, Cummings on an S5. Hard to think of a recent sprint stage not won on an aero frame...


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> Again, not true. Sagan won the green jersey last year on a venge. He only rides a tarmac on non-sprint stages or classics involving cobbles etc. Cavendish also raced on a venge at the Tour. Greipel, who won 4 stages, won them all on a Ridley Noah, Cummings on an S5. Hard to think of a recent sprint stage not won on an aero frame...


Self-fulfilling prophecy you got there. The manufacturers put the sprinters on aero frames, then celebrate how aero frames win sprint finishes. Lol. If the aero frames gave the benefit that is claimed, only aero frames would be used. Why would Sagan ever use the tarmac? Why limit it to sprint finishes? There were plenty of stage wins in the 2015 TDF with non-aero frames. Tony Martin had the solo win on a Roubaix. I can't image that a sprint would be more sensitive to aerodynamic frames than solo breakaways.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> Self-fulfilling prophecy you got there. The manufacturers put the sprinters on aero frames, then celebrate how aero frames win sprint finishes. Lol. If the aero frames gave the benefit that is claimed, only aero frames would be used. Why would Sagan ever use the tarmac? Why limit it to sprint finishes? There were plenty of stage wins in the 2015 TDF with non-aero frames. Tony Martin had the solo win on a Roubaix. I can't image that a sprint would be more sensitive to aerodynamic frames than solo breakaways.


it's pretty simple. Frames can be optimized for different event conditions. Martin's stage victory was on a Paris-Roubaix inspired stage with multiple cobble sections. Some riders, like Contador, switched bikes mid-stage. And Martin actually finished on a teammate's bike because of a late flat. 

Top sprinters can choose whatever bike they want from a sponsor's portfolio. Sprinters choose the most aero frame because aerodynamics plays an essential role in sprint finishes. A 10% reduction in CdA = more than a three meter advantage over a 14 seconds sprint. They also increasingly choose to ride a 5 hour Tour stage in a skinsuit. Cavendish's sprint dominance is due in large part to his aerodynamic efficiency. It's not due to his peak power. This is all well-documented.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> it's pretty simple. Frames can be optimized for different event conditions. Martin's stage victory was on a Paris-Roubaix inspired stage with multiple cobble sections. Some riders, like Contador, switched bikes mid-stage. And Martin actually finished on a teammate's bike because of a late flat.
> 
> Top sprinters can choose whatever bike they want from a sponsor's portfolio. Sprinters choose the most aero frame because aerodynamics plays an essential role in sprint finishes. A 10% reduction in CdA = more than a three meter advantage over a 14 seconds sprint. They also increasingly choose to ride a 5 hour Tour stage in a skinsuit. Cavendish's sprint dominance is due in large part to his aerodynamic efficiency. It's not due to his peak power. This is all well-documented.


10% reduction in frontal area, not CdA. An aero frame is going to be nowhere near a 10% reduction in frontal area. Maybe 1% if that.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

cobra_kai said:


> Yes, that sounds reasonable, especially at mortal speeds. Don't forget the wind tunnel tests are usually at 30 mph which exaggerates the differences in wattage/drag.


Have to think of airspeed, not ground speed. 18mph into 12mph wind is 30mph airspeed, and a common condition for amateur athletes. Also, it's important to remember that aero isn't for the last 300m, it's to save energy across the whole race distance so that the athlete is better in the ultimate moments of the race. Pros make bad equipment choices all the time, like almost every time they choose weight over aero.


----------



## zephxiii (Nov 22, 2013)

Agreed. 12mph wind would be a 'good day' in Indiana's cooler months. Combined with the cooler and denser air, it's a pretty strong wall to have to grind into. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> 10% reduction in frontal area, not CdA. An aero frame is going to be nowhere near a 10% reduction in frontal area. Maybe 1% if that.


again, not true. It's CdA. Considering that most sprints are won by less than a bike length, the role of aerodynamics - including the bike itself - is paramount. It explains why there's no correlation between peak power and placings.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> again, not true. It's CdA. Considering that most sprints are won by less than a bike length, the role of aerodynamics - including the bike itself - is paramount. It explains why there's no correlation between peak power and placings.


Someone should tell the sprinters that their power is irrelevant. Sorry Greipel and Kittel, you can't sprint, stevesbike says so. The CdA quote you are referring to is from Paolo Menaspa. He has said both CdA and frontal area when giving the 3m number, so I'll concede that both have been said. However, do you think an aero frame gets even remotely close to a 10% reduction in overall CdA? Especially in a sprint with everyone out of the saddle and the bike being thrown side to side. I don't think you'd ever be able to accurately measure the drag of that environment. Beyond that, this also assumes no drafting effects for the ~14 sec sprint. How often do you see someone stay in front of a sprint for 14 seconds? Most sprint wins are won in the final couple meters. So a reduction in maybe 1% of CdA over the course of 2-3 seconds? Completely negligible.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> Someone should tell the sprinters that their power is irrelevant. Sorry Greipel and Kittel, you can't sprint, stevesbike says so. The CdA quote you are referring to is from Paolo Menaspa. He has said both CdA and frontal area when giving the 3m number, so I'll concede that both have been said. However, do you think an aero frame gets even remotely close to a 10% reduction in overall CdA? Especially in a sprint with everyone out of the saddle and the bike being thrown side to side. I don't think you'd ever be able to accurately measure the drag of that environment. Beyond that, this also assumes no drafting effects for the ~14 sec sprint. How often do you see someone stay in front of a sprint for 14 seconds? Most sprint wins are won in the final couple meters. So a reduction in maybe 1% of CdA over the course of 2-3 seconds? Completely negligible.


Here's the plot from Menaspa - the R^2 value is what matters, not sarcasm. The difference between frontal area and CdA isn't some terminological detail when it comes to frame effects. Estimates of 4% total reduction in CdA comparing an identical rider/position on an aero frame vs. a round tube frame can be made from Tour's data. 

the fact that a sprint takes place in a group doesn't negate aerodynamic benefits. It may reduce drag by ~30 percent, but it is still the main force a rider has to overcome (especially considering the effect of speed on drag that's applicable to sprints), so aerodynamics doesn't magically matter only in the final 2-3 seconds of a sprint.


----------



## RaptorTC (Jul 20, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> But in a context of a road race, what percent of a win would you say could be attributed to the frame? Cervelo is the golden poster child of aero frame, and how many major podiums (nevermind wins) have they got this year?


This is the dumbest argument. I could be on the most aero frame in the world and Sagan could be on a beach cruiser and he'd still destroy me (and most posters here). Does this mean the beach cruiser is a better race bike? 

It's not Cervelo's fault that the Dimension Data guys aren't strong enough to put themselves in a position where a more aero frame could make a difference. A more aero frame won't work miracles and give someone not in contention a shot to win, but it can buy you a few extra seconds/meters/inches that can make the difference.

Riders win races, not bikes.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> Here's the plot from Menaspa - the R^2 value is what matters, not sarcasm. The difference between frontal area and CdA isn't some terminological detail when it comes to frame effects. Estimates of 4% total reduction in CdA comparing an identical rider/position on an aero frame vs. a round tube frame can be made from Tour's data.
> 
> the fact that a sprint takes place in a group doesn't negate aerodynamic benefits. It may reduce drag by ~30 percent, but it is still the main force a rider has to overcome (especially considering the effect of speed on drag that's applicable to sprints), so aerodynamics doesn't magically matter only in the final 2-3 seconds of a sprint.
> 
> ...


So peak power has no relation. Just disregard that we know this is false considering how successful kittel and Greipel have been and are widely known for having the most peak power. The group nature of a sprint completely undermines the 3 meter number. If you are drafting behind someone for all but the last 3 seconds, you are only getting a speed increase from the aero frame for those 3 seconds. You might save a few watts while drafting, but those are insignificant compared to the overall draft reduction.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> So peak power has no relation. Just disregard that we know this is false considering how successful kittel and Greipel have been and are widely known for having the most peak power. The group nature of a sprint completely undermines the 3 meter number. If you are drafting behind someone for all but the last 3 seconds, you are only getting a speed increase from the aero frame for those 3 seconds. You might save a few watts while drafting, but those are insignificant compared to the overall draft reduction.


You seem to be missing some basic knowledge. Mark Cavendish regularly beats Kittel and Greipel. How can that be since he's known to produce substantially less power? The answer is that forward motion is related to far more than peak power....I wonder how you think Evelyn Stevens bested 48km in the hour when she only produced 270-290 watts....

As for the comment about drafting, that's just wrong. You are always getting a benefit from aerodynamic frame/equipment in a peloton/group.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> Mark Cavendish regularly beats Kittel and Greipel.


You may want to look up the record for last 2 years.


> As for the comment about drafting, that's just wrong. You are always getting a benefit from aerodynamic frame/equipment in a peloton/group.


The way I read it, he said one would save a few watts from more aero frame while drafting but those are insignificant compared to the overall draft reduction.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> You seem to be missing some basic knowledge. Mark Cavendish regularly beats Kittel and Greipel. How can that be since he's known to produce substantially less power? The answer is that forward motion is related to far more than peak power....I wonder how you think Evelyn Stevens bested 48km in the hour when she only produced 270-290 watts....
> 
> As for the comment about drafting, that's just wrong. You are always getting a benefit from aerodynamic frame/equipment in a peloton/group.


Yep, Cav beats them all the time. Can't wait for the 2014 season


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

bvber said:


> You may want to look up the record for last 2 years.
> 
> The way I read it, he said one would save a few watts from more aero frame while drafting but those are insignificant compared to the overall draft reduction.


Bingo. And here's the thing, if the rider is already well below their FTP, which is 90%+ of their time in the peloton, those couple watts saved are completely meaningless. The only times an Aero frame is gaining you seconds or speed is in a breakaway or the last 2-3 seconds of a sprint. And I think my point isn't being understood correctly. I'm not saying that sprinters shouldn't use Aero frames, I'm just saying the advantage is nowhere near what is being claimed by some. Especially for an amateur rider, any advantage of the aero frame would be completely dwarfed by imperfections in position, and simply having a more comfortable setup would likely be a much better ROI.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

RaptorTC said:


> This is the dumbest argument. I could be on the most aero frame in the world and Sagan could be on a beach cruiser and he'd still destroy me (and most posters here). Does this mean the beach cruiser is a better race bike?
> 
> It's not Cervelo's fault that the Dimension Data guys aren't strong enough to put themselves in a position where a more aero frame could make a difference. A more aero frame won't work miracles and give someone not in contention a shot to win, but it can buy you a few extra seconds/meters/inches that can make the difference.
> 
> Riders win races, not bikes.


Amen, I have been saying this for years now. Is there a benefit? Yes. Does that benefit matter a bunch in actual road races? No. Legs, lungs, knowledge, skills, and good fortune are the real winning formula. Now, if you are absolutely trying to maximize your own potential on a bike at all costs, it may be a different discussion to some degree.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Rashadabd said:


> Amen, I have been saying this for years now. Is there a benefit? Yes.


I'd actually go so far as to debate if there's a benefit and suggest there could be a disadvantage depending on the bike and road conditions. Races aren't held in wind tunnels and dummy riders on wind tunnel bikes don't fatigue from jolts and vibration.

Aero matter in a spring but keeping your body as fresh as possible for that sprint is the biggest factor out side of talent of course. Many of these aero bikes are pretty harsh so in order to determine if they are an advantage you'd also have to measure their impact on one's body relative to a more comfortable bike. Which off course would be all but impossible thus selecting the fastest bike is more art than science. I'm pretty sure the few aero bikes I've test rode would have me slower due to fatigue at the end of a long road race.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> You seem to be missing some basic knowledge. Mark Cavendish regularly beats Kittel and Greipel. How can that be since he's known to produce substantially less power?


Kittel said Cav is very small, drafting drafting behind Cav gives little benefit. So not many can jump from behind him and get an acceleration. Cav also benefits from track training, he has terrific leg speed and bumping against other riders doesn't bother him.

The bike is trivial, he did fine on an un-aero Dogma against Sagan on the Champs in 2012.

If you watch the pros over time, the same guys win or lose on many different bikes.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Kittel said Cav is very small, drafting drafting behind Cav gives little benefit. So not many can jump from behind him and get an acceleration. Cav also benefits from track training, he has terrific leg speed and bumping against other riders doesn't bother him.
> 
> The bike is trivial, he did fine on an un-aero Dogma against Sagan on the Champs in 2012.
> 
> If you watch the pros over time, the same guys win or lose on many different bikes.


Good point. Another point to note is that his max watts/kg is higher than Kittel and Greipel. This makes his acceleration better, his top end might not be able to match, but many sprints have acceleration all the way through the finish. His acceleration also provides a gap to keep drafting less effective. I'd wager his lower weight is a bigger factor of his success than his more aero sprinting position. However, these advantages haven't done him much good in the last couple years vs the wattage monsters.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> Good point. Another point to note is that his max watts/kg is higher than Kittel and Greipel. This makes his acceleration better, his top end might not be able to match, but many sprints have acceleration all the way through the finish. His acceleration also provides a gap to keep drafting less effective. I'd wager his lower weight is a bigger factor of his success than his more aero sprinting position. However, these advantages haven't done him much good in the last couple years vs the wattage monsters.


that's ridiculous. Cavendish does not have higher watts/kg than Kittel or Greipel, both of whom produce higher peak power than him. If anything, he produces less since his advantage comes from aerodynamics, which has been well established. As for the comment about him beating Sagan on an unaero Dogma, Sagan was on an unaero Cannondale, so it's not even relevant. Aerodynamics aren't trivial. I guess you don't understand the figure from Menaspa - it shows why your claims about peak power are false....


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> that's ridiculous. Cavendish does not have higher watts/kg than Kittel or Greipel, both of whom produce higher peak power than him. If anything, he produces less since his advantage comes from aerodynamics, which has been well established. As for the comment about him beating Sagan on an unaero Dogma, Sagan was on an unaero Cannondale, so it's not even relevant. Aerodynamics aren't trivial. I guess you don't understand the figure from Menaspa - it shows why your claims about peak power are false....


It's already been explained by several people why you are wrong about that. Crunch the watts/kg yourself, cav is 155lbs, kittel is 190. Cav's max is ~1600, Kittel's is ~1800. Anything else you want to be wrong about?


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> Anyone know of any testing of aero frames in real world non-TT conditions? Like corrected for the same body positioning, with water bottles, normal wind yaw, etc.


It's already been pointed out to you: Tom Anhalt's comparison of the P2K vs P3C. He came up with an estimate of ~2.5 sec/km advantage of the P3C vs. the already aero-tubed P2K. Subsequently, he did a 40K TT on the P3C, and was about 2 minutes faster than the previous year on the same course with the P2K; however, the air density was a bit less so when we adjusted for that we figured that the real-world difference attributable to the difference in frames was about 80 seconds. 

Tom wore the same skinsuit, had the same tires/tubes/wheels, used the same water bottle, same helmet.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> It's already been pointed out to you: Tom Anhalt's comparison of the P2K vs P3C. He came up with an estimate of ~2.5 sec/km advantage of the P3C vs. the already aero-tubed P2K. Subsequently, he did a 40K TT on the P3C, and was about 2 minutes faster than the previous year on the same course with the P2K; however, the air density was a bit less so when we adjusted for that we figured that the real-world difference attributable to the difference in frames was about 80 seconds.
> 
> Tom wore the same skinsuit, had the same tires/tubes/wheels, used the same water bottle, same helmet.


Again, if the actual data supported anything even remotely close to that, specialized would be advertising 6-7 seconds saved per km.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> Again, if the actual data supported anything even remotely close to that, specialized would be advertising 6-7 seconds saved per km.


Where do you get that estimate of 6-7 secs? 

Three comments: 

1) Wind tunnel tests of the P2K and P3C gave an estimated difference at Tom's speed, power, and the air density on his race day of just about 2 sec/km, so the field test was actually a pretty good validation of that wind tunnel test. 

2) When Chris Yu of Specialized took a rider who had been into the Morgan Hill wind tunnel onto the velodrome he got the same delta in CdA, which is further validation that what is measured in the wind tunnel and what gets measured using field techniques are in agreement. 

3) Lastly, I worked with a rider who recently set a world record at the hour. We had both field tests and wind tunnel tests to estimate the rider's CdA. Not only did the estimates agree, but I used the estimated CdA to make a prediction of how far the rider would go (conditional on the air density and the rider's power output on the day of the attempt). When I plugged the actual air density and the rider's actual power into the calculation, my prediction was within 100 meters of the actual distance. 

What this means is that wind tunnel and field estimates, when done carefully, turn out to predict real world performance pretty well.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Cavendish is not 155, maybe 145 tops. Saw him last year and he was very small. Kittel is a much bigger guy, and Greipel, well they don't call him Gorilla for nothing.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> Where do you get that estimate of 6-7 secs?
> 
> Three comments:
> 
> ...


1. There's hundreds of variables still not accounted for. 

2. Why would you go off anything from someone with a vested interest as big as specialized? 

3. Did you compare that to several round tube bikes with the same setup and position?


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> 1. There's hundreds of variables still not accounted for.


Really? Name two hundred of those. 



> 2. Why would you go off anything from someone with a vested interest as big as specialized?


Hmmm. Could you clarify what Chris' vested interest was in getting the same *delta* in CdA for a rider from wind tunnel and velodrome tests when what they were testing *wasn't* equipment changes but positional changes? What advantage did Specialized get in that case? If anything, one might think his vested interest would have been to show that their very expensive wind tunnel gave much better data than a cheap (though time-consuming) field test. I have no connection to Specialized -- what reason would Chris have to lie to me about the CdA deltas matching? 



> 3. Did you compare that to several round tube bikes with the same setup and position?


Nope. Why would we? The rider was attempting the hour record. That's what we were focusing on. The bike was already bought and paid for, so we weren't going to change that. We were checking equipment choices (like skin suits and helmets), to make sure the rider could hold an optimal position and power output for an hour, and to estimate how much loss there would be if the rider had to go to a Plan B position. That we could tell the difference between skin suits, and that it translated well to the prediction of distance covered, is pretty good validation.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

RaptorTC said:


> This is the dumbest argument. I could be on the most aero frame in the world and Sagan could be on a beach cruiser and he'd still destroy me (and most posters here). Does this mean the beach cruiser is a better race bike?
> 
> It's not Cervelo's fault that the Dimension Data guys aren't strong enough to put themselves in a position where a more aero frame could make a difference. A more aero frame won't work miracles and give someone not in contention a shot to win, but it can buy you a few extra seconds/meters/inches that can make the difference.
> 
> *Riders win races, not bikes*.


So you call my argument dumb when I question just how much does a bike contribute to a win (a legit question considering guys are going gaga goo goo over aero data),... but you then conclude that riders win races, not bikes.

And you didn't need to bring in the red herring beach cruiser in the context we've talking about, i.e. different race bike design at the top level. Yeah, a beach cruiser is a top level road racer there. Why didn't you also bring in a BMX and MTB bikes too, hey they're also bikes, just like the beach cruiser right.

You forgot to put on your thinking cap? But you right though, riders win races, not bikes. End of story?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> It's already been explained by several people why you are wrong about that. Crunch the watts/kg yourself, cav is 155lbs, kittel is 190. Cav's max is ~1600, Kittel's is ~1800. Anything else you want to be wrong about?


again, you're just wrong - Cavendish was not quoting a peak power he produces in a race - it's his peak ever (probably on a track and well rested). As for Kittel, his peak is at least 1900 - before he even became a sprinter, he was producing 1900 watts in training camps as a neo pro. Bigger riders will have higher peak power- just look at track sprinters. Modern track sprinting is about peak speed, not simply acceleration, which is why track sprinters have become so large. The effect is even more evident on the road, since the sprint starts at near maximal speed. Cavendish's lack of power can also be seen by his poor climbing ability for someone his size. Cavendish himself admits its not his power:

"It’s not watts, and it’s not just my frontal area in a sprint. It’s everything beforehand. How I ride in the peloton. My pedalling action. How I sit. I save so much energy for the finish.”

And good luck with your argument against Robert Chung. It's pretty clear you have no interest in what the actual data reveals despite asking for it in this thread...


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> again, you're just wrong - Cavendish was not quoting a peak power he produces in a race - it's his peak ever (probably on a track and well rested). As for Kittel, his peak is at least 1900 - before he even became a sprinter, he was producing 1900 watts in training camps as a neo pro. Bigger riders will have higher peak power- just look at track sprinters. Modern track sprinting is about peak speed, not simply acceleration, which is why track sprinters have become so large. The effect is even more evident on the road, since the sprint starts at near maximal speed. Cavendish's lack of power can also be seen by his poor climbing ability for someone his size. Cavendish himself admits its not his power:
> 
> "It’s not watts, and it’s not just my frontal area in a sprint. It’s everything beforehand. How I ride in the peloton. My pedalling action. How I sit. I save so much energy for the finish.”
> 
> And good luck with your argument against Robert Chung. It's pretty clear you have no interest in what the actual data reveals despite asking for it in this thread...


Any data to back up your 1900 number? Of course not. You just want everyone to take it at your word, which is all this thread has produced. Zero reliable data points, and vague references to contradictory anecdotes.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Wesquire said:


> Bingo. And here's the thing, if the rider is already well below their FTP, which is 90%+ of their time in the peloton, those couple watts saved are completely meaningless..


You believe that riding in a pack is an aerodynamic vacuum, and and effort "well" below FTP doesn't count? 

That would mean that on a flat ride, no rider would/has been dropped, ever.

Read Cav's quote, where he offers up bike racer gold. The fastest rider at the end is the freshest. Producing 2-10 fewer Watts everywhere adds up over 5+ hours. It's not just about the last 200 meters (though Damon Rinard did some interesting analysis on Sagan's non-use of skin suits a couple of years ago...).

You're arguing opinion, not data. The bike makers are the ones generating data. Will they share data that supports their goals and withold data that hurts them? Sure. Will they make up fairy tales that can easily be disproven? No way. That'd be a fast way to invalidate themselves in the market and you can bet their competition would exploit that quickly.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> Really? Name two hundred of those.
> 
> 
> Hmmm. Could you clarify what Chris' vested interest was in getting the same *delta* in CdA for a rider from wind tunnel and velodrome tests when what they were testing *wasn't* equipment changes but positional changes? What advantage did Specialized get in that case? If anything, one might think his vested interest would have been to show that their very expensive wind tunnel gave much better data than a cheap (though time-consuming) field test. I have no connection to Specialized -- what reason would Chris have to lie to me about the CdA deltas matching?
> ...



A vested interest in having people think his wind tunnel tests are accurately reproduced in the real world. Pretty simple.

So if you didn't test round tube bikes...what are you here for?


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

davidka said:


> You believe that riding in a pack is an aerodynamic vacuum, and and effort "well" below FTP doesn't count?
> 
> That would mean that on a flat ride, no rider would/has been dropped, ever.
> 
> ...


The peloton averages like 220 watts on flat stages. If they ever get dropped it is due to other factors. 220 watts vs 210 watts is absolutely nothing when your FTP is kissing 400. What cav is referring to is staying protected in the peloton, not chasing breakaways that won't hold, and not pulling turns at the front. 

You honestly think the vast majority of bike manufacturer claims haven't been disproven? Lol. Fairy tales are what advertising is. Getting caught doesn't mean anything, it hasn't meant anything in decades. Manufacturers post data about wheels, helmets, bikes, etc that get disproven all the time. Compare any manufacturer wheel Aero tests to any independent test. They will all say their wheels outperform the competition, but obviously most are fabrications.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> A vested interest in having people think his wind tunnel tests are accurately reproduced in the real world. Pretty simple.
> 
> So if you didn't test round tube bikes...what are you here for?


I noticed you couldn't name any of the variables you claimed I left out. 

I noticed that you couldn't explain what vested interest Specialized would have in lying to me about the delta in CdA they measured for positional changes in the wind tunnel and from a field test, or how that would also apply to the results from other wind tunnels. Do you think every wind tunnel operator is in cahoots? 

I noticed that you didn't produce the provenance of your claim of 6-7 secs/km. 

I noticed that you're having difficulty understanding the relevance of wind tunnel and field test results to the difference between an aero frame and a round tubed frame. I'll help you with that one: if wind tunnels and field tests can distinguish small differences between aero frames (or helmets, or bars, or skinsuits, or water bottles) then it's hard to argue they can't distinguish a difference between an aero frame and a round-tubed frame -- but it's kinda fun watching you try.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> I noticed you couldn't name any of the variables you claimed I left out.
> 
> I noticed that you couldn't explain what vested interest Specialized would have in lying to me about the delta in CdA they measured for positional changes in the wind tunnel and from a field test, or how that would also apply to the results from other wind tunnels. Do you think every wind tunnel operator is in cahoots?
> 
> ...


Then you didnt read or understand what I wrote. As for variables, watts, tire pressure, tire rolling resistance, temperature, wind, positional changes, drivetrain efficiency, etc etc are all things that can change on the track that aren't accounted for in the wind tunnel. Just from that, you wouldn't be able to tell what savings were Aero and what were not. 

They have a vested interest in having the field corroborate their tunnel results. See above. Their wind tunnel tests get contradicted by other manufacturers and independent tests daily. 

6-7 seconds/km was just an expression about the marketing inflation they'd apply. If between those two Aero TT bikes there was 2-3 seconds per km...theyd DEFINITELY be advertising a higher number of seconds gained than that...the fact that even they are unwilling to be so bold in their numbers tells you how much bullshit the 2-3 second number is. 

Wind tunnels can distinguish small differences only as long as the testing methodology is extremely accurate. I refer back to the bike radar helmet test. That is a much more simple test than full frames with a moving dummy. If they can't get helmets right, why would you trust the full frame numbers? I've never doubted that there's some Aero benefit, I've only expressed that I'm not believing the marketing size claims until someone does a better test. Test all the frames multiple times. Also test round tubes. If the numbers are consistent each time, I'll accept that. That is all that it takes. And I think that's all it would take to convince all the other skeptics. However, as Jay pointed out...the wind tunnel can say whatever it wants, comfort and other factors still matter and the "fastest" bike may not be the fastest bike for you.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Wesquire said:


> The peloton averages like 220 watts on flat stages. If they ever get dropped it is due to other factors. 220 watts vs 210 watts is absolutely nothing when your FTP is kissing 400. What cav is referring to is staying protected in the peloton, not chasing breakaways that won't hold, and not pulling turns at the front.
> .


You don't race, do you..

An average of 220 Watts over 5 hours of racing doesn't speak to the extended efforts 450+ Watts riders must produce to hold position up the upwind side of the field or moving from the back to the front. Of course other factors cause riders to be dropped but they all have one thing in common: a deficit of power vs. resistance.

If 10 Watts didn't matter, riders would always choose the more vented helmet, the more comfortable clothing, and the wider, softer tires.

Show us concrete examples of manufacturer's claims being disproven. "Different" results will not do. You must prove that the claim is a fabrication.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

davidka said:


> You don't race, do you..
> 
> An average of 220 Watts over 5 hours of racing doesn't speak to the extended efforts 450+ Watts riders must produce to hold position up the upwind side of the field or moving from the back to the front. Of course other factors cause riders to be dropped but they all have one thing in common: a deficit of power vs. resistance.
> 
> ...


One of the reasons they wear Aero helmets more is because the ventilation on them has improved. The synthe ventilates better than any helmet I've used. Why aren't they all in TT helmets? That's as big of an aero savings as Aero wheels. Look at the actual power data for flat stages, very few hard efforts. I do race and we frequently hit 600-800 watts out of corners. Would lowering that to 590-790 watts change anything? Nope. 

Why will different results not do? They can't all be correct. That's all you will ever get is different results. That's how to disprove earlier results. If we all test what temperature water boils at for a given pressure but all our results are different...they are either all wrong or all but one are wrong.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Wesquire said:


> . I do race and we frequently hit 600-800 watts out of corners. Would lowering that to 590-790 watts change anything? Nope. .


You're missing the point of aero. 

How many 800 watt accelerations before you fail to hang on? Lowering the amount of output you need to do throughout the race adds up to you being able to produce better efforts later into the race.

You think Boonen may be wondering why Matt Hayman was able to beat him at the end of Roubaix?


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

rchung said:


> I noticed that you couldn't explain what vested interest Specialized would have in lying to me about the delta in CdA they measured for positional changes in the wind tunnel and from a field test, or how that would also apply to the results from other wind tunnels. Do you think every wind tunnel operator is in cahoots?


How about you explain to me why Chris Yu, on this very board, came here to answer data questions but refused to answer any of my questions. How about you explain why they refuse to show numbers for the new Venge frame by itself. They wrap in the wheels and the rolling resistance of the tires into the frame number. Now explain to me how this isn't sketchy. And while you're at it, get me the numbers for the new Venge frame by itself vs. a "round tube" frame by itself. Shouldn't be that hard to do in a tunnel.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

davidka said:


> You're missing the point of aero.
> 
> How many 800 watt accelerations before you fail to hang on? Lowering the amount of output you need to do throughout the race adds up to you being able to produce better efforts later into the race.
> 
> You think Boonen may be wondering why Matt Hayman was able to beat him at the end of Roubaix?


The same number of 790 watt accelerations I'd be able to do.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> Then you didnt read or understand what I wrote. As for variables, watts, tire pressure, tire rolling resistance, temperature, wind, positional changes, drivetrain efficiency, etc etc are all things that can change on the track that aren't accounted for in the wind tunnel. Just from that, you wouldn't be able to tell what savings were Aero and what were not.


Then you didn't read Tom's description, and you're pulling these objections out of your butt. He measured watts using the same (calibrated Power Tap power meter), used the same tubes and tires and tire pressure and wheels, measured the air density (that is, he measured the temperature and barometric pressure and humidity (but he did the tests on the same day on the same road within a few minutes of each other so the air density would have been very, very close even if he hadn't measured them), he used a Power Tap so the drivetrain efficiency doesn't matter (that you don't seem to understand this is pretty illuminating), he was wearing the same clothing since he did the tests back-to-back, he set up the touchpoints to be the same so his position would be the same, and he didn't do this on a track. But other than these things on which you were dead wrong, you still have a few hundred other objections? 



> They have a vested interest in having the field corroborate their tunnel results. See above. Their wind tunnel tests get contradicted by other manufacturers and independent tests daily.


Wait a sec. This is your objection? That wind tunnels and field tests give the same results, and that they agree with real world racing results? Yeah, that's a real conspiracy. Even though you've been entertaining, I'm thinking if you find that a problem (on top of the proof that you either didn't read or didn't understand what Tom did above), it's time to back slowly away.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

MMsRepBike said:


> How about you explain to me why Chris Yu, on this very board, came here to answer data questions but refused to answer any of my questions. How about you explain why they refuse to show numbers for the new Venge frame by itself. They wrap in the wheels and the rolling resistance of the tires into the frame number. Now explain to me how this isn't sketchy. And while you're at it, get me the numbers for the new Venge frame by itself vs. a "round tube" frame by itself. Shouldn't be that hard to do in a tunnel.


Hmmm. I'm not Chris, and I don't work for Specialized (or for any bike manufacturer), or for any wind tunnel operator, nor do I make my living selling anything related to bikes or bike equipment, so I can't answer your question; nor can I explain to you why you didn't get the response you were hoping for -- though I'm starting to work up a hypothesis about it.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> Then you didn't read Tom's description, and you're pulling these objections out of your butt. He measured watts using the same (calibrated Power Tap power meter), used the same tubes and tires and tire pressure and wheels, measured the air density (that is, he measured the temperature and barometric pressure and humidity (but he did the tests on the same day on the same road within a few minutes of each other so the air density would have been very, very close even if he hadn't measured them), he used a Power Tap so the drivetrain efficiency doesn't matter (that you don't seem to understand this is pretty illuminating), he was wearing the same clothing since he did the tests back-to-back, he set up the touchpoints to be the same so his position would be the same, and he didn't do this on a track. But other than these things on which you were dead wrong, you still have a few hundred other objections?
> 
> 
> Wait a sec. This is your objection? That wind tunnels and field tests give the same results, and that they agree with real world racing results? Yeah, that's a real conspiracy. Even though you've been entertaining, I'm thinking if you find that a problem (on top of the proof that you either didn't read or didn't understand what Tom did above), it's time to back slowly away.


LOL. You clearly aren't getting it. Im got mothers day duties to get back to. Some people will believe anything.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

As if I could see into the future. 



Wesquire said:


> Anyone know of any testing of aero frames in real world non-TT conditions?





crit_boy said:


> If someone took the time and money to make "real world tests", everyone would say the results were BS b/c they were not performed in a controlled environment.





Wesquire said:


> 1. There's hundreds of variables still not accounted for.


Stop feeding the troll.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

crit_boy said:


> As if I could see into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey guys, just did my own test. Aero frame saves 10 seconds per km. This is a totally reliable test. /thread


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

crit_boy said:


> As if I could see into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you're right, but it is funny seeing him argue against an expert like Chung without even realizing who he's arguing against (hint wesquire you might want to google 'chung method').


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> you're right, but it is funny seeing him argue against an expert like Chung without even realizing who he's arguing against (hint wesquire you might want to google 'chung method').


As if that is supposed to convince me of anything. Be my guest and trust a test with results Specialized's marketing team won't even touch though. Infomercial salesmen must love you.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> that's ridiculous. Cavendish does not have higher watts/kg than Kittel or Greipel, both of whom produce higher peak power than him. If anything, he produces less since his advantage comes from aerodynamics, which has been well established. As for the comment about him beating Sagan on an unaero Dogma, Sagan was on an unaero Cannondale, so it's not even relevant. *Aerodynamics aren't trivial*. I guess you don't understand the figure from Menaspa - it shows why your claims about peak power are false....


"Aerodynamics aren't trivial"...

you are right here, aero is a difficult subject to figure out in practice, and it's very *specific* to an application. Two different riders will most likely NOT reap the same aero benefits on the exact same frame. Yet, the claim or advertisement or marketing or hype (call it whatever you wish) from the big manufacturers make it out to be as if aerodynamics and its aero application *is a trivial one*, and that all riders would reap the exact same benefits.

For example, one of the most blatant general marketing words from manufacturers is... 

"our frame is shown to save 50 seconds over 25km in the *wind tunnel* or *simulation software*..."

and they want the buyers to think that they will also save 50 seconds if they just guy the frame, but we ALL know this probably isn't gonna happen. And it won't happen because aerodynamics is not trivial, it is specific... and the condition of the claim is not real world. Too many factors going on here, from simulation to real world, different riders, etc.

But notice that the manufacturer literature is also sneaky in that they will not claim that it their frame will make YOU faster, but they like to post very specific numbers and leave YOU to THINK that their claim will apply to YOU. It's a very sneaky marketing trick that borderlines semi-science and duping users.

But yet, in the real world, in actual road racing, in terms of wins and losses, I don't see anything close to resembling even a correlation between aero frames and wins. Not.even.close. And if the correlation is not close, then perhaps we shouldn't pay much attention to aero frame, as long as the frame is "close enough" in aero to the rest of the other frames in the peloton, then it's your legs and your race craftiness that will determine your day.

The only discipline that I would care to scrutinize aerodynamics down to the minute factor is time trialing. But of course if you're doing a TT, then you wouldn't use an aero bike, you'd use a full tilt TT bike.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> aero is a difficult subject to figure out in practice, and it's very *specific* to an application. Two different riders will most likely NOT reap the same aero benefits on the exact same frame.


Well, as long as that frame is the correct size for both riders so you can get the same "touchpoints", the aero advantage you measure for one will be very, very close to the aero advantage you measure for the other, especially at zero yaw. That isn't true about helmets or skin suits or (to some lesser extent) bars but the frame's own "aeroness" is mostly below the rider's body so the only thing it mostly interacts with is the rider's legs. IOW, the amount of aero interaction between frames and riders is actually pretty small. The same sort of thing goes on with wheels -- the aero advantage of different wheels is mostly unaffected by the rider.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> "Aerodynamics aren't trivial"...
> ...
> 
> But yet, in the real world, in actual road racing, in terms of wins and losses, I don't see anything close to resembling even a correlation between aero frames and wins. Not.even.close. And if the correlation is not close, then perhaps we shouldn't pay much attention to aero frame, as long as the frame is "close enough" in aero to the rest of the other frames in the peloton, then it's your legs and your race craftiness that will determine your day.


Actually, the correlation is nearly 1. Virtually every World Tour sprint finish on a sprinter's stage/race in the last 2 years has been on an aero frame. At the Giro this year, it is 1. Perfect correlation for skinsuits and aero helmets at the Giro this year as well. In fact, contrary to the OP of this thread, the're a perfect correlation between being on a Specialized Venge and winning a sprint at the Giro this year. There's a perfect correlation between being on an aero frame and winning Paris-Roubaix this year as well. Not sure why you haven' seen such obvious correlations.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> Actually, the correlation is nearly 1. Virtually every World Tour sprint finish on a sprinter's stage/race in the last 2 years has been on an aero frame. At the Giro this year, it is 1. Perfect correlation for skinsuits and aero helmets at the Giro this year as well. In fact, contrary to the OP of this thread, the're a perfect correlation between being on a Specialized Venge and winning a sprint at the Giro this year. There's a perfect correlation between being on an aero frame and winning Paris-Roubaix this year as well. Not sure why you haven' seen such obvious correlations.


What you mention is a trend. It's well established that manufacturers use the Tour to display the latest toys they want to sell o consumers. It's hard these days to find a frame *without* its manufacturer mentioning something about "aero benefits" to it. So the fact that virtually every team use an aero frame doesn't prove anything about the contribution of aerodynamics to winning/losing.

Take for example, Kittel, Greipel, and Cav. Do you think that if any of these guys were to win on one frame in a sprint, then they would most likely lose if they were on another frame?? It's hard to say so. Back when "frame stiffness" was still the hot topic, the same argument could be asked. If Chris Froome won on the Pinarello, chances are he'd have won on any frame in the peloton. And like I have said, as long as the frames are all within "good enough" range, it's still the rider who will make the name for the frame, not the other way around. Kittel in 2014 when he was dominanting, it was on a Giant. In 2015 he had an off year. Now that's he's back, he's dominanting on a Specialized. The common theme here is the *rider*, not the bike, i.e., when the rider is on, he dominants on any bike.

Just the only time you could make an argument about aero benefit playing a big part to a win/loss is in a specific discipline like a TT, preferably an indoor TT like the Hour Record where the wind factor is much more predictable.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

rchung said:


> Well, as long as that frame is the correct size for both riders so you can get the same "touchpoints", the aero advantage you measure for one will be very, very close to the aero advantage you measure for the other, especially at zero yaw. That isn't true about helmets or skin suits or (to some lesser extent) bars but the frame's own "aeroness" is mostly below the rider's body so the only thing it mostly interacts with is the rider's legs. IOW, the amount of aero interaction between frames and riders is actually pretty small. The same sort of thing goes on with wheels -- the aero advantage of different wheels is mostly unaffected by the rider.


That sounds like a sound argument. But I would still question the aeroness contribution of a frame to a rider's win/loss. In real world road racing, I just don't see a case that says "oh it's the frame that made the difference". This is unlike in motorsport like F1 or motoGP, where if a car or bike is dominant, then it will also its dominance to all drivers using it, be them factory drivers or sattelite drivers.

The way the marketers are making it out to be, and the way the weekend warriors embrace and argue endlessly about aerodynamics, make it sounds like aero is everythin to road racing, when it's probably like 1-2% contribution to a win (I'm guessing, since nobody seems to know this contribution).


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

stevesbike said:


> Actually, the correlation is nearly 1. Virtually every World Tour sprint finish on a sprinter's stage/race in the last 2 years has been on an aero frame. At the Giro this year, it is 1. Perfect correlation for skinsuits and aero helmets at the Giro this year as well. In fact, contrary to the OP of this thread, the're a perfect correlation between being on a Specialized Venge and winning a sprint at the Giro this year. There's a perfect correlation between being on an aero frame and winning Paris-Roubaix this year as well. Not sure why you haven' seen such obvious correlations.


Your logic largely fails Mr. Sagan.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> The way the marketers are making it out to be, and the way the weekend warriors embrace and argue endlessly about aerodynamics, make it sounds like aero is everythin to road racing, when it's probably like 1-2% contribution to a win (I'm guessing, since nobody seems to know this contribution).


Win/loss is a pretty crude measure. In what used to be my day job a few years ago, I worked on a pretty complex model of health outcomes from a particular kind of surgical procedure. In that case, we looked at a whole series of potential patient outcomes, including whether the patient survived or died. That's a dichotomous event but, like win/loss, it's easy to measure and unambiguous. Fortunately, an outright death was a relatively rare event (just like winning a race is a relatively rare event). Some of the other outcomes we were trying to measure could be considered a better indicator of quality of care, like whether the patient got a post-operative infection or if they needed to be re-hospitalized within two weeks of getting out of the hospital, or other complications. We had to adjust for the age of the patient, his or her condition prior to the surgical intervention, that sort of thing. (In fact, those kinds of statistical problems are quite a bit more complex than estimating aero drag from a field test, which is why I was able to whip together the drag estimation method in (literally) an afternoon -- I'm used to working on much much more complicated statistical problems in uncontrolled non-experimental conditions so drag estimation with field data was a snap). The point is that whether a patient lives or dies depends an awful lot on the condition of the patient before he or she ever got wheeled into the operating room. That doesn't mean that the quality of care the patient got in the hospital didn't matter -- sometimes you can do everything right but the patient was not in good shape to begin with. The quality of care you get in the hospital tilts the odds in favor of a good outcome but there's still lots of stuff that you have no control over that can be determinate. We often got a better indicator of overall quality of care by looking at some of these other measures (like post-operative infections or re-admissions). 

That's what aeroness of the bike is like. It tilts the odds in your favor but there's lots of stuff over which you have no control (like, the other riders in the race) that can be determinate if all you're looking at is the win/loss record.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

rchung said:


> That's what aeroness of the bike is like. It tilts the odds in your favor but there's lots of stuff over which you have no control (like, the other riders in the race) that can be determinate if all you're looking at is the win/loss record.


Are you saying that riders who want to improve their weekend ride / race speed should invest on more aero frame because of speculative real world stats?


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

bvber said:


> Are you saying that riders who want to improve their weekend ride / race speed *should *invest on more aero frame because of speculative real world stats?


Hmmm. Are you saying that you tell riders who want to improve their ride/race speed that the bike doesn't matter because you don't know how to do real world stat? 

I try not to tell other riders what they should or shouldn't do. That depends on their goals, their checkbook balance, and what else they're doing. I don't have information about those things. 

Some people are thinking about buying a new bike anyway. If they are, they might look at price, standard equipment, weight, how it fits, how it looks, ease of maintenance, and figure out if all that's worth it to them. One other piece of information they can toss into their evaluation is how aero the bike is. There are differences in price, standard equipment, weight, fit, and looks; sometimes the differences are small, but they exist. Do you really think there's no difference in aero? We can measure the differences in aero drag, and they do translate to the real world. You do have to know a little stat, though.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

rchung said:


> Hmmm. Are you saying that you tell riders who want to improve their ride/race speed that the bike doesn't matter because you don't know how to do real world stat?


I asked you a question for the sake of clarification because your post was vague.



> *I try not to tell other riders what they should or shouldn't do.* That depends on their goals, their checkbook balance, and what else they're doing. I don't have information about those things.
> 
> Some people are thinking about buying a new bike anyway. If they are, they might look at price, standard equipment, weight, how it fits, how it looks, ease of maintenance, and figure out if all that's worth it to them. One other piece of information they can toss into their evaluation is how aero the bike is. There are differences in price, standard equipment, weight, fit, and looks; sometimes the differences are small, but they exist. Do you really think there's no difference in aero? We can measure the differences in aero drag, and they do translate to the real world. *You do have to know a little stat, though.*


Your two sentences in bold are contradicting each other.
By the way, what kind of stat, lab test stats or real world stats that are speculative?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

rchung said:


> Win/loss is a pretty crude measure. In what used to be my day job a few years ago, I worked on a pretty complex model of health outcomes from a particular kind of surgical procedure. In that case, we looked at a whole series of potential patient outcomes, including whether the patient survived or died. That's a dichotomous event but, like win/loss, it's easy to measure and unambiguous. Fortunately, an outright death was a relatively rare event (just like winning a race is a relatively rare event). Some of the other outcomes we were trying to measure could be considered a better indicator of quality of care, like whether the patient got a post-operative infection or if they needed to be re-hospitalized within two weeks of getting out of the hospital, or other complications. We had to adjust for the age of the patient, his or her condition prior to the surgical intervention, that sort of thing. (In fact, those kinds of statistical problems are quite a bit more complex than estimating aero drag from a field test, which is why I was able to whip together the drag estimation method in (literally) an afternoon -- I'm used to working on much much more complicated statistical problems in uncontrolled non-experimental conditions so drag estimation with field data was a snap). The point is that whether a patient lives or dies depends an awful lot on the condition of the patient before he or she ever got wheeled into the operating room. That doesn't mean that the quality of care the patient got in the hospital didn't matter -- sometimes you can do everything right but the patient was not in good shape to begin with. The quality of care you get in the hospital tilts the odds in favor of a good outcome but there's still lots of stuff that you have no control over that can be determinate. We often got a better indicator of overall quality of care by looking at some of these other measures (like post-operative infections or re-admissions).
> 
> That's what aeroness of the bike is like. It tilts the odds in your favor but there's lots of stuff over which you have no control (like, the other riders in the race) that can be determinate if all you're looking at is the win/loss record.


I'm not arguing against the benefits of aero. But ưhat I'm wondering is the contribution of aero to a win/loss. And while a win/loss is a crude all-or-nothing measure, it's the ultimate measurement in pro competitions. The exception is TT as that's a measure of time, and I have said it already.

But... I guess one can make a case that "competition" is not just about a win. It could be a weekend warrior beating his buddy in a weekend sprint (which can also be a gratifying bragging right for a 40- or 50-something year old guy with cash to spend and will not mind buying the latest aero frame to do so, and don't think marketers don't know this!). Or... it could also mean getting KOM on a certain flat stretch, and for a weekend warrior, this KOM may also be important and gratifying (judging from all the serious competition on Strava).

I guess the issue I see is not so much validity of aerodynamics, but with the validity of putting so much weight in aerodynamics when even at the pro level it's at best a small determinant of a victory. It's the total embrace and total belief by the weekend warriors that they must have the latest aero frame or else they risk putting themselves at a HUGE disadvantage on the saturday club ride or industrial crit. I guess different mindset for different people eh, differnt stroke for different stroke kinda thing. (I'm generalizing a bit, but you get my point).

And honestly, I don't think many people would know enough info about aero to make a good judgement call about if/when to spend money. They just don't have enough info to make a good cost analysis. But they are quick to listen to the marketers to tell them that their money will be well spent on the latest aero frame, and they are quick to embrace the gospel that marketers are blasting them with. For the overwhelming majority of the cycling population (including weekend racers), frame aerodynamics should be on the list of low priority of their cycling experience. Yet they are so ever more preoccupied with frame aerodynamics that it now is become a high priority when buying a new frame. The manufacturers know this, and it's reflected in their marketing literatures as bucklist feature. The aero frame debate is like the new frame stiffness debate. In due time, the aero debate will subside like frame stiffness debate has, and people will stop arguing with the same passion (just like nobody cares to argue about stiffness anymore)... because the bike industry will have moved on to the next trendy improvement.

edit: thanks for the healtcare synopsis. that was quit interesting


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

Solo breakaway won today's stage of the Giro on a Merida Scultura. Chasing group couldn't close 33 seconds in 10km. If only one of them had a venge. And someone please tell him that he pissed away 3+ seconds per km riding the non-aero Scultura. What a fool.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Wesquire said:


> Solo breakaway won today's stage of the Giro on a Merida Scultura. Chasing group couldn't close 33 seconds in 10km. If only one of them had a venge. And someone please tell him that he pissed away 3+ seconds per km riding the non-aero Scultura. What a fool.


At last, you understand.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> Solo breakaway won today's stage of the Giro on a Merida Scultura. Chasing group couldn't close 33 seconds in 10km. If only one of them had a venge. And someone please tell him that he pissed away 3+ seconds per km riding the non-aero Scultura. What a fool.


even your efforts at humor reveal your lack of knowledge. The Scultura, while Merida's climbing frame, also incorporates aerodynamics, including the positioning of the rear brake and tube profiles taken from their time trial frame. Cannondale does something similar with their supersix evo. Point is, even in a frame that optimizes strength/weight aerodynamics can still figure in the design. They are all legitimate design goals for a frame. The reasons have been clearly laid out to you in this thread.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> even your efforts at humor reveal your lack of knowledge. The Scultura, while Merida's climbing frame, also incorporates aerodynamics, including the positioning of the rear brake and tube profiles taken from their time trial frame. Cannondale does something similar with their supersix evo. Point is, even in a frame that optimizes strength/weight aerodynamics can still figure in the design. They are all legitimate design goals for a frame. The reasons have been clearly laid out to you in this thread.


Yeah. It is super Aero. Is there any advertising you don't take at face value? Maybe your memory only lasts 5 minutes but one of the biggest assertions of your side in this thread has been that even between two Aero frames, 3 sec/km are up for grabs.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Here's what Steve posted earlier on the 2014 Tour test results:



> Cervelo S5
> Merida Reacto EVO
> BMC Time Machine TMRO1
> Giant Propel Advanced SLO
> ...


In 2014, the Scultura ranks dead last in terms of aero. And in this ranking, the Scultura lacks far behind its cousin the Reacto. So if we were to compare the Scultura to the other contemporary frames in the peloton, we can safely say that it is not an aero frame. (We're not comparing the Scultura to a beach cruiser, that is a red herring comparison).

(Apparently in 2014, Tour didn't test a round-tubing frame. Would have been nice to see a round-tube frame tested here for reference).


Now let's look at Tour's 2016 comparison of aero bikes, as discussed in this thread on RBR:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bi...magazine-2016-aero-road-bike-test-352569.html









In the 2016 test, the Scultura wasn't tested, but the Reacto was tested and this time it didn't do nearly as well, ranking near the bottom. From this, we can safely assume that the Scultura would have ranked even lower in 2016 test, possibly putting it in "round tubing" territory. Why do I say that? Well if you look at the slowest time in the 2016 test, it belongs to the Ridley Noah SL 20,

here's a pic of the Ridley Noah SL:










and here's a pic of the Scultura:









Based on the above pics, I'd say the Ridley Noah is more aero than the Scultura. 

And in the 2016 Tour results, the slowest time for the Noah was about *3h24min*. The time for the round-tube frame was *3h:25min*. So there is a *1min* difference after almost *3.5hrs*. The Scultura, had it been tested in 2016 by Tours, would have a time pretty damn close to that of a round-tubing bike.

My point is here that the Scultura, by standards used by the professional peloton, is pretty much a non-aero bike (and please don't bring in the beach cruiser because pros don't race on beach cruisers!). And if you go to Merida website, they don't even advertise any aero features on the Scultura (they save that for their Reacto frame). So the guy (Diego Ulissi) who won Stage 4 of the 2016 Giro won it by doing a solo breakaway on an non-aero bike by pro peloton standards eh. This is a legit point of view here.

But honestly... some people, like Steve here, puts way too much faith in equipment. I say that in a good way. Steve has a history of expounding the merits of advancement in frames, from carbon fiber stiffness, to bottom bracket stiffness, to aerodynamics. While I always find his arguments informative, but I think he also puts too much weight in "equipment superiority" versus a tons of other factors in racing. For example, the guy (Diego Ulissi) who was hammering away to take that Stage 4 victory wasn't as hell thinking "oh sh*t I'm on an lesser aero bike so I'm gonna be screwed". No. The reason why he won was because he was an Italian, and he was 10000% all psyched up to go for glory, and he pushed his body probably beyond the limits that he would have done so in training or in most races. The reason the won has very little to do with what frame he was on nor what frames the guys chasing him were on. He won because he was the most hungry guy on that day. That is called the will to win, imposing your will over anything else.

Of course equally important was the probable fact that he had been riding a smart race coming into the final kilometers, saving his legs for the final attack, but so probably did a number of other guys too.

If anyone looking at the 2016 Tour results and say to themselves: "Oh I need a Trek Madone 9.9 or Cervelo S5 or else I'm already at a huge disadvantage and won't win.." Sorry to say, you ain't a winner because you already looking for excuses in case you lose. Who said it: "winning is a mindset"


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

He was 33 seconds ahead with 10 km to go. Just the aero difference of the frame should have been 3 sec/km right? This is the exact scenario that made me want to start this thread. Real road race application of frame aerodynamics. If a non-aero frame is good enough to have a successful solo breakaway in a grand tour with Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde, and other stars chasing...


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

aclinjury said:


> advancement in frames, from carbon fiber stiffness, to bottom bracket stiffness,


I still don't buy the stiffness arguments either, but that's beside the point.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Wesquire said:


> If a non-aero frame is good enough to have a successful solo breakaway in a grand tour with Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde, and other stars chasing...


Do you seriously believe Nibali cared?


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

asgelle said:


> Do you seriously believe Nibali cared?


Did you not watch it? The chasing group had several GC contenders and they were all fighting for position over each-other stage win is worth 10 bonus seconds. Nibali would have greatly appreciated those.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

asgelle said:


> Do you seriously believe Nibali cared?


Nibali is not, and has never been, a guy who race for procession when he's part of a chasing group. He would definitely care to put time in the other GC guys, not all of whom were in the chasing group. If he didn't care, why would he bother getting on with the chasing group? Your question sounds like a deflection.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Wesquire said:


> He was 33 seconds ahead with 10 km to go. Just the aero difference of the frame should have been 3 sec/km right? This is the exact scenario that made me want to start this thread. Real road race application of frame aerodynamics. If a non-aero frame is good enough to have a successful solo breakaway in a grand tour with Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde, and other stars chasing...


Same here. I've always held that while frame aerodynamics is a legit and valid argument, its contribution to real world racing... and its marketed benefits coming from company infomercial brochures... are far far from definite. I would say the only real world application that the aero data, derived from static wind tunnel testing and software simulation, can be applied heavily is in TT, especially in an indoor TT like the Hour Record, where the condition of "racing" is much more similar to the condition of wind tunnel testing, and where there isn't much "strategy" going on except to pace yourself finish strong. In road racing, there are just too much variables such as team strategy, individual strategy, nutrition, road condition, out of saddle power surges,... just way too many higher factors that would affect your results than the frame you're riding.

Anyway, this debate seems to go on and on whenever it comes up, usually with neither side wanting to see the point of the other side. Guess that's why we're internet armchairs and pros get paid to race. Sh*t if a sponsor gave me a paid contract and a round-tube frame and told me to go racing, I'd say when do I start! Nevermind the aero data.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> Here's what Steve posted earlier on the 2014 Tour test results:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would all be great except Merida redesigned the Scultura for 2016 so the 2014 frame is not the same. Ironically, the redesign was around incorporating aerodynamic features. Maybe you're in a country that blocks access to websites. The new scultura is featured prominently on their website - hint: it's under "New Scultura."

You are also misattributing claims and now arguing against a strawman. I never claimed an aerodynamic frame has magical properties. The Tour link I initially provided (the 2014 test) shows quite small time differences among the frames. All I suggested was that among frame design goals aerodynamics is as significant (and typically more so) than other goals, such as weight and stiffness (which has as much to do with handling than drivetrain efficiency). We all know about aggregation of marginal gains now - frame aerodynamics is one of those. Not sure why this is so hard to grasp....


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

stevesbike said:


> That would all be great except Merida redesigned the Scultura for 2016 so the 2014 frame is not the same. Ironically, the redesign was around incorporating aerodynamic features. Maybe you're in a country that blocks access to websites. The new scultura is featured prominently on their website - hint: it's under "New Scultura."
> 
> You are also misattributing claims and now arguing against a strawman. I never claimed an aerodynamic frame has magical properties. The Tour link I initially provided (the 2014 test) shows quite small time differences among the frames. All I suggested was that among frame design goals aerodynamics is as significant (and typically more so) than other goals, such as weight and stiffness (which has as much to do with handling than drivetrain efficiency). We all know about aggregation of marginal gains now - frame aerodynamics is one of those. Not sure why this is so hard to grasp....


Because they aren't marketed as marginal gains.

Why did the marginally aero design of the Ridley Noah only give up 89 seconds to the fastest aero frame over 100 km? Kinda shows you how reliable that ~3sec/km Anhalt test is.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> The Tour link I initially provided (the 2014 test) shows quite small time differences among the frames.


The key question is, how much smaller does that difference become when using in real world events? Does it become too small to matter or it's small but still big enough to decided on win or lose in races? If former, why should anyone buy it? If latter, which data confirms it?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> Because they aren't marketed as marginal gains.
> 
> Why did the marginally aero design of the Ridley Noah only give up 89 seconds to the fastest aero frame over 100 km? Kinda shows you how reliable that ~3sec/km Anhalt test is.


both you and bvber need to actually read the Tour test before making accusations based on it. The time comparisons are over a simulated course that includes over 3,000 feet of simulated climbing. Given a relatively heavy simulated rider and low power output, this means that weight differences among frames contributes as much to the times as aerodynamics does. Tour can choose whatever testing methodology they want and are explicit about deciding to model what they think is representative of a typical application. As they say, the results are quite different if you model a flat course. For that matter, if you model something like a criterium with an average speed upwards of 30 mph, the aerodynamic differences vs. a round tube frame will be even greater (in that case, relative time savings vs. absolute time savings is probably the metric to pay attention to).


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> both you and bvber need to actually read the Tour test before making accusations based on it.


My question was directed at *you* on what *you* posted. I wanted to know what *you* would say.



> the aerodynamic differences vs. a round tube frame will be even greater


Are you making a prediction or are you citing actual race results per frame tube shapes?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

bvber said:


> My question was directed at *you* on what *you* posted. I wanted to know what *you* would say.
> 
> 
> Are you making a prediction or are you citing actual race results per frame tube shapes?


Your question was already answered - Robert Chung answered it. If you're winning every race you enter by large margins, then by all means race on an old steel bike with 32 spoke, box section rims with a loose jersey flapping in the wind, and avoid riding in the streamline of other riders. Just go off the front the first lap and stay there. 

Personally, I think it makes sense that since a frame tubing has to have some shape it might as well be aero. That will make more difference than just about any other frame attribute. It's not the only one - I race on a 2015 Foil because I want a bike that rides like a race bike, care about weight, don't want a rear brake under my bottom bracket (my tt frame has that and it's a pain), have zipp sl-70 aero bars, and race on 60mm deep Hed wheels.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> Why did the marginally aero design of the Ridley Noah only give up 89 seconds to the fastest aero frame over 100 km? Kinda shows you how reliable that ~3sec/km Anhalt test is.


You're saying an x% difference between two 2016 bicycles invalidates the math and physics Tom used to estimate the difference between a bike built in 2002 and one built in 2008? Hmmm. You think math and physics stopped working sometime since 2008? Can you point to the day and time when that happened?



bvber said:


> The key question is, how much smaller does that difference become when using in real world events? Does it become too small to matter or it's small but still big enough to decided on win or lose in races? If former, why should anyone buy it? If latter, which data confirms it?


The models used to estimate speed from power and drag work pretty well in the real world. Are you saying that you, too, believe that math and physics stop working in the peloton? 

I haven't been able to collect much data in the peloton itself but I got to work on some data collected by one of the pursuit teams in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics. It's not 200 riders, but there are 8 riders switching positions around a small velodrome so the winds are surprisingly variable. We instrumented the riders with on-bike power meters and wind and yaw probes (that's why we'd never be able to do that in the peloton -- the probes are like sharp metal tubes that extend forward. The Olympic team managers were rightly concerned that in an accident the probes could impale the riders). Anyway, the aero environment where you put lots of riders on a small velodrome and run them around at 50 km/h inches from each other, switching on and off every lap or so turns out to be pretty complex. One of the riders was quite small by team pursuit standards, another one was pretty big, so the big rider didn't get much recovery when behind the small rider, and the small rider basically got towed around except when at the front. The bottom line is that although the absolute amount of drag differed according to who was riding behind or in front of who, even in this complex swirling environment higher drag was always higher. That is, the rankings in drag that we saw when the riders were riding individually in isolation held up when they were riding as a team, rotating through and off, in a complex swirling environment. And once we verified that, we could work on optimizing the rider rotations to make the team go as fast as possible. There was no appreciable interaction to worry about. Rolling resistance worked as it did when the riders were riding alone, bearing resistance worked as it did when the riders were riding alone, inertial losses worked as they did when the riders were riding alone, and our measurements showed that although the aero resistance obviously changed when you're drafting, the ranking was the same as when riding alone. 

Just to clarify, do you think that rolling, mechanical, and inertial drag also work differently in the peloton, or do you think that only applies to aero drag?


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

I just don't think he got his math and physics right. Simple as that. You'd think that in 2016 they'd have an aero frame that could beat a marginally Aero bike by more than 89 seconds over 100km. 

You are again missing the point. No one is claiming that aerodynamics stop happening in the peloton or during races. The point is that in a race, unless you are on a solo breakaway...aero savings are only watts, not time. You are still with the pack for the vast majority of the race. Now, what's more important...saving a couple watts or having a more comfortable bike? My money is on the more comfortable bike that fatigues the rider less. And how much of the "aeroness" of the bike are you sacrificing the second you stick a Garmin and two water bottles on?


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Since this ridiculousness is still going... 

Tri-bars vs pony tale. 

Real world proof of aero nearly 30 years ago. Move on.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> Your question was already answered - Robert Chung answered it.


No, it wasn't and he didn't, especially my question "_which data confirms it?_" as in which real world riding data such as race results.



> If you're winning every race you enter by large margins, then by all means race on an old steel bike with 32 spoke, box section rims


Since this is now a speculation game, I'll play, will that steel bike frame tube be aero design?



> with a loose jersey flapping in the wind, and avoid riding in the streamline of other riders. Just go off the front the first lap and stay there.


Nothing to do with bike frame tube shape choice, no?



> Personally, I think it makes sense that since a frame tubing has to have some shape it might as well be aero. *That will make more difference than just about any other frame attribute*.


In lab test?

I don't want you to take it the wrong way, I have no say on which frame you choose for whatever reason. I was just curious if there are real world riding results or race results that can confirm something but it doesn't look that way.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

rchung said:


> Are you saying that you, too, believe that math and physics stop working in the peloton?


Where in the questions I posted do you find such implication? I was simply asking why someone should buy it or if there is real world outdoor road bike (none TT) riding/racing data confirms the marketing claims.



> Just to clarify, do you think that rolling, mechanical, and inertial drag also work differently in the peloton, or do you think that only applies to aero drag?


That's not what I was trying to find out with my questions. My question was, by how much difference the aero frame design makes in real world outdoor road bike (none TT) riding/racing.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

stevesbike said:


> I race on a 2015 Foil because I want a bike that rides like a race bike, care about weight, don't want a rear brake under my bottom bracket (my tt frame has that and it's a pain), have zipp sl-70 aero bars, and race on 60mm deep Hed wheels.


The real question is how is your cockpit setup?

Do you have any spacers under the stem? What angle is your stem? Does your stem angle up so the tip is above the top of the steerer tube cap horizontally? Are your cables as neat as they can be?

My point is that I can take a "round tube" frame and make it more aerodynamic than an "aero" frame by the way the cockpit is setup. That's how little the tube shapes mean. And there's a good chance your cockpit isn't setup correctly for aerodynamics so talking about aero tube shapes is laughable.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

We should really stop comparing aero frames to round tube frames. For godsakes, you cannot even buy a highend carbon frame with round tube anymore (unless it's a custom). So... what is the point of constantly comparing to round tube frames? It's a red herring comparison.

The REAL quest should be to compare an aero frame and (and its sometime outrageous claim) to its contemporaries. After all, in the REAL world, you are not racing your aero frame against a round tube frame isn't? you are racing against guys with other aero frames. The reference is no longer a round tube frame. So all this glowing data comparison against a round tube frame is for what? to say that round tube frame is not as aero as an aero frame??

People already know aero frames have an advantage in the lab and windtunnel, what people are questioning is the PRACTICALITY and REALISTIC expectations and applications of an aero frame in a peloton, and during a real road race, and how such aero frame can be translate to RACE RESULT. And thusfar, there is almost zero data to suggest that any aero frame in a peloton would give any rider an advantage when it's all said and done at the end of a race. And that is the bottomline.

And seriously, if anyone is so inclined to buy into the whole notion that your frame will make the difference of you being pack fodder and podium contender, then I'm sorry you need not spend that money chasing the latest aero frame and spend that money on a sport psychologist, because obviously in your mind you've already lost a race if you are not assured that your equipment is the best out there. Winners always start with a mindset. Equipment is marginal, at best. But in cycling, it does look like the other way around eh.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> That would all be great except Merida redesigned the Scultura for 2016 so the 2014 frame is not the same. Ironically, the redesign was around incorporating aerodynamic features. Maybe you're in a country that blocks access to websites. The new scultura is featured prominently on their website - hint: it's under "New Scultura."
> 
> You are also misattributing claims and now arguing against a strawman. I never claimed an aerodynamic frame has magical properties. The Tour link I initially provided (the 2014 test) shows quite small time differences among the frames. All I suggested was that among frame design goals aerodynamics is as significant (and typically more so) than other goals, such as weight and stiffness (which has as much to do with handling than drivetrain efficiency). We all know about aggregation of marginal gains now - frame aerodynamics is one of those. Not sure why this is so hard to grasp....


In the 2016 Tour test, the Merida's aero frame Reacto ranks near the bottom. Surely then their Scultura (the redesigned one) has to still be less aero than their Reacto. So I'd say the Scultura ain't all that aero, it may be just above a round tube frame but that's about it.

And no you have never claimed aero frame to have any magical properties, and I've never said you claimed such, but your overtone in this whole aero frame debate seems to put you squarely in the camp holding the belief that one must have equipment superiority in order to have a chance of winning, but the real world racing results do not even closely suggest that frames play even a marginal role in. Me, and some folks in here, have been asking this question. But you seem not to see this point of view, and instead you keep blasting us with lab and windtunnel data, telling us how aero frame is faster than a round tube frames (which don't even exists in LBS anymore). So.. what's the point of keep banging on aero advantage if everyone is using pretty much the same thing or thereabout?

I will and have conceded that aero does play a greater role in an indoor time trial application, such as Hour Record or team pursuit like rchung mentioned above. And even here in this highly specific discipline, it's hard to pinpoint down the contribution of frame aerodynamics to race results.

Now... let's get back to the weekend warriors... should be be so preoccupied with manufacturers' brochures listing oh such and such aero features?? c'mon now.. get real.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

rchung said:


> You're saying an x% difference between two 2016 bicycles invalidates the math and physics Tom used to estimate the difference between a bike built in 2002 and one built in 2008? Hmmm. You think math and physics stopped working sometime since 2008? Can you point to the day and time when that happened?
> 
> 
> The models used to estimate speed from power and drag work pretty well in the real world. Are you saying that you, too, believe that math and physics stop working in the peloton?
> ...


that's impressive of what you guys are doing with the measurement with the probes. 

And yes, at elite levels of competition, when all the athletes have been well trained, when all have pretty much tapped out their human potential, when all have been trained or at least ingrained with a mindset to win (at least they hope to be, but not all elite athlete will ever attain such mindset), then yeah, it's time to look for marginal gains.

But weekend warriors who aren't anywhere close to tapping out their potential (be it for whatever reasons)... now suddenly starts to dig for marginal gain based on equipment.. suddenly embrace manufactures brochures believing the marginal gains are there... is a little ridiculous. Maybe I just fail to see the reason a weekend dad would spend $5000 on a frame because he wants to go faster than his buddies. IMO, he is just looking for a justification to spend money to beat the other weekend dads. The bike companies know this psyche, and their marketers are hard at working tapping into weekend dads' wallets. That's probably the ultimate applications for these bike companies to release their in-house test data, wouldn't you say?

I do admit all this talk about aerodynamics is interesting but from mainly a knowledge point of view. But I'm in no way fooled that if I were to get a certain frame, I'd go from pack fodder, or even top 10, to podium.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> that's impressive of what you guys are doing with the measurement with the probes.
> 
> And yes, at elite levels of competition, when all the athletes have been well trained, when all have pretty much tapped out their human potential, when all have been trained or at least ingrained with a mindset to win (at least they hope to be, but not all elite athlete will ever attain such mindset), then yeah, it's time to look for marginal gains.
> 
> ...



I think it would be foolish for a weekend warrior to go out and buy a new aero frame for the sole purpose of going a little faster on their group rides or races. But if someone is buying a bike anyway, there is almost no price premium of an aero bike compared to a more traditional one. Just a couple examples: Cervelo R3 Ultegra is $3750, S3 is $4000; Felt F3 is $3499, AR3 is $3499. I feel you would be just as foolish if you didn't consider the aero option when shopping for a new bike.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

cobra_kai said:


> But if someone is buying a bike anyway, there is almost no price premium of an aero bike compared to a more traditional one. Just a couple examples: Cervelo R3 Ultegra is $3750, S3 is $4000; Felt F3 is $3499, AR3 is $3499. I feel you would be just as foolish if you didn't consider the aero option when shopping for a new bike.


Unless those examples have the exact same geometry except for the tube shapes, the choice should be made based on the best fit. :nono:


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> I just don't think he got his math and physics right. Simple as that.


Well, you already claimed that there were hundreds of variables he didn't take into account -- but I've already pointed out that you were wrong about that. And the math and physics are right out there for everyone to see. Could you point out exactly where he got it wrong? Even better, could you come up with a better estimation procedure? Cuz that would be seriously cool. Right now, the math and physics method Tom used has been adopted by every major cycling team (pro and national) on the planet. If you can do better than that, I'm sure they'd be interested. 



> You'd think that in 2016 they'd have an aero frame that could beat a marginally Aero bike by more than 89 seconds over 100km.


Why would you think that? If anything, I would have expected that the differences between aero bikes would have diminished over time. More to the point, the Tour differences are standardized to a particular type of course, so different courses would produce different differences. 



> You are again missing the point. No one is claiming that aerodynamics stop happening in the peloton or during races. The point is that in a race, unless you are on a solo breakaway...aero savings are only watts, not time.


Actually, aero savings are usually quoted in terms of CdA. That's the way the method that Tom used reports. The conversion to either watts or time is just based on a rule of thumb and is only meant to help those who are unfamiliar with magnitudes of CdA to understand how big a difference of .01 m^2 in CdA is. That's an issue of a readership unfamiliar with the units, not an error in the method itself. That you seem to think that watts is what gets measured is informative, too.



bvber said:


> No, it wasn't and he didn't, especially my question "_which data confirms it?_" as in which real world riding data such as race results.


As I said, the power-speed-drag model that we use has been validated in the real world. It's been validated in races where we were allowed to instrument the bikes and riders. However, it's not a good idea to put aero probes on bikes within the peloton, so although we've been able to get their power and speed (and weight and the barometric pressure and the gradient) we haven't been able to get their airspeed. But here, the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. In literally every case where we have been allowed to instrument the bikes and riders, the model of power-speed-drag we use has been validated. 

In every case that we've been allowed to instrument, when rolling resistance of bike A < bike B in isolation, rr(A) < rr(B) in a group. In every case that we've been allowed to instrument, when weight of bike+rider A < bike+rider B in isolation, w(A) < w(B) in a group. In every case that we've been allowed to instrument, when mechanical losses of bike A < bike B in isolation, mu(A) < mu(B) in a group. We've instrumented bikes and riders in isolation and in small groups; in every case that we've been allowed to instrument, when CdA(A) < CdA(B) in isolation, CdA(A) < CdA(B) in small groups. The only case we haven't been allowed to instrument is in large pelotons. Your position appears to be that in pelotons alone, CdA(A) = CdA(B). 



aclinjury said:


> that's impressive of what you guys are doing with the measurement with the probes.


It's been pretty cool. 



> But weekend warriors who aren't anywhere close to tapping out their potential (be it for whatever reasons)... now suddenly starts to dig for marginal gain based on equipment.. suddenly embrace manufactures brochures believing the marginal gains are there... is a little ridiculous. Maybe I just fail to see the reason a weekend dad would spend $5000 on a frame because he wants to go faster than his buddies. IMO, he is just looking for a justification to spend money to beat the other weekend dads. The bike companies know this psyche, and their marketers are hard at working tapping into weekend dads' wallets. That's probably the ultimate applications for these bike companies to release their in-house test data, wouldn't you say?
> 
> I do admit all this talk about aerodynamics is interesting but from mainly a knowledge point of view. But I'm in no way fooled that if I were to get a certain frame, I'd go from pack fodder, or even top 10, to podium.


Two things:

1. I don't have the money to go out an buy the lowest drag equipment. My only goal when this all began was to be able to measure drag so I could figure out where to spend my money. I'm just a penurious professor, scraping by in an expensive part of the world. I have to be a cheap ass; I don't have any other choice. If other people have disposable income to spend on pricey toys, I try not to get too riled up by that. If a bike manufacturer says they have a superbike coming out, good on them. I just wait until someone I know has one and then I can actually measure how much faster it is. Then I can make my own decision about whether that's worth it. In general, the answer has been no, but I can understand that for other people with different circumstances the answer could be yes. Being able to measure power, speed, and drag is pretty useful in either case. When my bike was stolen a year or so ago, I had to replace it. In that case, it makes perfect sense to weigh the options and get the bike that minimized drag under the budget my wife let me have. 

2. I was slow as a kid, I was slow when I grew up, and even when I was at my fastest I was still slow. I've never won a race, except the race not to finish DFL. I don't have illusions that this stuff will bring me from pack fodder to podium. But I'm faster than I would have been if I hadn't been measuring stuff. If I hadn't, I probably would've finished DFL.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

rchung said:


> As I said, the power-speed-drag model that we use has been validated in the real world. It's been validated in races *where we were allowed to* instrument the bikes and riders. However, it's not a good idea to put aero probes on bikes within the peloton, so although we've been able to get their power and speed (and weight and the barometric pressure and the gradient) we haven't been able to get their airspeed. But here, the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. In literally every case *where we have been allowed to* instrument the bikes and riders, the model of power-speed-drag we use has been validated.
> 
> 
> In every case that we've been *allowed to* instrument, when rolling resistance of bike A < bike B in isolation, rr(A) < rr(B) in a group. In every case that we've *been allowed to* instrument, when weight of bike+rider A < bike+rider B in isolation, w(A) < w(B) in a group. In every case that we've *been allowed to* instrument, when mechanical losses of bike A < bike B in isolation, mu(A) < mu(B) in a group. We've instrumented bikes and riders in isolation and in small groups; in every case that we've *been allowed to* instrument, when CdA(A) < CdA(B) in isolation, CdA(A) < CdA(B) in small groups. The only case we *haven't been allowed to* instrument is in large pelotons. Your position appears to be that in pelotons alone, CdA(A) = CdA(B).


In other words, it's unknown and the reason is because there are events where you weren't allowed to. It could have been great for the frame manufacturer's marketing department.  As they say, life is a b!tch. :sad:


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

bvber said:


> In other words, it's unknown and the reason is because there are events where you weren't allowed to. It could have been great for the frame manufacturer's marketing department.  As they say, life is a b!tch. :sad:


Not really. All the pro and Olympic teams now rely on the models and measurements we took, manufacturers now use my method to double-check their CFD and wind tunnel work, and I've been invited to talk both in North America and Europe. Life is actually pretty sweet.

[Edited to add:] I don't work in the cycling field. I'm a guy with a completely unrelated day job. I just do this stuff as a hobby, cuz I like riding, and I don't get paid anything for it. I have gotten dinner bought by friends who won races, and once I got a really, really nice bottle of wine as a thank you gift from the coach of someone who set a world record.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> Well, you already claimed that there were hundreds of variables he didn't take into account -- but I've already pointed out that you were wrong about that. And the math and physics are right out there for everyone to see. Could you point out exactly where he got it wrong? Even better, could you come up with a better estimation procedure? Cuz that would be seriously cool. Right now, the math and physics method Tom used has been adopted by every major cycling team (pro and national) on the planet. If you can do better than that, I'm sure they'd be interested.
> 
> 
> Why would you think that? If anything, I would have expected that the differences between aero bikes would have diminished over time. More to the point, the Tour differences are standardized to a particular type of course, so different courses would produce different differences.
> ...


You know full well what sorts of variables could have skewed the data. Anything from unintended changes in position to inaccuracy of the powermeter. 

You miss the point like a full time job. I never said it was only calculated as watts or seconds. The point is that the advantage you get as a rider in a race is in watts saved. Very simple concept you can't seem to grasp. 

The scultura is hardly an aero bike. It isn't the gap closing between two Aero frames. It is the full blown Aero frame hardly making a difference compared to an almost entirely non-aero design.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Wesquire said:


> Very simple concept you can't seem to grasp.


It's more like he doesn't want to. After all, "_All the pro and Olympic teams now rely on the models and measurements we took, manufacturers now use my method to double-check their CFD and wind tunnel work, and I've been invited to talk both in North America and Europe._". Even if he does, he won't post that publicly where _All the pro and Olympic teams _can read_._


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

bvber said:


> It's more like he doesn't want to. After all, "_All the pro and Olympic teams now rely on the models and measurements we took, manufacturers now use my method to double-check their CFD and wind tunnel work, and I've been invited to talk both in North America and Europe._". Even if he does, he won't post that publicly where _All the pro and Olympic teams _can read_._



He knows his method has no way to even accurately account for wind. On an indoor velodrome he could no doubt get relatively close...but I believe Anhalt was outside which completely throws his reliability out the window. That's why you see "dead calm" and "very light crosswind" in his data. It is a rough estimate at best and we are being told to treat it as an infallible sacred text.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> He knows his method has no way to even accurately account for wind. On an indoor velodrome he could no doubt get relatively close...but I believe Anhalt was outside which completely throws his reliability out the window. That's why you see "dead calm" and "very light crosswind" in his data. It is a rough estimate at best and we are being told to treat it as an infallible sacred text.


I've always been impressed with the kind of hubris it takes to believe that if you don't know how to do something, no one else could possibly have figured out how to do it. Another version of that is to think that if you have difficulty believing something, it must be that the others are in error. There are researchers who study this.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> I've always been impressed with the kind of hubris it takes to believe that if you don't know how to do something, no one else could possibly have figured out how to do it. Another version of that is to think that if you have difficulty believing something, it must be that the others are in error. There are researchers who study this.


That applies perfectly to yourself. You don't know how much you don't know. Nothing Anhalt did accounts for wind variations that he had no way of quantifying.
Or you are just pretending not to know the limitations.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

bvber said:


> It's more like he doesn't want to. After all, "_All the pro and Olympic teams now rely on the models and measurements we took, manufacturers now use my method to double-check their CFD and wind tunnel work, and I've been invited to talk both in North America and Europe._". Even if he does, he won't post that publicly where _All the pro and Olympic teams _can read_._


Don't really need to. You can really see for yourself that Team Sky uses my method: just check this video at around the 2:00 mark. That's just a handy online example. If you check out the "funky bit of software" he's talking about you'll see it's used by all the major pro and Olympic teams, not just Sky.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Wesquire said:


> That applies perfectly to yourself. You don't know how much you don't know. Nothing Anhalt did accounts for wind variations that he had no way of quantifying.
> Or you are just pretending not to know the limitations.


I'll just repeat: you were wrong when you said Tom didn't measure power, you were wrong when you said he didn't check temperature, you were wrong when you said he didn't control for wheels or tires, you were wrong when you said that he didn't consider drive train losses, you were wrong when you said that he didn't consider errors in the power meter, and you're wrong about the wind. If you understood the method he used, it would be clear how he checked for the wind contaminating the results since ... oh, wait. You don't understand the method he used, so you think Tom couldn't possibly have checked for it. Hmmm. There's that Dunning-Kruger again. Nice.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> I'll just repeat: you were wrong when you said Tom didn't measure power, you were wrong when you said he didn't check temperature, you were wrong when you said he didn't control for wheels or tires, you were wrong when you said that he didn't consider drive train losses, you were wrong when you said that he didn't consider errors in the power meter, and you're wrong about the wind. If you understood the method he used, it would be clear how he checked for the wind contaminating the results since ... oh, wait. You don't understand the method he used, so you think Tom couldn't possibly have checked for it. Hmmm. There's that Dunning-Kruger again. Nice.


I never said any of those things. Impressive how many things you can be wrong about though. Keep lying to people about how wind was accounted for though.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

rchung said:


> Don't really need to. You can really see for yourself that Team Sky uses my method: just check this video at around the 2:00 mark. That's just a handy online example. If you check out the "funky bit of software" he's talking about you'll see it's used by all the major pro and Olympic teams, not just Sky.


hey I just watched the video. I was watching it from a casual level of interest, and heard those guys talked on and on about body positioning and how to be able to hold an aero position comfortably for a long period of time. That was their main emphasis. I didn't hear one mention of frame aerodynamic feature! So is cycling aerodynamics 90% rider centric, because it sounded that way from the Sky guys.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cobra_kai said:


> I think it would be foolish for a weekend warrior to go out and buy a new aero frame for the sole purpose of going a little faster on their group rides or races. But if someone is buying a bike anyway, there is almost no price premium of an aero bike compared to a more traditional one. Just a couple examples: Cervelo R3 Ultegra is $3750, S3 is $4000; Felt F3 is $3499, AR3 is $3499. I feel you would be just as foolish if you didn't consider the aero option when shopping for a new bike.


Now you and I may think it's a bit foolish go to out and buy an aero bike just for the purpose of going faster in a group ride or industrial crit. But... never under estimate the power of marketing. The job of marketers is to get the people who are teether-tottering on the fence about buying another bike. There are a lot of guys with perhaps some money to spend, who are "thinking about it" but they just need a justification, they just someone to just "push them over the edge" and pull the trigger... and perhaps their previous frame wasn't an "aero" frame... boom! Triggered pull, so goes the hope of the marketers. Plenty of people with this "first world problem".

And yes it would be foolish of me to not consider aero, just as it'd foolish of me not to consider color scheme (when it has zero bearing on my performance)... but it'd also be equally foolish of me to allow myself to be all caught up in this whole micro analysis of aerodynamics in frame design when there isn't a strong case to be made on how/if an aero frame would give me any real world advantage over the next guy.

I feel that the level of micro analysis and emphasis on aerodynamics at a consumer and amateur level is sometimes quite unnecessarily confusing and even meaningless in the grand scheme of cycling... but I bet it's this confusion that the marketers are hoping for, because now they can swoop in with their experts and dazzle us with the impressive gain data. And who wouldn't be impressed if Speicalized told them they can go 5 min fasters in 40km right!

and again I'd like to emphasis that I'm not arguing against the validity of aerodynamics, but I'm questioning the claim and emphasis that are boldly and progressively made using it, versus the real world result on the road in meaningful terms for a weekend warrior. That's what I'm questioning about.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> hey I just watched the video. I was watching it from a casual level of interest, and heard those guys talked on and on about body positioning and how to be able to hold an aero position comfortably for a long period of time. That was their main emphasis. I didn't hear one mention of frame aerodynamic feature! So is cycling aerodynamics 90% rider centric, because it sounded that way from the Sky guys.


The rider definitely produces the greatest proportion of total drag. bvber seemed skeptical that top pro and Olympic teams actually use my model so that's why I pointed to that. 

Like most pro teams, Sky riders all use the same bike and bars and clothing and helmets so the only thing they can really alter is their position. You can see from that video that they were testing both TT positions on TT bikes and road positions on road bikes. They obviously see the value of aero in the peloton. One of the funny things about that video is that Sky uses Stages power meters but in one shot you can see that for one of the tests the rider's bike has an SRM.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

rchung said:


> The rider definitely produces the greatest proportion of total drag. bvber seemed skeptical that top pro and Olympic teams actually use my model so that's why I pointed to that.
> 
> Like most pro teams, Sky riders all use the same bike and bars and clothing and helmets so the only thing they can really alter is their position. You can see from that video that they were testing both TT positions on TT bikes and road positions on road bikes. They obviously see the value of aero in the peloton. One of the funny things about that video is that Sky uses Stages power meters but in one shot you can see that for one of the tests the rider's bike has an SRM.


hehe You'll have to excuse me as I mainly glossed over the minute details of what you and bvber were talking about. Man, I'm a simple guy at this level. My main interest in aero is to see if it can help me answer this question: 

"Will that new aero frame turn me from turd to golden nugget?" Answer is most likely a NO. Ok, if NO, then what would it turn me into, and with what probability of that happening. Because after all, a new highend aero frame of this class is like... $4000-$6000.

anyway, I appreciate you taking the time participating in here. You've joined RBR since 2009 but only has 127 posts. Most of the time you don't reply. But you replying in here means you have a passionate embrace in this topic. I see it. Just want to say I appreciate your input (even though I see no disadvantage riding my round tube frame! hehe).


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

rchung said:


> bvber seemed skeptical that top pro and Olympic teams actually use my model so that's why I pointed to that.


You misinterpreted my post to Wesquire. Read again.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> "Will that new aero frame turn me from turd to golden nugget?" Answer is most likely a NO. Ok, if NO, then *what would it turn me into*,


It would turn someone into a sucker.


> and with what probability of that happening.


I've heard that they are born every minute.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

Aero frame pros:

1. Weight savings in your wallet
2. Peace of mind that your frame isn't holding you back
3. Eye candy
4. You get to play with the same toys as the pros

Aero frame cons:

1. Less money
2. No more excuses for why you suck
3. Mental energy required to suppress the realization that you aren't any faster
4. More pressure not to get dropped


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Wesquire said:


> 2. Peace of mind that your frame isn't holding you back
> .
> .
> .
> 2. No more excuses for why you suck


Until new aero frame is released and see the lab test results and the pros using it. :cryin:


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> anyway, I appreciate you taking the time participating in here. You've joined RBR since 2009 but only has 127 posts. Most of the time you don't reply. But you replying in here means you have a passionate embrace in this topic. I see it. Just want to say I appreciate your input (even though I see no disadvantage riding my round tube frame! hehe).


I try to stay away from the "is it worth it?" or "should I buy this or not" arguments. My only skill is that I know how to measure stuff. I can measure the weight of a bike, its rolling resistance, drive train losses, its price, and, importantly for this discussion, aerodynamic drag. Whether the amounts of difference I've measured are important to you (and your pocketbook, and your cycling goals) I try to stay out of. I only jumped in because the ciaim was made that these things are unmeasurable. I can say that this frame is X grams heavier than that one, and no one seems to dispute that. I can say this bike costs X dollars more than that one, and no one seems to dispute that. I can say that these tires/tubes have a Crr lower by Y than those tires/tubes, and some people dispute that. I can say that this combination of chain/chain ring/cog has higher losses by 2% than that one, and most people's eyes glaze over. I say that this frame's CdA is X while that frame's CdA is Y, and some people go batshit crazy and call me a liar. 

I'm not here to defend a value proposition about any of those measurable (and measured) differences. I only posted to this thread to defend the fact (and it is a fact) that they're measurable. But you do have to know how. Some people clearly think that if they don't know how to do something, then no one else in the world could know it either. I'm thinking those people must be angry a lot of the time.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

rchung said:


> I try to stay away from the "is it worth it?" or "should I buy this or not" arguments. My only skill is that I know how to measure stuff. I can measure the weight of a bike, its rolling resistance, drive train losses, its price, and, importantly for this discussion, aerodynamic drag. Whether the amounts of difference I've measured are important to you (and your pocketbook, and your cycling goals) I try to stay out of. I only jumped in because the ciaim was made that these things are unmeasurable. I can say that this frame is X grams heavier than that one, and no one seems to dispute that. I can say this bike costs X dollars more than that one, and no one seems to dispute that. I can say that these tires/tubes have a Crr lower by Y than those tires/tubes, and some people dispute that. I can say that this combination of chain/chain ring/cog has higher losses by 2% than that one, and most people's eyes glaze over. I say that this frame's CdA is X while that frame's CdA is Y, and some people go batshit crazy and call me a liar.
> 
> I'm not here to defend a value proposition about any of those measurable (and measured) differences. I only posted to this thread to defend the fact (and it is a fact) that they're measurable. But you do have to know how. Some people clearly think that if they don't know how to do something, then no one else in the world could know it either. I'm thinking those people must be angry a lot of the time.


well I think true serious road cyclists are passionate folks in general. We embrace something and defend it. Though at times there's lots of shouting,, but it says they're passionate about their perspective in cycling,,, which ultimately is still better than a passive participants. Comes with the territory.

the other factor causing the confusion and then resentment from some buyers is company marketers purposely and deceivingly taking what is real and valid science and turning it into an informercial. And at some point down the road, people tend to wake up and bite back at these informercial in the form of resentment,.. and in the process they take it out against the real science guys too.. throw out the baby with the bath!

but overall I would not necessarily say people arguing on here are angry. I'd say they're just passionate about the situation. Betchu in real life if you get a flat on the road and run out of tubes, they'll throw you a tube no question ask.

Muchas gracias senor!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> Aero frame pros:
> 
> 1. Weight savings in your wallet
> 2. Peace of mind that your frame isn't holding you back
> ...


you keep revealing your biases. There are many aero frames that are offered in the mid-range of a manufacturer's lineup like Felt's AR1 to aero frames that are at the low end of their lineup, like Cervelo's S2, which is basically their S3 with a different fork. Fuji offers their transonic at a variety of price points, etc. Consumers are willing to spend premiums on saving a few hundred grams - which has less impact on performance than aero design, so IF ANYTHING the introduction of value-priced aero frames is a boon to consumers.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

rchung said:


> I only jumped in because the ciaim was made that these things are *unmeasurable*.


What I delved into was about the "unknown".



> I say that this frame's CdA is X while that frame's CdA is Y, and some people *go batshit crazy and call me a liar*.


Who did that? Quoting them would help.


> I'm thinking those people must be angry a lot of the time.


If you can't quote the above I asked, it would be considered as your imagination.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> Consumers are willing to spend premiums on saving a few hundred grams - *which has less impact on performance than aero design*


In what situation?


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

rchung said:


> I try to stay away from the "is it worth it?" or "should I buy this or not" arguments. My only skill is that I know how to measure stuff. I can measure the weight of a bike, its rolling resistance, drive train losses, its price, and, importantly for this discussion, aerodynamic drag. Whether the amounts of difference I've measured are important to you (and your pocketbook, and your cycling goals) I try to stay out of. I only jumped in because the ciaim was made that these things are unmeasurable. I can say that this frame is X grams heavier than that one, and no one seems to dispute that. I can say this bike costs X dollars more than that one, and no one seems to dispute that. I can say that these tires/tubes have a Crr lower by Y than those tires/tubes, and some people dispute that. I can say that this combination of chain/chain ring/cog has higher losses by 2% than that one, and most people's eyes glaze over. I say that this frame's CdA is X while that frame's CdA is Y, and some people go batshit crazy and call me a liar.
> 
> I'm not here to defend a value proposition about any of those measurable (and measured) differences. I only posted to this thread to defend the fact (and it is a fact) that they're measurable. But you do have to know how. Some people clearly think that if they don't know how to do something, then no one else in the world could know it either. I'm thinking those people must be angry a lot of the time.


Just asserting something doesn't make it true. If it is so measurable, reliable, and repeatable...why are none of the independent tests consistent and why has there not been a single good test between some round tube frames and aero frames? No one is denying that aero frames are more aero. But no one has been able to demonstrate how much more aero they are, especially in a real world road race situation. We trust the weight measurements because they are consistent. We wouldn't trust the weight measurements if everyone posted drastically different weight results for the same frame. That is the whole point. The point you still haven't gotten after 7 pages.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Wesquire said:


> He was 33 seconds ahead with 10 km to go. Just the aero difference of the frame should have been 3 sec/km right? This is the exact scenario that made me want to start this thread. Real road race application of frame aerodynamics. If a non-aero frame is good enough to have a successful solo breakaway in a grand tour with Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde, and other stars chasing...


 Without telemetry displaying exactly how hard each rider was chasing, we cannot speak to why they didn't catch him. It is more likely that none of the strong guys wanted to tow a rival to the finish only to lose. They gambled and lost. It happens a lot in racing.



MMsRepBike said:


> ?My point is that I can take a "round tube" frame and make it more aerodynamic than an "aero" frame by the way the cockpit is setup. That's how little the tube shapes mean. And there's a good chance your cockpit isn't setup correctly for aerodynamics so talking about aero tube shapes is laughable.


No, you can't. No matter how the rider sits on the bike, or how his stem is set (assuming that's adjustable, on my bike it isn't), the rider must still drag the object through the air. The largest parts of the object are the frame, wheels, and fork.



bvber said:


> In what situation?


Moving through the atmosphere, above 12 mph.

Wesquire, the "real world" testing you seek exists but you won't believe the results because as you know, the real world has uncontrollable variables. rchung has measured in controlled environments as accurately as anyone in cycling has managed to thus far. If his assertions don't satisfy you then I have bad news for you- you will never be satisfied and that's usually a lonely, frustrating way to exist.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

davidka said:


> Moving through the atmosphere, above 12 mph.


You've got it wrong. It's above 1 mph.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I was generalizing. There are climbing scenarios where weight outperforms aero, they are rare and don't account for energy spent reaching the climb.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

davidka said:


> I was generalizing. There are climbing scenarios where weight outperforms aero, *they are rare* and don't account for energy spent reaching the climb.


What do you mean rare? Look at TdF, climber wins, not sprinter.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bvber said:


> What do you mean rare? Look at TdF, climber wins, not sprinter.


Not really relevant to the point. This discussion is about equipment, not rider's and race characteristics. However, the energy savings provided by known aerodynamic choices outperforms the benefits of lighter weight equipment in all but the very most mountainous races (very little flat road). ie. Rare.

With the current UCI rules, aero bikes & wheels typically result in a 1lb weight penalty which is insignificant. This is a case where the climbers often chose the wrong equipment, even when they are presented with the supporting data.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

davidka said:


> However, the energy savings provided by *known* aerodynamic choices outperforms the benefits of lighter weight equipment in all but the very most mountainous races (very little flat road). ie. Rare.


Too bad there are *un*known for the outdoor road bike riding/racing situations. Per that measurement guy, the safety regulation is to be blamed.



> With the current UCI rules, aero bikes & wheels typically result in a 1lb weight penalty which is insignificant. This is a case where the climbers often chose the wrong equipment, even when they are presented with the *supporting data*.


Supporting data of which relevant situation? That's what we've been arguing about. Apparently, you don't have that either.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> you keep revealing your biases. There are many aero frames that are offered in the mid-range of a manufacturer's lineup like Felt's AR1 to aero frames that are at the low end of their lineup, like Cervelo's S2, which is basically their S3 with a different fork. Fuji offers their transonic at a variety of price points, etc. *Consumers are willing to spend premiums on saving a few hundred grams *- which has less impact on performance than aero design, so IF ANYTHING the introduction of value-priced aero frames is a boon to consumers.


yeah that's true.. like buying Enve stems!... and a lot of these guys spending crazy money to save a few grams are doing it for the "bling and notoriety" factor. There are a handful of guys in our club with 10-11 lbs bikes.. but they're slow.. they know they're slow.. but they have money and they're happy with their toys. None of them realistically hope to become anything by spending that money other than pure satisfaction of having them. I blame this silly gravitation to gram-counting on the nature of highend buyers in conjunction with marketing. But hey if it makes them happy...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Just finished watching Giro stage 8. The winner was on a Tarmac. He was solo'ing in for the win. The stage had some climbing, but it was not a true "climbing stage" either.

Looks like to me the only time an aero frame (as marketed by the bike manufacturers) win in a grand tour stage is if:

1. the stage if flat
2. a dominant sprinter with a good leadout

Outside of these conditions, riding an aero frame doesn't seem to convey any real advantage. (And there are perhaps only 2 dominant sprinters with good leadout teams, namely Griepel with Lotto, and Kittel with Etixx, and it's also no wonder that only these 2 have won so far and probably will continue to do so for the rest of the Giro).

Now with the progressively strong recent belief that "aero" is more important than "weight" even in a climb,.. one would think that a whole lot more Tour climbers would be on aero frames... and that there would be more solo winners on aero frames. I'm still waiting to see this happening.... and until I start to see a whole lot more winners on climbing or even semi-climbing stages... this whole debate about aero to me is just an interesting academic debate.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

aclinjury said:


> Just finished watching Giro stage 8. The winner was on a Tarmac. He was solo'ing in for the win. The stage had some climbing, but it was not a true "climbing stage" either.
> 
> Looks like to me the only time an aero frame (as marketed by the bike manufacturers) win in a grand tour stage is if:
> 
> ...



These silly grand tour stage winners keep choosing the wrong frames. It is sad. They are just pissing away seconds on their solo wins.

Apparently they are all using the Chung method, but still don't see enough advantage of the aero frames.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Wesquire said:


> These silly grand tour stage winners keep choosing the wrong frames. It is sad. They are just pissing away seconds on their solo wins.
> 
> Apparently they are all using the Chung method, but still don't see enough advantage of the aero frames.


Well the science of aerodynamics is valid, and rchung is a smart person who knows what he's talking about. So I'm not going to blast the science nor those in the field.

What I'm blasting (as you know by now) is the "degree of effectiveness" in real world road racing at the elite level. Just don't see the clear advantage, or even much advantage. There are a lot more higher factors involved in racing than just frame aero.

But I think in certain very specific cycling discipline, such as team pursuit,.. and especially the Hour Record.. frame aerodynamics can certainly make a difference between winning and losing since the wind condition AND "in-race" dynamics (eg, team strategy, nutrition) are a whole LESS varied than in a road racing peloton. Under such narrow and specific conditions, I definitely see value in an aero frame. But outside of this, not so much.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bvber said:


> Too bad there are *un*known for the outdoor ....
> .


Think about that the next time you're boarding an airplane.

They (aerodynamicists, engineers) know plenty. Riders choose to (or are made to) ride what they do for all kinds of reasons, some good, like long duration comfort, handling, familiarity, and serviceability among a team's inventory, and some bad, like saving 200-400gm, bb stiffness, a brand's marketing initiatives and another uninformed team mate's opinion.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

davidka said:


> Think about that the next time you're boarding an airplane.
> 
> They (aerodynamicists, engineers) know plenty. Riders choose to (or are made to) ride what they do for all kinds of reasons, some good, like long duration comfort, handling, familiarity, and serviceability among a team's inventory, and some bad, like saving 200-400gm, bb stiffness, a brand's marketing initiatives and another uninformed team mate's opinion.


And your point is...? :frown2:


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Point is, plenty is known about outdoor conditions to make informed decisions with predictable outcomes. You seem to believe that testing in controlled situations and environments is not useful for informing other use cases and that is not the case.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

davidka said:


> Point is, plenty is known about outdoor conditions to make informed decisions with predictable outcomes.


Which you were unable to cite.


> You seem to believe that testing in controlled situations and environments is not useful for informing other use cases


I've been searching for objective data that proves the marketing literature on aero frames for road bikes. If you know of any, please share.


> and that is not the case.


Base on which supporting evidence?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Plenty of data and evidence has been cited. You've disregarded it because it doesn't satisfy you.

If you're unwilling to accept Your or another cycling publication's results, you're banging your head against a wall. Independent, objective *bicycle* testing is going to be hard to come by because those doing the testing are either doing so to support their marketing claims (not objective?) or seeking a competitive advantage (won't share for free).


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> As if that is supposed to convince me of anything. Be my guest and trust a test with results Specialized's marketing team won't even touch though. Infomercial salesmen must love you.


I know, I know, I post this often... But this is why I love science so freaking much! It doesn't one stitch what someone believes! Knowledge and belief aren't interrelated... Sure, somewhere in between is where theory gets born and lives out a long or short life... But at the end of the day, knowledge is knowledge and belief is belief. When we graduate from belief to theory and get the sh*t kicked out of us for a while by legitimate scholarship and credible testing we become knowledge. Think of the germ theory of disease. It doesn't matter what people choose to believe, we know a lot about germs and their relationship to harbor in and spreading disease. 

You are welcome to believe anything you want. We have entire ontological communities to co-support people with similar beliefs. We also have scientific communities that define human knowledge. Most people that have critical injuries or illnesses want scientists with real live actual knowledge tearing them. Sure, there are still some people that prefer to be treated by folks that believe things instead of knowing them. Let's all just hope to hell they don't break a leg. 

Besides, I ride an aero frame so it's better!


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

PBL450 said:


> I know, I know, I post this often... But this is why I love science so freaking much! It doesn't one stitch what someone believes! Knowledge and belief aren't interrelated... Sure, somewhere in between is where theory gets born and lives out a long or short life... But at the end of the day, knowledge is knowledge and belief is belief. When we graduate from belief to theory and get the sh*t kicked out of us for a while by legitimate scholarship and credible testing we become knowledge. Think of the germ theory of disease. It doesn't matter what people choose to believe, we know a lot about germs and their relationship to harbor in and spreading disease.
> 
> You are welcome to believe anything you want. We have entire ontological communities to co-support people with similar beliefs. We also have scientific communities that define human knowledge. Most people that have critical injuries or illnesses want scientists with real live actual knowledge tearing them. Sure, there are still some people that prefer to be treated by folks that believe things instead of knowing them. Let's all just hope to hell they don't break a leg.
> 
> Besides, I ride an aero frame so it's better!


Marketing claims and contradictory independent tests are science? Who woulda thunk it?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> Marketing claims and contradictory independent tests are science? Who woulda thunk it?


We are moving along a steady path that started with belief, became theory and is edging closer and closer to knowledge. Your arguments are like those that deny climate change by bringing a snowball onto the floor of the Senate. There are posts on this thread from people that have 1K times the knowledge you have on the subject. If I'm a gambling guy, I'm betting my mortgage on what they are posting and laughing hysterically at this point at your troll boy baiting posts that rely on absolutely nothing but typing as evidence? 

As as a point of truly kind advice, you are looking kind of clownish. Ditch it.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

PBL450 said:


> We are moving along a steady path that started with belief, became theory and is edging closer and closer to knowledge. Your arguments are like those that deny climate change by bringing a snowball onto the floor of the Senate. There are posts on this thread from people that have 1K times the knowledge you have on the subject. If I'm a gambling guy, I'm betting my mortgage on what they are posting and laughing hysterically at this point at your troll boy baiting posts that rely on absolutely nothing but typing as evidence?
> 
> As as a point of truly kind advice, you are looking kind of clownish. Ditch it.


With all their "knowledge" there's still nothing to show for it. Again, no one is denying aerodynamics. The point is that the amount of aerodynamic change is not consistent from any test or claim. Continue to be duped by people like Chung saying you can account for wind without accounting for it though.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

davidka said:


> Plenty of data and evidence has been cited.


That's your unsupported claim. Prove me wrong by quoting those evidences.


> You've disregarded it because it doesn't satisfy you.


For me to disregard "it", "it" would have to be presented first. Where did it happen? Quote please.



> If you're unwilling to accept Your or another cycling publication's *results*, you're banging your head against a wall.


Results of what?



> Independent, objective *bicycle* testing is going to be hard to come by because those doing the testing are either doing so to support their marketing claims (not objective?) or seeking a competitive advantage (won't share for free).


Which outdoor road bike riding/racing test results of aero frame are you referring to?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> With all their "knowledge" there's still nothing to show for it. Again, no one is denying aerodynamics. The point is that the amount of aerodynamic change is not consistent from any test or claim. Continue to be duped by people like Chung saying you can account for wind without accounting for it though.


Like climate change or the germ theory of disease or any of a million aspects of scientific testing... We are getting closer and closer to meaningful numbers. This is the point of my posts, which I'm now wondering if you have the native intelligence to understand? Your point is that, "if we can't establish an exact advantage in every case then we can't claim a benefit?" Interesting argument, but a completely failed case in terms of the science. So, is your point that since no exact aerodynamic change is evident then no aerodynamic change is beneficial or relevant? That's the best fall back argument I can hand to you at this point, otherwise you sound like a lunatic.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

PBL450 said:


> Like climate change or the germ theory of disease or any of a million aspects of scientific testing... We are getting closer and closer to meaningful numbers. This is the point of my posts, which I'm now wondering if you have the native intelligence to understand? Your point is that, "if we can't establish an exact advantage in every case then we can't claim a benefit?" Interesting argument, but a completely failed case in terms of the science. So, is your point that since no exact aerodynamic change is evident then no aerodynamic change is beneficial or relevant? That's the best fall back argument I can hand to you at this point, otherwise you sound like a lunatic.


For how many weak insults you keep using, it is amazing how bad your reading comprehension has to be. I have not denied the existence of an aero advantage once. The skepticism is with the actual amount of that advantage. Real scientists don't claim climate change based on marketing department numbers and contradictory independent tests with poor methodology.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> For how many weak insults you keep using, it is amazing how bad your reading comprehension has to be. I have not denied the existence of an aero advantage once. The skepticism is with the actual amount of that advantage. Real scientists don't claim climate change based on marketing department numbers and contradictory independent tests with poor methodology.


They are not weak insults, they are accurate descriptions of reality. Your posts are simply troll meal. Carry on. You look like a complete idiot at this point. But that's not my business. Enjoy. I'm outy.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

PBL450 said:


> They are not weak insults, they are accurate descriptions of reality. Your posts are simply troll meal. Carry on. You look like a complete idiot at this point. But that's not my business. Enjoy. I'm outy.


Yes, you'd have to be an idiot not to trust contradictory marketing claims about aerodynamics. That's real science right there. Any more fodder? Keep the insults coming if they make you feel better about your inferiority though.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bvber said:


> That's your unsupported claim. Prove me wrong by quoting those evidences.
> 
> For me to disregard "it", "it" would have to be presented first. Where did it happen? Quote please.
> 
> ...


You can reference the Tour magazine test. It was shared in this thread. You can also go on line and read Trek's Madone white paper. While it is a marketing tool, the people who made it are not marketing people, they are engineers and anaylists (living where I do, I ride and race with some of them). Maybe they chose the data points that make the most compelling story, but I believe the events happened. I can't believe they would falsify the data they generate as that would crash their resumes and futures in their fields.

GCN have performed a few video documented tests of power & terrain controlled tests of aero frame vs. climbing bike of the same brand and produced compelling results. Those are examples but you'll need to do your own homework. I have better things to do.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

davidka said:


> You can reference the Tour magazine test. It was shared in this thread. You can also go on line and read Trek's Madone white paper. While it is a marketing tool, the people who made it are not marketing people, they are engineers and anaylists (living where I do, I ride and race with some of them). Maybe they chose the data points that make the most compelling story, but I believe the events happened. I can't believe they would falsify the data they generate as that would crash their resumes and futures in their fields.
> 
> GCN have performed a few video documented tests of power & terrain controlled tests of aero frame vs. climbing bike of the same brand and produced compelling results. Those are examples but you'll need to do your own homework. I have better things to do.


And none of those are consistent with each other.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

davidka said:


> You can reference the Tour magazine test. It was shared in this thread. You can also go on line and read Trek's Madone white paper.While it is a marketing tool, the people who made it are not marketing people, they are engineers and anaylists (living where I do, I ride and race with some of them). *Maybe* they chose the data points that make the most compelling story, but *I believe* the events happened. I can't believe they would falsify the data they generate as that would crash their resumes and futures in their fields.
> 
> GCN have performed a few video documented tests of power & terrain controlled tests of aero frame vs. climbing bike of the same brand and produced compelling results. Those are examples but you'll need to do your own homework. I have better things to do.


"Maybe" and you "believe", those are all you've got to go with. That's unfortunate. :frown2:


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Wesquire said:


> And none of those are consistent with each other.


The tests were done in different times, in different ways. I have yet to see any testing that finds a good aero frame to not provide any aero benefit. That's as good as it gets. Sorry...

bvber, on the contrary, I have the bike. I know what it does for me.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

davidka said:


> The tests were done in different times, in different ways. I have yet to see any testing that finds a good aero frame to not provide any aero benefit. That's as good as it gets. Sorry...
> 
> bvber, on the contrary, I have the bike. I know what it does for me.


I agree, that's as good as it gets. That is precisely why I have said repeatedly that there's an aero benefit, but we don't know how much. Thanks for agreeing with me.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

davidka said:


> bvber, on the contrary, I have the bike. I know what it does for me.


Sure, you believe you know what it does.


----------

