# A fair number of people bailing out of new Venges...(long)



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

I've been keenly interested in getting a Venge since they first appeared, and have been monitoring the market price and volume in used framesets closely, so closely in fact that I think I've seen nearly every used one that has popped up on eBay or Craigslist anywhere in the country.
I think they're getting common enough now that I can find the size and price I need for an S-Works version when I decide to pull the trigger. But in watching the market I've seen something that feels at list mildly troubling....though it is not such a wave of evidence that I'm rock solid and in facet am questioning my own judgement a little, so I am looking for a reality check.
Basically it's this: The number of frames and whole bikes going up for sale feels large for the number that likely have been sold in these few months it has been in production. Also, I have seen several cases, and I mean several, where people are very clear that they are bailing out of a Venge they have only ridden a few times in favor of another model of frame. One was an Sl3, which is fine, I can understand how honest people could go either way... but there have been others and in one current case, god help us, a carbon Litespeed.
I know a lot of the formal media reviews when it first came out alluded to a stiff ride etc etc., and between that and the resales, all of this is worrying me a little. Usually magazine tests of nice bikes are gushing and downplay anything that's troubling, and the fact that several reviews saw fit to mention that it "wasn't perhaps the perfect choice for a distance race" etc etc had me scratching my head.
I currently ride an 09 ridley Noah, which is as stiff as a cinder block, so pretty stiff doesnt worry me. Am thinking the problem with these quick sales might be partly that and partly other stuff?
Thoughts from the folks here who actually are riding the bike would be great. Not looking for fanboy stuff... I do appreciate the great looks of the bike, its pedigree etc etc but I'd like to hear honest evaluations of how you think it stacks up to other bikes in your quiver, current or past, shortcomings, strengths, the whole thing.
Thanks for any help you can offer.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Dont have one....but I can surmise that a lot of people bought one thinking it could be used as an all-arounder when it fact it was designed and built with a very narrow purpose. 

"Wrong tool for the job" type of thing.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

RkFast said:


> when it fact it was designed and built with a very narrow purpose.


... and that purpose doesn't align with the needs of the avid cyclist. Even for those who race, I suspect you'd need to be racing at an elite level to align with the Venge's design point. Of course there are plenty of people with money who will buy it anyway. If this is what the OP truly wants, and is happy with a test ride, then I say take advantage of these resale bikes.


----------



## ejprez (Nov 9, 2006)

I was looking into a Noah, but the lack of tire clearance for bigger tires is sort of an issue. I thnk the Venge has that ability and that's about it and really nothing over the Noah. I like the looks of the Noah more, but nothing wrong with getting something new for the sake of wanting new. I'm looking at SL3 and SL4, as well as even a Marin carbon road bike to replace my Damocles. I think the biggest waste of money is the McLauren Venge, $18,000, but fools and their money are soon parted. But if that fool is selling it hardly used for a low price, then scoop it up.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

ukbloke said:


> ... and that purpose doesn't align with the needs of the avid cyclist. Even for those who race, I suspect you'd need to be racing at an elite level to align with the Venge's design point. Of course there are plenty of people with money who will buy it anyway. If this is what the OP truly wants, and is happy with a test ride, then I say take advantage of these resale bikes.


This goes on a lot in the MTB community, with so many choices and different types of bikes you can build to do very specific things. You have to be very careful and plan out what kind of riding youll mostly be doing and where and then select a frame accordingly. 

Up until now, this has been a very limited excersise for roadies. For the most part...a bike was a bike. The riding characteristics changed from frame to frame, but they were ALL designed to do the same exact thing. But now with new frames designed with a single purpose for a specific type and even physical size of rider and equipment made for specific uses too, roadies will need to really begin to do their homework before buying. I see so many lousy climbers trucking up steep hills using aero wheels and little guys who go long every weekend pining for Venges. Not enough thought going into getting again...the right tool for the job...because up until now....there has only been one type of road bike and this type of pre-purchase thought wasnt necessary. No more.


----------



## ianho (May 20, 2011)

I have an S-Works Roubaix SL2 n S-Works Venge. I love both but ride my Venge most of the time. It is of course a lot harsher than the Roubaix but I keep going back to it coz it's just so fast n effortless. Mine's a size 52 n weighs 6.5kg. I love it when climbing mountains but love it even more on the descent. It absolutely flies. The aero advantage is undeniable. I keep thinking of buying a set of Zipp 202s to set up the Roubaix as my 6kg bike for mountain rides but the Venge is so nice now even at 6.5kg, I haven't bothered.


----------



## pwork (Feb 25, 2009)

I've ridden my wife's, and now I seriously want one. The aero benefits are more than just perception, especially in x-winds. I really see the benefit for those of us who have low watts/drag ratios. Since few have been raced by us mortals, it'll be interesting to hear the feedback from the local circuit. While it won't make me a competitive racer, it might help keep me in the pack a bit longer! I've read the reviews, the biggest thing I wouldn't agree with is the compliance...the difference between a Tarmac and Venge wouldn't be a detriment in a distance race. I've also heard several others with saddle time mention the same thing. Wifey has had a couple Amira's and now the Venge...she like the stiffness of the tube set best on the venge. She rides a lot oil and chip, comfort of the bike isn't an issue. For me, the stiffness/handling seems on par with the Tarmac. 

I wouldn't push this bike for the average avid non-racer Joe, but wouldn't push the Tarmac either, as the Roubaix is a much better choice.


----------



## Rugergundog (Apr 2, 2011)

Other companies are jumping on the "aero" bandwagon. More options for the consumer to try. Venge is silly priced as well compared to some others of a similiar design.


----------



## philbennett (Jan 20, 2012)

ejprez said:


> I was looking into a Noah, but the lack of tire clearance for bigger tires is sort of an issue. I thnk the Venge has that ability and that's about it and really nothing over the Noah. I like the looks of the Noah more, but nothing wrong with getting something new for the sake of wanting new. I'm looking at SL3 and SL4, as well as even a Marin carbon road bike to replace my Damocles. I think the biggest waste of money is the McLauren Venge, $18,000, but fools and their money are soon parted. But if that fool is selling it hardly used for a low price, then scoop it up.


Indeed, but I guess if you have $20 million, the difference in cost between McLaren and S-Works Venges is really not important as you are writing the check.


----------



## philbennett (Jan 20, 2012)

Rugergundog said:


> Other companies are jumping on the "aero" bandwagon. More options for the consumer to try. Venge is silly priced as well compared to some others of a similiar design.


I feel like the S5 would be a reasonable option, but the Venge is soooo much better looking. At some point, the looks are worth a few watts. Not sure how many for me, probably a fun thing to do a poll on.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

philbennett said:


> I feel like the S5 would be a reasonable option, but the Venge is soooo much better looking. At some point, the looks are worth a few watts. Not sure how many for me, probably a fun thing to do a poll on.


Call me a luddite but Im sacrificing the watts and going for the Tarmac. I want the best climbing ability I can muster.


----------



## rcjunkie3000 (Sep 5, 2009)

The Venge looks like a sweet bike. As someone mentioned it might be the wrong tool for the job but people buy and sell framsets all the time.

Just as you've obeserved the Venge being sold on eBay and Craigslist, I do notice the same thing with the Tarmac SL4. I think people are selling for various reasons. Honestly, your observation may be due to the same phenomenon as when you own a certain item like a car and you notice every model like yours.

The Venge has also been out for some time and I know some riders who change framsets every year! Ahem!


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rugergundog said:


> Other companies are jumping on the "aero" bandwagon. More options for the consumer to try. Venge is silly priced as well compared to some others of a similiar design.


I would agree with this point...

As more Aero bikes come out, the different fits will vary and people will sell off old bikes for new ones that fit better.

You can also get other "Aero" bikes for cheaper...such as the Foil. You can pick up a SRAM Rival equiped Foil for $3000 while the cheapest Venge is just over $6000. The weight and performance difference between a $3k Foil and a $6k Venge will be minimal as their weight will be similar and both have aero advantages.

Specialized needs to bring the entry point of the Venge down or they may end up losing out to other brands down the road. With few options right now...they can sell at the higher price points, but as more come out...pricing has to be more competitive.


----------



## EightFiveTwo (Oct 12, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> I've been keenly interested in getting a Venge since they first appeared, and have been monitoring the market price and volume in used framesets closely, so closely in fact that I think I've seen nearly every used one that has popped up on eBay or Craigslist anywhere in the country.
> I think they're getting common enough now that I can find the size and price I need for an S-Works version when I decide to pull the trigger. But in watching the market I've seen something that feels at list mildly troubling....though it is not such a wave of evidence that I'm rock solid and in facet am questioning my own judgement a little, so I am looking for a reality check.
> Basically it's this: The number of frames and whole bikes going up for sale feels large for the number that likely have been sold in these few months it has been in production. Also, I have seen several cases, and I mean several, where people are very clear that they are bailing out of a Venge they have only ridden a few times in favor of another model of frame. One was an Sl3, which is fine, I can understand how honest people could go either way... but there have been others and in one current case, god help us, a carbon Litespeed.
> I know a lot of the formal media reviews when it first came out alluded to a stiff ride etc etc., and between that and the resales, all of this is worrying me a little. Usually magazine tests of nice bikes are gushing and downplay anything that's troubling, and the fact that several reviews saw fit to mention that it "wasn't perhaps the perfect choice for a distance race" etc etc had me scratching my head.
> ...


1) Had a SL3 sworks, now have a Venge sworks. I'm not a pro who rides for a living.

2) Climbing wise...SL3 is better then a Venge. My TIME RXRS also climbs better then the Venge

3) I'm a sucka for Marketing...so I dont understand why people would even want to save just few hundred bucks by getting a "Pro" instead of a "S-works". Unless you don't like the colors or cant stand the wait...I could understand that.

4) Cycling could be an expensive (by choice) hobby/sports, and if you decide to go with the expensive way----I think there is no point for being as logical as you are. After all, expensive bicycle frame is considered a luxury item.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

ukbloke said:


> ... and that purpose doesn't align with the needs of the avid cyclist. Even for those who race, I suspect you'd need to be racing at an elite level to align with the Venge's design point. Of course there are plenty of people with money who will buy it anyway. If this is what the OP truly wants, and is happy with a test ride, then I say take advantage of these resale bikes.


+1 and what RKFast said as well.
So OP, you have ask yourself and do some soul searching. Why do you want a Venge? To impress your friends and do you believe it is the right tool for the job? Serious racer?...or more ordinary mile muncher. I would say many that bought the bike were way too average for the bike. Its an extraordinary racing frame meant to ride fast. If you have the watts, you will likely appreciate it. Otherwise, why put up with the ride quality which is said to be on the stiff side. Many like a brick like stiff bike but not me so again you have ask yourself what you plan to do with the bike, what kind of roads and how much time you spend above 25mph when you are out riding.
Otherwise, don't make the mistake the other guys did that are ebaying their Venge and buy either a Tarmac or a Roubaix...the latter if you want a smooth riding bike and you have ordinary skills would be my suggestion...what I just did.
Basically the Venge is a Ferrari. Ferraris are very cool but not perhaps the best vehicle to go to the store and pick up groceries. Fun for track days tho.

Lastly, I see an overwhelming dynamic of buyer's remorse when it comes to road bikes and why so many high end bikes are on ebay. This dynamic is largely explained by the afore mentioned but has little to do with the bike...but rather an indictment against the buyer. Guys don't know what they want and buy something for the wrong reason aka prestige. Many buy into the notion an uber fast bike like the Venge will transform them as a rider. They spend more than they have and upon ownership they now say to themselves...now what? A Venge will reward you if you are as good as the bike and honestly few are...it will likely beat you up more if you aren't a strong and flexible guy putting out a lot of power to keep saddle and hand pressure low. However for the average 17-20 mph roadie who rides a 5 year old Giant OCR with soft flex carbon and upright riding position and goes out and buys a Venge and now is bent over and beaten up and not any faster..perhaps even slower because of the more aggressive riding position, stiffer ride... the bike ends up on ebay to recoup 60 cents on the dollar. At the end of the day people have to live with the choices they make...but in this case its only bicycles....


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

pwork said:


> I've ridden my wife's, and now I seriously want one. The aero benefits are more than just perception, especially in x-winds. I really see the benefit for those of us who have low watts/drag ratios. Since few have been raced by us mortals, it'll be interesting to hear the feedback from the local circuit. While it won't make me a competitive racer, it might help keep me in the pack a bit longer! I've read the reviews, the biggest thing I wouldn't agree with is the compliance...the difference between a Tarmac and Venge wouldn't be a detriment in a distance race. I've also heard several others with saddle time mention the same thing. Wifey has had a couple Amira's and now the Venge...she like the stiffness of the tube set best on the venge. She rides a lot oil and chip, comfort of the bike isn't an issue. For me, the stiffness/handling seems on par with the Tarmac.
> 
> I wouldn't push this bike for the average avid non-racer Joe, but wouldn't push the Tarmac either, as the Roubaix is a much better choice.


I think the Roubaix over Tarmac is a big generalization. I felt the same way until I tried the Tarmac. Did not try the Venge as aero did not appeal to me for most of my riding (distance and hilly). 

If I was to generalize, I would say:
1) Tarmac - general bike, for fit riders, who do distances and live in hillier area
2) Roubaix - general bike, maybe a little less fit or older/less flexible, or someone riding slightly worse roads
3) Venge - racers or riders in a flatter area

Just my opinion.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

RkFast said:


> Call me a luddite but Im sacrificing the watts and going for the Tarmac. I want the best climbing ability I can muster.


Me too. Love my Tarmac for climbing. Hills that are a challenge on my Secteur fly by on the Tarmac. Really amazes me the difference that equipment can make.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

EightFiveTwo said:


> 1) Had a SL3 sworks, now have a Venge sworks. I'm not a pro who rides for a living.
> 
> 2) Climbing wise...SL3 is better then a Venge. My TIME RXRS also climbs better then the Venge
> 
> ...


You just defined the typical Venge owner. Or...you could insert the word Cervelo in place of Venge if you wished. 
I read something pretty funny on the web a while ago. The thread was about Ti bikes and cost/benefit. Ti custom maker Seven came up. Question was...can you identify the typical Seven owner on the MUP riding along at 16mph? Answer was...either a doctor or a dentist...lol.


----------



## philbennett (Jan 20, 2012)

NJBiker72 said:


> I think the Roubaix over Tarmac is a big generalization. I felt the same way until I tried the Tarmac. Did not try the Venge as aero did not appeal to me for most of my riding (distance and hilly).
> 
> If I was to generalize, I would say:
> 1) Tarmac - general bike, for fit riders, who do distances and live in hillier area
> ...


Yeah, I heard this a couple weeks ago from a big Italian guy who races at club level of there... he said in his heart he is a climber, but really he is not, and that the Venge works great for him.
What I fail to understand though, is this idea that it might not be a great climbing bike. Maybe not against the SL3 for example, but it is very light and very stiff, and should be by those standards better up hills than any number of much touted 950-1000gram frames....


----------



## philbennett (Jan 20, 2012)

EightFiveTwo said:


> 1) Had a SL3 sworks, now have a Venge sworks. I'm not a pro who rides for a living.
> 
> 2) Climbing wise...SL3 is better then a Venge. My TIME RXRS also climbs better then the Venge
> 
> ...


this is good stuff, some wise comments and interesting insights.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

philbennett said:


> Yeah, I heard this a couple weeks ago from a big Italian guy who races at club level of there... he said in his heart he is a climber, but really he is not, and that the Venge works great for him.
> What I fail to understand though, is this idea that it might not be a great climbing bike. Maybe not against the SL3 for example, but it is very light and very stiff, and should be by those standards better up hills than any number of much touted 950-1000gram frames....


Like I said, I never tested the Venge so I cannot say specifically but I have always thought (may be a misperception) that aero bikes were not ideal for climbing. Not sure if it is the additional weight or the geometry. But that is why the Venge did not interest me. If I lived in the southern part of the state it would have.


----------



## -dustin (Jan 11, 2009)

My SL3 is in the classifieds to help fund a Venge. I only race and circuit races. I rarely ride more than 50mi. We'll see what happens.


----------



## hd tech (Aug 15, 2010)

I have a Tarmac and a Venge and they are two different bikes. I tell everyone to ride the Venge berore you make an opinion. The Venge is a bike that can get up to speed fast and help you maintain that speed easier than a Tarmac. The ride of the Venge isn't for everyone, you have to want to ride fast and keep your back flat kind of ride. If you want to do centurys and charity rides don't buy a Venge. You don't have to be a pro racer to own a Venge just a rider who likes to push yourself when you ride. I will always have a Tarmac or regular type road bike for those long or slower pace rides. Take one out for a ride... You may like it.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

hd tech said:


> I have a Tarmac and a Venge and they are two different bikes. I tell everyone to ride the Venge berore you make an opinion. The Venge is a bike that can get up to speed fast and help you maintain that speed easier than a Tarmac. The ride of the Venge isn't for everyone, you have to want to ride fast and keep your back flat kind of ride. If you want to do centurys and charity rides don't buy a Venge. You don't have to be a pro racer to own a Venge just a rider who likes to push yourself when you ride. I will always have a Tarmac or regular type road bike for those long or slower pace rides. Take one out for a ride... You may like it.


Hd...a couple of questions please since you are fortunate to own both great bikes:
- how fast do you need to ride before you feel the aero advantage of the Venge?
- how much saddle to bar drop do you ride and how tall are you and what size frames do you ride?
Thanks


----------



## hd tech (Aug 15, 2010)

roadworthy.. I am 5'9 and both bikes are 54cm frames. The bar to seat drop is just over 3". I have both bikes set up the same .I do have 20mm of spacers under both stems that will be removed soon. It's hard to estimate the speed you need to feel the aero advantage of the Venge. For me the Venge takes less effort to get to my top speed and hold it.


----------



## bonkcity (Aug 24, 2010)

I love my Venge. I have owned a lot of high end bikes & the Venge is noticeably better. It is so fast. It feels like I am cheating in big group rides. I can coast or soft pedal more. It really did not think the Venge would make that much of a difference. I thought that when Cervelo came out with the whole aero frame it was kind of a gimmick. Specialized hit the ball out of the park with the Venge.
I used to have an S-Works SL3. The bottom bracket on the Venge is stiffer. The Venge seems to climb better - especially with roller type of hills or interval workouts.
I can't imagine another bike being better than. My Venge. It's that good.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

It's not very scientific, but I tend to think it's worth getting into the drops at speeds above 35km/h. This is where I feel that air resistance starts to become a significant factor. 

So I would tend to think that if you ride mostly at AVERAGE speeds of above 35km/h, (and to my mind you need to be a pretty good rider to do that), then a Venge could be for you.

I can just about crack 20km in 30 mins (40km/h), but that's flat out. My 2 hour training rides usually end up at about 30km/h, not enough IMHO to feel much aero benefit.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

hd tech said:


> roadworthy.. I am 5'9 and both bikes are 54cm frames. The bar to seat drop is just over 3". I have both bikes set up the same .I do have 20mm of spacers under both stems that will be removed soon. It's hard to estimate the speed you need to feel the aero advantage of the Venge. For me the Venge takes less effort to get to my top speed and hold it.


Hard to discount what you say since you own both bikes. But I wonder just how many watts difference the two bikes are say at 22mph with identical body position. If its more than 25 watts I would be quite surprised. Body is primary drag...tires cut a pretty substantial and yet equivalent hole in the wind for both bikes. Again, I would sure like to see the difference quantified as I have a hard time believing there is much difference that can measured against the clock let alone felt. That said, I would like to own a Venge just because its a cool bike. Against the clock, I can't believe there is anything between the Venge and Tarmac however. Just my opinion.


----------



## Chadwick890 (Oct 14, 2010)

With the Tour Down Under just finishing i was noticing that almost 90% of riders sponsored by Specialized were riding the Venge.
Its very much so a racers kind of bike, not the bike for Mamils who are probaly buying them trying to be like Cav hence the large resale that you are seeing.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

hd tech said:


> I have a Tarmac and a Venge and they are two different bikes. I tell everyone to ride the Venge berore you make an opinion. The Venge is a bike that can get up to speed fast and help you maintain that speed easier than a Tarmac. The ride of the Venge isn't for everyone, you have to want to ride fast and keep your back flat kind of ride. If you want to do centurys and charity rides don't buy a Venge. You don't have to be a pro racer to own a Venge just a rider who likes to push yourself when you ride. I will always have a Tarmac or regular type road bike for those long or slower pace rides. Take one out for a ride... You may like it.


I think all you guys are making too broad of a generalization. 

I don't race at all, and don't really plan on it any time soon. I do a lot of recreational riding, group rides, and occasional charity rides (only been on a road bike for a year so far). That said, I always push myself no matter what type of ride I'm on and I love going fast. I wanted a Venge badly because I currently have an aero bike (S1) and I love the looks of the thing. I rode an S-works Di2 Venge and loved everything about it. Compared to my Al bike, the ride was super smooth and the thing just up and went. I'm obviously not the 'target' of the bike, but damnit if I wouldn't have one in a heartbeat. 

Hopefully I didn't make a mistake picking up an S-works SL3 on super discount, instead of waiting on a Ui2 Venge like I wanted...


----------



## ianho (May 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> Hard to discount what you say since you own both bikes. But I wonder just how many watts difference the two bikes are say at 22mph with identical body position. If its more than 25 watts I would be quite surprised. Body is primary drag...tires cut a pretty substantial and yet equivalent hole in the wind for both bikes. Again, I would sure like to see the difference quantified as I have a hard time believing there is much difference that can measured against the clock let alone felt. That said, I would like to own a Venge just because its a cool bike. Against the clock, I can't believe there is anything between the Venge and Tarmac however. Just my opinion.


The aero advantage is very noticeable. Get on a Venge n coast downhill next to a Tarmac or Roubaix or any normal non aero bike. U will immediately see the difference.


----------



## vaetuning (Oct 1, 2009)

*Venge advantage*



roadworthy said:


> Hard to discount what you say since you own both bikes. But I wonder just how many watts difference the two bikes are say at 22mph with identical body position. If its more than 25 watts I would be quite surprised. Body is primary drag...tires cut a pretty substantial and yet equivalent hole in the wind for both bikes. Again, I would sure like to see the difference quantified as I have a hard time believing there is much difference that can measured against the clock let alone felt. That said, I would like to own a Venge just because its a cool bike. Against the clock, I can't believe there is anything between the Venge and Tarmac however. Just my opinion.


Hi Roadworthy

In fact I have just begun reading a test of aero frames, made by the German Tour Magazine - they're well known and very, very competent (they're the ones doing stiffness tests in a german lab and so on). Not done reading the test yet, but this much I gathered by shortly looking over some facts in the afforementioned test.

They tested some different aero frames in a wind tunnel, with a life like dummy installed on the frames, and discovered the following concerning the Venge, which won the test by the way:

I'm posting a link for a sample video of how they do the test:

Aero-Renner im Windkanal - Test in TOUR 2/2012 - Test-Center | TOUR-MAGAZIN.DE

They use lazer measuring equipment to reproduce exact same settings from frame to frame!!

Doing 40km pr. hour you'll save 26watts, compared to a "traditional" round tubed frame!!

Doing an average of 25km pr. hour over a distance of 40km (I believe it was 40km), the Venge will make you arrive 1min. 56 seconds earlier than an traditional frame!! maybe the latter one is the most interesting one for us average riders?!

But, but.. bear in mind, that the geometry of the frame does make you ride in a more aggressive position than many other frames, and this does help some as well.

Yours Respectfully

Mads


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

vaetuning said:


> But, but.. bear in mind, that the geometry of the frame does make you ride in a more aggressive position than many other frames, and this does help some as well.


Interesting post, thanks!

As for a more aggressive position, can you explain why you think that a rider's position on a Venge would be any different than on a Tarmac? Also, did the test data factor out the rider's position or is that included in their results? Thanks.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

ukbloke said:


> Interesting post, thanks!
> 
> As for a more aggressive position, can you explain why you think that a rider's position on a Venge would be any different than on a Tarmac? Also, did the test data factor out the rider's position or is that included in their results? Thanks.


Indeed. That's the key point for me. If the round tubed frame's geometry was different and the rider was in a more upright position, then the test is worthless.

Don't forget that a Venge and a Tarmac (S-Works at least) have the exact same geometry, so there's nothing to be gained there at all.

Would be nice to see a Venge vs. Tarmac in the wind tunnel WITH dummy rider on board, and same wheels and see how that compares.

Just as an aside, loads of other small things affect your drag;

1. Shoes - big bulky ones versus smooth small ones (I have Lakes which are great).
2. Handlebar - remember the old days? 26mm? Now it's 31.8, less aero.....
3. Crank length - long cranks = more drag......maybe?!
4. Rear derailleur. In 1st gear drag will be greater than in 10th. Why? Cos the rear mech presents a much greater area.
5. The big one. Water bottle. Will completely change flow around the downtube. I don't use one at all for short races/sprint tris. Having said that, a Tarmac shields the bottle better than a Venge.
6. Shaved legs - debatable!
7. Tight clothing - important - a flapping top that allows air up the arms is a parachute.
8. Helmet - many different profiles out there, but taping holes up will smooth flow.
9. Position, position, position. More than anything else, keeping your body low will reduce drag.

I would argue that using points 1-8,will gain you as much or more than an aero frame. No. 9 definitely will.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

ianho said:


> The aero advantage is very noticeable. Get on a Venge n coast downhill next to a Tarmac or Roubaix or any normal non aero bike. U will immediately see the difference.


I'm not quite sure how true this is, but it seems to work in the real world. I rode a Cervelo S1 (aero) and my friend rode a Tarmac SL3, Pretty much the only difference other than that between us is I weigh maybe 15-20 lbs more than him and he's a big skinnier. Similar riding clothes, same helmet, same riding position, even both running Rolf wheels, so bearings shouldn't come into play (his wheels were twice the price, so hubs could have been better quality. Side by side coasting on a long gradual downhill, I'd run away from him pretty quickly. It can't be all gravity making that happen.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

dcorn said:


> ... I weigh maybe *15-20 lbs more* than him and he's a big skinnier. ... Side by side coasting on a long gradual downhill, I'd run away from him pretty quickly. It can't be all gravity making that happen.


The increase in mass and the relatively small increase in body surface area resisting the air flow does explain why you would accelerate away on a downhill and have a bigger terminal velocity. I can see that some small part would be the aero frame, but it is a small part.


----------



## vaetuning (Oct 1, 2009)

*Rider position*



ukbloke said:


> Interesting post, thanks!
> 
> As for a more aggressive position, can you explain why you think that a rider's position on a Venge would be any different than on a Tarmac? Also, did the test data factor out the rider's position or is that included in their results? Thanks.


Hi ukbloke

No, the riders position will NOT be different compared to the Tarmac - but I'm riding Roubaix's due to a disease, which is attacking my entire spine, and my joints in general (I have 3 prolapses in my neck and back for now, and more to come):cryin::mad2:
Therefore, for me, it is impossible to be in such an aero position for more than a short moment of time - did'nt clarify that in my first post - sorry!!

Nevertheless - I love my Roubaix's - they have made it possible for me to keep riding:thumbsup:

In the meantime, I have finished reading the test, and the gain in time WHERE over 40km, but it was "only" 1.53min.

Concerning the roundtubed frame they used as a reference in the test - it was a racing geometry one - nomore was revealed.

They used lazer measurement gear, to ensure that the dummy was in the exact same angle and position, from bike to bike - they also used a special adjustable stem and handlebar to ensure this.

Specialized Venge McLaren & Cervelo S5 won the test Aero wise, but Scott had won overall, if they'd send the real life production frame, and not a pre-production sample, as the sample had lower STW values, than the current production one.

The reason why it would have won, is due to its lower cost, than the 2 others.

If you'd only look at the aero advantage the Venge would win, thereafter the Cervelo - then the Litespeed (yeah, Litespeed did very well, actually) & the Scott - would'nt be caught dead on the Cervelo though - I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder....but that one sure does look.....eerrh, different. To put it mildly

I'm sure aero road frames will be a part of the future bikes, buth ideally one should have a normal framed bike for training, and only bring out the aero one for races.

And as I'm not racing, and cannot be in a very aero position for long - I'll stick to my 2 trusty Roubaix's.

Yours Respectfully

Mads


----------



## tiflow_21 (Nov 21, 2005)

I would like to hear from someone who had a venge and didn't like it. It seems like glowing reviews come from people that just bought them... but of course you'd be glowing if you just got a shiny new $5k+ toy. Who doesn't like a bike they spent $5k+ on?

I still can't get over the fact that a majority of aero resistance (I've read 80%+) comes from your body and the position on the bike. In terms of aerodynamics the only thing that differentiates the venge from the tarmac is tube shaping, there's no other black magic going on. If there's a gain in speed due to aerodynamics it's nearly impossible to be as much faster as some people claim it to be. Judging by what some new owners say you'd think they're gaining 5+ minutes in an hour of riding. If that were the case all the pros would be riding venges, they couldn't afford not to. Of course aero helps, but not as much as some new owners (and marketers) try to make it sound. Ever heard of the placebo effect? A venge may help increase speed, but thinking it helps may actually do more than the actual science behind the design. The mind is a powerful thing.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

tiflow_21 said:


> I still can't get over the fact that a majority of aero resistance (I've read 80%+) comes from your body and the position on the bike. In terms of aerodynamics the only thing that differentiates the venge from the tarmac is tube shaping, there's no other black magic going on.
> 
> If there's a gain in speed due to aerodynamics it's nearly impossible to be as much faster as some people claim it to be. Judging by what some new owners say you'd think they're gaining 5+ minutes in an hour of riding. If that were the case all the pros would be riding venges, they couldn't afford not to.
> 
> Of course aero helps, but not as much as some new owners (and marketers) try to make it sound. Ever heard of the placebo effect? A venge may help increase speed, but thinking it helps may actually do more than the actual science behind the design. The mind is a powerful thing.


Much of it is indeed a placebo effect.

Looking at the numbers companies cite for statistical advantage of aero frames...you are looking at an increase of about .3 mph - .5 mph ... while holding an average of *27 mph* (I know guys that can barely sprint that fast, let alone hold that pace for any sustained amount of time).

With that said...I've held just under 27.5 mph for 40k on my Time Trial bike with full aero gear...but not even close on my road bike, where it would be more like 24 mph 24.5 mph for the same distance.

An extra .5 mph there would save me a little over 1 minute at those speeds over 40k.

The reality is most people are not holding anywhere near those speeds. Most are cruising around solo at 19 mph - 22 mph...where they might see a .15 mph - .25 mph increase in speed, but not more. Basically it the change in speed won't register on their cyclocomputer.

However in a race during a break away...it could help...during a final sprint in a race where you are doing 40 mph an extra 1 mph can be the difference between winning and losing. So it has it's benefits in the right circumstance.

However, the claims people make about speed gains are pretty funny overall and are derived from a placebo effect as you mention.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Since it is just tubing shape why doesn't Specialized just design as much of this as they can into the Tarmac so that we get the aero and the road comfort? I'll happily take any extra speed increase as long as it doesn't degrade comfort. Maybe they won't get the full benefit but they should be able to get most without degrading the Tarmac ride quality. Also they really need to design this in conjunction with wheels as a system, and optimize over a wide range of wind angles (yaw). There's probably a lot that they could do in combination with Zipp. Dimpled toroidal frames perhaps?


----------



## _Forza_ (Jul 11, 2010)

tiflow_21 said:


> I would like to hear from someone who had a venge and didn't like it. It seems like glowing reviews come from people that just bought them... but of course you'd be glowing if you just got a shiny new $5k+ toy. Who doesn't like a bike they spent $5k+ on?
> 
> I still can't get over the fact that a majority of aero resistance (I've read 80%+) comes from your body and the position on the bike. In terms of aerodynamics the only thing that differentiates the venge from the tarmac is tube shaping, there's no other black magic going on. If there's a gain in speed due to aerodynamics it's nearly impossible to be as much faster as some people claim it to be. Judging by what some new owners say you'd think they're gaining 5+ minutes in an hour of riding. If that were the case all the pros would be riding venges, they couldn't afford not to. Of course aero helps, but not as much as some new owners (and marketers) try to make it sound. Ever heard of the placebo effect? A venge may help increase speed, but thinking it helps may actually do more than the actual science behind the design. The mind is a powerful thing.


Guy on my team who I know and trust, said basically...it's just too harsh of a ride..especially on chip and seal roads....When you're in a Peloton, the aero effects are pretty minimal and the bumpy ride doesn't go away..if you are out front in a break, then maybe it's worth it. 

This year we're all running S-Works SL4s. Side note, the SL4 is actually stiffer than the Venge. Seems that there are some comments somewhere back implying the opposite. Yes, there is a difference between stiff (torsional) and harsh (vertical).


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

I reckon there's only one way to sort this out.

Take a Venge and an SL4, same size, equipped exactly the same. 

Lock the front wheel straight and clip on some basic rear stabilizers.

Find a nice long straight slope, about 5%. Long enough to ensure terminal speed of at least 40km/h.

Let each bike roll off under it's own steam. Measure time and speed at finish line.

Repeat 10 times. Average results. Voila!!


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

bernithebiker said:


> I reckon there's only one way to sort this out.
> 
> Take a Venge and an SL4, same size, equipped exactly the same.
> 
> ...


A Roubaix would likely beat a Venge with your test Bern. Ever descend with rider(s) weighing 220 lbs? Weight trumps arrow profile when descending. Even though time to distance doesn't include weight aka Y = 1/2At^2...this presumes in a vacuum. Drop a bowling ball and a feather...same thing....bowling ball wins.

A good discussion and believe all has been answered. A handful of watts at a speed most can't sustain with super stiff vertical compliance pretty much sums up the beautiful Venge. Living with a supermodel really....won't be for everybody. The SL4 Tarmac makes more sense for the average racer...because you get a better ride. As mentioned, the aero benefit is quite fleeting and yet you live with the ride quality every mile you ride.
Drag due to air velocity is an exponential function for those tech heads out there. As previously stated at 19-22 mph where most of ride 98% percent of the time, you will likely be faster on a Tarmac or Roubaix because your body is getting less beat up.
A very cool bike however...just for the uber fast guy who likes a stiff ride or doesn't ride the rough stuff...not the best choice in the midwest where I live where the winter isn't very kind to the roads.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

OK fair point, but then just add small lead weights inside the seatpost to make the weights even.


----------



## jsellers (Feb 14, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> I would agree with this point...
> 
> As more Aero bikes come out, the different fits will vary and people will sell off old bikes for new ones that fit better.
> 
> ...


Hard to compare a Rival bike with a Dura Ace equipped bike.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

jsellers said:


> Hard to compare a Rival bike with a Dura Ace equipped bike.


True...but a Rival equipped Venge would likely run around $4500+ which still puts it out of the realm of most people, even avid racers.

For what you get...the Venge is way overpriced. A nice bike, but you can get similar bikes for cheaper, that are just as effective. If it's your dream to own a Venge...go for it, if not...look around, there are better deals to be had.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

This thread has been a real model of how these forums should work. Great input, good insights, much more civility and thoughtfulness than I had even hoped for.
After deep thought on the issue and reading a ton of threads around the internet where owners of the Venge discussed the harsh ride issue, I'm now leaning pretty sharply toward accepting 400 grams of extra weight and about two kilos of extra ugliness and going with a Cervelo S5. Gravy is that I'll probably save $1,000 or more, but that's not the issue, I'd have happily paid it and accpeted what seems likely to be a tiny aero penalty for the Venge vs. S5, if it would even match the ride quality of the Cervelo.
It seems clear that Specialized needs to go back to the drawing board a bit on the vertical compliance.
They sure got the looks right, though, and it sounds like the handling is fine unless you hit a tiny bump in mid-turn, and I think in another iteration or two, as they refine the concept, I'll take another look.
But it seems pretty clear that this would be like buying the first year of a new model of car, before the bugs have been sorted. The Tarmac, for example, is thoroughly sorted I think at this point.
I've ridden some really, really stiff bikes and for me this isn't exactly a comfort issue, it's more whether the bike can inspire confidence on chip seals, the occasional small pothole some jackass lets through without pointing out, and bridge seams on a corner at the bottom of a fast hill. You can't get traction in the air.
If it's jouncing around in the middle of a corner, that just won't get it... and if it's bouncing from pebble to pebble on chip seal, rolling resistance will be through the roof.
Mind you, it sounds like a close call, but I don't think I want to risk it. Ton of money to get it wrong.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

thumper8888 said:


> After deep thought on the issue and reading a ton of threads around the internet where owners of the Venge discussed the harsh ride issue, I'm now leaning pretty sharply toward accepting 400 grams of extra weight and about two kilos of extra ugliness and going with a Cervelo S5. Gravy is that I'll probably save $1,000 or more, but that's not the issue, I'd have happily paid it and accpeted what seems likely to be a tiny aero penalty for the Venge vs. S5, if it would even match the ride quality of the Cervelo.


Even though I don't own a Venge...If I could, it would be on a short list...I wouldn't let the ride scare you away if it's the bike you "Want". 

The reason? My guess is the vast majority of riders are using 23c tires with their Venge's and a quick switch to 25c tires and 10psi lower would cure all the harsh ride issues the bike has...and improve handling, along with lower rolling resistance. It would take all the main issues away from the Venge as far as critics go.

I will say this though...The Cervelo S5 is an ugly bike, and I like almost every aero bike on the market. I don't think I could get past the looks on that bike...regardless of how nice it is.

With all that said...If I had the money, I'd pick up a Scott Foil, but the Venge would be a close second...though they would both be ridden on test rides to make sure


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

Does a Cervelo S5 really ride noticeably different than a Venge? I have not ridden either, but it seems logical that any bike with pretty extreme aero-style tubes is not going to ride as well as a Tarmac.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> Even though I don't own a Venge...If I could, it would be on a short list...I wouldn't let the ride scare you away if it's the bike you "Want".
> 
> The reason? *My guess is the vast majority of riders are using 23c tires with their Venge's and a quick switch to 25c tires and 10psi lower would cure all the harsh ride issues the bike has...and improve handling, along with lower rolling resistance. It would take all the main issues away from the Venge as far as critics go.*
> 
> ...


I don't own one and I'm not advocating for the Venge because IMO it's 95% marketing hype and 5% aero advantage (and even that's probably a high estimate), but fact is many cyclists are under the mistaken impression that skinny tires running at max PSI equate to max performance, and IME (as well as many others) that doesn't hold true. 

The 'bouncing' over road irregularities is more apt to occur at higher PSI's, where experimenting with PSI (based on total rider weight, cycling style, road conditions...) results in a win-win - with a smoother ride and lower rolling resistance, because the tires are better able to absorb those irregularities. 

All else being equal, the Venge may ride harsher than some other models, but IMO/E following the above advice will go a long way in leveling the playing field.. as would choice of wheelsets.


----------



## Mdrnizd (Oct 21, 2009)

I've ridden both the Venge and the S5 and there is not that much different in ride quality. Personally, I didn't think the Venge was that much less compliant than my Tarmac SL3. The S5 felt okay, but nothing that just jumped out at me. I ended up with an S-Works Tarmac SL4 after buying a Cervelo R5 VWD LTD first and selling it. The Tarmac was by far smoother than the Cervelo R5 with the same wheel set.


----------



## vaetuning (Oct 1, 2009)

*Cevelo S5*



thumper8888 said:


> This thread has been a real model of how these forums should work. Great input, good insights, much more civility and thoughtfulness than I had even hoped for.
> After deep thought on the issue and reading a ton of threads around the internet where owners of the Venge discussed the harsh ride issue, I'm now leaning pretty sharply toward accepting 400 grams of extra weight and about two kilos of extra ugliness and going with a Cervelo S5. Gravy is that I'll probably save $1,000 or more, but that's not the issue,
> 
> Hi Thumper8888
> ...


----------



## diegogarcia (Apr 29, 2010)

vaetuning said:


> thumper8888 said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has been a real model of how these forums should work. Great input, good insights, much more civility and thoughtfulness than I had even hoped for.
> ...


----------



## diegogarcia (Apr 29, 2010)

Personally, I cant see how anyone would buy a Venge without thinking about what they are getting?

I like super rigid, strong BB stiff ht etc as I like riding like this. I run tubs at 150psi too and love to motor a bike along and feel the bumps and tarmac. Cant ever see myself riding a 'comfort' bike at all, and as per my Venge thread I am 40 so not getting any younger but my desire for stiff bikes remains.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> I don't own one and I'm not advocating for the Venge because IMO it's 95% marketing hype and 5% aero advantage (and even that's probably a high estimate), but fact is many cyclists are under the mistaken impression that skinny tires running at max PSI equate to max performance, and IME (as well as many others) that doesn't hold true.
> 
> The 'bouncing' over road irregularities is more apt to occur at higher PSI's, where experimenting with PSI (based on total rider weight, cycling style, road conditions...) results in a win-win - with a smoother ride and lower rolling resistance, because the tires are better able to absorb those irregularities.
> 
> All else being equal, the Venge may ride harsher than some other models, but IMO/E following the above advice will go a long way in leveling the playing field.. as would choice of wheelsets.


I think there is something to this, but then you get into an argument over rolling resistance benefits/aero tradeoffs on smoother pavement, where MOST riding occurs.
It's kind of hard to buy a bike that says, yes, I believe on balance aero is the right way to go despite the tradeoffs, then put wider tires on it...
It's akin to leaving the stickers on tubular carbon rims after you spent a ton of money to get the lightest, most aero thing around.
I do realize for riders above a certain weight, 25mms are almost certainly the better choice, partic on anything but absolutely smooth, and I think honest people can disagree rationally on when 25s make more sense and when they dont. I've got some on my bad weather bike, and love them.
Anyway, the Venge argument is clearly taking me down yet another rabbit hole with this one....


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

diegogarcia said:


> vaetuning said:
> 
> 
> > Every Cervelo I have ridden has induced speed wobble sadly.
> ...


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> Even though I don't own a Venge...If I could, it would be on a short list...I wouldn't let the ride scare you away if it's the bike you "Want".
> 
> The reason? My guess is the vast majority of riders are using 23c tires with their Venge's and a quick switch to 25c tires and 10psi lower would cure all the harsh ride issues the bike has...and improve handling, along with lower rolling resistance. It would take all the main issues away from the Venge as far as critics go.
> 
> ...


Indeed the S5 is not attractive. It shows the worst case of what can happen when you more or less let the wind tunnel and the CAD program determine the looks of your bike. It needs a more firm designer's hand to have stepped in and tweaked some stuff, trade off a watt or two for better aesthetics, emotion being a part of the purchase design even for some of the msot rational among us.... It's no doubt a huge challenge but if you look at, say, the Ibis Mojo, that shows that CAD-drawn bikes can look really, really nice. It being an MTB, they didnt have the challenge of drag reduction, but they did have the additional engineering constraints imposed by the loads in MTB, locating the rear shock and having a separate rear triangle. So you can balance a bunch of needs and make things still come out looking nice. The Venge is another example, and the Tarmacs look pretty nice, too.
Cervelo's design schtick seems to be ruthless rationality. I think the P4 and P5 are nice looking items, though it seems mainly to be by accident, and even then they kind of blew it by putting a water bottle on the 4 that they should have known might not make it with those luddites on UCI. It was almost like a triumph of that hyperrationality over common sense.
But the bikes do seem to work well.
Odd as it may seem, I think I'd be happier with that robot-looking ugly S5 than the Scott, which looks kind of bland and soul-less. Cervelo may be wrong-headed, but there does at least seem to be some philosophy underpinning their decision-making on the looks of the thing. And while it's not worth much the S5 does look a LITTLE better in person.


----------



## trip221 (Oct 22, 2003)

vaetuning said:


> Every Cervelo I have ridden has induced speed wobble sadly.


I've been riding Cervelos for the last 7 or 8 years and never experienced a speed wobble. Nor has anyone else in my club that rides a Cervelo.

Haven't tried the S5 yet, so can't speak for that one.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

The end of the story.
It's simple: I was wrong. Crossing one last "T" in my fence-sitting, I knocked the tire pressure on the Ridley down to 95, went out and did 60 miles on all kinds of surfaces. The ride was a bit better and just generally not even vaguely a problem. I'm sure the venge is a tad better ride.
I ordered an S-Works. It's the right thing to do. That weight gap with the S5 was just hard to deal with mentally.
Now I've got a new problem: what crank do I use?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

thumper8888 said:


> The end of the story.
> It's simple: I was wrong. Crossing one last "T" in my fence-sitting, I knocked the tire pressure on the Ridley down to 95, went out and did 60 miles on all kinds of surfaces. The ride was a bit better and just generally not even vaguely a problem. I'm sure the venge is a tad better ride.
> I ordered an S-Works. It's the right thing to do. That weight gap with the S5 was just hard to deal with mentally.
> Now I've got a new problem: what crank do I use?


Unless you're already running them/ if your bike can handle them, try 25's and I'd guess you'll like the results even better. 

I'm a firm believer in the value of experimenting with various tire construction/ sizes/ PSI's. Once a balance is struck (again IMO/E) there's little if any change in performance numbers. And considering the primary source of drag is the rider, I believe the same would hold true on a Venge (or similar).

FWIW, given what you've offered in this thread and the bikes you were considering, I think you made a good decision. 

I scanned through your thread (admittedly quickly) so may have missed it, but what's your question/ concern re: cranksets?


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> Unless you're already running them/ if your bike can handle them, try 25's and I'd guess you'll like the results even better.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in the value of experimenting with various tire construction/ sizes/ PSI's. Once a balance is struck (again IMO/E) there's little if any change in performance numbers. And considering the primary source of drag is the rider, I believe the same would hold true on a Venge (or similar).
> 
> ...



It's nothing earth-shattering, another case like my fence-sitting with the Venge, where honest people can disagree, and none of the choices would result in a serious -- or maybe even noticeably -- performance difference.
It's just that all my bikes are threaded old-school BB, and here I will be staring down the barrel of the BB30 thing... My heart says I want to try BB30 and it's a bit of a waste not to, since I have a chance to get into a new one for a really, really excellent price.
My head says that I have not been able to get the 7900 I've got now in my race bike to flex, and wouldn't flex in the venge either if I swap it in, so why dump a perfectly great crank.
Not that I can claim to be rational after plunking down for a bike frame worth something similar to my car...but it would be smart to hold down expenses because even if I switch over almost everything, there will be the usual hidden build-up costs -- cables, probably a slightly shorter stem, bottle cages etc.
Not a huge problem, feel bad for bringing it up. Lots of people have grappled with this one on the forum, probably not much new to be said on it except the new Red is officially public as of today and the crank looks nice.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

thumper8888 said:


> Lots of people have grappled with this one on the forum, probably not much new to be said on it except the new Red is officially public as of today and the crank looks nice.


If I had the money today to build up a new race-oriented BB30 frame, I think I'd pick the new SRAM Red over DA7900, Di2, Ui2 or even Campy 11-speed. Of course I've never actually ridden any of these, so feel free to discount my opinion!


----------



## Newnan3 (Jul 8, 2011)

ukbloke said:


> If I had the money today to build up a new race-oriented BB30 frame, I think I'd pick the new SRAM Red over DA7900, Di2, Ui2 or even Campy 11-speed. Of course I've never actually ridden any of these, so feel free to discount my opinion!


Ive never ridden any of these either but I'd probably prefer an old school mechanical system myself :thumbsup:


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

thumper8888 said:


> Indeed the S5 is not attractive. It shows the worst case of what can happen when you more or less let the wind tunnel and the CAD program determine the looks of your bike. It needs a more firm designer's hand to have stepped in and tweaked some stuff, trade off a watt or two for better aesthetics, emotion being a part of the purchase design even for some of the msot rational among us.... It's no doubt a huge challenge but if you look at, say, the Ibis Mojo, that shows that CAD-drawn bikes can look really, really nice. It being an MTB, they didnt have the challenge of drag reduction, but they did have the additional engineering constraints imposed by the loads in MTB, locating the rear shock and having a separate rear triangle. So you can balance a bunch of needs and make things still come out looking nice. The Venge is another example, and the Tarmacs look pretty nice, too.
> Cervelo's design schtick seems to be ruthless rationality. I think the P4 and P5 are nice looking items, though it seems mainly to be by accident, and even then they kind of blew it by putting a water bottle on the 4 that they should have known might not make it with those luddites on UCI. It was almost like a triumph of that hyperrationality over common sense.
> But the bikes do seem to work well.
> Odd as it may seem, I think I'd be happier with that robot-looking ugly S5 than the Scott, which looks kind of bland and soul-less. Cervelo may be wrong-headed, but there does at least seem to be some philosophy underpinning their decision-making on the looks of the thing. And while it's not worth much the S5 does look a LITTLE better in person.


One of the best written posts I have read on the subject. Couldn't agree more...or single minded versus ruthless rationality, i.e. denying that rationality that shape sells bikes. Of course there is the view that a different albeit not classically beautiful shape may sell as well. A calculated marketing risk. Most if not virtually all bikes today are designed with CAD...including corresponding molds so its the designers discretion that ultimately determines the end result...either flowing form or transformer-esque like the S5. Aesthetics...a subjective quality sells bikes at the end of the day and there is ample proof of that as many for example purchase a Venge that really don't like the ride quality much. I personally believe its sacriledge to put 25's on a Venge and sag the tire pressure for a more compliant ride. I think its fine for other bikes...even a Roubaix that doesn't need to because of its exemplary ride...but not on a Venge which is an out and out racing machine. Probably 80% that buy a Venge would be happier riding something that is more compliant. Word is the S5 is more compliant than a Venge...but I believe the S5 is an aesthetic abomination as do many. Specialized with all their wonderful engineering still understands the mantra that its the shape that sells.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

roadworthy said:


> I personally believe its sacriledge to put 25's on a Venge and sag the tire pressure for a more compliant ride. I think its fine for other bikes...even a Roubaix that doesn't need to because of its exemplary ride...but not on a Venge which is an out and out racing machine.


So even though 25c's are pretty much proven to be faster than 23c's you would rather "Look" faster than be faster? As an all out race bike...shouldn't you equip it with the fastest gear?

Your post doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it :idea:


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

thumper8888 said:


> It's nothing earth-shattering, another case like my fence-sitting with the Venge, where honest people can disagree, and none of the choices would result in a serious -- or maybe even noticeably -- performance difference.
> It's just that all my bikes are threaded old-school BB, and here I will be staring down the barrel of the BB30 thing... My heart says I want to try BB30 and it's a bit of a waste not to, since I have a chance to get into a new one for a really, really excellent price.
> My head says that I have not been able to get the 7900 I've got now in my race bike to flex, and wouldn't flex in the venge either if I swap it in, so why dump a perfectly great crank.
> Not that I can claim to be rational after plunking down for a bike frame worth something similar to my car...but it would be smart to hold down expenses because even if I switch over almost everything, there will be the usual hidden build-up costs -- cables, probably a slightly shorter stem, bottle cages etc.
> Not a huge problem, feel bad for bringing it up. Lots of people have grappled with this one on the forum, probably not much new to be said on it except the new Red is officially public as of today and the crank looks nice.


I'll say upfront that I'm not a BB30 fan. That said, given what you've offered here, the most objective opinion I can muster is to say that since no choices you've mentioned are irreversible and since you want to keep costs down, consider going with the cheapest option available _for now_. That seems to be utilizing your DA crankset with adapters - a perfectly fine 'alternative', IMHO.


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

Yes, there has been a lot written about BB30, PF30, etc. I also am not a fan, and won't be at least until there is one agreed upon standard. 

My two cents on components: I've ridden pretty much every high end group available over the last ten years, including Di2. For me, nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to Super Record 11. You owe it to yourself to try it. Too expensive? I'd rather have Campy Chorus 11 than any other group, once again including Di2. It's not even a contest for me.

On another subject discussed here, I have been running lower tire pressures for quite awhile. On my "A" bike, I have used tubeless tires for around 15,000 miles. At 152#, I normally use 80F and 82-85R, which yields incredible grip and comfort, and I can feel the tires rolling faster than anything else I have used. On my other bikes, I use Conti GP4000S at 90-95psi.

I bet if most people who run 110+ psi lowered their tire pressure by 10 or more psi, they wouldn't believe that they were on the same bike. Ten psi lower pressure probably translates to a bigger difference than the difference between a Tarmac and a Venge in terms of ride quality.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

tommyturbo said:


> On another subject discussed here, I have been running lower tire pressures for quite awhile. On my "A" bike, I have used tubeless tires for around 15,000 miles. *At 152#, I normally use 80F and 82-85R, *which yields incredible grip and comfort, and I can feel the tires rolling faster than anything else I have used. *On my other bikes, I use Conti GP4000S at 90-95psi.*
> 
> I bet if most people who run 110+ psi lowered their tire pressure by 10 or more psi, they wouldn't believe that they were on the same bike. Ten psi lower pressure probably translates to a bigger difference than the difference between a Tarmac and a Venge in terms of ride quality.


Given our weight differences (your 152 to my 135) we've tailored our tire pressures pretty much the same, and with similar experiences.

I also run Conti GP4000S's (25c's on my Tarmac Comp, 23c's on my Pro) and set PSI's at ~70(f)/ 80(r) on both. Obviously heavier riders and/ or rougher terrain would dictate somewhat higher pressures, but IME most would benefit from experimenting.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

tommyturbo said:


> Yes, there has been a lot written about BB30, PF30, etc. I also am not a fan, and won't be at least until there is one agreed upon standard.
> 
> My two cents on components: I've ridden pretty much every high end group available over the last ten years, including Di2. For me, nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to Super Record 11. You owe it to yourself to try it. Too expensive? I'd rather have Campy Chorus 11 than any other group, once again including Di2. It's not even a contest for me.
> 
> ...




This is interesting stuff. I dropped from 105 f/r to 93ish/95 on the ridley and it was def. noticeable and help. that said, those numbers are probably the edge for me, at 178-179 lbs....even if I drop down to 170 which is probably close to the theoretical max and still be healthy for my build etc.
the tubeless may be a way to get it down another 4-5 psi, but I'm running a bunch of reynolds, which represent a significant investment, and theyre not exactless tubeless friendly. I havent seen too many tubeless wheels that piqued my interest, excpt maybe some of the shimano ones, which arent cheap.
which tubeless wheels are you running?


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

I have the Campagnolo Eurus Two-way fit wheels. Both Campy and Shimano make some of the best hubs around. Adjustable ball bearings are hard to find these days, and you would swear my hub bearings are ceramic if you spun a wheel with the bike in the stand.

Search the internet for "optimal tire pressure sidewall deflection chart" or something like that. A study was done and there is a chart that gives optimal pressure by rider weight related to the most efficient value for side wall deflection in terms of rolling resistance and comfort.

I use two sets of wheels with my Tarmac. For 99% of the time, I run the tubeless. If I am going out to try a PR on a long climb, I throw on a set of light wheels (1370g) with ultralight tubes. The tubeless system is a bit of a weigh penalty, but the comfort, safety, grip, and fast rolling is worth it.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Regarding tire pressure charts, I've posted this one previously. Appropriately, Michelin refers to it as a _guide_.
Michelin Bicycle USA - A better way forward®


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

It's really hard for me to believe the aero frame is something a person can feel. I think its placebo effect brought on by the $$$ effect. ;-)



ukbloke said:


> The increase in mass and the relatively small increase in body surface area resisting the air flow does explain why you would accelerate away on a downhill and have a bigger terminal velocity. I can see that some small part would be the aero frame, but it is a small part.


----------



## Stumpy2011 (Aug 1, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Regarding tire pressure charts, I've posted this one previously. Appropriately, Michelin refers to it as a _guide_.
> Michelin Bicycle USA - A better way forward®


Thx PJ for the table.
Currently set-up with Tubes and 700x25 tires, I would like to reduce the air pressure per my weight to 100 psi, but I noticed that when running lower pressure I get pinch flat (snake bites) when passing over small rocks or other obstacles which sometimes are unavoidable.
So currently I'm running at max pressure just to avoid the pinch flats.
Is there a a safe "pinch-flat proof" pressure for 177 lbs weight? I rather not experiment and run higher than lower pressure...


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

110 psi


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Stumpy2011 said:


> Thx PJ for the table.
> Currently set-up with Tubes and 700x25 tires, I would like to reduce the air pressure per my weight to 100 psi, but I noticed that when running lower pressure I get pinch flat (snake bites) when passing over small rocks or other obstacles which sometimes are unavoidable.
> So currently I'm running at max pressure just to avoid the pinch flats.
> *Is there a a safe "pinch-flat proof" pressure for 177 lbs weight?* I rather not experiment and run higher than lower pressure...


Unfortunately, the best answer to your question is.. experiment. If you're close to 180 lbs. and your max tire pressure is around 110 PSI, I don't think dropping down to just above 100 is going to set you up for pinch flats. 

That said, keep in mind that there are a number of other factors at play here, like tire size, construction, style of riding, road conditions (among others).

FWIW, the chart recommends ~102 PSI, but being a _guide_, that's just a start.


----------



## IJBcape (May 27, 2011)

I am 180 lbs and use tubeless tires on Stan's rims. It's really awesome for running lof pressures and smoothing the ride. In winter I use 25mm Hutch intensives and in summer 23mm atoms. I use 98-102 in the 25mm and 108 or so in the 23mm. I think tubeless buys you a little wiggle room in this context.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Yup...tubeless have been big for a while off road and seem to be gaining momentum on road bikes for the same reason...can run lower pressures without pinch flatting.
The one irony I see however is cyclists buy a super stiff frame because it looks racey and then they sag the tire pressure to make it more comfortable. My view is...buy a frameset that has the ride quality you prefer and then to optimize speed run tire pressures that are optimum for rider weight in terms of deflection and rolling resistance. With the preoccupation about watts relative to air drag...what the Venge is about...going to 25's versus 23's will likely negate and then some any aero advantage of a Venge say over a Tarmac. The rolling resistance deficit of 25's is in fact less than the air drag penalty especially on rougher road because they cut a bigger hole in the air.

A question IJBcape. Do you have a Venge and if so, what Stans rims and hubs do you run on your road bike? What is the spoke count and weight of your Stan's wheelset?
Stan's have a huge following off road as you know.
Thanks


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

roadworthy said:


> With the preoccupation about watts relative to air drag...what the Venge is about...going to 25's versus 23's will likely negate and then some any aero advantage of a Venge say over a Tarmac. The rolling resistance deficit of 25's is in fact less than the air drag penalty especially on rougher road because they cut a bigger hole in the air.


When are people going to get over this "Old wives tale"?

25c tires don't cut a "Bigger" hole in the wind, thus mitigating the advantage of an aero frame. They also have lower rolling resistance compared to 23c tires, better cornering and a better ride.

Wind tunnel testing actually shows wider rims with wider tires are "Faster" than narrow rims with narrow tires.

It's not about frontal area...it's about "Drag" ... and just because something has more frontal area doesn't mean it has more drag.

I love how people are stuck on 23c tires being "The" racing tire even though 25c tires are proved to be faster...which, BTW, is why the Pro's are making the move to wide tires, even on time trial bikes.

READ people....READ! I know it's a lost art but do some research before posting uninformed information :mad2:


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> READ people....READ! I know it's a lost art but do some research before posting uninformed information :mad2:


Speaking of which, here's a good place to start.
Bicycle Tires and Tubes

_Lots_ of good info. For those interested, specific to the topic of tire size/ pressure, once at the link click on "rolling resistance" and read through "pressure recommendations".


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> When are people going to get over this "Old wives tale"?
> 
> 25c tires don't cut a "Bigger" hole in the wind, thus mitigating the advantage of an aero frame. They also have lower rolling resistance compared to 23c tires, better cornering and a better ride.
> 
> ...


Not sure I understand this. 

Because from my engineering days, I remember this formula for drag;

FD = 1/2 ρ * v * v * CD * A

where
FD is the force of drag, which is by definition the force component in the direction of the flow velocity,[1]
ρ is the mass density of the fluid,
v is the velocity of the object relative to the fluid,
A is the reference area, and
CD is the drag coefficient — a dimensionless constant related to the object's geometry and taking into account both skin friction and form drag.

So basically drag forces increase for the square of your velocity (the faster you go the harder it gets) and the frontal area and the drag coefficient, ρ being more or less constant for air.

So at a given speed of say 40km/h, what's left? Just frontal area and Cd.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but 25mm tires MUST have a greater frontal area than 23mm tires no?

So unless they have somehow magically reduced their Cd (by changing their shape) dramatically, I don't see how they can be more aero....?


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

bernithebiker said:


> So unless they have somehow magically reduced their Cd (by changing their shape) dramatically, I don't see how they can be more aero....?


It is not just the shape of the tire, it is the total shape of the entire tire and rim profile (not to mention spokes and frame).

If it was as simple as making the shape smaller, then aero bikes would look much more like the skinny tube steel bikes of old.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

ukbloke said:


> It is not just the shape of the tire, it is the total shape of the entire tire and rim profile (not to mention spokes and frame).
> 
> If it was as simple as making the shape smaller, then aero bikes would look much more like the skinny tube steel bikes of old.


If you look at TT bikes, alot of time and effort goes into reducing frontal area. Flat handlebars, cables tucked away, etc.

This is common sense.

It also makes sense of course to optimize the drag coefficient by optimizing the shape of these components.

So I guess what you're saying here is that although the wider tire presents a greater frontal area, the Cd HAS magically decreased because of the overall shape of tire and rim.

Hmmmm, maybe. Is there any trustworthy INDEPENDENT data to back this up?


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> When are people going to get over this "Old wives tale"?
> 
> 25c tires don't cut a "Bigger" hole in the wind, thus mitigating the advantage of an aero frame. They also have lower rolling resistance compared to 23c tires, better cornering and a better ride.
> 
> ...


Hilarious. READ indeed. How about read with COMPREHENSION?

Which factors affect rolling resistance?
Tire pressure, tire diameter, tire construction, tire tread and other factors all have an effect on rolling resistance. The higher the tire pressure, the less is tire deformation and thus the rolling resistance. 
Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same tire pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more important, in other words the tire is "less round". Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. 

This assertion generally generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more. Obviously, tire construction also has an effect on rolling resistance. The less material is used, the less material there is to deform. And the more flexible the material is, such as the rubber compound, the less energy is lost through deformation. 

Generally, smooth treads roll better than coarse treads. lugs and wide gaps usually have a detrimental effect on rolling resistance.

Why do wide tires roll better than narrow ones?
The answer to this question lies in tire deflection. Each tire is flattened a little under load. This creates a flat contact area. At the same tire pressure, a wide and a narrow tire have the same contact area. 
A wide tire is flattened over its width whereas a narrow tire has a slimmer but longer contact area. The flattened area can be considered as a counterweight to tire rotation. Because of the longer flattened area of the narrow tire, the wheel loses more of its "roundness" and produces more deformation during rotation. 
However, in the wide tire, the radial length of the flattened area is shorter, making the tire "rounder" and so it rolls better. 

Why do Pros ride narrow tires if wide tires roll better?
Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure, but narrow tires can be inflated to higher pressures than wide tires. 
However, they then obviously give a less comfortable ride. In addition to this, narrow tires have an advantage over wide ones at higher speeds, as they provide less air resistance. 

Above all, a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to accelerate because the rotating mass of the wheels is lower and the bicycle is much more agile. 
At constant speeds of around 20 km/h, the ride is better with wider tires. In practice, the energy saving is even greater than in theory as the elasticity of the tires absorbs road shocks, which would otherwise be transferred to the rider and so saves energy.

Summary?
Extrapolate from the pros. How do pros determine what is fastest? With a stop watch and power meter data logging speed against watts and testing different tires. The rest is just theory. What do pros ride? Perform a search. Pretty much all average weight riders ride 22-23mm tubulars. Why? Because they are faster on smooth road surfaces. For cobblestone races, 25's go on. Why? Because of lower pressure they diminish speed less than because vertical road disturbances do not translate in terms of negative force...sine of vertical road surface irregularities.

You can believe all the theory you want...and I am an engineer...three factors affect how fast a tire is:
-rolling resistance
- air drag
- wheel and tire weight (acceleration and climbing)

The pros race for a living and if you want to know what the fastest combination is for a given rider weight...look no further. I will give you 25's have a better ride because they are higher volume and can sustain lower pressure without flatting but they are only faster on rough road...not smooth road...period.
PS: for the average cyclist who doesn't race for a living where ticks of the clock make a different in income, 25's are fine if not preferred because of their improved ride quality. But for high speed riding on smooth road surfaces, they are not faster or pros would be racing on them.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

bernithebiker said:


> If you look at TT bikes, alot of time and effort goes into reducing frontal area. Flat handlebars, cables tucked away, etc.
> 
> This is common sense.
> 
> ...


I'm with you Bern. Let's see some data showing higher volume 25's provide less drag than 23's. How about the argument is taken to 28 or 32mm tires? If 25mm tires are more aerodynamic why not 28's or 32's..lol. Also, the myth about lower rolling resistance is easily dispelled by tire pressure. Can't run 25's at the same pressure pressure you can 23's without risk of blow out. Then there is tire mass. 25's weigh more. 
Does any of this really matter? No. Ride what you like. 28's may make even better sense for the average weekend warrior who doesn't race but their greater volume and mass which is good for comfort isn't directionally correct for speed unless the road is very poor.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

roadworthy said:


> I'm with you Bern. Let's see some data showing higher volume 25's provide less drag than 23's. How about the argument is taken to 28 or 32mm tires? *If 25mm tires are more aerodynamic why not 28's or 32's*..lol. Also, the myth about lower rolling resistance is easily dispelled by tire pressure. Can't run 25's at the same pressure pressure you can 23's without risk of blow out. Then there is tire mass. 25's weigh more.
> *Does any of this really matter? No.* Ride what you like. 28's may make even better sense for the average weekend warrior who doesn't race but their greater volume and mass which is good for comfort isn't directionally correct for speed unless the road is very poor.


Re: the first bold statement, the same could be said of 23c tires. If 23c's are 'better', why aren't the pros still riding 20/21c's like they were back 3+ decades ago. It certainly isn't because 23c's offer more comfort, because the pros would ride granite if it got them a millisecond on a competitor.

I do agree with the second bold statement, but for a slightly different reason. Given that variances in manufacturing can easily create a 1-2 mm difference in tire size, it's entirely possible that some 23c tires will be about the same size as some 25c's, rendering all these theories/ calculations pretty meaningless. At least in 'real world' terms. 

Bottom line for me is that (as always) the motor matters more. I watch the pros not because I want to emulate their bike setups, but rather to improve technique, climbing ability and generally pick up some tidbit of knowledge that might actually have some tangible value. I'm not too concerned with their tires, the size or the pressures they run. That, based on experience, I can figure out for myself.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

roadworthy said:


> Hilarious. READ indeed. How about read with COMPREHENSION?
> 
> Which factors affect rolling resistance?
> Tire pressure, tire diameter, tire construction, tire tread and other factors all have an effect on rolling resistance. The higher the tire pressure, the less is tire deformation and thus the rolling resistance.
> ...


Nice, this is pretty close to the definitive answer to all this. I'd just underline that no one is going to ride a 23 at the same pressure they ride a 25... whihc I thnk you get around to after laying out the basic concepts. there are a tone of variables involved... I'd underline weight differences in riders which you touch on, and also yaw, at zero degrees to apparent wind direction, narrow tire should have an advantage in aero, depending of course on rim shape.
at 5 or 7 degrees off axis, though, a nice gentle foil might be the best setup...like the new fatter zipp rims or a J3 Cub wing... when you look at a j3 and say an f15 wing foil shape, you start to get a better sense of what works at a high angle of attack and slow speed (fat like J3).


----------

