# The Case for Aero



## Rashadabd

There are lots of factors that go into generating and maintaing speed over distance in a live environment that were not factored into to this test (rider fitness, riding position, bike stiffness and handling, etc.), but I still thought this was kind of interesting for what it's worth.

AngryAsian: Aero differences you can feel - BikeRadar


----------



## mile2424

Chris and Mark from Specialized have been doing some great video's on the Specialized YouTube channel called the win tunnel, and they have been showing the effects of a beard, casual clothing, drafting etc and how it affects aero. Definitely worth checking out for anyone who hasn't seen it.


----------



## Dunbar

Personally I'd prefer if they just spell out how many watts each component saves at a particular speed. I don't know what holding my hand out the window straight and then in a fist is supposed to demonstrate. Is this showing the difference in percentage terms or watts?

Can the average Fred on an aero road bike average 25mph for an hour? I'm guessing they couldn't even get close to that number solo.


----------



## roadworthy

Two points...if Yu can hold 25 mph solo for 25 miles, he should be a pro cyclist and not a wind tunnel engineer for Specialized.

I'm a math guy. I want to see the math on why a slower rider will benefit more from aerodynamic frameset and kit. This seems to defy the exponential increase in drag versus speed. For guys who can ride 25mph I believe aero equipment is real. For CAT 5 + average guys...no.

Also the end of the article makes a good point. Specialized just released its top race bike...the SL5 Tarmac...with big round tubes. A Venge it ain't but still at the top of the food chain for race bikes.

As a counterpoint to all the fuss about aero bikes there are some great videos available with high speed descending between many top bikes. The fastest bikes down the hill weren't even the aero models.


----------



## Dunbar

roadworthy said:


> I'm a math guy. I want to see the math on why a slower rider will benefit more from aerodynamic frameset and kit.


They're relying on the fact that over a fixed distance (say TT or Triathlon bike leg) the slower rider will save more time than the faster rider simply because they're on the bike for a longer period of time. I've never understood this logic since if you follow it out to its conclusion it suggests that really fast riders benefit less from aerodynamic gear (which is obviously silly on its face.)


----------



## spdntrxi

roadworthy said:


> I'm a math guy. I want to see the math on why a slower rider will benefit more from aerodynamic frameset and kit. This seems to defy the exponential increase in drag versus speed.


Base equip vs Aero the slower rider will save more time then the fast rider at a stated distance.. like 20k or 40k for instance.


----------



## mile2424

Check out a few of their video's. I think the proof is in the pudding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmNGQLi36xc&list=UUcrBtxD8xy2cxeXM7f-xihA


----------



## Rashadabd

I still stand by the belief that a lot of this doesn't even matter much out on the road. There's just too many other things going on (fitness, bike stiffness, cars, stop lights, cross winds, hills/climbs, descents etc…..), but I agree that it's still fun to think and talk about. I also agree that the proof is in the pudding though and if you watch races today (or even fast group rides), some guys are on traditional all-around race bikes, some guys are on aero-road bikes and a few may even be on endurance-race bikes (some of the guys from Trek Factory Racing ride their Domanes year round for instance) for any given stage or race. It's not like the guys on the aero road bikes are constantly riding away from everyone else. That's because there are just too many other factors that are at play and the benefits of all of this aero equipment is only marginal in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## mile2424

Rashadabd said:


> I still stand by the belief that a lot of this doesn't even matter much out on the road. There's just too many other things going on (fitness, bike stiffness, cars, stop lights, cross winds, hills/climbs, descents etc…..), but I agree that it's still fun to think and talk about. I also agree that the proof is in the pudding though and if you watch races today (or even fast group rides), some guys are on traditional all-around race bikes, some guys are on aero-road bikes and a few may even be on endurance-race bikes (some of the guys from Trek Factory Racing ride their Domanes year round for instance) for any given stage or race. It's not like the guys on the aero road bikes are constantly riding away from everyone else. That's because there are just too many other factors that are at play and the benefits of all of this aero equipment is only marginal in the grand scheme of things.


To your point regarding too many other things going on, this is definitely true in most common scenarios for all of us. But I think Specialized is trying to simplify things, and show how effective an aero helmet is compared to a non aero helmet for example. Same rider, same bike, same position, just looking into the effects of the helmet itself. That's what they are trying to prove with these video's. Of course fitness level, bike, etc is going to make a huge difference in the real world, but that doesn't help isolate exactly how much savings certain pieces of equipment may offer.

One thing I think that would be of great interest to all of us would be, a series of riders, on a series of different bikes. Take a fit pro cyclist style body type, average fitness level rider, and maybe someone who is just starting and not very flexible or fit on a bike. Put them all on an roubaix, tarmac, and shiv and see how they vary between riders.

Would the rider just starting see much of a difference between the Shiv versus the roubaix assuming they aren't going to stay in the aero position, or an aggressive riding position? 

It's cool they are taking questions or feedback from their customers and willing to do all these tests for everyone. Nice to have a wind tunnel in your office!


----------



## Rashadabd

mile2424 said:


> To your point regarding too many other things going on, this is definitely true in most common scenarios for all of us. But I think Specialized is trying to simplify things, and show how effective an aero helmet is compared to a non aero helmet for example. Same rider, same bike, same position, just looking into the effects of the helmet itself. That's what they are trying to prove with these video's. Of course fitness level, bike, etc is going to make a huge difference in the real world, but that doesn't help isolate exactly how much savings certain pieces of equipment may offer.
> 
> One thing I think that would be of great interest to all of us would be, a series of riders, on a series of different bikes. Take a fit pro cyclist style body type, average fitness level rider, and maybe someone who is just starting and not very flexible or fit on a bike. Put them all on an roubaix, tarmac, and shiv and see how they vary between riders.
> 
> Would the rider just starting see much of a difference between the Shiv versus the roubaix assuming they aren't going to stay in the aero position, or an aggressive riding position?
> 
> It's cool they are taking questions or feedback from their customers and willing to do all these tests for everyone. Nice to have a wind tunnel in your office!


I think it's a cool topic as well and I enjoy the videos and learning about the science side of it too. However, while I don't completely disagree with your point, I can't escape the conclusion that we are still talking about very marginal gains here once you get outside the controlled environment of the wind tunnel. To get precisely to the point, I am not convinced that the aero helmet is all that effective at all. I can't think of one scenario outside of a time trial where it has made a significant difference or where there is even a suggestion that a skinsuit or helmet or aero handlebar has been a major factor in a win. I get it that all these marginal gains add up and if applied in the ideal scenario (a high speed time trial or wind tunnel) they can impact results, but in my experience we rarely find ourselves traveling at those speeds or in those situations. So, I guess I have reached a point where when I see intense focus being placed on aerodynamics in cycling, I ask myself how much it really matters. I ask the same question about spendng large sums of money to cut that last .25-1.0 lbs off a bike. How much does this stuff matter out in the real world where we ride and how much of it is marginal and marketing? 

To be completely transparent, I was all about this stuff when I started cycling. I bought it all hook, line, and sinker at one point or another. Aero-road, endurance race, lighter is better, laterally stiff & vertically compliant, etc., I was sucker for every line. It was tough for me to embrace the reality that a lot of the stuff I was so sure about was really mostly marketing and not all that significant out on the road where we all ride, but I slowly got there over the past five years. I am now at a point where I am only confident about a handful of things when it comes to bikes and riding them: 1) improving my fitness and riding skills always matters and I can't go wrong with investing in that; 2) a responsive bike with a stiff bb area and headtube is a very good thing since I like riding fast, so long as I am comfortable on it for the long haul; 3) a good fit is essential; 4) I should love my contact points; 5) I don't need to spend anywhere near $5,000 to have a quality and competitive bike. Other than that, I am a bit of a skeptic these days, but I still love talking about new technological developments for the heck of it.


----------



## tranzformer

Rashadabd said:


> I think it's a cool topic as well and I enjoy the videos and learning about the science side of it too. However, while I don't completely disagree with your point, I can't escape the conclusion that we are still talking about very marginal gains here once you get outside the controlled environment of the wind tunnel. To get precisely to the point, I am not convinced that the aero helmet is all that effective at all. I can't think of one scenario outside of a time trial where it has made a significant difference or where there is even a suggestion that a skinsuit or helmet or aero handlebar has been a major factor in a win. I get it that all these marginal gains add up and if applied in the ideal scenario (a high speed time trial or wind tunnel) they can impact results, but in my experience we rarely find ourselves traveling at those speeds or in those situations. So, I guess I have reached a point where when I see intense focus being placed on aerodynamics in cycling, I ask myself how much it really matters. I ask the same question about spendng large sums of money to cut that last .25-1.0 lbs off a bike. How much does this stuff matter out in the real world where we ride and how much of it is marginal and marketing?
> 
> To be completely transparent, I was all about this stuff when I started cycling. I bought it all hook, line, and sinker at one point or another. Aero-road, endurance race, lighter is better, laterally stiff & vertically compliant, etc., I was sucker for every line. It was tough for me to embrace the reality that a lot of the stuff I was so sure about was really mostly marketing and not all that significant out on the road where we all ride, but I slowly got there over the past five years. I am now at a point where I am only confident about a handful of things when it comes to bikes and riding them: 1) improving my fitness and riding skills always matters and I can't go wrong with investing in that; 2) a responsive bike with a stiff bb area and headtube is a very good thing since I like riding fast, so long as I am comfortable on it for the long haul; 3) a good fit is essential; 4) I should love my contact points; 5) I don't need to spend anywhere near $5,000 to have a quality and competitive bike. Other than that, I am a bit of a skeptic these days, but I still love talking about new technological developments for the heck of it.


I'll have to disagree with you. Aero is always on. Whether in a TT, middle of the pack shielded from doing much work, climbing or doing a solo attack. Aero is always there. Optimizing your gear setup to be the most aero is not mutually exclusive from making sure you are in the best shape possible, ate well, fit well on the bike, in as aero position as possible...etc. You can do all that plus have an aero frame, with aero wheels and an aero helmet. 

Even if you don't do a TT, saving watts for a road race is huge. Saving 30-40 watts would be welcomed any time by any solo attacker or someone trying to bridge a gap to the lead group and sitting at their FTP. Shoot I work out and train all season trying to gain an additional 30-40W. 

The hit against aero road bikes in the past was (1) they weren't very comfortable because of the tube shapes (2) they were heavier than round tube frames (3) they weren't stiff where they should be because of tube shapes. I think the recent aero road bikes have fixed this to the point I wouldn't consider those real objections any longer. 

If you don't believe in marginal aero gains, then why ride in the drops at all on your road bike? Why try and get your stem as low as possible?

Aero is always on.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> They're relying on the fact that over a fixed distance (say TT or Triathlon bike leg) the slower rider will *save more time than the faster rider simply because they're on the bike for a longer period of time*. I've never understood this logic since if you follow it out to its conclusion it suggests that really fast riders benefit less from aerodynamic gear (which is obviously silly on its face.)


I understand in bold what you wrote being the argument, but its bogus because a 18-20 mph average weekend rider is going to have exponentially less drag however will only be on the bike linearly longer in time relative to speed. Further, if you paceline, amount of savings is even more miniscule. 

Many struggle with the choice of a Tarmac versus Venge. But after a 10 mile ride there is a reason the Tarmac is widely chosen and still a world class race bike.


----------



## roadworthy

tranzformer said:


> I'll have to disagree with you. Aero is always on. Whether in a TT, middle of the pack shielded from doing much work, climbing or doing a solo attack. Aero is always there. Optimizing your gear setup to be the most aero is not mutually exclusive from making sure you are in the best shape possible, ate well, fit well on the bike, in as aero position as possible...etc. You can do all that plus have an aero frame, with aero wheels and an aero helmet.
> 
> Even if you don't do a TT, saving watts for a road race is huge. Saving 30-40 watts would be welcomed any time by any solo attacker or someone trying to bridge a gap to the lead group and sitting at their FTP. Shoot I work out and train all season trying to gain an additional 30-40W.
> 
> The hit against aero road bikes in the past was (1) they weren't very comfortable because of the tube shapes (2) they were heavier than round tube frames (3) they weren't stiff where they should be because of tube shapes. I think the recent aero road bikes have fixed this to the point I wouldn't consider those real objections any longer.
> 
> *If you don't believe in marginal aero gains, then why ride in the drops at all on your road bike?* Why try and get your stem as low as possible?
> 
> Aero is always on.


In bold...because altering your riding position by riding in the drops is probably 1000% greater savings in watts versus the BEST aero equipment. More change? Transformative? TT bike which completely morphs riding position. Tube section changes + wheels + helmet = fairy dust compared to riding position.

Based upon what you wrote, you are exactly Specialized target demographic for their Venge.

PS: if you spend most of your time in the 18-21mph zone, aero kit is moot. At the end of the day, riding position which most here can improve vastly trumps any fractional contribution to drag coefficient based upon frame tube/wheel sections.


----------



## Ahillock

I love the videos the Specialized guys do in the tunnel.


----------



## Rashadabd

roadworthy said:


> In bold...because altering your riding position by riding in the drops is probably 1000% greater savings in watts versus the BEST aero equipment. More change? Transformative? TT bike which completely morphs riding position. Tube section changes + wheels + helmet = fairy dust compared to riding position.
> 
> Based upon what you wrote, you are exactly Specialized target demographic for their Venge.
> 
> PS: if you spend most of your time in the 18-21mph zone, aero kit is moot. At the end of the day, riding position which most here can improve vastly trumps any fractional contribution to drag coefficient based upon frame tube/wheel sections.


Yup, I beleive this is 100% correct.


----------



## Rashadabd

Ahillock said:


> I love the videos the Specialized guys do in the tunnel.


Some of them are funny. I definitely got a few laughs over the one about the beard. I actually posted a thred on it in the general cycling forum a week or so back.


----------



## tranzformer

Online post roadbike review 



roadworthy said:


> Many struggle with the choice of a Tarmac versus Venge. But after a 10 mile ride there is a reason the Tarmac is widely chosen and still a world class race bike.


Many struggle with the choice of the low slung Tarmac versus the more upright riding Roubaix. I wouldn't use sales numbers as any indication of what is the faster bike. 





roadworthy said:


> In bold...because altering your riding position by riding in the drops is probably 1000% greater savings in watts versus the BEST aero equipment. More change? Transformative? TT bike which completely morphs riding position. Tube section changes + wheels + helmet = fairy dust compared to riding position.
> 
> Based upon what you wrote, you are exactly Specialized target demographic for their Venge.
> 
> PS: if you spend most of your time in the 18-21mph zone, aero kit is moot. At the end of the day, riding position which most here can improve vastly trumps any fractional contribution to drag coefficient based upon frame tube/wheel sections.


Again riding position plus equipment is not mutually exclusive. You can have aero equipment plus ride in the drops. Not sure why that is so hard to understand. It isn't one or the other. It is both. 

I wouldn't be caught dead on the current avenge. Horrible bike. Not comfortable at all from the test ride I have done and not really that fast of a bike when looking at independent testing. 

If you want "free" watts they are there. Same rider on a aero road frame, aero wheels, aero helmet riding in the drops trumps the same rider on a round tube frame, using alloy box rims with a regular bike helmet riding in the drops. If you want to optimize yourself and your equipment as a rider, you go aero and ride in the drops. Aero really is always on.


----------



## Marc

roadworthy said:


> Two points...if Yu can hold 25 mph solo for 25 miles, he should be a pro cyclist and not a wind tunnel engineer for Specialized.
> 
> I'm a math guy. I want to see the math on why a slower rider will benefit more from aerodynamic frameset and kit. This seems to defy the exponential increase in drag versus speed. For guys who can ride 25mph I believe aero equipment is real. For CAT 5 + average guys...no.
> 
> Also the end of the article makes a good point. Specialized just released its top race bike...the SL5 Tarmac...with big round tubes. A Venge it ain't but still at the top of the food chain for race bikes.
> 
> As a counterpoint to all the fuss about aero bikes there are some great videos available with high speed descending between many top bikes. The fastest bikes down the hill weren't even the aero models.


The engineer from Specialized has a vested interest in selling whatever equipment is in fashion vogue to sell.

A few years ago it was ultra narrow wheels and tires because they're ZOMG so much more efficient and aerodynamic...now research comes out saying all that is actually wrong

Now it is tube shape. Hell Cervelo used to advertise proudly on its website that it used NACA profile downtubes....these days Cervelo sells round as well as "aero" profile tube framesets....because guess what, it is just as much about fashion and selling the "new" product model year as science at a certain point.


----------



## Rashadabd

tranzformer said:


> Online post roadbike review
> 
> 
> 
> Many struggle with the choice of the low slung Tarmac versus the more upright riding Roubaix. I wouldn't use sales numbers as any indication of what is the faster bike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again riding position plus equipment is not mutually exclusive. You can have aero equipment plus ride in the drops. Not sure why that is so hard to understand. It isn't one or the other. It is both.
> 
> I wouldn't be caught dead on the current avenge. Horrible bike. Not comfortable at all from the test ride I have done and not really that fast of a bike when looking at independent testing.
> 
> If you want "free" watts they are there. Same rider on a aero road frame, aero wheels, aero helmet riding in the drops trumps the same rider on a round tube frame, using alloy box rims with a regular bike helmet riding in the drops. If you want to optimize yourself and your equipment as a rider, you go aero and ride in the drops. Aero really is always on.


Riding position is a proven as it's the best way to improve aerodynamics without question. If what you say is true (there is a huge value to be had from aero equipment), where are the stage wins, races won, and podiums to back it up? I am not saying aero is completely irrelevent, I just feel like it is nowhere near as relevant as we sometimes pretend it is. In fact, I would be completely interested to see a study that identified just how many races were won on aero road bikes and the aero equipment we are told provides all those "free watts" vs. the number won on those "outdate relics" we call round tube frames and the old traditional road helmet, etc. My guess is that the races on the road are proving your theory wrong because if aero equipment = major race wins, it is all that pros would ride/use. Their sponsors would demand it. I just don't think it gives you the edge that some claim it does.


----------



## Marc

Rashadabd said:


> Riding position is a proven as it's the best way to improve aerodynamics without question. If what you say is true (there is a huge value to be had from aero equipment), where are the stage wins, races won, and podiums to back it up? I am not saying aero is completely irrelevent, I just feel like it is nowhere near as relevant as we sometimes pretend it is. In fact, I would be completely interested to see a study that identified just how many races were won on aero road bikes and the aero equipment we are told provides all those "free watts" vs. the number won on those "outdate relics" we call round tube frames and the old traditional road helmet, etc. My guess is that the races on the road are proving your theory wrong because if aero equipment = major race wins, it is all that pros would ride/use. Their sponsors would demand it. I just don't think it gives you the edge that some claim it does.


You and your reasoning....next thing you know you'll burst Phil/Paul's delusions as to the race effectiveness of non-round chainrings over the last 100 years of their use.


----------



## tranzformer

Rashadabd said:


> Riding position is a proven as it's the best way to improve aerodynamics without question. If what you say is true (there is a huge value to be had from aero equipment), where are the stage wins, races won, and podiums to back it up? I am not saying aero is completely irrelevent, I just feel like it is nowhere near as relevant as we sometimes pretend it is. In fact, I would be completely interested to see a study that identified just how many races were won on aero road bikes and the aero equipment we are told provides all those "free watts" vs. the number won on those "outdate relics" we call round tube frames and the old traditional road helmet, etc. My guess is that the races on the road are proving your theory wrong because if aero equipment = major race wins, it is all that pros would ride/use. Their sponsors would demand it. I just don't think it gives you the edge that some claim it does.


Plenty of race wins on aero road frames. 

In addition, many (most?) pros and their managers don't understand aero nor how to use it properly. That doesn't discount the fact that aero is real and saves watts. 

Just because you are aero doesn't mean you win the race. The race still needs to take place. Race tactics still need to be used. You still need to have the legs for the day. You still need strong teammate support...etc. 

Ask any racer who is at FTP if they would like another 40-60 watts at that point. I sure would. 

People can keep riding their Columbus tube frames with alloy box rims, baggy clothing and ride in an upright position all they want. But I prefer to optimize my equipment and my gains.


----------



## tranzformer

Marc said:


> You and your reasoning....next thing you know you'll burst Phil/Paul's delusions as to the race effectiveness of non-round chainrings over the last 100 years of their use.


Yup because there is no such thing as technology, advancements or improvements. Reminds me of:

"You'll never need more than 64K of memory."


----------



## Rashadabd

tranzformer said:


> Plenty of race wins on aero road frames.
> 
> In addition, *many pros and their managers don't understand aero nor how to use it properly*. That doesn't discount the fact that aero is real and saves watts.
> 
> Just because you are aero doesn't mean you win the race. The race still needs to take place. Race tactics still need to be used. You still need to have the legs for the day. You still need strong teammate support...etc.
> 
> Ask any racer who is at FTP if they would like another 40-60 watts at that point. I sure would.
> 
> People can keep riding their Columbus tube frames with alloy box rims, baggy clothing and ride in an upright position all they want. But I prefer to optimize my equipment and my gains.


Plenty of pros don't understand aero or use it properly? Are you serious? Do you know how many hours those guys spend in the wind tunnel every year to get their TT positions perfect? Many teams also use computer technology to get them locked in for TT. You have just proved my point btw, there are too many other factors that come into play for aero equipment to be anything but a marginal benefit in an open road environment. Moreover, I didn't say there were no wins on aero frames or with a bunch of aero equipment, but I do believe there are a lot more each year using traditional equipment. It's also funny how on one hand some of you want to claim all this stuff makes you faster out on the road (and trust me, I used to do the same) and then when you are pointed to the direction of pro or amateur races where people are actually paid and giving everything they have to go faster, you want to discount the results because it is inconsistent with your claims that speed hinges on aerodynamic equipment. Fine with me though, believe what you will, just ride....


----------



## Rashadabd

tranzformer said:


> Yup because there is no such thing as technology, advancements or improvements. Reminds me of:
> 
> "You'll never need more than 64K of memory."


To the contrary, I actually love a lot the technological advancements we are seeing in cycling. I just happen to think some of it is overhyped and that a number of us sometimes overpay for things that don't mean much out on the road. At the end of the day, there is more than one way to see things though....


----------



## Rashadabd

FWIW, here's something to think about:

How aero is aero? - BikeRadar

The Myth of Aero Bike Frames: A Case Study in Engineering Jargon and Marketing | FreeTriSpeed.com


----------



## roadworthy

tranzformer said:


> Online post roadbike review
> 
> 
> 
> Many struggle with the choice of the low slung Tarmac versus the more upright riding Roubaix. I wouldn't use sales numbers as any indication of what is the faster bike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again riding position plus equipment is not mutually exclusive. You can have aero equipment plus ride in the drops. Not sure why that is so hard to understand. It isn't one or the other. It is both.
> 
> I wouldn't be caught dead on the current avenge. Horrible bike. Not comfortable at all from the test ride I have done and not really that fast of a bike when looking at independent testing.
> 
> If you want "free" watts they are there. Same rider on a aero road frame, aero wheels, aero helmet riding in the drops trumps the same rider on a round tube frame, using alloy box rims with a regular bike helmet riding in the drops. If you want to optimize yourself and your equipment as a rider, you go aero and ride in the drops. Aero really is always on.


Not to trivialize what you write, but your thesis which you write about aero being always on in the context of cycling is pretty much hogwash. Sorry. A delivery truck doesn't need the aero profile of a Formula 1 car.

Aerodynamic drag D increases as the square of the speed, i.e. S^2. 

I can ride no hands and bolt upright at 19 mph on my road bike. Most none top racers can't do the same at 21mph and for good reason....a BIG difference in drag...not a handful of watts based upon aero tubing sections. You want more? The difference in drag between an aero bike on a spirited hundred mile ride against the clock with pacelining....other characteristics of the bike matter more than any aero difference, i.e. lateral stiffness, climbing capability, weight, and ride quality in terms of fatigue.
The aero thing is fairy dust.

I will tell you where the aero thing matters. It matters on a TT bike where speed is close to 25 mph...a sustained effort without drafting where riding position is optimized. The handful of grams saved at a sustained high speed will matter against the clock on a course...when the difference between winning and losing can be a few seconds. But for the average CAT 3 weekend rider, many will be faster on a 50 mile ride with climbing on a Tarmac or a hundred mile ride on a Roubaix or Domane.


----------



## Marc

tranzformer said:


> Yup because there is no such thing as technology, advancements or improvements. Reminds me of:
> 
> "You'll never need more than 64K of memory."


Amigo....aside from things like computers...just about everything you care to dream up was patented by someone else long before you read about it or dreamed it up on your Sunday afternoon ride. Every wacky and rarely-brilliant thing you care to think of someone tried to make money off of licensing over the last 100+ years since the invention (and patenting) of the safety bicycle. Go surf the USPTO archives to get an idea.

Phil/Paul are woefully ignorant that things like non-round rings have been tried in a million different combinations over the last 100 years....and in a sport where things that save 10 seconds over 40km are massive news...that they have not caught on in the professional peloton speaks volumes.

-Non-round chaingrings are the easy one that have come and gone in fads many times over the last century. Every iteration claiming to be an "revolutionary" "innovation" that fixes the "flaw" in the prior attempts. 
-Funny bikes with dissimilar wheel diameters. Big fad for a while.
-A century of experimentation and we still have the double-triangle bike frame as the gold standard (One could argue that UCI outlawed alternatives, in fairness)
-Ultra narrow wheels/tires...now they're out and we're into wide rims and tires

Good lord...if you're going to quote somebody apocryphally at least get it right. It was "640K of memory". And besides none of the above are at all comparable to that statement, that no one knows if it was actually said (you will never find a citation for when/where).


----------



## roadworthy

Marc said:


> The engineer from Specialized has a vested interest in selling whatever equipment is in fashion vogue to sell.
> 
> A few years ago it was ultra narrow wheels and tires because they're ZOMG so much more efficient and aerodynamic...now research comes out saying all that is actually wrong
> 
> Now it is tube shape. Hell Cervelo used to advertise proudly on its website that it used NACA profile downtubes....these days Cervelo sells round as well as "aero" profile tube framesets....because guess what, it is just as much about fashion and selling the "new" product model year as science at a certain point.


Biggest challenge with aero bikes is they are diametrically incorrect for differential section modulus. Aero bikes are vertically stiff and laterally compliant. The opposite of what is actually desired...all for a handful of watts above 24 mph or so.


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Ask any racer who is at FTP if they would like another 40-60 watts at that point. I sure would.


With a full aero road bike setup (frame/wheels/helmet) you'd save 40-60 watts at 30mph. How much time are you spending at 30mph? I'm guessing nowhere close to an hour which makes the FTP comment moot. Some food for thought before you respond. Bradley Wiggins averaged 32.12 mph on the the TT stage of this years Tour of California. That was a full on TT bike with aero helmet, skin suit etc. and the guy has a 440-460 watt FTP. Oh, and TT stage only lasted 23 minutes for him.


----------



## tranzformer

roadworthy said:


> Not to trivialize what you write, but your thesis which you write about aero being always on in the context of cycling is pretty much hogwash. Sorry. A delivery truck doesn't need the aero profile of a Formula 1 car.
> 
> Aerodynamic drag D increases as the square of the speed, i.e. S^2.
> 
> I can ride no hands and bolt upright at 19 mph on my road bike. Most none top racers can't do the same at 21mph and for good reason....a BIG difference in drag...not a handful of watts based upon aero tubing sections. You want more? The difference in drag between an aero bike on a spirited hundred mile ride against the clock with pacelining....other characteristics of the bike matter more than any aero difference, i.e. lateral stiffness, climbing capability, weight, and ride quality in terms of fatigue.
> The aero thing is fairy dust.
> 
> I will tell you where the aero thing matters. It matters on a TT bike where speed is close to 25 mph...a sustained effort without drafting where riding position is optimized. The handful of grams saved at a sustained high speed will matter against the clock on a course...when the difference between winning and losing can be a few seconds. But for the average CAT 3 weekend rider, many will be faster on a 50 mile ride with climbing on a Tarmac or a hundred mile ride on a Roubaix or Domane.


It isn't hogwosh and it is not fairy dust. Let me guess, you never ride in the drops and always wear baggy clothing when on your road bike? Amirgiht? 

Why do you accept that aero matters in terms of position and willing to ride in the drops, but won't accept that aero also matters in other areas as well (frame, wheels, helmet, clothing, positioning...etc.)? It isn't an either/or, it is both. 

Aero is always on. I will stand by that as it is a proven fact with data. Whether or not you want to accept that is another issue.


----------



## thumper8888

roadworthy said:


> Biggest challenge with aero bikes is they are diametrically incorrect for differential section modulus. Aero bikes are vertically stiff and laterally compliant. The opposite of what is actually desired...all for a handful of watts above 24 mph or so.


That's not really true for the Kamm section tubes.
That said, there are good points on both sides of this argument. My take is that in a break or while trying to connect with one you are going to do better with the full-on 60mm wheels, an aero helmet and a decent aero frame.
Lateral stiffness, past a certain point, could also be described fairy dust, and as aero frames have gotten better tuned for lateral stiffness -- the venge is close to the SL3, right? -- and lighter, the disadvantages that are ascribed to them edged into the territory of the theoretical.
Even the ride isn't particularly bad. I notice it a little when switching back and forth but its no big deal. The Venge is a cadillac compared to a Cervelo S1 or Ridley Noah, and people dont commit suicide after 100-milers on those.
I also dont ascribe to the notion, though, that the frame itself does that much, and certainly helps probably less than 1 or 2 watts, if that, in a large pack.
Put proper deep wheels on the tarmac and the aero helmet and you are most of the way there for the best of both worlds.
Aero ain't everything, but it aint nothing, either.


----------



## tranzformer

roadworthy said:


> Biggest challenge with aero bikes is they are diametrically incorrect for differential section modulus. Aero bikes are vertically stiff and laterally compliant. The opposite of what is actually desired...all for a handful of watts above 24 mph or so.


Which was correct maybe a couple of years ago but has since changed with different layups and varying tube shapes. These new aero frames are not the aero frames of old. The '14 Felt AR and the '14 Cervelo S3 ride like road bikes. Just as stiff and just about as comfortable. The new Felt AR supposedly has the same comfort as the Z series and the new Cervelo S3 has the same rear design as the RCa/R5. 

Btw, it isn't just a handful of watts. Either of these two frames by themselves will net you ~30w over a traditional round tube road bike (like a Felt F).


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Btw, it isn't just a handful of watts. Either of these two frames by themselves will net you ~30w over a traditional round tube road bike (like a Felt F).


More like 18-20 watts at the lower yaw angles typically experienced at 30mph (according to the wind tunnel data in the Felt white paper.) Wheels, helmets, clothing etc. can be used on any road bike. And again, how much time are you spending at 30mph on a road bike?


----------



## Trek_5200

roadworthy said:


> I understand in bold what you wrote being the argument, but its bogus because a 18-20 mph average weekend rider is going to have exponentially less drag however will only be on the bike linearly longer in time relative to speed. Further, if you paceline, amount of savings is even more miniscule.
> 
> Many struggle with the choice of a Tarmac versus Venge. But after a 10 mile ride there is a reason the Tarmac is widely chosen and still a world class race bike.


Being an 18-20 mph rider(15-16 if we're talking significant elevations on the ride), I very much understand how bogus this is and how such bikes would not benefit someone like me or the majority of cyclists out there. But bikes(like cars) are not sold based on what the rider(driver) will do, but what he imagines doing. If sports cars were only sold to people who could truly drive them, Porsches and Corvettes, etc would be rare if not extinct.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> With a full aero road bike setup (frame/wheels/helmet) you'd save 40-60 watts at 30mph. How much time are you spending at 30mph? I'm guessing nowhere close to an hour which makes the FTP comment moot. Some food for thought before you respond. Bradley Wiggins averaged 32.12 mph on the the TT stage of this years Tour of California. That was a full on TT bike with aero helmet, skin suit etc. and the guy has a 440-460 watt FTP. Oh, and TT stage only lasted 23 minutes for him.


(1) The aero gains aren't just there at 30mph, they are also there at 25mph, 20mph...etc.

(2)The FTP point isn't moot. 

(3) An aero road frame will save 30-40w over a traditional round tube frame. Zipp 404FC will save 27w over box rim wheels. Specialized Evade helmet will save 20w over a traditional helmet. Zipp Vuka Sprint carbon bars will save around 7w. There are probably a few other equipment choices that would maximize your aero gains and equipment. Even though those numbers might have been taken at 30mph, the watts saved are still there at 20mph and 25mph.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> More like 18-20 watts at the lower yaw angles typically experienced at 30mph (according to the wind tunnel data in the Felt white paper.) Wheels, helmets, clothing etc. can be used on any road bike.* And again, how much time are you spending at 30mph on a road bike?*


Lots of arguments about what typical yaw is seen on a typical ride. One can play with Hed yaw calculator. 

This one is more important if you believe in the yaw angles that Felt selected for their weighted average.












Again, it isn't about the 30mph testing value. You still save watts even at 25 and 20 mph. How often do you ride in the 20-25mph range?


----------



## dealraker

deleted


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Again, it isn't about the 30mph testing value. You still save watts even at 25 and 20 mph. How often do you ride in the 20-25mph range?


You save significantly less at lower speeds which is why most manufacturers don't even publish that data. Your figures for frames andwheels are high by at least 30-40%. An aero road helmet will save you around 8W at ~30mph according to the Louis Garneau data posted on their site. FTP is moot at 30mph unless you can hold that speed for an hour (remember FTP = your max 1 hour power). If you read the Felt white paper they say they modeled the savings using 10-15 degree yaw angles which I don't believe is accurate.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> You save significantly less at lower speeds which is why most manufacturers don't even publish that data. Your figures for frames andwheels are high by at least 30-40%. An aero road helmet will save you around 8W at ~30mph according to the Louis Garneau data posted on their site. FTP is moot at 30mph unless you can hold that speed for an hour (remember FTP = your max 1 hour power). If you read the Felt white paper they say they modeled the savings using 10-15 degree yaw angles which I don't believe is accurate.


Yes we know you would save less at 20 mph or 25 mph vs. 30 mph. But gains are still there for many of us who do bike in that 20-25 mph range. One reasons sI like windtunnel values represented as time saved per 40k @ 20 mph, 25 mph, 30 mph or just the raw CdA data is nice to like some white papers provide.

An aero road helmet will save you 20w at ~30mph according to the Specialized data. 

FTP isn't moot. The watts you save @ 25 mph is still watts saved. 


I used to be skeptical about aero gains before like many of you guys several years back. But then I started training with power and then started getting into aero and maximizing equipment choices. Then started doing some Chung testing with a cycling friend of mine. The gains are truly there (wheels in that case) and you can see those results in the real world. It isn't some voodoo science at all. Just takes a little time, patience and thought. 

http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/cdaestimation.aspx


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Yes we know you would save less at 20 mph or 25 mph vs. 30 mph. But gains are still there for many of us who do bike in that 20-25 mph range.


Fine, but you have to admit that 30mph drag figures are irrelevant to riders that can't do 30mph for any length of time (that would be the vast majority of recreational riders.) Look at the wheel data I posted. Those $2k Zipp 404 FC's are saving you 5 watts at 20mph and 10 watts at 25mph. That's compared to shallow aluminum wheels. I bet those numbers shrink if you compare them to deeper aluminum wheels.

I don't buy for a second that an aero frame, wheels, helmet and bars save 84-94 watts. Even at 30mph. The truth is probably closer to half that number.


----------



## roadworthy

tranzformer said:


> It isn't hogwosh and it is not fairy dust. Let me guess, you never ride in the drops and always wear baggy clothing when on your road bike? Amirgiht?
> 
> Why do you accept that aero matters in terms of position and willing to ride in the drops, but won't accept that aero also matters in other areas as well (frame, wheels, helmet, clothing, positioning...etc.)? It isn't an either/or, it is both.
> 
> Aero is always on. I will stand by that as it is a proven fact with data. Whether or not you want to accept that is another issue.


Aero is on for you is analogous to you are a binary on/off thinker.  I have a degree in thermodynamics. I understand more about 'aero' than probably most here...certainly the science of it. As to riding with baggy clothes and never in the drops...you of course are wrong about that as well. I wear race fit jerseys and ride in the drops much greater than average because my bike is set up for it. I have explained the difference to you but you still don't get it. Aero is HUGE. Re-read that again if you are surprised. But what is SMALL? Difference in tubing shapes, race fit versus club fit jerseys and tear drop helmets. Why? Because the delta in tube shapes, jersey fit and helmets is largely fairy dust compared to the hole a rider punches in the air on a modern carbon road bike riding in the drops. To try to put it in laymen's terms for you without rolling out the equations which you likely won't understand, drag is not proportional to speed...it is proportional to the SQUARE of speed and at speeds below 20 mph where many ride...or in a paceline ANY difference in tube shapes, jersey fit or helmet are NEBULOUS....zero...ziltch. Say at 22-24 mph in your own air aka a pull or solo, there will be a fractional contribution...a handful of watts...if that + or - based upon wind conditions and/or even elevation change aka climbing. There is a reason why many chose a Tarmac over a Venge....even CAT 1's or guys who race for a living. Does a Venge win in a wind tunnel all other factors being equal? Yes...at all speeds as you say. Is aero always on as you say? I will even concede that point even though it being on below 20 mph is close to 0. But the difference in aero for the magnitude discussed here based upon overall ride scenarios...doesn't matter. Amateurs in particular would be MUCH more aero if they worked on their bodies and improved their position on the bike versus trying to buy game with aero kit.


----------



## Trek_5200

Bravo!

Of course the point of building aero bikes isn't so much to make them go faster on the road, but to make them move faster off the floor of the local bike shop. There's a market out there willing to spend for either the perception or reality of riding faster.


----------



## roadworthy

Trek_5200 said:


> Bravo!
> 
> Of course the point of building aero bikes isn't so much to make them go faster on the road, but to make them move faster off the floor of the local bike shop. There's a market out there willing to spend for either the perception or reality of riding faster.


Yup....marketing...not unlike carbon wheels and some would posit BB30 and a few other things. Nothing wrong about improving the technical edge...I am a tech guy who appreciates it...but good to keep in perspective what the true difference is.
I will say this. I personally think a slammed aero bike looks sexy. A Venge is quite a seductress. But there is a reason why there are so many on ebay.


----------



## tom_h

roadworthy said:


> ...
> I'm a math guy. I want to see the math on why a slower rider will benefit more from aerodynamic frameset and kit. This seems to defy the exponential increase in drag versus speed. For guys who can ride 25mph I believe aero equipment is real. For CAT 5 + average guys...no...


Cervelo explains that here:
Slow vs. Fast Riders - Cervélo

In their example, the fast cyclist's speed increases more -- from 40 to 42 kph in Cervelo's example, while the slow cyclist increases only from 30 to 31.39 kph

But over a _fixed distance_, the *time *saved by the slow rider is greater -- 1:47 -- than time saved by fast rider (1:26)


----------



## roadworthy

tom_h said:


> Cervelo explains that here:
> Slow vs. Fast Riders - Cervélo
> 
> In their example, the fast cyclist's speed increases more -- from 40 to 42 kph in Cervelo's example, while the slow cyclist increases only from 30 to 31.39 kph
> 
> But over a _fixed distance_, the *time *saved by the slow rider is greater -- 1:47 -- than time saved by fast rider (1:26)


Thanks tom,
Cervelo shows the math for their simplistic comparison predicated on the difference in aero savings at 24 mph and 18 mph but their conclusions they posit are predicated on the difference in drag and mph difference as those speeds based upon wheel, frame and helmet which I summarily dismiss as being bogus. No way is there close to a 1 mph difference i.e. .62 X 1.3 kmh in drag at 18 mph due to the contribution of these things.

What Cervelo isn't doing, is showing the math for their drag and speed computations which is the basis for comparing a slower versus faster rider. I will go to say that I believe their numbers are completely inflated. In fact, if there is a 1 kmh difference at 24 mph...i.e. 50% of what they state, I would be surprised.

I would have loved to be in the room with engineers and marketing guys as Cervelo put together that presentation. No doubt there was a lot of laughter on both sides.

Other thing I would love to see is the so called 'aero' helmet they used. How many of you guys wear a time trial helmet out on your daily rides?

Because drag and speed differences are basically a game of liar's poker, I find the following to be the best summary of aero versus traditional round section frame tube bikes.
Conclusion? The dogma with round tubes won the downhill...same rider, same course. Where did the Tarmac finish? Within a wisp of the Venge and S5.
How could this possibly happen? Because head tube length, handling and braking matter more for speed than the fairy dust of any aero advantage. Yes aero advantage IS real. It is also minute and completely trumped by many other factors and only makes any difference at all at speeds even top amateurs don't ride.

Mr. H Bike Test: Cervelo S5 and Pinarello Dogma 65.1 Think 2 - YouTube


----------



## Trek_5200

I'd take these white papers put out by the guys trying to sell something with a grain of salt. They are not independent or objective. My company does this all the time, and we'll only write what we want you to read.


----------



## roadworthy

Trek_5200 said:


> I'd take these white papers put out by the guys trying to sell something with a grain of salt. They are not independent or objective. My company does this all the time, and we'll only write what we want you to read.


And other funny thing is Cervelo is a on a slippery slope with their 'marketing' effort to sell aero. Reason is...they don't just sell S-series bikes, but they sell a higher quantity of R-series. Why? Because if you take both around the block, you will pick the R every time for its ride and handling. The S5 which is effectively a time trial bike with taller head tube rides like a gravel truck even compared to the Venge which doesn't ride or climb as well as a Tarmac.

The other part of the Cervelo white paper which further diminishes its veracity is...in the context of aero 'frame' differences, there is no reason you can't hang $2K deep V carbon wheels on a round tube non-aero bike....and wear a pointy helmet out on your ride if you want to look like a [email protected]@$$. Contribution of just frame sections alone is even more insignificant.

Then there is the subject of riding so called aero deep V carbon wheels when the wind blows and where I live, that's all the time. Good luck with that when yaw angles are trying to blow you off the bike. Deep V wheels can be as much as a sail as they can offer any aero benefit.


----------



## 1Butcher

I may not be able to keep 30mph for an hour, but I'm able to take my pull with my team and keep it at that. Knowing I can maintain that speed even for an extra minute or two helps my team and with less power is helps me.

We all do not ride at 30mph every minute of our ride, some ride just to ride. But it sure is nice knowing I can maintain a higher mph by being more aero. I can say for certain without anyone telling me I am wrong, I can maintain a higher mph with my aero 56mm wheels than I can with my 27mm wheels. I have years of data from my Garmin and Powertap that proves that.

It might be small, but it's still a fact. Data proves that. Ignorance dismisses it.


----------



## Trek_5200

well since we are trashing cervello. At a bike shop I frequent they have negative opinions about Cervellos in general, pointing to the relatively short chain stay, especially in larger models(they hold the chain stay length constant across frame size)which they say causes shifting issues.


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> I may not be able to keep 30mph for an hour, but I'm able to take my pull with my team and keep it at that. Knowing I can maintain that speed even for an extra minute or two helps my team and with less power is helps me.
> 
> We all do not ride at 30mph every minute of our ride, some ride just to ride. But it sure is nice knowing I can maintain a higher mph by being more aero. I can say for certain without anyone telling me I am wrong, I can maintain a higher mph with my aero 56mm wheels than I can with my 27mm wheels. I have years of data from my Garmin and Powertap that proves that.
> 
> It might be small, but it's still a fact. Data proves that. Ignorance dismisses it.


You sight data. Let's see the A to B comparison....power data versus speed of different wheelsets. To prove any 'conjecture' on your part you need a statistically significant sample size aka a normalized distribution of data based upon varied weather conditions which vastly trumps any fairy dust aero contribution of your wheels.

Also Butcher...what frameset do you ride?...lol.

PS: I can tell you the sky is falling as well but unless I can prove it, it holds as much water as any significant 'sensation' of speed you feel with your deep V rims.


----------



## roadworthy

Trek_5200 said:


> well since we are trashing cervello. At a bike shop I frequent they have negative opinions about Cervellos in general, pointing to the relatively short chain stay, especially in larger models(they hold the chain stay length constant across frame size)which they say causes shifting issues.


On earlier S models, shifting issues were more a function of the funky behind the stem cable routing then the shorter chainstays which as you say are held constant with 73 deg sta...which I agree with is a bogus convention they use and of course makes their framesets cheaper to make because the rear of the mold is the same for all framesets.


----------



## Dunbar

1Butcher said:


> We all do not ride at 30mph every minute of our ride, some ride just to ride. But it sure is nice knowing I can maintain a higher mph by being more aero. I can say for certain without anyone telling me I am wrong, I can maintain a higher mph with my aero 56mm wheels than I can with my 27mm wheels. I have years of data from my Garmin and Powertap that proves that.


Zipp 404 Firecrests will save you 13 watts at 30mph compared to shallow AL wheels. Probably more like 11 watts compared to 27-30mm deep aluminum wheels. If you do that math that's 11-13 watts savings while you're putting out 450-500+ watts to maintain 30mph. If you look at the data I posted not all "aero" wheels are all that aerodynamic. So don't assume that all deep wheels are created equal.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> Zipp 404 Firecrests will save you 13 watts at 30mph compared to shallow AL wheels. Probably more like 11 watts compared to 27-30mm deep aluminum wheels. If you do that math that's 11-13 watts savings while you're putting out 450-500+ watts to maintain 30mph. If you look at the data I posted not all "aero" wheels are all that aerodynamic. So don't assume that all deep wheels are created equal.


Butcher says he does 30 mph pulls. He must be special. A CAT 1. CAT 1's comprise probably .0000000000000001% of the entire world population of cyclists...only pros being stronger. I have been riding and racing for 3 decades and still routinely ride with the A group. If any rider ever hits 28 mph in a pull it is the extreme rare exception. Many if not more riders who pull in front go anaerobic pulling in front in a couple of miles at 25-27 mph and then rotate to the back to recover. The rest of the guys cruising in the paceline are riding below their FTP at 200 watts covered by the guy in front.


----------



## 1Butcher

roadworthy said:


> Also Butcher...what frameset do you ride?...lol.


So you must be the one. My bike got stolen just a few days ago. S-Works Tarmac, Campy EPS, 15lbs ready to ride. 

Knowing you Roadworthy, do you want me to send you the police report? Send me an email address. LOL What? It's really not funny! How about if your bike got stolen? Should we all laugh at you? 

Should I send you over 2 years worth of Golden Cheetah data to sift thru? Maybe you can Google all the weather reports in my area of the riding conditions. We have a World and National Champion on our team too [several times a champion]. Wow, I have never run into someone who is so doubtful about everything.

Since you would not believe what I sent you anyway, now would be a good time to step up and buy a power meter [I had two of them, one was just stolen since it was on the bike [Powertap SL+, black in color]. Do you want a receipt for that too? The other one is on my good bike, it's a Garmin Vector, do you want the receipt for that too?] Keep track of all the data for several years, keep track of which wheels you are riding with. After several years, you will find that with the aero wheels the speeds are higher. We are not talking a huge amount, but a noticeable amount. Yes, there are other factors, we all know that, but taking a large sample and just keeping track of the wheels will show you something. Scientific? No. Placebo? Maybe.

You indicated that aero only matters at speed. I agree. With a team, if you can maintain 500 watts for 1 minute, the team can reach those speeds. 12 members strong today. Really, with a good rotation, it is not hard to do. I'm certain with your riding habits, you could maintain 500watts for over a minute. With the right equipment and the right team, you could maintain 30mph [not forever, but the team should be able to do that for 20 mins].

I'm trying to be peaceful and I do not understand why you appear to be so combative. :mad2:

Just to be clear, I agree, Aero only matters at speed. Just like weight matters on climbs. Is it a lot? Does it matter for us lower forms of life? Probably not. But it does at higher speeds. Speeds that maybe you don't frequent but just because it's not the riding you do, but it does not mean that others don't ride like that. 

Happy riding and if you are in the Seattle area, please stop by on a Saturday ride.


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> So you must be the one. My bike got stolen just a few days ago. S-Works Tarmac, Campy EPS, 15lbs ready to ride.
> 
> Knowing you Roadworthy, do you want me to send you the police report? Send me an email address. LOL What? It's really not funny! How about if your bike got stolen? Should we all laugh at you?
> 
> Should I send you over 2 years worth of Golden Cheetah data to sift thru? Maybe you can Google all the weather reports in my area of the riding conditions. We have a World and National Champion on our team too [several times a champion]. Wow, I have never run into someone who is so doubtful about everything.
> 
> Since you would not believe what I sent you anyway, now would be a good time to step up and buy a power meter [I had two of them, one was just stolen since it was on the bike [Powertap SL+, black in color]. Do you want a receipt for that too? The other one is on my good bike, it's a Garmin Vector, do you want the receipt for that too?] Keep track of all the data for several years, keep track of which wheels you are riding with. After several years, you will find that with the aero wheels the speeds are higher. We are not talking a huge amount, but a noticeable amount. Yes, there are other factors, we all know that, but taking a large sample and just keeping track of the wheels will show you something. Scientific? No. Placebo? Maybe.
> 
> You indicated that aero only matters at speed. I agree. With a team, if you can maintain 500 watts for 1 minute, the team can reach those speeds. 12 members strong today. Really, with a good rotation, it is not hard to do. I'm certain with your riding habits, you could maintain 500watts for over a minute. With the right equipment and the right team, you could maintain 30mph [not forever, but the team should be able to do that for 20 mins].
> 
> I'm trying to be peaceful and I do not understand why you appear to be so combative. :mad2:
> 
> Just to be clear, I agree, Aero only matters at speed. Just like weight matters on climbs. Is it a lot? Does it matter for us lower forms of life? Probably not. But it does at higher speeds. Speeds that maybe you don't frequent but just because it's not the riding you do, but it does not mean that others don't ride like that.
> 
> Happy riding and if you are in the Seattle area, please stop by on a Saturday ride.


Did your EPS Tarmac really get stolen? Seriously? Wow!
Sorry to hear that.

As to being combative, its all in your head. As I used the sky is falling metaphor and as Dunbar said, if there is 12 watts of energy savings based upon your wheels at 30 mph which most amateurs can only achieve in a sprint well I am glad you paid the premium. With rare exception, the fastest guys I have been around ride the most average equipment. In fact the fastest guy I have ridden with in the last two years rode an old Al DeRosa with 105 and boat anchor Bontrager box section wheels.

As to sifting through reams of data. No. If you are going to make your claims, you need to do that. You preform the statistical regression. As to weather reports, I suggest you get a Garmin. With my Garmin, it posts the weather for each ride.

In any event, just like flat earthers and global warming theorists...latter having the most veracity, people and even scientists at the end of the day will always believe what they want. In fact the placebo you feel about your carbon wheels may propel you faster than any physics difference in air flow.

I hope you find your bike.

PS: hey Butcher, did you miss the video of the Dogma with short box section wheels and fat tube sections smoking the Cervelo S5..the bike generally regarded as the most slippery bike in a wind tunnel...down the hill with deep V's?
Hey, maybe if they put the Cervelo wheels on the Dogma it would have broken the land speed record...lol. Actually the video shows the Cervelo was tested with wheels similar to that of the Dogma.
Mr. H Bike Test: Cervelo S5 and Pinarello Dogma 65.1 Think 2 - YouTube


----------



## Trek_5200

I get aero wheels, but when the discussion turns to the rest of the bike the discussion seems counter-intuitive to me especially when considers tube size or how much wind impact a small brake could have. Seems to me the biggest obstacle to aero-dynamic performance is not the bike, but the rider. Reducing the frontal area of the rider has to count for more.


----------



## Tupelo

It seems that this "conversation" is missing a point: that regardless of your speed over land consider the wind itself. On a dead calm day the relative speed will be the speed that the rider is traveling (aka a wind tunnel), however a 15mph head wind into a 15mph rider is now a 30mph relative ground speed and now you are going to see exactly those benefits that an elite rider would see. A rider in those conditions would see the same watt savings.


----------



## roadworthy

Tupelo said:


> It seems that this "conversation" is missing a point: that regardless of your speed over land consider the wind itself. On a dead calm day the relative speed will be the speed that the rider is traveling (aka a wind tunnel), however a 15mph head wind into a 15mph rider is now a 30mph relative ground speed and now you are going to see exactly those benefits that an elite rider would see. A rider in those conditions would see the same watt savings.


You forgot a tacking wind and yaw angle. A yaw wind will catch the larger section wheels and wider aero frame in profile like a sail causing handling issues and countersteering causing speed to be scubbed off. Have you ever descended on a windy day with tacking wind with 50mm section wheels? I know guys who deliberately wouldn't be caught dead on deep section wheels where I live for this very issue.


----------



## Trek_5200

Thanks again for making that salient point. I've ridden on windy days and non-windy days, and to say you can simply add opposing wind speed and rider speed just doesn't jive with the reality of my biking.


----------



## spdntrxi

roadworthy said:


> You forgot a tacking wind and yaw angle. A yaw wind will catch the larger section wheels ane aero frame like a sail causing handling issues and countersteering causing speed to be scubbed off. Have you ever descended on a windy day with tacking wind with 50mm section wheels? I know guys who deliberately wouldn't be caught dead on deep section wheels where I live for this very issue.


I descended Mt Diablo on a very windy day.. lets just say my Enve's 3.4 (front is not even that deep).. kept me awake and tense the entire time.


----------



## Dunbar

1Butcher said:


> You indicated that aero only matters at speed. I agree. With a team, if you can maintain 500 watts for 1 minute, the team can reach those speeds. 12 members strong today. Really, with a good rotation, it is not hard to do. I'm certain with your riding habits, you could maintain 500watts for over a minute. With the right equipment and the right team, you could maintain 30mph [not forever, but the team should be able to do that for 20 mins].


Those 30mph pace lines are doing no more than 10-15 second pulls at a time from what I've seen. You need a lot of really strong riders to keep that going. Would you really spend $2k on wheels to save 11-13 watts while you take a 10-15 second pull? If I'm riding along targeting 200 watts I can barely hold my power to within 10 watts of my target. I'm not saying aero doesn't matter just when you look at the actual numbers they aren't as significant as people make them out to be. In comparison, simply getting down in the drops and getting your back as low as possible at 30mph probably saves you 80-100 watts vs. riding the hoods at that speed. 

Aero does matter at lower speeds. You just save less power the slower you are riding.



Tupelo said:


> however a 15mph head wind into a 15mph rider is now a 30mph relative ground speed and now you are going to see exactly those benefits that an elite rider would see. *A rider in those conditions would see the same watt savings.*


Only if they were putting out the same watts as the pro.


----------



## 1Butcher

Dunbar said:


> Those 30mph pace lines are doing no more than 10-15 second pulls at a time from what I've seen. You need a lot of really strong riders to keep that going. Would you really spend $2k on wheels to save 11-13 watts while you take a 10-15 second pull? If I'm riding along targeting 200 watts I can barely hold my power to within 10 watts of my target. I'm not saying aero doesn't matter just when you look at the actual numbers they aren't as significant as people make them out to be. In comparison, simply getting down in the drops and getting your back as low as possible at 30mph probably saves you 80-100 watts vs. riding the hoods at that speed.
> 
> Aero does matter at lower speeds. You just save less power the slower you are riding.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they were putting out the same watts as the pro.


We are pulling much longer than 10-15 seconds, at least the stronger guys are. The weaker guys, may not take a pull at that speed. And you ask if I would spend $2k on wheels to make me faster? Hell, I spend over $5k to have electric shifting and I can assure you, that does not make me faster at all. So yes, I have done that.



Trek_5200 said:


> I get aero wheels, but when the discussion turns to the rest of the bike the discussion seems counter-intuitive to me especially when considers tube size or how much wind impact a small brake could have. Seems to me the biggest obstacle to aero-dynamic performance is not the bike, but the rider. Reducing the frontal area of the rider has to count for more.


But when you have got into the tightest aero tuck you can, what else can make you go faster/save you some watts? 

I think we all agree, cost benefit would be a better position. I do not think anyone has stated differently. I believe we are also saying the faster you go, the more aero will benefit you with either a higher speed or a longer time at that speed.


----------



## Dunbar

1Butcher said:


> We are pulling much longer than 10-15 seconds, at least the stronger guys are. The weaker guys, may not take a pull at that speed. And you ask if I would spend $2k on wheels to make me faster? Hell, I spend over $5k to have electric shifting and I can assure you, that does not make me faster at all. So yes, I have done that.


What you wrote was that you get 12 guys doing 30mph and do 1 minute pulls for 20 minutes. That's ~2 pulls per guy and then you're finished. What do you guys do after the 20 minutes is up slow down to a more manageable speed? You see where I'm going with this. You justify $2k wheels that save you 11-13 watts while you're sitting out in the wind for two 1 minute pulls in a pace line @ 500 watts. I'm not saying 500 watts for a minute is easy but that's a pretty short window of opportunity for the wheels to save you 2-3% of your power output.


----------



## roadworthy

Trek_5200 said:


> Thanks again for making that salient point. I've ridden on windy days and non-windy days, and to say you can simply add opposing wind speed and rider speed just doesn't jive with the reality of my biking.


Statistically way more tacking, cross and tail winds than there are pure head winds. 
Even though I can concede there are a handful of watts to be gained at 27mph which I occasionally hit on my bike unassisted, there are seven things I don't like about deep V carbon wheels:
1. Side wind sensitivity. The wind blows hard in FL where I live near the coast.
2. Crappy braking in wet weather
3. Heat build up when descending although relatively flat where I live.
4. Lack of vertical compliance. Deep V wheels are VERY stiff vertically and jarring on irregular road surfaces...for same reason than aero frames are....stiff vertical section modulus due to geometry
5. Cost
6. Deep V aero wheels even have a weight penalty but this is minor because of strength/weight of carbon.
7. Sound. Carbon wheels are noisier than more traditional box section AL wheels.

Nothing like riding a box section wheel down wind. 

Do I hate carbon wheels or even aero frames? No. All this stuff has its place. For example, I believe in a TT aero kit is a good thing and if you want to live with carbon wheels and the ride quality of a Venge, then I say go for it.


----------



## roadworthy

spdntrxi said:


> I descended Mt Diablo on a very windy day.. lets just say my Enve's 3.4 (front is not even that deep).. kept me awake and tense the entire time.


Yup, choice of Enve's is debated on bike forums for this very reason.
Deep V carbon wheels are not for the feint of heart if doing high speed descents on a windy day.  Many shy away from this type of wheel for this very reason....not to mention descending if its rainy and blowy. Now you got your hands full.  Must be a rush to descend that mtn. Curious what kind of speeds did you hit?

PS: And to put a bow on the lively discussion here, the following is an interesting read for those that think that tech really does make a big difference...quite sure carbon wheels came in in the last ten years when average speeds haven't changed. Btw, the y axis is Kph and of course in the Tdf most of the riders ride with wind protection i.e. in the peloton:

racing - Why aren't Tour de France riders going any faster? - Bicycles Stack Exchange


----------



## 1Butcher

There are many tactics in the Tour, raising the average speed is not one of them. Most of the race is fairly slow. It is only when the Peloton decides it's time to catch the break where the speeds rise.

If they want too, I'm certain they can have a stage with a very high average mph [not counting TT or TTT]. If they did that, then the producers of the Tour would be pissed, cause the next day's race would be very low.

If/when the UCI wants to raise the technology standard with lighter weight bikes, aero do dads, etc then maybe we will see speeds go up.

BTW, the fastest TTT at the Grand Tours remarkably shows the latest years being the fastest. 

It's funny how people prove their point by producing charts that are meaningless. People do not question the other variables of why. Even if the Tour did raise the speeds of 10%, you try that. All I know, I would be happy with a 10% increase in speed, hell I'll take a 10% increase in watts.


----------



## Trek_5200

i'm riding Dura Ace C-24 because I chose to minimize this issue and focus on climbs. Plus on a "feel thing", I'm at the point where I don't feel my bike is holding me back, more the other way around.


----------



## spdntrxi

(for roadworthy)

lots of switchbacks.. so only manage high 30s/low40 and average under 30. I think northgate could be faster but road condition sucks, so not worth the risk of complete bombing down it. It was very windy on the day I am referencing.. 30mph+ gusts (probably stronger just guessing) and I'm not weight weenie at 185lbs, I was seriously blown 1-2 ft a couple times.. not an inch or 2 like I'm used too.

My better half being a lightweight @~ 100lbs... we sold her 40mm+ carbon rims very quickly. Just not worth the risk. She still has aero wheels but only 35mm deep and another set of Al that are only 24mm deep and I have some 22mm Al rims myself.


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> There are many tactics in the Tour, raising the average speed is not one of them. Most of the race is fairly slow. It is only when the Peloton decides it's time to catch the break where the speeds rise.
> 
> If they want too, I'm certain they can have a stage with a very high average mph [not counting TT or TTT]. If they did that, then the producers of the Tour would be pissed, cause the next day's race would be very low.
> 
> If/when the UCI wants to raise the technology standard with lighter weight bikes, aero do dads, etc then maybe we will see speeds go up.
> 
> BTW, the fastest TTT at the Grand Tours remarkably shows the latest years being the fastest.
> 
> *It's funny how people proof their point by producing charts that are meaningless. *People do not question the other variables of why. Even if the Tour did raise the speeds of 10%, you try that. All I know, I would be happy with a 10% increase in speed, hell I'll take a 10% increase in watts.


Well, you started off OK. But even at what you call the relatively slow pace, increase at the end of the race would be manifested in average speed and in the last 10 years during which carbon wheels and more aero bikes were introduced...average speed has not increased. That in the face of more scientific training regiments and riders in the history of the peloton, never being more fit.

What you wrote in bold above...you know what is even more laughable than proving points by charts and/or statistics? Anecdotal claims like you have made based upon your non scientific sample that your carbon wheels have anything to do with your increase in speed. Now that is funny.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> Fine, but you have to admit that 30mph drag figures are irrelevant to riders that can't do 30mph for any length of time (that would be the vast majority of recreational riders.) Look at the wheel data I posted. Those $2k Zipp 404 FC's are saving you 5 watts at 20mph and 10 watts at 25mph. That's compared to shallow aluminum wheels. I bet those numbers shrink if you compare them to deeper aluminum wheels.
> 
> I don't buy for a second that an aero frame, wheels, helmet and bars save 84-94 watts. Even at 30mph. The truth is probably closer to half that number.


Marginal gains add up. I love you anti-aero equipment guys who have no real world experience and have never tried to validate the claims. I have with my power meter on multiple occasions and my analysis validates what many of the white papers show. No I don't average 30 mph, but I manage 20-25mph depending on the route. Throw in headwind and you get your 30mph relative testing number.

Like I said earlier, get your power meter and test it yourself using the Chung method. It isn't that hard. Again this is testing that you can do, and you don't need to rely on Cervelo/Felt/Zipp/Specialized and their "propaganda" as you lean.

Blather 'bout Bikes: Aero Field Testing using the "Chung Method" - How sensitive can it be?

https://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf

I have no doubt that an aero road frame, aero helmet, aero wheels and other misc. smart equipment choices will save close to 100w over a traditional road bike, traditional road helmet and shallow box rim wheels. No doubt about that.





roadworthy said:


> Aero is on for you is analogous to you are a binary on/off thinker.  I have a degree in thermodynamics. I understand more about 'aero' than probably most here...certainly the science of it. As to riding with baggy clothes and never in the drops...you of course are wrong about that as well. I wear race fit jerseys and ride in the drops much greater than average because my bike is set up for it. I have explained the difference to you but you still don't get it. Aero is HUGE. Re-read that again if you are surprised. But what is SMALL? Difference in tubing shapes, race fit versus club fit jerseys and tear drop helmets. Why? Because the delta in tube shapes, jersey fit and helmets is largely fairy dust compared to the hole a rider punches in the air on a modern carbon road bike riding in the drops. To try to put it in laymen's terms for you without rolling out the equations which you likely won't understand, drag is not proportional to speed...it is proportional to the SQUARE of speed and at speeds below 20 mph where many ride...or in a paceline ANY difference in tube shapes, jersey fit or helmet are NEBULOUS....zero...ziltch. Say at 22-24 mph in your own air aka a pull or solo, there will be a fractional contribution...a handful of watts...if that + or - based upon wind conditions and/or even elevation change aka climbing. There is a reason why many chose a Tarmac over a Venge....even CAT 1's or guys who race for a living. Does a Venge win in a wind tunnel all other factors being equal? Yes...at all speeds as you say. Is aero always on as you say? I will even concede that point even though it being on below 20 mph is close to 0. But the difference in aero for the magnitude discussed here based upon overall ride scenarios...doesn't matter. Amateurs in particular would be MUCH more aero if they worked on their bodies and improved their position on the bike versus trying to buy game with aero kit.


If you have a degree in thermodynamics that you should know the basics of aerodynamics and realize the validity of these claims. Especially since you ride in "race fit jerseys and ride in the drops much greater than average" you realize the importance of aero. If you ride in the drops because it is more aero and saves time + energy, why wouldn't you also accept that equipment choices also affect CdA and make a difference? As I have said multiple times, it is not one or the other. It is both. Both being in an aero position on the bike + having aero equipment.

You still don't get it after all of this, even with your thermodyanmics degree. 














roadworthy said:


> Yup....marketing...not unlike carbon wheels and some would posit BB30 and a few other things. Nothing wrong about improving the technical edge...I am a tech guy who appreciates it...but good to keep in perspective what the true difference is.
> I will say this. I personally think a slammed aero bike looks sexy. A Venge is quite a seductress. But there is a reason why there are so many on ebay.


Venge is a rubbish aero road bike. Uncomfortable. Not on the same level of aero as the other leading frames. Hopefully Specialized will get it right with Venge 2.0. I mean, they have their own in-house windtunnel after all.





roadworthy said:


> Thanks tom,
> Cervelo shows the math for their simplistic comparison predicated on the difference in aero savings at 24 mph and 18 mph but their conclusions they posit are predicated on the difference in drag and mph difference as those speeds based upon wheel, frame and helmet which I summarily dismiss as being bogus. No way is there close to a 1 mph difference i.e. .62 X 1.3 kmh in drag at 18 mph due to the contribution of these things.
> 
> What Cervelo isn't doing, is showing the math for their drag and speed computations which is the basis for comparing a slower versus faster rider. I will go to say that I believe their numbers are completely inflated. In fact, if there is a 1 kmh difference at 24 mph...i.e. 50% of what they state, I would be surprised.


:mad2:




roadworthy said:


> I would have loved to be in the room with engineers and marketing guys as Cervelo put together that presentation. No doubt there was a lot of laughter on both sides.


You sure are cynical huh? I question aero data as well, but you need to compare the data provided to previous data as well as data from independent tests and what others have tested. If you have questions, do your own testing. But I guess you don't understand the importance of marginal gains, so you never will.




roadworthy said:


> Other thing I would love to see is the so called 'aero' helmet they used. How many of you guys wear a time trial helmet out on your daily rides?


A TT helmet? Not me, but this will be my next helmet and will provide the same performance benefits of 95% of the TT helmets while still having decent ventilation and functionality for everyday riding (ability to hear traffic around you).




roadworthy said:


> Because drag and speed differences are basically a game of liar's poker, I find the following to be the best summary of aero versus traditional round section frame tube bikes.


That is absolutely untrue. As I have said, aero can be verified by you (and me) in the real world on our own bikes. Just use your power meter and the Chung Method. 





roadworthy said:


> Conclusion? The dogma with round tubes won the downhill...same rider, same course. Where did the Tarmac finish? Within a wisp of the Venge and S5.
> How could this possibly happen? Because head tube length, handling and braking matter more for speed than the fairy dust of any aero advantage. Yes aero advantage IS real. It is also minute and completely trumped by many other factors and only makes any difference at all at speeds even top amateurs don't ride.





roadworthy said:


> PS: hey Butcher, did you miss the video of the Dogma with short box section wheels and fat tube sections smoking the Cervelo S5..the bike generally regarded as the most slippery bike in a wind tunnel...down the hill with deep V's?
> Hey, maybe if they put the Cervelo wheels on the Dogma it would have broken the land speed record...lol. Actually the video shows the Cervelo was tested with wheels similar to that of the Dogma.
> Mr. H Bike Test: Cervelo S5 and Pinarello Dogma 65.1 Think 2 - YouTube



The Tarmac and Dogma got crushed by the Felt AR (thanks for ignoring that one):






Conclusion? Aero wins rather than fancy marketing of fancy carbon, stiff yet vertically compliant and other rubbish used by Pinarello and Specialized. 





roadworthy said:


> And other funny thing is Cervelo is a on a slippery slope with their 'marketing' effort to sell aero. Reason is...they don't just sell S-series bikes, but they sell a higher quantity of R-series. Why? Because if you take both around the block, you will pick the R every time for its ride and handling. The S5 which is effectively a time trial bike with taller head tube rides like a gravel truck even compared to the Venge which doesn't ride or climb as well as a Tarmac.


That's fine and many pick a R series over a S series, or people pick a Felt F over a Felt AR, or people pick a Tarmac over a Venge. Various reasons for that as you mentioned, comfort, fit, maybe do more climbing on steep roads. Whatever the reason. That is why you own more than just one or two bikes. 

But I think the new Felt AR and the new Cervelo S3 fix the issue that you keep mentioning regarding handling and comfort of these aero road bikes. Those two frames no longer ride like gravel trucks and are just as stiff and comfortable as traditional round tube road frames.





roadworthy said:


> The other part of the Cervelo white paper which further diminishes its veracity is...in the context of aero 'frame' differences, there is no reason you can't hang $2K deep V carbon wheels on a round tube non-aero bike....and wear a pointy helmet out on your ride if you want to look like a [email protected]@$$. Contribution of just frame sections alone is even more insignificant.
> 
> Then there is the subject of riding so called aero deep V carbon wheels when the wind blows and where I live, that's all the time. Good luck with that when yaw angles are trying to blow you off the bike. Deep V wheels can be as much as a sail as they can offer any aero benefit.


Who rides deep V carbon wheels nowadays? That is so 90's. All the carbon wheels worth owning have gone to more of a U shape. Not only faster but much more stable in crosswinds. 

I have had no issues with my Zipp 404FC wheels in crosswinds. I live in KS where we typically have winds well into the upper teens and low 20's with gusts being another 3-5mph on top of that. Have had zero, nada, zip, no problems with crosswinds. But maybe I just know how to ride a bike? 

Having a sail (negative drag) would be a godsend with a set of aero wheels. 




roadworthy said:


> You sight data. Let's see the A to B comparison....power data versus speed of different wheelsets. To prove any 'conjecture' on your part you need a statistically significant sample size aka a normalized distribution of data based upon varied weather conditions which vastly trumps any fairy dust aero contribution of your wheels.


lol oh man... :mad2:




roadworthy said:


> PS: I can tell you the sky is falling as well but unless I can prove it, it holds as much water as any significant 'sensation' of speed you feel with your deep V rims.


So show me some of your data proving that aero wheels, aero frames and an aero helmet make zero difference? I am sure you have all this data sitting in your spreadsheet just waiting to share, right? Or you can keep harping on theoretical numbers that you keep making up.


----------



## roadworthy

tranzformer said:


> Marginal gains add up. I love you anti-aero equipment guys who have no real world experience and have never tried to validate the claims. I have with my power meter on multiple occasions and my analysis validates what many of the white papers show. No I don't average 30 mph, but I manage 20-25mph depending on the route. Throw in headwind and you get your 30mph relative testing number.
> 
> Like I said earlier, get your power meter and test it yourself using the Chung method. It isn't that hard. Again this is testing that you can do, and you don't need to rely on Cervelo/Felt/Zipp/Specialized and their "propaganda" as you lean.
> 
> Blather 'bout Bikes: Aero Field Testing using the "Chung Method" - How sensitive can it be?
> 
> https://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf
> 
> I have no doubt that an aero road frame, aero helmet, aero wheels and other misc. smart equipment choices will save close to 100w over a traditional road bike, traditional road helmet and shallow box rim wheels. No doubt about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a degree in thermodynamics that you should know the basics of aerodynamics and realize the validity of these claims. Especially since you ride in "race fit jerseys and ride in the drops much greater than average" you realize the importance of aero. If you ride in the drops because it is more aero and saves time + energy, why wouldn't you also accept that equipment choices also affect CdA and make a difference? As I have said multiple times, it is not one or the other. It is both. Both being in an aero position on the bike + having aero equipment.
> 
> You still don't get it after all of this, even with your thermodyanmics degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venge is a rubbish aero road bike. Uncomfortable. Not on the same level of aero as the other leading frames. Hopefully Specialized will get it right with Venge 2.0. I mean, they have their own in-house windtunnel after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :mad2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are cynical huh? I question aero data as well, but you need to compare the data provided to previous data as well as data from independent tests and what others have tested. If you have questions, do your own testing. But I guess you don't understand the importance of marginal gains, so you never will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A TT helmet? Not me, but this will be my next helmet and will provide the same performance benefits of 95% of the TT helmets while still having decent ventilation and functionality for everyday riding (ability to hear traffic around you).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely untrue. As I have said, aero can be verified by you (and me) in the real world on our own bikes. Just use your power meter and the Chung Method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tarmac and Dogma got crushed by the Felt AR (thanks for ignoring that one):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion? Aero wins rather than fancy marketing of fancy carbon, stiff yet vertically compliant and other rubbish used by Pinarello and Specialized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine and many pick a R series over a S series, or people pick a Felt F over a Felt AR, or people pick a Tarmac over a Venge. Various reasons for that as you mentioned, comfort, fit, maybe do more climbing on steep roads. Whatever the reason. That is why you own more than just one or two bikes.
> 
> But I think the new Felt AR and the new Cervelo S3 fix the issue that you keep mentioning regarding handling and comfort of these aero road bikes. Those two frames no longer ride like gravel trucks and are just as stiff and comfortable as traditional round tube road frames.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who rides deep V carbon wheels nowadays? That is so 90's. All the carbon wheels worth owning have gone to more of a U shape. Not only faster but much more stable in crosswinds.
> 
> I have had no issues with my Zipp 404FC wheels in crosswinds. I live in KS where we typically have winds well into the upper teens and low 20's with gusts being another 3-5mph on top of that. Have had zero, nada, zip, no problems with crosswinds. But maybe I just know how to ride a bike?
> 
> Having a sail (negative drag) would be a godsend with a set of aero wheels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol oh man... :mad2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show me some of your data proving that aero wheels, aero frames and an aero helmet make zero difference? I am sure you have all this data sitting in your spreadsheet just waiting to share, right? Or you can keep harping on theoretical numbers that you keep making up.


You win by shear volume...or what you call blather...lol.

For you to say the Venge is junk underscores your 'lack of grasp' on the subject. Specialized engineers deliberately made the bike a compromise between aero and traditional road bike such that it is more livable than the others. It is probably the best overall so called aero classified bike on the market.


----------



## tranzformer

Trek_5200 said:


> I get aero wheels, but when the discussion turns to the rest of the bike the discussion seems counter-intuitive to me especially when considers tube size or how much wind impact a small brake could have. Seems to me the biggest obstacle to aero-dynamic performance is not the bike, but the rider. *Reducing the frontal area of the rider has to count for more.*


Yes. But as stated previously, they aren't mutually exclusive. You can reduce overall drag of your system (frontal area with a good fit, right choice of frame, aero wheels, helmet). Why is it always either or. Why not both?




Dunbar said:


> In comparison, simply getting down in the drops and getting your back as low as possible at 30mph probably saves you 80-100 watts vs. riding the hoods at that speed.


I agree that riding in the drops is important. Since you believe that and data supports that, why don't you support other data that supports frame/wheels/helmet saving significant amount of watts? Why pick and choose which data you want to support?






Tops to hoods= 6% drop in watts (90s over 40km)
Hoods to drops= Additional 5% drop in watts (+60-70s over 40km)
Drops to aero tuck= Additional 15% drag drop (3min over 40km)


----------



## tranzformer

roadworthy said:


> For you to say the Venge is junk underscores your 'lack of grasp' on the subject. Specialized engineers deliberately made the bike a compromise between aero and traditional road bike such that it is more livable than the others. It is probably the best overall so called aero classified bike on the market.


Have you test ridden a Venge? I have and I was not impressed at all. Very disappointed with it and would never purchase one with my own money. Maybe a Venge 2.0 depending what they do with it, but definitely not the best overall aero road frame. I think that honor would have to go to the Felt AR or the Cervelo S3. 


P.S. hey roadworthy, did you did you miss the video of the new Felt AR smoking the Dogma and Tarmac? Well worth a watch. I recommend it. :thumbsup:


----------



## 1Butcher

roadworthy said:


> What you wrote in bold above...you know what is even more laughable than proving points by charts and/or statistics? QUOTE]
> 
> My comment was made to the person who made the chart, not you. The Tour is not a time trial. There are many obstacles that determine the overall average speed.
> 
> I truly believe if the Tour was about raising the average speed, it would change dramatically in one year.
> 
> I can make a chart that indicates the average race speed in a mountain climb is much slower than a road race [or crit] and prove because of that, those types of races are less stressful because they are slower. Some people would use that information to prove a point.
> 
> I believe we all agree that some data can wrongly be used to prove a point. Todays equipment is not helping a racer because the Tour average speed is similar to the past is hog wash.
> 
> The fastest TT speed was with Greg. You can make an argument that today's aero has not helped break that time. I can make the argument that the down hill/tail wind race had more to do with him winning [yes, he was a strong rider]. Either way, take all the data you want to use to prove your point, but that does not prove you are right. There is also more data that can be used to prove you are misled. [BTW, I'm not writing about you personally].
> 
> We can also say that since the average TDF speeds are around 40kph, my team can participate in the Tour. I'm the first one to say, we could ride in the Peloton, but once that Peloton gets angry, then we would be the first to get spit out.
> 
> I think a better way to determine the real average speed of the race it to stop the time when all the racers end, not the first. The first ones are protected, the others are used up like tissue paper.
> 
> Go ahead and disagree with me all you want.


----------



## 1Butcher

Tranzformer, I like you. You bring information to back up your ideas. If that is what they call 'blather', I like it.

I hope they do not accuse you of making up all the independent data. That's what usually comes next. Or name calling, that happens too.

I agree with the idea 'Why not have both?'


----------



## tranzformer

1Butcher said:


> We are pulling much longer than 10-15 seconds, at least the stronger guys are. The weaker guys, may not take a pull at that speed. And you ask if I would spend $2k on wheels to make me faster? Hell, I spend over $5k to have electric shifting and I can assure you, that does not make me faster at all. So yes, I have done that.
> 
> 
> 
> But when you have got into the tightest aero tuck you can, what else can make you go faster/save you some watts?
> 
> I think we all agree, cost benefit would be a better position. I do not think anyone has stated differently. I believe we are also saying the faster you go, the more aero will benefit you with either a higher speed or a longer time at that speed.



Cost benefit is an interesting thing to consider, but we all have different budgets set aside for our road biking hobby and place different levels of importance upon this hobby of ours. 


Here is an interesting article regarding the cost of savings watts.

http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/puttingapriceonpower.aspx





roadworthy said:


> there are seven things I don't like about deep V carbon wheels:


Don't ride deep V carbon wheels, ride deep U carbon wheels. Deep V wheels are outdated technology and design.



roadworthy said:


> 1. Side wind sensitivity. The wind blows hard in FL where I live near the coast.


Not an issue with the new deep U carbon wheels. I ride in 20mph winds frequently and have had no issue of being blown off the road. YMMV.



roadworthy said:


> 2. Crappy braking in wet weather


Not an issue for me either. I train and race on my Zipp wheels. I run Reynolds blue brake pads or the Zipp Tangente pads. Both work great, even when I head to CO for biking trips and have to deal with 8-10% gradient descents.




roadworthy said:


> 3. Heat build up when descending although relatively flat where I live.


Nope, not an issue at all either. Get a well made and designed carbon wheel (none of those knock off Chinese wheels) and a good set of brake pads designed specifically for carbon rims and you won't have any issue with heat build up.

Also, live a little and lay off the brakes. Speed is fun on descents and makes up for the suffering you dealt with on the climb up.



roadworthy said:


> 4. Lack of vertical compliance. Deep V wheels are VERY stiff vertically and jarring on irregular road surfaces...for same reason than aero frames are....stiff vertical section modulus due to geometry


Wait what? lol The Zipp 404FC are the most comfortable wheels I have ever ridden. I had a set of Enve before these that we also much more comfortable than typical box rim wheels. I haven't had a chance to ride LW or MadFiber wheels, but the 404FC are amazingly comfortable. No jarring. 

With all your complaining about aero road bikes, aero helmets and aero wheels, I think you have just tested cheap + subpar equipment. 



roadworthy said:


> 5. Cost


Aahhhhh, now I think we might be getting to your issue regarding aero road bikes, aero road helmets and aero wheels. You have an issue with $$$. What you think is expensive, is affordable to someone else. If you can't afford new, buy on sale or buy lightly used.




roadworthy said:


> 6. Deep V aero wheels even have a weight penalty but this is minor because of strength/weight of carbon.


Huh? What weight penalty? Plenty of guys riding carbon tubulars under 1000g for the complete wheelset. What box rim wheels are signifcantly under 1000g?

The SES3.4 ~1300g or the Zipp 303FC at ~1300g are not a weight penalty. Try again.




roadworthy said:


> 7. Sound. Carbon wheels are noisier than more traditional box section AL wheels.


Yes, the hollow carbon wheels have more road noise than traditional box section wheels. But that seems like a small grievance for a wheel that is faster, stiffer and more comfortable. 

Plus the box section wheels don't make a cool woosh-woosh noise when at speed. That makes up for the increased road noise in my opinion.


----------



## Trek_5200

I understand aero gear has its supporters but when I see those bike helmets that I can only compare to the head gear warn by Death Star Troopers in Star Wars, I can only smile.


----------



## Rashadabd

1Butcher said:


> roadworthy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote in bold above...you know what is even more laughable than proving points by charts and/or statistics? QUOTE]
> 
> My comment was made to the person who made the chart, not you. The Tour is not a time trial. There are many obstacles that determine the overall average speed.
> 
> I truly believe if the Tour was about raising the average speed, it would change dramatically in one year.
> 
> I can make a chart that indicates the average race speed in a mountain climb is much slower than a road race [or crit] and prove because of that, those types of races are less stressful because they are slower. Some people would use that information to prove a point.
> 
> I believe we all agree that some data can wrongly be used to prove a point. Todays equipment is not helping a racer because the Tour average speed is similar to the past is hog wash.
> 
> The fastest TT speed was with Greg. You can make an argument that today's aero has not helped break that time. I can make the argument that the down hill/tail wind race had more to do with him winning [yes, he was a strong rider]. Either way, take all the data you want to use to prove your point, but that does not prove you are right. There is also more data that can be used to prove you are misled. [BTW, I'm not writing about you personally].
> 
> *We can also say that since the average TDF speeds are around 40kph, my team can participate in the Tour. I'm the first one to say, we could ride in the Peloton, but once that Peloton gets angry, then we would be the first to get spit out.*
> 
> I think a better way to determine the real average speed of the race it to stop the time when all the racers end, not the first. The first ones are protected, the others are used up like tissue paper.
> 
> Go ahead and disagree with me all you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we are getting a little too crazy (bold). Aero equipment or not, I feel fairly confident that there aren't many amateurs or amateur racing teams on the globe that can ride with pro peletons (and that is not an insult). There are also many continental teams and racers that can't ride with the World Tour guys for that matter and, heck, there are top level World Tour guys that can't keep up with the peleton on their off day. This discussion is interesting and fun, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and lose perspective.
> 
> On the Mr. H videos, (which I get a kick out off and often good giggle from), there are way too many variables that can produce those small differences in time. In fact, it would be really hard for anyone to do things the same exact way every time down on any descent.
> 
> In the end, we are splitting hairs and still talking about marginal gains not huge ones. I understand that marginal gains can add up, etc. How much value we should place on them adding up is something intelligent minds can differ about though apparently. Get what you like on your bike and just understand that there are other legitimate options I say. Aero isn't the end all be all, neither is weight or carbon fiber or Italian bikes, or custom, etc. Different strokes work for different folks, there are pros and cons to almost everything that is out there, but if really want to progress with speed and riding fast, you can't go wrong with increasing your fitness and riding skills. It's the great equilizer in many respects and you can make up ground for a lot of the technological stuff out there with it until you have maxed it out. Then, like the pros, the marginal gains become more important.
> 
> That doesn't mean aero equipment is irrelevant or unnecessary, I'm just saying fitness means a lot more than we suggest at times (and it is relatively free). So, like I and others have suggested and almost every post has only confirmed, there are lots of factors that go into creating and maintaining speed out on the road. Aero equipment can be one of those things. The real lesson here is to invest in the tools that interest you most and respect others' right to do the same.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rashadabd

With regard to the impact aero equipment has in the pro peleton and racing. I challenge any of you who hasn't to invest an hour or two into watching clips of pro races from 2013 and 2014 where aero equipment and road bikes are more prevalent in the peloton and judge for yourself how much of a role they play speed on the open road. Even focus on breakaways, sprints, and descents where pros are going all out if you like. When it's not a race against the clock (TT), you will see all kinds of bikes, equipment, and set-ups produce results. You will see riders on aero road bikes or with aero equipment get caught or left behind at times, etc (and you will see them win others). There's just more to it (going fast) than what we are admitting and it's hard to refute. Again, that doesn't mean aero equipment is irrelevant, it just means it isn't the beginning and end of the speed story.


----------



## 1Butcher

Ok, maybe I'm wrong with riding with the Peloton. But the next time your riding in a pack at 25mph [in the back], see how hard it is. It's really not, less than 200 watts. Now think of this pack taking the whole road doing 25mph, think of you being in the middle of the pack. I bet you your doing a lot less than 200 watts to keep pace.

Sample

This link show several graphs, if you look at the second to the bottom, it shows a graph where the guy was 'hidden' in the Peloton. I can average 229 watts. So, it might sound crazy [bold], having a power meter and comparing your numbers with published data, I can safely say what I said. I also qualified it by saying if the Peloton gets angry, I would be dropped along with everyone one else on my team.

So crazy as it sounds aero has it's advantages, even if it is a little with fancy wheels or large like riding in the back of Peloton.


----------



## spdntrxi

I subscribe to aero is always on... look no further then guys who will switch bikes in the middle of a flat to mountain TT.. that's enough for me. Sure I'm not as fast as these guys, but I ride by myself a majority of the time and could use the aero help to shave some minutes off my ride. I don't have an "aero" bike, but the tube shape of my Look 695 is not that different from the KVF of my wifes Madone6. I gladly wear form fitting kits ( no skin suits) and put on my Spesh Evade helmet and roll with my Enve 3.4... I'll take whatever it will give me. If my ride happens to be super flat that day, I might even clip on some aero bars.. no shame.


----------



## Rashadabd

1Butcher said:


> Ok, maybe I'm wrong with riding with the Peloton. But the next time your riding in a pack at 25mph [in the back], see how hard it is. It's really not, less than 200 watts. Now think of this pack taking the whole road doing 25mph, think of you being in the middle of the pack. I bet you your doing a lot less than 200 watts to keep pace.
> 
> Sample
> 
> This link show several graphs, if you look at the second to the bottom, it shows a graph where the guy was 'hidden' in the Peloton. I can average 229 watts. So, it might sound crazy [bold], having a power meter and comparing your numbers with published data, I can safely say what I said. I also qualified it by saying if the Peloton gets angry, I would be dropped along with everyone one else on my team.
> 
> So crazy as it sounds aero has it's advantages, even if it is a little with fancy wheels or large like riding in the back of Peloton.


Ok, but to be clear, I am not refuting the benefits of riding in a peloton (or in the drops) which is something you can do on any bike. I think the real question on the table is how valuable is the aero equipment inside that peloton (or even when in front of it or out in the break) in the grand scheme of things. Believe what you will about your own abilities, but my gut says I bet not one of us could even ride with Geroge Hincapie who has been retired for a year so if he doesn't want us to and certainly not with the best riders in the world for any length of time. If you believe you power meter data says you can, then that's fine too. 

FWIW, the guy in the video below is a good rider, a racer on what appears to be a serious team and someone that owns his own shop, and yet Froome basically toys with him and then drops him like a bad habit when he is ready. I say it's primarily fitness and ability, you might say it's equipment. His bike is probably lighter than Froome's too btw. :thumbsup:

The Ride: Conquer The Road, Episode 3 - YouTube

The Ride: Conquer The Road, Episode 1 - YouTube

The Ride: Conquer The Road, Episode 2 - YouTube

The Ride: Conquer The Road, Episode 4 - YouTube


----------



## 1Butcher

I never said I could hang with the pro's the entire race or even on a casual ride. 

The good thing about putting your thoughts into words is that you can go back and check. The bad this is how people are interpreting it. Crazy or bold that it is, there are a lot of riders that can generate 230 watts for an hour. Therefore, they can hang with the Peloton [inside of course]. Again, until the Peloton gets angry and therefore I will be dropped quickly. I can do 400 watts for about 5 mins then I'm done.

Now were just talking crazy if you believe that aero will help you inside the Peloton [or if you believe we/I do]. If it is, it's a very small advantage even at 40mph.

No time to watch videos but if your job says your suppose to ride a bike and beat the rest, then you have time to make that happen. I on the other hand own a business so my priorities are slightly different. I've never really been impressed with a pro. That's their job. I'm successful at mine too. There is no difference to me.


----------



## Rashadabd

1Butcher said:


> I never said I could hang with the pro's the entire race or even on a casual ride.
> 
> The good thing about putting your thoughts into words is that you can go back and check. The bad this is how people are interpreting it. Crazy or bold that it is, there are a lot of riders that can generate 230 watts for an hour. Therefore, they can hang with the Peloton [inside of course]. Again, until the Peloton gets angry and therefore I will be dropped quickly. I can do 400 watts for about 5 mins then I'm done.
> 
> Now were just talking crazy if you believe that aero will help you inside the Peloton [or if you believe we/I do]. If it is, it's a very small advantage even at 40mph.
> 
> No time to watch videos but if your job says your suppose to ride a bike and beat the rest, then you have time to make that happen. I on the other hand own a business so my priorities are slightly different. I've never really been impressed with a pro. That's their job. I'm successful at mine too. There is no difference to me.


Kind of hard to misinterpret this (regardless of what is said after it), but ok.

"We can also say that since the average TDF speeds are around 40kph, my team can participate in the Tour."


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Yes. But as stated previously, they aren't mutually exclusive. You can reduce overall drag of your system (frontal area with a good fit, right choice of frame, aero wheels, helmet). Why is it always either or. Why not both?


I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that show me the actual data at the speeds you can reasonably push. 30mph data is irrelevant if you can't ride that fast. It always ends up that the savings of aerodynamic gear are much smaller than the marketing departments make them out to be. Getting down in the drops is free. How much did your aero bike and wheels cost you?

If you truly believe an aero frame, wheels and helmet are saving you 100 watts riding at 20-25mph you are deluding yourself. The manufacturers don't even make that claim.


----------



## 1Butcher

What I was trying to prove is that data indicates the average speed of the Tour is 40kph. Someone can use that as proof, that since they can ride that speed, they can ride in the Tour. Just to make it clear, I could not ride that many miles/that many days at the pace of my choosing.

People use data to prove their point but the data is sometimes misinterpreted. It's up to you to call BS of false or irrelevant proof. There are people here that say crazy things and use irrelevant data to prove it. Some of their data is made up of their own opinions and because they appear educated, some people will believe them.

Jim Jones had a lot of people that believed in him. His data was slightly off too.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> If you truly believe an aero frame, wheels and helmet are saving you 100 watts riding at 20-25mph you are deluding yourself. The manufacturers don't even make that claim.


I never said you would save 100 watts at 20-25mph. The numbers I have previously provided is from the 30mph testing standard, however gains are still there at 20-25mph as well. As I also stated previously, I think a better way to look at the data rather than watts saved is the time saved over 40km @20 mph and @25 mph. If you saved around 100w @ 30mph (windtunnel data) that would equal out to a quick guesstimate of about 8.33 mins @ 25 mph or if you would rather look at 20 mph it would be 10 mins saved. Forget watts, would you like to save 10 mins over a 25 min course (if you average 20 mph)? 

Ask the Specialized boys how much a Venge frame, Evade helmet and their Roval Rapide will save over a round tube frame (Tarmac), regular road helmet (Prevail) and regular box rim wheels. The answer will surprise you.

I have no doubt that a aero road frame will save you time over a ride compared to a round tube frame. Especially if you are riding solo, out front attacking or trying to bridge the gap. With the weight of aero frames down to the same region as regular road frames and with the stiffness and comfort to match, there aren't many reasons for not going with the aero frame. 

How much did your non-aero bike and your non-aero wheels cost you?

This information was taken off of another forum but very helpful in analyzing the time saved over a ride based on the amount of drag reduction. Part of this post is information that Mark Cote posted as well as another member:



> My general rule of thumbs are the following.
> 
> @ 20 mph you save 60 s over a 40K for 100 g of drag reduction
> @ 25 mph you save 50 s over a 40K for 100 g of drag reduction
> @ 30 mph you save 40 s over a 40K for 100 g of drag reduction
> 
> This could also be written to match the (50 g) you've posted.
> 
> @ 20 mph you save 30 s over a 40K for 50 g of drag reduction
> @ 25 mph you save 25 s over a 40K for 50 g of drag reduction
> @ 30 mph you save 20 s over a 40K for 50 g of drag reduction


This chart above is much more important and easier to understand than watts imo. 


Then there is also this calculation which I have found to be very helpful. 



> At 30 mph:
> 7.3 Watt savings holding the same speed
> At the same power output, this would be a .22 mph increase from 30 mph to 30.22 mph
> This is 22 seconds saved over 40 km
> 
> At 24.86 mph (40 kph):
> 4.1 Watt savings holding the same speed
> At the same power, you could go 0.18 mph faster
> This is 26 seconds saved over 40 km
> 
> At 20 mph:
> 2.2 Watt savings holding the same speed
> At the same power, you could go 0.15 mph faster
> This is 33 seconds saved over 40 km



Here is another great video by Mark Cote about aero, even if it is geared towards the tri community. Marginal gains add up, especially over a longer distance bike ride.


----------



## Rashadabd

Here are my final thoughts on the topic. I agree with this guy. It's not always about the science and the technology. Sure, having them can help to some degree (it doesn't have to be either or like others have said), but how much should we spend on them? We each have to decide that on our own I guess. 

'Time and time again I defy what science says I can do,' says Britain's most successful road cyclist Mark Cavendish | Mail Online

#ITSMYTOUR Episode 3 - YouTube


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> I never said you would save 100 watts at 20-25mph. The numbers I have previously provided is from the 30mph testing standard, however gains are still there at 20-25mph as well. As I also stated previously, I think a better way to look at the data rather than watts saved is the time saved over 40km @20 mph and @25 mph. If you saved around 100w @ 30mph (windtunnel data) that would equal out to a quick guesstimate of about 8.33 mins @ 25 mph or if you would rather look at 20 mph it would be 10 mins saved. Forget watts, would you like to save 10 mins over a 25 min course (if you average 20 mph)?


I always come back to show me that data to back up the claims. The simulations these manufacturers run need to be based on realistic conditions. There are too many ways to game the formula so I want to see the actual wind tunnel tests. Manufacturers rely on the ignorance of consumers to mislead them about aero drag savings. From the data I have seen at 20-25mph you'd save the following:

Aero Road Frame - 10-15 watts
Deep Section Wheels - 5-10 watts (4-8 watts compared to deep 27-30mm AL wheels)
Aero Road Helmet - 3-5 watts

I think it was Tour Magazine that did a recent round up of aero road bikes. They estimated that the best aero frames will save you ~60 seconds over 4 hours. Triathlon/TT bikes are a different animal entirely since you are riding faster. I would also point out that tri-geeks are the absolute worst offenders when it comes to "buying speed." It's not hard to spend $7-10k on a tri rig.


----------



## Dunbar

BTW, here is the data on the Specialized Evade. Notice how the _cranked_ it up to 50km/h (31mph) to get to 18-19 watts savings? So now we're up to 500-600 watts on a road bike to go that fast? That assumes the data is accurate in the first place (I'd love to see the wind tunnel data.)


----------



## spdntrxi

yeah but look at the middle chart with a more pedestrian speed in the mid 26's.. certainly attainable by some here..


----------



## Trek_5200

spdntrxi said:


> yeah but look at the middle chart with a more pedestrian speed in the mid 26's.. certainly attainable by some here..


This is all lost on me. I'm not a crit racer, the closest thing I've done to a race is a Gran Fondo. What I do like best is attacking hills, and aero has little to no benefit there. I'll keep track of my times on Strava for personal improvement and while I would like to improve my performance over the next year, I want those gains to come from improvements in my legs and increased stamina.

My gut reaction to all this is that aero is just a means to sell more bikes and mostly hype dressed up in data largely irrelevant for the average rider. The best way to ride faster is to ride more. If you are going to spend money on a bike, spend it on a bike that fits well.


----------



## spdntrxi

Trek_5200 said:


> This is all lost on me. I'm not a crit racer, the closest thing I've done to a race is a Gran Fondo. What I do like best is attacking hills, and aero has little to no benefit there. I'll keep track of my times on Strava for personal improvement and while I would like to improve my performance over the next year, I want those gains to come from improvements in my legs and increased stamina.
> 
> My gut reaction to all this is that aero is just a means to sell more bikes and mostly hype dressed up in data largely irrelevant for the average rider. The best way to ride faster is to ride more. If you are going to spend money on a bike, spend it on a bike that fits well.


I agree with most of that.. I like the hills even though I suck.. but generally have to ride 40-60 min to get to the ones I like..so thus saving energy to get there leaves me a little something for the hills. Then TT'n back home because I've been out a little longer then I thought ( I suck at hills remember)


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> BTW, here is the data on the Specialized Evade. Notice how the _cranked_ it up to 50km/h (31mph) to get to 18-19 watts savings? So now we're up to 500-600 watts on a road bike to go that fast? That assumes the data is accurate in the first place (I'd love to see the wind tunnel data.)


The helmet saves 10 watts at 25mph. That is 100g of drag reduction.

@25 mph you save 50 seconds over 40km. Over 50 miles that is 100 seconds. Both helmets cost $250 new. Do you want to save close to a minute over the course of a 25 mile ride? I'd take those savings any day of the week.


----------



## tranzformer

Trek_5200 said:


> This is all lost on me. I'm not a crit racer, the closest thing I've done to a race is a Gran Fondo. What I do like best is attacking hills, and aero has little to no benefit there. I'll keep track of my times on Strava for personal improvement and while I would like to improve my performance over the next year, I want those gains to come from improvements in my legs and increased stamina.
> 
> My gut reaction to all this is that aero is just a means to sell more bikes and mostly hype dressed up in data largely irrelevant for the average rider. The best way to ride faster is to ride more. If you are going to spend money on a bike, spend it on a bike that fits well.



Watts saved/grams of drag reduced all equals to less energy that you need to expend for your Gran Fondo or a century or a double century...or whatever your favorite ride is. With aero optimization (both fit and equipment) you will either expend less energy to maintain the same speed or have a higher speed while maintaining the same energy output as non-aero equipment. 

Unless you live directly in the hills, you still need to ride to the hills and ride home again. Unless it is an uphill TT, the race starts in the flats and has to ride to the hills. For an average rider (250w) it is at 5% and greater gradient that weight becomes more important than aero. For a pro (400w), that gradient goes up to 8% for when weight becomes more important than aero. Lots of stages in pro races go past 8%. A pro and his team would just have to determine the math on what would be the optimal frame as many aero road bikes can still be build down to 6.8kg quite easily. Remember, after climbing, you have to do downhill again. I'd take a nice light aero frame.


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> @25 mph you save 50 seconds over 40km. Over 50 miles that is 100 seconds. Both helmets cost $250 new. Do you want to save close to a minute over the course of a 25 mile ride? I'd take those savings any day of the week.


My FTP isn't high enough to hold 25mph for one hour. I don't own clip-on aerobars but if I did than maybe I could do it (_maybe_.) That would take an all-out race type effort on my part. Did you see the link someone provided earlier? With a full TT helmet on a road bike with aerobars the rider only saved 7.5 watts at 25mph vs a standard road helmet. TT helmets tend to save more power than aero road helmets.

https://aerogeeks.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/evade-charts-200b.jpg


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> Did you see the link someone provided earlier? With a full TT helmet on a road bike with aerobars the rider only saved 7.5 watts at 25mph vs a standard road helmet. TT helmets tend to save more power than aero road helmets.
> 
> https://aerogeeks.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/evade-charts-200b.jpg


Yes I did see that link. The Evade is actually a very fast helmet and tests as fast and faster than some TT helmets.

Per Mark Cote on another forum, the Specialized Evade tests favorably compared to the Specialized TT2 helmet (Evade is basically as fast as the TT2). Here is his quote:



> It's very similar to the drag of most TT helmets. On our test mannequin, TT2 and Evade had very similar drag results. Effectively, very similar drag to a bare head - which is my personal test for if something's fast or not -- is it faster than the thing it's covering? Yes in this case.
> 
> 
> The data's real and is well represented on our mannequin (helmet), bike and rider mannequin (full body), and athlete testing on the track (Crowie, Nibali, Contador, Eve Stevens, Mic Rogers, etc). At 40 kph, we usually see ~7-11 Watts of aero savings. At 50 kph, it's usually about 14-21 Watts of aero savings.
> 
> This represents about 2-3% of net rider power. Yes, this is a lot, but it's very real. The helmet and head are huge as part of the complete system and the frontal area and shape generally are big and not that aero. So there's a lot up for grabs.


Jim Manton @ ERO Sports said that they have confirmed Specialized's numbers through their testing and fitting of Craig Alexander (Crowie).

The aero penalty of the Evade compared to the TT2 is minimal if not basically non-existent.


----------



## roadworthy

Rashadabd said:


> Ok, but to be clear, I am not refuting the benefits of riding in a peloton (or in the drops) which is something you can do on any bike. I think the real question on the table is how valuable is the aero equipment inside that peloton (or even when in front of it or out in the break) in the grand scheme of things. Believe what you will about your own abilities, but my gut says I bet not one of us could even ride with Geroge Hincapie who has been retired for a year so if he doesn't want us to and certainly not with the best riders in the world for any length of time. If you believe you power meter data says you can, then that's fine too.
> 
> FWIW, the guy in the video below is a good rider, a racer on what appears to be a serious team and someone that owns his own shop, and yet Froome basically toys with him and then drops him like a bad habit when he is ready. I say it's primarily fitness and ability, you might say it's equipment. His bike is probably lighter than Froome's too btw. :thumbsup:
> 
> The Ride: Conquer The Road, Episode 3 - YouTube
> 
> The Ride: Conquer The Road, Episode 1 - YouTube
> 
> The Ride: Conquer The Road, Episode 2 - YouTube
> 
> The Ride: Conquer The Road, Episode 4 - YouTube


Loved it. Thanks for the videos Rashadabd.
Can you imagine how well they would have done only if they had been on aero frames?


----------



## Rashadabd

roadworthy said:


> Loved it. Thanks for the videos Rashadabd.
> Can you imagine how well they would have done only if they had been on aero frames?


No problem man. I thought the show was a lot of fun to watch too. I sincerely hope Oakley keeps it going.


----------



## Ahillock

roadworthy said:


> Loved it. Thanks for the videos Rashadabd.
> Can you imagine how well they would have done only if they had been on aero frames?



You still don't get it. The average gradient of Mount Ventoux is 7.5% with some sections averaging 10-12%. On those kind of climbs, a lighter bike will outperform an aero road frame. However, I'm not sure how long they road before the climb to get there. But they didn't mention that in the series from what I remember. 



Rest Day, Up Mont Ventoux | CyclingTips


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Jim Manton @ ERO Sports said that they have confirmed Specialized's numbers through their testing and fitting of Craig Alexander (Crowie).
> 
> The aero penalty of the Evade compared to the TT2 is minimal if not basically non-existent.


Here's something that may surprise you, I own the LG Course aero road helmet which Jim at ERO says is on par with the Evade. It has the added bonus of not looking as silly as the Evade  (I ride a Specialized BTW.) The LG Course is much quieter than my old $30 helmet and the straps are quite a bit softer and more comfortable. Besides position (which is as close to free speed as you'll get) the aero road helmet is by far the best bang for your buck if you're looking to save watts.


----------



## runabike

roadworthy said:


> There is a reason why many chose a Tarmac over a Venge....even CAT 1's or guys who race for a living.


As a Cat 1, I disagree. I choose a Venge because it looks so badass. 

Looking fast is usually as or even more important than actually being fast... :thumbsup:


----------



## Wookiebiker

roadworthy said:


> Two points...if You can hold 25 mph solo for 25 miles, he should be a pro cyclist and not a wind tunnel engineer for Specialized.


This isn't as hard as it sounds.

I did a back to back TT earlier this season ... 1st TT was in full aero gear on a TT bike, then turned around 20 minutes later and did the "Eddie" category (on a CAAD10 with Mavic Open pro rims). First TT I averaged 28.3 mph, second 25 mph and I'm only a Masters CAT 3.

The top guys in the "Eddie" category will all average over 25 mph for an hour ... and none of them are even close to being pro's. If you have an FTP in the 330-350 range, it's not that hard to do.

Personally ... I lust after an aero road bike because it suits my riding style. I primarily race TT's but in road races I'm always looking for a break and spend a lot of time trying to get breaks to go ... which means lots of accelerations to 30 mph with extended periods over 25-26 mph. 

When it comes to climbing, I climb almost exclusively in the saddle. Bottom bracket stiffness is great, but as has been proven time and time again, it's not as important as people and manufacturers want you to believe.

When it comes to ride stiffness ... A wide set of rims and 23c tires at lower pressure takes care of most of the ride issues. If that's not comfortable enough for you, move to 25c tires, most pro's have at this point, even on their TT bikes.

In the end ... ride what works for you


----------



## Dunbar

Wookiebiker said:


> The top guys in the "Eddie" category will all average over 25 mph for an hour ... and none of them are even close to being pro's. If you have an FTP in the 330-350 range, it's not that hard to do.


While I agree that 330-350 watts would probably allow most riders to average 25mph for an hour on a road bike I'm guessing that perhaps 1-2% of road cyclists are capable of putting out that much power for an hour.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> Here's something that may surprise you, I own the LG Course aero road helmet which Jim at ERO says is on par with the Evade. It has the added bonus of not looking as silly as the Evade  (I ride a Specialized BTW.) The LG Course is much quieter than my old $30 helmet and the straps are quite a bit softer and more comfortable. Besides position (which is as close to free speed as you'll get) the aero road helmet is by far the best bang for your buck if you're looking to save watts.


Ok now we are getting somewhere. At least now you can admit to the benefit of an aero road helmet that will save ~10w at 25mph. Why can't you also see and admit to the benefit of aero wheels and an aero road bike? From your posts, it seems like it is about $$$. This issue if aero isn't about money. It is about what is the fastest setup. Whether one can afford aero wheels and a carbon aero frame is a completely other issue IMO. 




Dunbar said:


> While I agree that 330-350 watts would probably allow most riders to average 25mph for an hour on a road bike I'm guessing that perhaps 1-2% of road cyclists are capable of putting out that much power for an hour.


Straw man grasping for straws much? I guess since "perhaps 1-2% of road cyclists are capable of putting out that much power for an hour" that we should also consider that only "1-2% of bike owners own a fancy carbon frame (like a Tarmac or Roubaix)" so talking about Tarmacs and Roubaixs is just silly since such a small percentage of the overall population owns them. 

This is road bike forum. There are serious road bikers on here. Who gives a flying flip what percentage you think of road cyclists can maintain 300w. That isn't the issue for this discussion. Just a bunch of strawman replies by roadworthy and you that have no bearing to this discussion.


----------



## 1Butcher

tranzformer said:


> Just a bunch of strawman replies by roadworthy and you that have no bearing to this discussion.


Ouch. Every time I speak the truth, my post gets deleted.


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> Ouch. Every time I speak the truth, my post gets deleted.


Think so? More like 'your particular version' of the truth which many dismiss. 

I was out on my ride this morning. 32 mile circuit. I will add, I ride with guys who train on TT bikes all the time. I am on a Roubaix. Nothing aero about it other than I look like a cyclist...tall and thin. Most that know anything about road bikes know that a TT bike is MUCH more aero that a standard roadbike and especially a Roubaix like I ride and MUCH more aero than any aero specific road bike with deep carbon wheels because of riding position. I have no aero equipment other than my race fit kit because I like to show off my fine body.  So this guy caught my wheel and then pulled up and I rode behind him for a while and then we chatted a bit and I pulled for him. A standard aero bike or deep carbon wheels or goofy helmet wasn't even in the equation...he had Deep V wheels btw on his TT bike. I also don't think he could drop me. I was probably stronger but hard to know. At times we were riding 25mph and rode for about 10 miles.

So lets clear this up. If you race or you care about 1 minute pulls as you tout in a group ride, then go for it and buy all the aero stuff you want for a 1% gain in efficiency. I am glad for you as you support the bike industry all of us here appreciate.
For the 99.9999% who don't race or even do Group A ride pulls at 30 mph, this aero stuff is noise and why the vast majority don't ride it. I will say again, the fastest guys I have been around and I have ridden with hundreds of good riders and do all the time like today...NONE of them ride with aero stuff because they are smart enough to know that it is the rider that matters and aero fairy dust is simply lipstick on a pig. All the best riders I ride with all work on a flat back position in the drops however because they understand that it is body position and fit that matters when it comes to aerodynamics and tube and wheel shapes are by comparison noise.


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Why can't you also see and admit to the benefit of aero wheels and an aero road bike? From your posts, it seems like it is about $$$. This issue if aero isn't about money. It is about what is the fastest setup. Whether one can afford aero wheels and a carbon aero frame is a completely other issue IMO.


I've been saying since the beginning show me the data and how much it costs. $200 helmet that saves 5-10w at 25mph is a pretty good deal (looks aside.) $2k wheels that save 8-10w at 25mph is not such great deal. A harsh riding aero frame that saves 15w is a non-starter for most of us. While I'm sure aero road frames will get better in that department I believe regular road bikes will get more aero as well. Riders will have to decide if it's worth it to save perhaps 10w for an aero frame vs. the latest/greatest road frames.



> Straw man grasping for straws much? I guess since "perhaps 1-2% of road cyclists are capable of putting out that much power for an hour" that we should also consider that only "1-2% of bike owners own a fancy carbon frame (like a Tarmac or Roubaix)" so talking about Tarmacs and Roubaixs is just silly since such a small percentage of the overall population owns them.


LOL, it's absolutely not a straw man to point out that very few recreational cyclists can put out 330-350w for an hour. I'll also point out the poster said such an effort was "not that hard." Your example of fancy carbon road bikes is a _red herring_. A cheap Allez with Sora is just as capable at that sort of effort as a fancy Tarmac with Dura Ace. Remember, it's all about the motor. Also, I'm guessing carbon fiber frames are a lot more than 1-2% of new road bike sales.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> While I agree that 330-350 watts would probably allow most riders to average 25mph for an hour on a road bike I'm guessing that perhaps 1-2% of road cyclists are capable of putting out that much power for an hour.


When Lance Armstrong when the Tri he competed in 2012, he said after the race he said he set his power meter on 330W. 60 miles...just over 2 hours. I personally don't know a single person who can sustain 330W for one hour.


----------



## Ahillock

roadworthy said:


> Think so? More like 'your particular version' of the truth which many dismiss.
> 
> I was out on my ride this morning. 32 mile circuit. I will add, I ride with guys who train on TT bikes all the time. I am on a Roubaix. Nothing aero about it other than I look like a cyclist...tall and thin. Most that know anything about road bikes know that a TT bike is MUCH more aero that a standard roadbike and especially a Roubaix like I ride and MUCH more aero than any aero specific road bike with deep carbon wheels because of riding position. I have no aero equipment other than my race fit kit because I like to show off my fine body.  So this guy caught my wheel and then pulled up and I rode behind him for a while and then we chatted a bit and I pulled for him. A standard aero bike or deep carbon wheels or goofy helmet wasn't even in the equation...he had Deep V wheels btw on his TT bike. I also don't think he could drop me. I was probably stronger but hard to know. At times we were riding 25mph and rode for about 10 miles.
> 
> So lets clear this up. If you race or you care about 1 minute pulls as you tout in a group ride, then go for it and buy all the aero stuff you want for a 1% gain in efficiency. I am glad for you as you support the bike industry all of us here appreciate.
> For the 99.9999% who don't race or even do Group A ride pulls at 30 mph, this aero stuff is noise and why the vast majority don't ride it. I will say again, the fastest guys I have been around and I have ridden with hundreds of good riders and do all the time like today...NONE of them ride with aero stuff because they are smart enough to know that it is the rider that matters and aero fairy dust is simply lipstick on a pig. All the best riders I ride with all work on a flat back position in the drops however because they understand that it is body position and fit that matters when it comes to aerodynamics and tube and wheel shapes are by comparison noise.


Why is it that you come across as one that doesn't own a power meter? You can correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## roadworthy

Ahillock said:


> Why is it that you come across as one that doesn't own a power meter? You can correct me if I am wrong.


Because I said LA set his powermeter at 330W? If you don't understand what I meant, you need a lot more than a power meter...lol.


----------



## Rashadabd

Ahillock said:


> Why is it that you come across as one that doesn't own a power meter? You can correct me if I am wrong.


I swear we are over thinking this stuff on so many levels. Look, it's hard to refute that if Guy A has great legs/fitness and bike handling riding skills and Guy B is less fit, less experienced and not as good at say climbing and/or descending, keeping a strong and fast cadence in higher gears, etc., that Guy A will be able to ride with or away from Guy B even if he has all of the aero equipment and/or the greatest power meter in the world. I know you guys have ridden with enough people to get that, you just have to. 

If we all can embrace that reality, then we are in the world where we can all agree that we are talking about marginal gains here that only really matter on a significant level when you are either racing against the clock on a fairly flat course (TT of some sort) or once you have maxed out or reached a high level in your fitness and ability to ride. Do as you like, but until we reach that point, we all will gain more by improving our fitness, getting better at riding in the drops for extended periods, working on climbing and descending, etc. If you like aero stuff, great, I have no problem with that because I like some of it too, but don't get delusional about what it does for you as a cyclist. The fastest guys I know and have seen are that way because of being blessed with gifts and the work they have put in and they are going to be fast on pretty much any bike you put them on within reason. Technology is cool and I personally love it, but ability and fitness is the core of what makes one fast or not. 

Again, that does mean aero technology is irrelevant or stupid IMO, but the value is overstated way too much in some cycling circles. Watch some races or go compete in them and you undoubtedly will see some guy on a traditional all-arounder (Tarmac, SuperSix Evo, Felt F Series, etc.) or an older bike with "outdated" equipment whip some tail on a number of guys decked out with a bunch the latest and greates technology. You can certainly do both, but just know that improving fitness and skill is where you pay the real toll for speed, not the bike shop.


----------



## Ahillock

roadworthy said:


> Because I said LA set his powermeter at 330W? If you don't understand what I meant, you need a lot more than a power meter...lol.


No, not because of that comment. Some of your other comments in this thread and other threads. 

So I guess I'm not wrong, you don't own nor train with power.


----------



## Rashadabd

Aero bikes like the Venge and Ridley Noah Fast are in these bunches along with a guy on a bike that is not very aero at all in comparison (Felt F1). How big a role did the aero qualities of those bikes end up playing on the biggest stage? Do you really think it is any different for you in the group you ride with? Just something to think about…

Le Tour de France 2013 Final - YouTube

Tour de France 2013 Marcel Kittel wins stage 10 - highlights - YouTube

Tour de France 2013: Mark Cavendish pipped to stage 12 win by Marcel Kittel ? video highlights | Sport | theguardian.com

Tour of Oman 2013 - Stage 1 - Marcel Kittel wins - YouTube

His bike at the time:

Marcel Kittel's Felt F1 FRD - YouTube


----------



## 1Butcher

roadworthy said:


> I was out on my ride this morning. 32 mile circuit. I will add, I ride with guys who train on TT bikes all the time......he had Deep V wheels btw on his TT bike.......... I will say again, the fastest guys I have been around and I have ridden with hundreds of good riders and do all the time like today...NONE of them ride with aero stuff because they are smart enough to know that it is the rider that matters and aero fairy dust is simply lipstick on a pig. All the best riders I ride with all work on a flat back position in the drops however because they understand that it is body position and fit that matters when it comes to aerodynamics and tube and wheel shapes are by comparison noise.


What are you saying? First you say you ride with a guy that has a TT bike, aero this and that. Then you say you only ride with smart people that would never invest in that? Next time you ride with that TT guy, tell him he's stupid. I would also say that a curved back and a flat back are probably the same watts gain as aero wheels. Why is it ok to invest in a flat back than aero wheels? And, then why not do both?

And you wonder why we question what you say? I think you just like arguing. Think before you write. Or maybe get your lies straight.

Several other posters are posting other sources to back up what they are saying. You seem to bring up opinions based on your opinions.

We are agreeing that the type of riding you do and the finances that you have is not worth investing in aero stuff. Great for you. Glad it works for you. The type of riding I do and the finances I have allow me to invest in riding differently. If it is to waste money on electrical shifting, buying Campy SR components, aero wheels, power meters, fancy tires, it's my money to waste. Why should you care? The facts are as you increase your speed it's going to cost you. Either lost income because you are training, lost money for hiring a trainer, or lost money for buying equipment, it all costs something. Costs, you do not want to invest in. Great. Fine. Super. 

Why harsh anyone's buzz, unless that is what you like doing in life. Mean People Suck.

Please post some sources that say aero does not help with speed. We all would like to see that. None of us want to see sources that say aero does not help at the speeds you ride at. We all can agree with your strengths, it will not help much [if at all].


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> What are you saying? First you say you ride with a guy that has a TT bike, aero this and that. Then you say you only ride with smart people that would never invest in that? Next time you ride with that TT guy, tell him he's stupid. I would also say that a curved back and a flat back are probably the same watts gain as aero wheels. Why is it ok to invest in a flat back than aero wheels? And, then why not do both?
> 
> And you wonder why we question what you say? I think you just like arguing. Think before you write. Or maybe get your lies straight.
> 
> Several other posters are posting other sources to back up what they are saying. You seem to bring up opinions based on your opinions.
> 
> We are agreeing that the type of riding you do and the finances that you have is not worth investing in aero stuff. Great for you. Glad it works for you. The type of riding I do and the finances I have allow me to invest in riding differently. If it is to waste money on electrical shifting, buying Campy SR components, aero wheels, power meters, fancy tires, it's my money to waste. Why should you care? The facts are as you increase your speed it's going to cost you. Either lost income because you are training, lost money for hiring a trainer, or lost money for buying equipment, it all costs something. Costs, you do not want to invest in. Great. Fine. Super.
> 
> Why harsh anyone's buzz, unless that is what you like doing in life. Mean People Suck.
> 
> Please post some sources that say aero does not help with speed. We all would like to see that. None of us want to see sources that say aero does not help at the speeds you ride at. We all can agree with your strengths, it will not help much [if at all].


Now you are bringing my finances into play. Now that is funny. Where have I written about my finances? You...a lowly car mechanic, and me a guy who had a career designing cars for a living and you think you have more money than me. Now that is funny. Butcher, I've spent a lot of time conversing with different guys on the web and have to say I believe you to be the most clueless guy I have ever corresponded with.
You win the boobie prize pal. You mention your bike was stolen. Your non aero Tarmac with EPS. Even your cavalier reference that I had anything to do with it even though I live on the opposite coast is insulting. But my strong guess is because you are such a weird guy, is it is somebody you knew. You didn't have the good sense to keep your eye on it and somebody who knew you to be an @$$ seized the moment. My guess its in better hands and when it came down the moons became in alignment...lol. This time go waste your limited funds on a Venge and tell us more about your 30 mph pulls.

Here's the true aero bike replacement for your Tarmac. They even provided a commentator at your level. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcRdhyDf8gk&list=LLA1lXBlwifUMJ3ea4RU0XQg&feature=mh_lolz


----------



## roadworthy

Rashadabd said:


> Aero bikes like the Venge and Ridley Noah Fast are in these bunches along with a guy on a bike that is not very aero at all in comparison (Felt F1). How big a role did the aero qualities of those bikes end up playing on the biggest stage? Do you really think it is any different for you in the group you ride with? Just something to think about…
> 
> Le Tour de France 2013 Final - YouTube
> 
> Tour de France 2013 Marcel Kittel wins stage 10 - highlights - YouTube
> 
> Tour de France 2013: Mark Cavendish pipped to stage 12 win by Marcel Kittel ? video highlights | Sport | theguardian.com
> 
> Tour of Oman 2013 - Stage 1 - Marcel Kittel wins - YouTube
> 
> His bike at the time:
> 
> Marcel Kittel's Felt F1 FRD - YouTube


Rasha,
Just want to caution you to not bring logic into discussion with aero fanboys...deaf ears. Even though riding a Venge in the last stage in traffic is more about marketing than anything to do with speed.


----------



## Rashadabd

roadworthy said:


> Rasha,
> Just want to caution you to not bring logic into discussion with aero fanboys...deaf ears. Even though riding a Venge in the last stage in traffic is more about marketing than anything to do with speed.


Lol...


----------



## Wookiebiker

roadworthy said:


> I personally don't know a single person who can sustain 330W for one hour.


I'm guessing you don't race much, or ride with others that do.

I'm just a lowly CAT 3/Masters racer and held 340 watts for 1:07:50 on a hill climb last year. My current FTP stands around 350-360 watts and will be put to the test this weekend on a hill climb. 

I did a road race several years ago with these power numbers: 20 minutes 370 watts, 1 hour 333 watts, 2 hours 309 watts ... I took 2nd and it was a Masters 40+ race!!! The winner pulled away from me during a break and beat me by 2 minutes.

There are "TONS" of CAT 1/2 racers out there than can hold 330 watts for over an hour ... and Lots of CAT 3 racers ... a few CAT 4/5 guys can as well. It's really not nearly as uncommon as people think.


----------



## tom_h

Wookiebiker said:


> I'm guessing you don't race much, or ride with others that do.
> 
> I'm just a lowly CAT 3/Masters racer and held 340 watts for 1:07:50 on a hill climb last year. My current FTP stands around 350-360 watts and will be put to the test this weekend on a hill climb.
> 
> I did a road race several years ago with these power numbers: 20 minutes 370 watts, 1 hour 333 watts, 2 hours 309 watts ... I took 2nd and it was a Masters 40+ race!!! The winner pulled away from me during a break and beat me by 2 minutes.
> 
> There are "TONS" of CAT 1/2 racers out there than can hold 330 watts for over an hour ... and Lots of CAT 3 racers ... a few CAT 4/5 guys can as well. It's really not nearly as uncommon as people think.


Well, I am skeptical that it's 'common'. 

And without taking body weight into account for a W/kg number, its also not relevant to compare a 190 lb masters TT specialist against a 160 lb all-arounder or 145 lb climber.

I know a few 45+ racers who are "elite" state class, and even a few who do decent at national level. Not all use PMs or publicly flaunt their FTP #s (when they even know). But one example, a guy who podiumed in Natz 55+ crit couple yrs ago, was about 150-ish lbs and 300W FTP.

Optum Team domestic pro Jesse Anthony trains a lot in So Calif's Sta Monica Mtns, and posts his rides & power #s on Strava. Optum often has training camps in So Calif, and some Optum pros also post during those camps. 

These 24-27 yr old domestic pros , during some pretty strenuous 40+ minute climbs in SM Mtns, will achieve Strava KOMs while putting out mid-300 W. Their Power/weight ratios are superior (faster climb times) than all the 45+ local racers, even the state champs. 

So 330W, "real" 1hr FTP in from a 45+ or 55+ masters racers? 
I think it's pretty rare, and most of them were probably cat1 or cat2 when they were younger and winning a lot.

"lowly CAT 3/Masters" racer? You're too modest ;-)


----------



## Dunbar

^Completely agree, while a 330-350w FTP isn't unheard of in the amateur ranks it's anything but common. If you drop that number down to say 300-325w I would say agree not that uncommon. You simply can't talk about FTP without mentioning weight. A 200lb. guy with a 330-350 watt FTP is a whole different animal than someone who is say <160lbs. Remember, 375-400 watt FTP's are Tour De France territory so lets not get carried away here.


----------



## TheBaron

roadworthy said:


> When Lance Armstrong when the Tri he competed in 2012, he said after the race he said he set his power meter on 330W. 60 miles...just over 2 hours. I personally don't know a single person who can sustain 330W for one hour.


The actual power someone can put out is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

The whole point of being aero is to maximise the benefit of the power you are able to put out. i.e. to be able to put in the same effort but go faster.

Your discussion about you on a road bike and someone else on a TT bike again is irrelevant to this discussion. If you have a far larger FTP than someone it possibly would not matter what bike each of you ride, you will always be faster. I don't race TTs but someone local to me is winning all the races this season on a regular road bike. He is easily beating people who are on TT bikes because he is a far stronger rider. If he were to switch to a TT bike he'd still win but his margin of victory would be even larger. Similarly I could probably ride most of the club rides around my area on my cheap MTB because their average speeds are so slow (upto 18mph) and my natural riding speed is far higher.

From reading your posts you agree that there is a benefit to some of the aero equipment (frame, wheels, helmet, clothes and handlebars). I think you under estimate their benefit when you add together all these marginal gains into one complete aero package.

On a 40 mile ride at a mere 20 mph a 1% benefit would save you 72 seconds (60 seconds at 24 mph). To a lot of TT riders or people that simply like to go out and ride hard this is a good saving and worth the effort. In a road race this time could be the difference between a breakaway succeeding or it being caught.

We will never know the true aero benefit of our setups though and the important thing is people like the bikes they have and they should be able to upgrade whatever components they like without others judging them.


----------



## roadworthy

tom_h said:


> Well, I am skeptical that it's 'common'.
> 
> And without taking body weight into account for a W/kg number, its also not relevant to compare a 190 lb masters TT specialist against a 160 lb all-arounder or 145 lb climber.
> 
> I know a few 45+ racers who are "elite" state class, and even a few who do decent at national level. Not all use PMs or publicly flaunt their FTP #s (when they even know). But one example, a guy who podiumed in Natz 55+ crit couple yrs ago, was about 150-ish lbs and 300W FTP.
> 
> Optum Team domestic pro Jesse Anthony trains a lot in So Calif's Sta Monica Mtns, and posts his rides & power #s on Strava. Optum often has training camps in So Calif, and some Optum pros also post during those camps.
> 
> These 24-27 yr old domestic pros , during some pretty strenuous 40+ minute climbs in SM Mtns, will achieve Strava KOMs while putting out mid-300 W. Their Power/weight ratios are superior (faster climb times) than all the 45+ local racers, even the state champs.
> 
> So 330W, "real" 1hr FTP in from a 45+ or 55+ masters racers?
> I think it's pretty rare, and most of them were probably cat1 or cat2 when they were younger and winning a lot.
> 
> "lowly CAT 3/Masters" racer? You're too modest ;-)


This ^^^
But even taking W/kg out of the equation, your numbers Wookie for a masters racer are quite impressive. I too agree, it is extremely uncommon for an amateur to have these kind of numbers but CAT 1/2's are in pretty stratified air.
Back to Lance who is perhaps the least aero rider in the pro peleton over the last twenty years...of course all the aero fairy boys know that Lance was protected...they say that repeatedly even though they forget his TT prowess. I read that in his prime...and many know he was going to go after the hour record which he never did and I believe Cancellera is going to give it a go this year btw....one of the most staggering metrics of Lance is I read he could hold 500W's for 30 minutes. Yes Lance's 2 hour effort at 330W's in 2012 after his swim and before his run was impressive, but for anybody here who has tried to sustain 500W's, holding this for 30 minutes is just mind blowing. It would have been interesting to know Eddy Merckx's capability in this regard.


----------



## roadworthy

TheBaron said:


> The actual power someone can put out is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> The whole point of being aero is to maximise the benefit of the power you are able to put out. i.e. to be able to put in the same effort but go faster.
> 
> Your discussion about you on a road bike and someone else on a TT bike again is irrelevant to this discussion. If you have a far larger FTP than someone it possibly would not matter what bike each of you ride, you will always be faster. I don't race TTs but someone local to me is winning all the races this season on a regular road bike. He is easily beating people who are on TT bikes because he is a far stronger rider. If he were to switch to a TT bike he'd still win but his margin of victory would be even larger. Similarly I could probably ride most of the club rides around my area on my cheap MTB because their average speeds are so slow (upto 18mph) and my natural riding speed is far higher.
> 
> From reading your posts you agree that there is a benefit to some of the aero equipment (frame, wheels, helmet, clothes and handlebars). I think you under estimate their benefit when you add together all these marginal gains into one complete aero package.
> 
> On a 40 mile ride at a mere 20 mph a 1% benefit would save you 72 seconds (60 seconds at 24 mph). To a lot of TT riders or people that simply like to go out and ride hard this is a good saving and worth the effort. In a road race this time could be the difference between a breakaway succeeding or it being caught.
> 
> We will never know the true aero benefit of our setups though and the important thing is people like the bikes they have and they should be able to upgrade whatever components they like without others judging them.


Well constructed. I appreciate your counterpoint. 
Let me restate in case this slipped through the cracks. I don't judge others...except for one guy on here who has been an albatross going back a few months. 
But, I have a science background and I have ridden with hundreds of other guys over three decades and therefore have a lot of experience and therefore tend to combine the two to formulate my position I am sure not unlike you.
So to restate, if you personally want to spend $2K on carbon wheels for all the downside for 12 watts at 25mph, I say go for it. To me as a good recreational rider but a guy who doesn't pin a number, this is waste of money.
Two...if you want to say throw down for a Venge or Cervelo S5 or Foil versus say a Tarmac or Cervelo R5, then get that fractionally heavier aero bike with stiffer ride and lower lateral stiffness. I am happy for you...seriously. As the one CAT 1 rider said, he bought his Venge because it looks cool and at the end of the day, I believe this is perhaps the real reason they buy 'em including deep V carbon wheels. One of my best riding buddies who is a training fanatic is on a S5 with deep V carbon wheels who btw, is not a fast bike rider so I suppose he needs that aero advantage.

A last point. This should be a friendly discussion and it mostly has been except for one guy who redefines the term troll. Many good points have been made by both sides and I believe most of us appreciate debating if not arguing the topic. But to put a finer point on it since discussion is pretty evenly divided between aero and non aero fanboys and we each ride a lot and many of us with all kinds of riders on different bikes, I believe most here get the aero thing. Detractors like myself just don't see the value i.e. cost/benefit. This is where less than swifty Butcher misses the point and btw, he is the poster boy for missing the point...lol and even conflates not spending the money for aero equipment and net worth which is hilarious because the converse is true. All my richest friends for example, two of whom are cyclists, both ride modest equipment. That is why they are rich...they are cheap.  But the point is, many concede the seconds saved you write about. What we don't concede is the value, aka cost/benefit of aero equipment. We don't see the value in it because the return is miniscule relative to the investment. As a guy who developed products for a living, design is always trumped by cost FWIW. I can design some pretty wonderful stuff given an unlimited budget. Similarly, you can buy some pretty wonderful stuff, given an unlimited budget as well. 

A last point is, I like seeing Venges, Foils and S5's on the road. In fact, I enjoy riding a century with guys on them as riding partners. I will further say, I also know in the back of my mind, I will fresher than them after 50 miles because of riding position and the properties of my Roubaix that makes it such a great bike for endurance riding.

Btw, what bike and wheelset do you personally ride? Can you post a pic of your set up?


----------



## runabike

Dunbar said:


> While I agree that 330-350 watts would probably allow most riders to average 25mph for an hour on a road bike I'm guessing that perhaps 1-2% of road cyclists are capable of putting out that much power for an hour.


That's why he said "If you have an *FTP* in the 330-350 range", which, by definition, would be for an hour. 

And some people don't need to average anywhere near that to average 25 mph. Just check out the slowtwitch thread about watts and speed. Quite a few people averaging south of 300 watts but 25 mph, some as low as 250-260. Being small and aero is huge.


----------



## runabike

roadworthy said:


> When Lance Armstrong when the Tri he competed in 2012, he said after the race he said he set his power meter on 330W. 60 miles...just over 2 hours. I personally don't know a single person who can sustain 330W for one hour.


That's odd, because a bunch of guys I race with that's around my weight or more can sustain that for much longer than one hour. A few are have ftps in 370s +

And 330 for 2 hours is kind of a joke for a PT rider that's 160+ lbs. You can find Strava files of protour guys averaging that for 4-5 hours.


----------



## runabike

roadworthy said:


> For the 99.9999% who don't race or even do Group A ride pulls at 30 mph, this aero stuff is noise and why the vast majority don't ride it. I will say again, the fastest guys I have been around and I have ridden with hundreds of good riders and do all the time like today...NONE of them ride with aero stuff because they are smart enough to know that it is the rider that matters and aero fairy dust is simply lipstick on a pig.


Where are you riding? I ride with a good cross section of people and the vast majority have, at the minimum, deep dish aero wheels. Lots have aero road bikes and go for very tight-fitting clothing as well. 

And I ride with a whole bunch of fast riders and the fast people not worrying about aero stuff are in the minority. So racers and nonracers alike are starting to get the memo. 

I find it a bit strange that you're riding with so many fast people who could care less about aero and can't put out 330 watts. That's quite different from my experience and that of many others.


----------



## runabike

TheBaron said:


> The actual power someone can put out is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> The whole point of being aero is to maximise the benefit of the power you are able to put out. i.e. to be able to put in the same effort but go faster.


Exactly. All that matters in this discussion is w/cda. 

Like I mentioned before, there are lots of people putting up 25 mph averages on less than 300w, which is an ftp I'd say is far more attainable for the majority of riders. 

Hell, how many women are putting up 300+ watt ftp? Probably very, very few. But there are for sure some crazy fast women out there.

Get aero, get fast.


----------



## runabike

roadworthy said:


> All the best riders I ride with all work on a flat back position in the drops however because they understand that it is body position and fit that matters when it comes to aerodynamics and tube and wheel shapes are by comparison noise.


I can't get close to a flat back position on the drops, in aerobars, or anywhere. Just doesn't work. I don't know why. Always been like that. I just slope downwards from my head. So if I can't do much about my position, why shouldn't I look for gains elsewhere? 

I'm not sure why you're so adamant about this. Obviously there is an aero advantage and this is backed up by data all the time. You have a point about it not being particularly necessary for a lot of people, but do/did you rail against 11/10/9 speed, too? Rail against lighter wheels, faster tires, latex tubes? 

I mean, is anything on our bikes really necessary for 99.9999% of us who aren't doing this for a living? Geeking out on tech is one of the cool parts about the sport. There are innovations every year and while those innovations may not be a lot from year to year, those little bits certainly add up a lot from every few years to few years. 

It's amazing the difference between the bike I had 8 years ago (which I still train on since it has my powermeter) and my new race bike. I mean, it is a startling difference.


----------



## roadworthy

runabike said:


> That's odd, because a bunch of guys I race with that's around my weight or more can sustain that for much longer than one hour. A few are have ftps in 370s +
> 
> And 330 for 2 hours is kind of a joke for a PT rider that's 160+ lbs. You can find Strava files of protour guys averaging that for 4-5 hours.


Whoops, that CAT 1 bravo somehow slipped into conversation. Easy peasy huh? Where were you at that Tri? 330W piece of cake for 2 hours? How about between a 2 mile swim and then running 12 miles? He won btw. Guess it wasn't so easy for the CAT 1 Tri guys who he competed against...only your Strava mates right? Now you are in LA territory. Maybe you should post your name. You may even be famous....lol.


----------



## runabike

roadworthy said:


> Whoops, that CAT 1 bravo somehow slipped into conversation. Easy peasy huh? Where were you at that Tri? 330W piece of cake for 2 hours? How about between a 2 mile swim and then running 12 miles? He won btw. Guess it wasn't so easy for the CAT 1 Tri guys who he competed against...only your Strava mates right? Now you are in LA territory. Maybe you should post your name. You may even be famous....lol.


So I see that you let your emotions dictate your response rather than any sort of logic or coherent thought. 

You might want to reread what I wrote, guy. Here, I'll copy and paste that for you:

"And 330 for 2 hours is kind of a joke for a PT rider that's 160+ lbs. You can find Strava files of protour guys averaging that for 4-5 hours."

Or is it the PT part that throws you? PT standing for ProTour. I alluded to that in the next sentence when I said protour guys average that for 4-5 hours. 

Now, if your response is just a result of your ignorance concerning that abbreviation and/or Protour riders, then my apologies for assuming you would understand fairly common cycling jargon. But if your response was simply a result of you skimming through and getting so irritated that you didn't stop for a second to read the entire post and give it another second's thought, then you just come off looking like a hyper-aggressive fool.

So which is it?


----------



## 1Butcher

roadworthy said:


> Now you are bringing my finances into play. Now that is funny. Where have I written about my finances? You...a lowly car mechanic, and me a guy who had a career designing cars for a living and you think you have more money than me. Now that is funny. Butcher, I've spent a lot of time conversing with different guys on the web and have to say I believe you to be the most clueless guy I have ever corresponded with.
> You win the boobie prize pal. You mention your bike was stolen. Your non aero Tarmac with EPS. Even your cavalier reference that I had anything to do with it even though I live on the opposite coast is insulting. But my strong guess is because you are such a weird guy, is it is somebody you knew. You didn't have the good sense to keep your eye on it and somebody who knew you to be an @$$ seized the moment. My guess its in better hands and when it came down the moons became in alignment...lol. This time go waste your limited funds on a Venge and tell us more about your 30 mph pulls.
> 
> Here's the true aero bike replacement for your Tarmac. They even provided a commentator at your level.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcRdhyDf8gk&list=LLA1lXBlwifUMJ3ea4RU0XQg&feature=mh_lolz


Well, you are right, I'm weird. Ok let's not bring that up again. No reason to make fun of someone's handicap. 

I never mentioned anything about your financial capability. I said 'We are agreeing that the type of riding you do and the finances that you have is not worth investing in aero stuff.' What I was saying, in even more words, is that the money you have is not worth investing in aero parts for your bike. You could be a Billionaire and still feel the same way you do. You mentioned that some of your riding buddies are 'cheap'. Maybe that is the category you chose to fit in. You read way too much into this.

You say I'm a lowly car mechanic. Yeah, my profession is nothing to be proud about. I work with a bunch of pirates that like to steal from people who have no idea how their car works. I have to have a degree in electronics, psychology, mechanical engineering, and software, just to explain to people about why their car was designed like people in your area of expertise. 

Although I work with a bunch of pirates, I am one of the better pirates out there. As a top technician in the country and one of the highest paid to boot, someone thinks I'm pretty good. 'Lowly' might be what you judge me at, that's ok. Most over educated people do not appreciate the talent of a person who can get their car running, plumbing working, roof fixed, and food cooked. We are the scumbags of the world that keep the world running. I'm ok with that. Why you have to push me down I do not know. I guess it is in your nature to push someone down if they do not agree with you.

As a reference that you possibly took my bike, it's a joke. Although I do not know who took it, everyone is a suspect at this point. Obvious I did not keep a good eye on it, cause it is gone. I'm insured for an unlimited amount so it will be replaced. Maybe it is in better hands [I'm not 'Gods gift to bike riders']. My guess once the battery is discharged, they will be going to a 'lowly' mechanic to wonder why it does not shift anymore. If you think just because I left my bike in the back of my pickup, parked on my 2 acre home property, is ok to steal, you are a bit confused. Yes, my funds are limited, but I'm assuming that applies to all living people.

I can understand why you would think I'm clueless. Most engineers I spoke with, while fixing their design flaws, thought I was clueless too. Once I repaired their flaw or developed a work around, only then did they realize I was not clueless. Someday when you realize some of your ideas are flawed [others have pointed that out too, not just me] you will respect another point of view.

You still seem to get your lies mixed up. Do you ride with smart non aero people or stupid aero people? I would like to know. 

Since you share your opinions readily, some people would like to know where you get your sources. I sure would like to see some charts and your internet prowess to support your opinions. I'm certain there are reasons why you rarely do, one of them may be because you can't. I know that is not the only reason. Not all opinions can be supports with facts and that is where I think you come from mostly. Some of mine are base on my experiences which I cannot support.

I still think you are an interesting person. You form opinions and seem to be unwilling to change it. That is ok, we all do the same. Just cause aero does not work for you, does not mean it does not work for others. Just cause you ride at 20mph, does not mean others don't ride at 25mph. If there are others who can out perform you, good for them. You do not have to bad mouth them or doubt their hard work. It's hard work and a lot of money to be on top of whatever mountain you are climbing.


----------



## runabike

Since someone here is clearly talking out of their rear without so much as a clue about the subject at hand, I'll post this thread for those who are actually interested in the experiences of aero geeks. This last page alone is quite insightful into the benefits of being aero. 

Some examples from this page: 

26.7 mph at 246w
26.0 mph at 269w
23.1 mph at 241w (55miles)
25.6 mph at 267w
26 mph at 241w

Post your average power (watts) and average speed (MPH) from your last race: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums

Just because you can't put out huge power numbers doesn't mean you can't be blazing fast. Just take a look at the huge range of power and speed to get an idea of what speeds are possible to achieve by paying attention to aero.


----------



## Rashadabd

runabike said:


> Where are you riding? I ride with a good cross section of people and the vast majority have, at the minimum, deep dish aero wheels. Lots have aero road bikes and go for very tight-fitting clothing as well.
> 
> And I ride with a whole bunch of fast riders and the fast people not worrying about aero stuff are in the minority. So racers and nonracers alike are starting to get the memo.
> 
> I find it a bit strange that you're riding with so many fast people who could care less about aero and can't put out 330 watts. That's quite different from my experience and that of many others.


"Lots have aero road bikes and go for very tight-fitting clothing as well." 

I don't know about this one. There are A LOT of fast cyclists that ride and/or race non/less aero bikes like Tarmacs, Felt F Series Bikes, Focus Izalcos, Supersix Evo's and the like. In fact Felt considers it's F Series as it's no frills race and all out speed platform. Specialized is the same with the Tarmac as is Cannondale with the Supersix Evo. Lots of guys with KOMs and records on Strava and other sites on those bikes as well. What you say about the wheels rings more true though. 

Aero has it's place for sure, but it is nowhere near the end of the story when you are talking about generating and maintaining speed out on the road with climbs, descents, turns, wind, other riders. Skill and fitness are key components as well and I've yet to see someone's aero equipment on a road bike result in them leaving someone that's just as fit and on traditional round tubed frame in the dust. If that was the case, there is no way that companies like Felt, Specialized, and Trek all release non/less aero top of the line race bikes in 2014/2015. 

2014 Felt F Series - YouTube

2015 specialized bikes Tarmac S Works McLaren Rider First Engineered? reviews - YouTube 

Spotted: new Trek road frame at the Criterium du Dauphine - VeloNews.com


----------



## runabike

Rashadabd said:


> "Lots have aero road bikes and go for very tight-fitting clothing as well."
> 
> I don't know about this one.


Lots meaning lots of the people I ride with. 

"*I ride with* a good cross section of people and the vast majority have, at the minimum, deep dish aero wheels. Lots have aero road bikes and go for very tight-fitting clothing as well." 

Not "lots" as in lots of random people I have no idea about.


----------



## roadworthy

runabike said:


> So I see that you let your emotions dictate your response rather than any sort of logic or coherent thought.
> 
> You might want to reread what I wrote, guy. Here, I'll copy and paste that for you:
> 
> "And 330 for 2 hours is kind of a joke for a PT rider that's 160+ lbs. You can find Strava files of protour guys averaging that for 4-5 hours."
> 
> Or is it the PT part that throws you? PT standing for ProTour. I alluded to that in the next sentence when I said protour guys average that for 4-5 hours.
> 
> Now, if your response is just a result of your ignorance concerning that abbreviation and/or Protour riders, then my apologies for assuming you would understand fairly common cycling jargon. But if your response was simply a result of you skimming through and getting so irritated that you didn't stop for a second to read the entire post and give it another second's thought, then you just come off looking like a hyper-aggressive fool.
> 
> So which is it?


NOTA. If you need help with that acronym, let me know.
More like, you don't know how to write. 
Moreover, you missed the point anyway. Discussion was about the relevancy of 330W for one hour or FTP of 99.99999% of the world population of cyclists that 'may' benefit from aero kit. In your obtuse way, you answered it. It isn't relevant...lol.


----------



## roadworthy

runabike said:


> Since someone here is clearly talking out of their rear without so much as a clue about the subject at hand, I'll post this thread for those who are actually interested in the experiences of aero geeks. This last page alone is quite insightful into the benefits of being aero.
> 
> Some examples from this page:
> 
> 26.7 mph at 246w
> 26.0 mph at 269w
> 23.1 mph at 241w (55miles)
> 25.6 mph at 267w
> 26 mph at 241w
> 
> Post your average power (watts) and average speed (MPH) from your last race: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums
> 
> Just because you can't put out huge power numbers doesn't mean you can't be blazing fast. Just take a look at the huge range of power and speed to get an idea of what speeds are possible to achieve by paying attention to aero.


And the rear end you are speaking from pertains to percentage of drag improvement relative to profile of frame tubing shape, wheel section and helmet profile when the reality is the *much* greater disparity of power relative to speed pertaining to smaller and weaker riders, is based upon Cd or rider position on the bike.

Below are some rough numbers that prove this point and you can gage for yourself their statistical significance or where you fall on the bell curve with your body type and riding position.


Required output to maintain 45 kph (*28 mph*) on a:

Standard road bike, hands on hoods = 465 Watts 
Same bike, hands down on the drops = 406 watts 
Same bike with aero bars = 369 Watts
Same bike, triathlon position (5.5 cm lower bar, saddle forwards)= 360 Watts


----------



## Ahillock

Roadworthy, rather than trolling about watts when you don't even own a powermeter nor train with power, why don't you save up your money and get a power meter? Then, just then you might have a greater appreciate for marginal gains and aero improvements.


----------



## roadworthy

Ahillock said:


> Roadworthy, rather than trolling about watts when you don't even own a powermeter nor train with power, why don't you save up your money and get a power meter? Then, just then you might have a greater appreciate for marginal gains and aero improvements.


Appreciate the question Ahillock, but I have a better idea. 
How about you perform some testing for the forum? No doubt you own different bikes.
How about you take a Venge and Tarmac, a Deep V Zipp wheelset and standard say Belt Volt versus Aero helmet and do some testing for us? Also throw in a TT bike.
Simply record speed versus wattage of different riding positions with various combinations and chart it. Be careful about weather conditions...including temperature, wind speed and direction, asphalt temp and tire pressure. Put together a histogram of this data and post it. This will prove just how small tubing shapes, wheel section and helmet shape are relative to riding position.


----------



## Rashadabd

runabike said:


> Lots meaning lots of the people I ride with.
> 
> "*I ride with* a good cross section of people and the vast majority have, at the minimum, deep dish aero wheels. Lots have aero road bikes and go for very tight-fitting clothing as well."
> 
> Not "lots" as in lots of random people I have no idea about.


But by using the word "cross section" aren't you suggesting that they are representative of cyclists as a whole (or at least some segment). Otherwise, you just would have said "the guys I ride with," which also wouldn't have been nearly as meaningful. If I am wrong, my bad, but that's how I read it. That was also just part of the point I was making.


----------



## 1Butcher

Ahillock said:


> Roadworthy, rather than trolling about watts when you don't even own a powermeter nor train with power, why don't you save up your money and get a power meter? Then, just then you might have a greater appreciate for marginal gains and aero improvements.


Hey, I'm the troll around here. I have issues with you sharing that term with Roadworthy.



roadworthy said:


> Appreciate the question Ahillock, but I have a better idea.
> How about you perform some testing for the forum? No doubt you own different bikes.
> How about you take a Venge and Tarmac, a Deep V Zipp wheelset and standard say Belt Volt versus Aero helmet and do some testing for us? Also throw in a TT bike.
> Simply record speed versus wattage of different riding positions with various combinations and chart it. Be careful about weather conditions...including temperature, wind speed and direction, asphalt temp and tire pressure. Put together a histogram of this data and post it. This will prove just how small tubing shapes, wheel section and helmet shape are relative to riding position.


If you are the one sharing your opinion, Why is it that someone else has to prove you are wrong. Why don't you help support this thread and prove your point. Many people have researched information on the web to support their opinion, why don't you do the same?

And What is a 'Belt Volt' anyway?


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> Hey, I'm the troll around here. I have issues with you sharing that term with Roadworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are the one sharing your opinion, Why is it that someone else has to prove you are wrong. Why don't you help support this thread and prove your point. Many people have researched information on the web to support their opinion, why don't you do the same?
> 
> And What is a 'Belt Volt' anyway?


I posted the watt numbers showing how riding position changes drag by 100 watts at 28 mph. Contribution of aero kit by comparison is nebula. 
Here is the definition:
Nebula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A Belt Volt is a very special belt that increases heart rate thereby increasing VO2. The way it works is...a small generator is connected to the back wheel of the bike with very low parasitic drag and a small DC current is modulated through the belt based upon a potentiometer on the handlebar. You can also program it through Garmin based upon Heart rate zones. Net wattage increase is said to be up to 25W for the average rider which trumps any aero contribution of frame, wheels and helmet...lol.


----------



## 1Butcher

runabike said:


> Since someone here is clearly talking out of their rear without so much as a clue about the subject at hand, I'll post this thread for those who are actually interested in the experiences of aero geeks. This last page alone is quite insightful into the benefits of being aero.
> 
> Some examples from this page:
> 
> 26.7 mph at 246w
> 26.0 mph at 269w
> 23.1 mph at 241w (55miles)
> 25.6 mph at 267w
> 26 mph at 241w
> 
> Post your average power (watts) and average speed (MPH) from your last race: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums
> 
> Just because you can't put out huge power numbers doesn't mean you can't be blazing fast. Just take a look at the huge range of power and speed to get an idea of what speeds are possible to achieve by paying attention to aero.





roadworthy said:


> I posted the watt numbers showing how riding position changes drag by 100 watts at 28 mph. Contribution of aero kit by comparison is nebula.
> Here is the definition:
> Nebula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> A Belt Volt is a very special belt that increases heart rate thereby increasing VO2. The way it works is...a small generator is connected to the back wheel of the bike with very low parasitic drag and a small DC current it modulated through the belt based upon a potentiometer on the handlebar. You can also program it through Garmin based upon Heart rate zones. Net wattage increase is said to be up to 25W for the average rider which trumps any aero contribution of frame, wheels and helmet...lol.





roadworthy said:


> And the rear end you are speaking from pertains to percentage of drag improvement relative to profile of frame tubing shape, wheel section and helmet profile when the reality is the *much* greater disparity of power relative to speed pertaining to smaller and weaker riders, is based upon Cd or rider position on the bike.
> 
> Below are some rough numbers that prove this point and you can gage for yourself their statistical significance or where you fall on the bell curve with your body type and riding position.
> 
> 
> Required output to maintain 45 kph (*28 mph*) on a:
> 
> Standard road bike, hands on hoods = 465 Watts
> Same bike, hands down on the drops = 406 watts
> Same bike with aero bars = 369 Watts
> Same bike, triathlon position (5.5 cm lower bar, saddle forwards)= 360 Watts


So Nebula equals about 100 watts? Just reading the information, it takes 360 watts with the best bike position to reach 28mph and 246 watts to maintain 26.7 mph.

Thanks for sharing your information that proves you can save an additional 100 watts to buy aero equipment. Funny how it took over 6 pages to prove what some of us has been saying all along.

I knew you would get it. Like other engineers I have worked with, sometimes you got to look at the facts. Sometimes the facts are you are wrong.


----------



## runabike

Rashadabd said:


> But by using the word "cross section" aren't you suggesting that they are representative of cyclists as a whole (or at least some segment). Otherwise, you just would have said "the guys I ride with," which also wouldn't have been nearly as meaningful. If I am wrong, my bad, but that's how I read it. That was also just part of the point I was making.


No, which is why I specifically said the people I ride with. 

I don't know why you're so intent on trying to read so much into it. I've clarified this for you, twice. There really is nothing more to say about it.


----------



## runabike

roadworthy said:


> NOTA. If you need help with that acronym, let me know.
> More like, you don't know how to write.
> Moreover, you missed the point anyway. Discussion was about the relevancy of 330W for one hour or FTP of 99.99999% of the world population of cyclists that 'may' benefit from aero kit. In your obtuse way, you answered it. It isn't relevant...lol.


So you're just being belligerent and are not reading the entire post and are instead creating rebuttals for things you think are written rather than things that actually are. 

Got it.

And now you're trying to deflect that monumental reading failure with more fallacies. 

It's comical watching you scramble about, continually being shown up in one post after another. And yet here you are, continuing on. I wonder how long the charade will last. Quite entertaining.


----------



## runabike

.....


----------



## runabike

roadworthy said:


> Appreciate the question Ahillock, but I have a better idea.
> How about you perform some testing for the forum? No doubt you own different bikes.
> How about you take a Venge and Tarmac, a* Deep V Zipp wheelset *and standard say Belt Volt versus Aero helmet and do some testing for us?.


So just to recap, this discussion is pretty much centered on responding to a guy who doesn't own a powermeter but pretends to understand power, rides with "fast" people who are not only "fast" despite not caring about aerodynamics, but are also "fast" despite not being able to put out the relatively paltry (for fast people) 330 watts, is clearly unfamiliar with the power generating capabilities of professional cyclists, and is trying to use a strawman of outdated, 10 year old technology as the basis for his "position" that the last decade of aerodynamic advancements are essentially a moot point in today's world of cycling performance?

Call me crazy, but this seems like just about the last guy whose words should carry any sort of meaningful impact at all.


----------



## 1Butcher

runabike said:


> Quite entertaining.


Yes indeed.


----------



## 1Butcher

runabike said:


> So just to recap, this discussion is pretty much centered on responding to a guy who doesn't own a powermeter but pretends to understand power, rides with "fast" people who are not only "fast" despite not caring about aerodynamics, but are also "fast" despite not being able to put out the relatively paltry (for fast people) 330 watts, is clearly unfamiliar with the power generating capabilities of professional cyclists, and is trying to use a strawman of outdated, 10 year old technology as the basis for his "position" that the last decade of aerodynamic advancements are essentially a moot point in today's world of cycling performance?
> 
> Call me crazy, but this seems like just about the last guy whose words should carry any sort of meaningful impact at all.


6 pages and this should be coming down to an end. 

But will we ever get an answer to 'Does he ride with smart not aero people or stupid aero people?' Maybe I will tune into Ancient Aliens and find out the real answer.

And, Has anyone seen my bike? Call the Kent Police Dept if you have.


----------



## goodboyr

Ok.....I confess, I took it. I am a Cervelo rider, and when I see a Specialized Tarmac, I just can't help myself...........

Thanks all for one of the most entertaining threads on RBR in a long time. I have almost finished my popcorn!

And if I may, my two cents, the reason I love cycling is that it has the technical and the emotional attraction, left brain and right brain. I think aero is real, quantifiable and you can actually feel the difference. For me its worth it.


----------



## roadworthy

runabike said:


> So you're just being belligerent and are not reading the entire post and are instead creating rebuttals for things you think are written rather than things that actually are.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> And now you're trying to deflect that monumental reading failure with more fallacies.
> 
> It's comical watching you scramble about, continually being shown up in one post after another. And yet here you are, continuing on. I wonder how long the charade will last. Quite entertaining.


More qualitative tripe. You know you are in trouble when you have Butcher as your fanboy. 
You aeroboy are the poster child for projection. Since you likely don't know what that is, here you go:
Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## roadworthy

runabike said:


> So just to recap, this discussion is pretty much centered on responding to a guy who doesn't own a powermeter but pretends to understand power, rides with "fast" people who are not only "fast" despite not caring about aerodynamics, but are also "fast" despite not being able to put out the relatively paltry (for fast people) 330 watts, is clearly unfamiliar with the power generating capabilities of professional cyclists, and is trying to use a strawman of outdated, 10 year old technology as the basis for his "position" that the last decade of aerodynamic advancements are essentially a moot point in today's world of cycling performance?
> 
> Call me crazy, but this seems like just about the last guy whose words should carry any sort of meaningful impact at all.


Time for a pop quiz since you continue to embarrass yourself but don't have the wisdom to know it...lol.

You need to relook at this video of Mr. H.
Let's see if you have even a 'cursory'..forgive the pun...understanding of the subject at hand.
Since you came to the party a bit late, if not more than a little drunk, watch the video and come back and explain why the non aero, fat tube dogma won the downhill. If you truly understand why, then you will be on your way to understanding the relative contribution of aero factors on a road bike.
Mr. H Bike Test: Cervelo S5 and Pinarello Dogma 65.1 Think 2 - YouTube

If you don't posit the right answer...and I am not holding my breath...then of course you fail which you have right along. If you continue to obfuscate...I know...big word...look it up, then you are just denying the truth. Btw, project + obfuscate = Butcher territory...lol...your boi.


----------



## Dunbar

runabike said:


> That's why he said "If you have an *FTP* in the 330-350 range", which, by definition, would be for an hour.
> 
> And some people don't need to average anywhere near that to average 25 mph. Just check out the slowtwitch thread about watts and speed. Quite a few people averaging south of 300 watts but 25 mph, some as low as 250-260. Being small and aero is huge.


You're missing the point, he was implying 330-350w FTP's are common in the amateur ranks. I was disputing that fact. I'm not saying it is unheard of, just not all that common even here in highly competitive Southern California.

You can't compare W/Cda of TT/Tri bikes to road bikes. It's an apples to oranges to comparison. One thing you can take away from TT/Tri bikes is that clip-on aerobars will save more than an aero frame/deep wheels/aero road helmet combined.


----------



## Dunbar

runabike said:


> And 330 for 2 hours is kind of a joke for a PT rider that's 160+ lbs. You can find Strava files of protour guys averaging that for 4-5 hours.


330 watts average or normalized power for 4-5 hours? I'd love to see a Strava file of a PT rider who can average 330 watts for 4-5 hours (post EPO era only please.) I'm guessing only the biggest motors in the PT can put up those kind of numbers (Froome, Wiggins, Cancellera, Boonen etc.) I think you also missed the point that LA was doing a triathlon where riders typically target ~70% of FTP on the bike leg.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> You're missing the point, he was implying 330-350w FTP's are common in the amateur ranks. I was disputing that fact. I'm not saying it is unheard of, just not all that common even here in highly competitive Southern California.
> 
> *You can't compare W/Cda of TT/Tri bikes to road bikes. It's an apples to oranges to comparison. One thing you can take away from TT/Tri bikes is that clip-on aerobars will save more than an aero frame/deep wheels/aero road helmet combined*.


As an adjunct to what you wrote, actually its beneficial to compare road bikes, TT bikes and road bikes with aero bars and the take away is riding position on the bike VASTLY trumps any minor contribution due to frame tube shapes, wheel section and helmet profile. Not even close is the whole premise of the thread. Further and this gets into the nuance of riding position...I see a lot of guys out on the road with a medium low handlebar...too low for their flexibility. Rode with such a rider the other day in fact. He was giving up probably 30-40 watts by not having the flexibility to get into the drops when we were hammering into the wind. Most amateurs need to work on their position and set up their drop height to make them more usable. This is where the watt savings is...not in fractional change to kit area which is a sliver of body surface frontal area.


----------



## Dunbar

roadworthy said:


> As an adjunct to what you wrote, actually its beneficial to compare road bikes, TT bikes and road bikes with aero bars and the take away is riding position on the bike VASTLY trumps any minor contribution due to frame tube shapes, wheel section and helmet profile.


Agreed, from this link at 25mph here are the numbers. Make no mistake about it, a proper TT/Tri bike setup is significantly faster at the same power.

Setup Estimated Ave CdA (m^2) Speed (km/h)	Power (W)
Tarmac SL2 | road helmet | drop bars 0.310 40.10 * 306.6*
Tarmac SL2 | road helmet | clip-on aero bars	0.267 40.27 *268.6*
Tarmac SL2 | TT2 helmet | clip-on aero bars 0.256 40.38 * 261.0*
Transition | road helmet | aero bars 0.265 40.17 *262.9* (<-Should be ~240W)
Transition | TT2 helmet | aero bars 0.230 40.05 *229.0*


----------



## NealH

That is interesting data and thanks for the link. My comment is there is no doubt a proper TT/Tri set up bike will be faster however, if the rider position (flat back, etc) was the same on the ordinary road bike as he is on the Tri bike then we might see only a few watts of difference. The German Tour magazine ran a similar test recently and the average difference between a company's standard road bike (e.g.; Tarmac SL4) and aero road bike (e.g.; Venge) was about 1% or less.  Here is a discussion of the Tour Magazine test. As you can see, in general the difference is small.....in fact its all but insignificant. 

Perhaps this is why the new Madone getting ready for introduction by Trek eschewed the cam tail tubes for tubes consistent with making the bike lighter weight, more efficient and with a better ride quality. The more comfortable a rider is, in general they are also faster.

The true TT/Tri bikes actually deserve a different discussion. They are very purpose specific.


----------



## roadworthy

NealH said:


> That is interesting data and thanks for the link. My comment is there is no doubt a proper TT/Tri set up bike will be faster however, if the rider position (flat back, etc) was the same on the ordinary road bike as he is on the Tri bike then we might see only a few watts of difference. The German Tour magazine ran a similar test recently and the average difference between a company's standard road bike (e.g.; Tarmac SL4) and aero road bike (e.g.; Venge) was about 1% or less.  Here is a discussion of the Tour Magazine test. As you can see, in general the difference is small.....*in fact its all but insignificant.
> 
> *Perhaps this is why the new Madone getting ready for introduction by Trek eschewed the cam tail tubes for tubes consistent with making the bike lighter weight, more efficient and with a better ride quality. The more comfortable a rider is, in general they are also faster.
> 
> The true TT/Tri bikes actually deserve a different discussion. They are very purpose specific.


Exactly right...point of the thread...insignificant for all intents under many if not most racing conditions.

Speaking of the Madone, many pros in fact opt for the less aero Domane because of uncanny ratio of lateral stiffness to ride compliancy. In other words reduced rider fatigue late into tour stages due to vertical compliancy trumps any negligible aero difference.


----------



## Dunbar

NealH said:


> My comment is there is no doubt a proper TT/Tri set up bike will be faster however, if the rider position (flat back, etc) was the same on the ordinary road bike as he is on the Tri bike then we might see only a few watts of difference.


Tri/TT bikes have a different geometry than road bikes which allows for a more aggressive position (flatter back.) It really wouldn't be possible to get the same position on a road bike without completely messing up the handling. No doubt you could get fairly close but would probably still be giving up 10-20w at 25mph which is huge in a TT.

The other point about Tri/TT bikes is that they are much less versatile than road bikes. You have to get up off the aerobars any time you need to brake which ruins the aero advantage. There's a reason most group rides don't allow you to get down on the aero bars in a pace line (except maybe when pulling at the front.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaQJB_bWA4c


----------



## 1Butcher

I remember someone here stating they can pull up data to support their belief but when you look at the data, it really means nothing. Many of you quickly read the chart and point out they are so good. 

Did any of you see that the average speed of the test was at 23kph? That's less than 15mph. Wow! As Roadworthy has already mentioned in previous posts, at that speed, aero has little to no difference. I think both camps have already agreed on this. Taking this information and using for the speeds the Pro's use [and yes, I mean you Mr Roadworthy] is absurd. I would think that an engineer with a higher education than a mechanic, would notice this. I would also be embarrassed if I was a highly educated engineer that was one upped by a lowly mechanic.

Now, can the the non aero fan boys come up with something that is real? Real debates should be based on real data. Proving your non aero point on this chart may work for some engineers, but does not pass the 'lowly mechanics' standards.

Let's work on some better data folks. I bet I could prove that a non aero frame is exactly the same as an aero frame if the test wind speed is zero. I'm not, because I do not have the test equipment to measure the road temp, barometric pressure, and humidity like Roadworthy suggests.


----------



## Dunbar

If you really care about being aero be sure to shave your legs. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of the aero believers are already doing that...


----------



## goodboyr

Surprised the moderators haven't intervened. This no longer has much to do with the original topic.


----------



## roadworthy

runabike said:


> I can't get close to a flat back position on the drops, in aerobars, or anywhere. Just doesn't work. I don't know why. Always been like that. I just slope downwards from my head. So if I can't do much about my position, why shouldn't I look for gains elsewhere?
> 
> I'm not sure why you're so adamant about this. Obviously there is an aero advantage and this is backed up by data all the time. You have a point about it not being particularly necessary for a lot of people, but do/did you rail against 11/10/9 speed, too? Rail against lighter wheels, faster tires, latex tubes?
> 
> I mean, is anything on our bikes really necessary for 99.9999% of us who aren't doing this for a living? Geeking out on tech is one of the cool parts about the sport. There are innovations every year and while those innovations may not be a lot from year to year, those little bits certainly add up a lot from every few years to few years.
> 
> It's amazing the difference between the bike I had 8 years ago (which I still train on since it has my powermeter) and my new race bike. I mean, it is a startling difference.


Perhaps your first substantive post and a breath of fresh air. Thanks for reeling the thread back in. If you want to engage in meaningful dialog, I will respond to your first comments about your riding position. I will start by saying, I am a bit surprised. I ride with CAT 1's and 2's from time to time...I have two CAT 2 buddies in fact who race Roubaixs because they aren't really flexible and therefore they opt for frame compliancy of the bike to ward off fatigue...SL3/4 Roubaix are still very stiff for power transfer. But if you haven't had repeated pro fittings like many CAT 1's have to identify why you can't get aero which could easily be illustrated in a profile picture of you on the bike in the drops will less than horizontal back angle, then I will share the general root cause aside from limited neck extension which is more the effect than the cause as it turns out. Many believe its limited lumbar flexion that limits a rider's ability to get a flat back on a bike. Generally not. Poor posture as it turns out is many times a deliberate choice of not rotating the pelvis enough which can be symptomatic of improper reach to the handlebar. The back is effectively a connected chain of vertebra of course which starts with a conscious position of the pelvis on the saddle. I would say probably 50-70% of riders I see on the road sit on a road bike like a park bench. This make it impossible to get a flat back in the drops. No chance. Proper pelvis rotation accomplishes many things as follows:
1. Better saddle comfort....lowers pressure on the sit bones.
2. Reduces pressure on the hands because it moves rider CG rearward
3. Reduces lower back lumbar strain
4. Allows for lower back position
5. Promotes improved neck extension i.e. lowers neck strain and ability to see the road in a lower back position due to improved posture.

In summary, back posture on a bicycle shouldn't be greatly different than how you walk down the street but it is for most riders and it all starts with how the pelvis is positioned on the saddle. So what encumbers the ability to rotate the pelvis properly?

A couple of principle factors as play as it turns out:
1. most amateurs ride with too short a cockpit i.e. saddle tip to handlebar center for their body size/proportion. As it turns out this is an involved dynamic but reducing it down to its elemental foundation, it is mostly because riders never learn to sit properly on the saddle and balance their CG properly. Pro's generally have a 25-50mm greater reach to the handlebar than most weekend amateurs. Riders have no chance to assume a good position on a road bike with insufficient cockpit length which is the aggregate or resultant vector of horizontal reach and vertical drop to the handlebar. I many times refer to this common position as no man's land....say 6' tall riders with 560mm saddle tip to handlebar center when pro's are all in the 600-625mm range. As it turns out, with proper back posture resulting from good pelvis rotation...John Cobb has a couple of good videos on this if interested...you need a longer cockpit because effective back length increases when it is straighter and laid more over the top tube.

2. Tradition. Most of learn to sit down on our sit bones aka ischial tuberosity versus inferior pubic ramus which is the proper way to sit on a road bike.

3. Hamstring flexibility. Something all of us cyclists need to work on. Its harder to put the pelvis in the right position on the bike when hams are too tight.

As discussed and proven in the data, riding position and even tire width matter much more than frame/wheel/helmet contribution.

I do concede and have said it previously...and I am the guy that knows the equations....there is no question that frame/wheel/helmet matter under specific riding conditions in particular at higher speeds that CAT 1 riders like yourself ride. So if you want the tradeoffs of a aero frame and deep V wheelset, then I say go for it even though as stated it will have little benefit for the average rider who really needs to focus on position on the bike to not only to generate best power but also cut the smallest hole in the wind. In fact, if making an investment in speed, a yoga class and pro bike fit and reduced framesize/head tube length is a much better investment than a Venge frame with Zipp wheelset. Cake and eat it too which has been your point all along? Sure, you can do both but there is no free lunch to riding a Venge with Zipp wheelset as there are tradeoffs many won't like and why the Tarmac hasn't been discontinued and still well outsells the Venge.


----------



## tranzformer

@roadworthy, why don't you knock off the ad hominem attacks and carry on a discussion like an adult. This was an interesting topic until you come in here with your garbage and spew it all over the place. Knock it off.





roadworthy said:


> I was out on my ride this morning. 32 mile circuit. I will add, I ride with guys who train on TT bikes all the time. I am on a Roubaix. Nothing aero about it other than I look like a cyclist...tall and thin. Most that know anything about road bikes know that a TT bike is MUCH more aero that a standard roadbike and especially a Roubaix like I ride and MUCH more aero than any aero specific road bike with deep carbon wheels because of riding position. I have no aero equipment other than my race fit kit because I like to show off my fine body.  So this guy caught my wheel and then pulled up and I rode behind him for a while and then we chatted a bit and I pulled for him. A standard aero bike or deep carbon wheels or goofy helmet wasn't even in the equation...he had Deep V wheels btw on his TT bike. I also don't think he could drop me. I was probably stronger but hard to know. At times we were riding 25mph and rode for about 10 miles.


How many watts were you putting out? Who cares how fast you were riding or for how far. That doesn't tell us anything. Watts would at least give us some measure by which to understand what you are trying to say. 25 mph with a negative gradient and/or tailwind is much different than 25 mph with a headwind or strong crosswind plus rolling hills.

Since you have admitted that body position is the largest component of drag (I agree) and that it is the first thing one should do because it is free (I agree), then why did you purchase a more upright riding Roubaix rather than a more aggressive Tarmac? The Tarmac would have allowed you to get lower in the front than your Roubaix, making you more aero while in the drops.




roadworthy said:


> So lets clear this up. If you race or you care about 1 minute pulls as you tout in a group ride, then go for it and buy all the *aero stuff you want for a 1% gain in efficiency*. I am glad for you as you support the bike industry all of us here appreciate.


The gains are greater than 1%. But I am happy that you have finally admitted that there are quantifiable gains with aero equipment.

I am also glad that you have supported the bike industry with your Roubaix purchase. Thank you.




roadworthy said:


> For the 99.9999% who don't race or even do Group A ride pulls at 30 mph, this aero stuff is noise and why the vast majority don't ride it. I will say again, the fastest guys I have been around and I have ridden with hundreds of good riders and do all the time like today...*NONE of them ride with aero stuff because they are smart enough to know that it is the rider that matters and aero fairy dust is simply lipstick on a pig.* All the best riders I ride with all work on a flat back position in the drops however because they understand that it is body position and fit that matters when it comes to aerodynamics and tube and wheel shapes are by comparison noise.


For the 99.99999% who just ride a Walmart bike, a Specialized Roubaix is a waste of money. How could you waste that much on a bike when a Walmart bike would have done the job? 

Not sure I would call them "smart" just because they don't ride with aero equipment. I would call them uninformed or uneducated. 

Aero frames and aero wheels are not just noise. They are significant gains. Those "marginal gains" added together eventually add up to something of significance. 




roadworthy said:


> When Lance Armstrong when the Tri he competed in 2012, he said after the race he said he set his power meter on 330W. 60 miles...just over 2 hours. *I personally don't know a single person who can sustain 330W for one hour.*


I guess you don't know many serious road bikers. You don't even need to be a pro or race to sustain 330w for an hour. Go here: https://www.strava.com/ and just check out some of the riders. Plenty of average road biking enthusiasts (like those of us on RBR) can sustain 330w for an hour. But FTP without w/kg is useless. 




roadworthy said:


> Rasha,
> Just want to caution you to not bring logic into discussion with aero fanboys...deaf ears. Even though riding a Venge in the last stage in traffic is more about marketing than anything to do with speed.


Nice ad hominem again while trying to distract from the topic. 

You have been presented with plenty of logic and data already by those stating that there are aero gains to be made through equipment choices.




roadworthy said:


> Well constructed. I appreciate your counterpoint.
> Let me restate in case this slipped through the cracks. I don't judge others...except for one guy on here who has been an albatross going back a few months.
> But, I have a science background and I have ridden with hundreds of other guys over three decades and therefore have a lot of experience and therefore tend to combine the two to formulate my position I am sure not unlike you.
> So to restate, if you personally want to spend $2K on carbon wheels for all the downside for 12 watts at 25mph, I say go for it. To me as a good recreational rider but a guy who doesn't pin a number, this is waste of money.


Now we are starting to get somewhere. You don't think it is worth the money for aero equipment. Well I know a lot of people that think the amount of money you spent on your Roubaix was a big waste of money and just lipstick on a pig. To them, you basically threw away good money when you could have gotten a bike off CL for $75. Why did you waste so much money? You know the $$$ Roubaix doesn't make you faster than the $75 bike, right? After all, it is you (the rider) that makes the bike go. You should have saved the money and worked on getting stronger instead.

Actually Zipps would give you more than 12w at 25 mph. Watts saved doesn't save directly, but it is close. Rough estimate (25mph/30mph)*27w= 22.5w. Probably looking at closer to 20w at 25 mph. However, as I have stated several times before, a better way to look at things is s/km saved as that scales with the slower speeds. With something like a Hed/Zipp/Enve wheelset, you are looking at saving 80-120 seconds over 25 miles compared to a generic alloy box rim. 





roadworthy said:


> Two...if you want to say throw down for a Venge or Cervelo S5 or Foil versus say a Tarmac or Cervelo R5, then get that fractionally heavier aero bike with stiffer ride and lower lateral stiffness.


A Cervelo S5VWD or even the Felt AR FRD are both well under 1000g for the frame. That places them in the same region as the Roubaix S-Works and many other high end traditional road bikes. The Felt also has similar vertical compliance to the Felt Z series, which is of course Felt's line that is similar to the Roubaix. In addition, the Felt AR has plenty of lateral stiffness. 

I have also never heard of complaints of the S5 VWD from the one guy I ride with that owns one. Maybe in some gig test it is beat by other frames, but he seems to do just fine with it. Personally, the whole stiffness aspect of the bike industry is fairy dust compared to aero. Aero at least has been proven to save watts and make you go faster; CFD, windtunnel and real world riding (with and without a power meter). Stiffness of a frame is just some term being thrown around with no one being able to prove how much stiffness is enough, how much is too much, whether x amount of stiffness makes you y faster or if more stiffness makes and difference. 



roadworthy said:


> One of my best riding buddies who is a training fanatic is on a S5 with deep V carbon wheels who btw, is not a fast bike rider *so I suppose he needs that aero advantage.*


Thanks for admitting again that aero does provide an advantage. Knew you would finally come around. :thumbsup:





roadworthy said:


> *Detractors like myself just don't see the value i.e. cost/benefit.* ..... But the point is, many concede the seconds saved you write about. What we don't concede is the value, aka cost/benefit of aero equipment. We don't see the value in it because the return is miniscule relative to the investment.



So now we are getting back to my main point that I made several pages back. An issue with the cost can't be raised with the gains made. The title of the thread is "The Case for Aero." You kept stating there were no aero gains for a frame, wheels or helmet. You kept going on and on. Eventually it came out that your issue with cost. Well I know 99.9999% of the population thinks you spent too much on your Roubaix. They won't concede you got any value, aka cost/benefit of your road bike. They don't see the value in it because the return is miniscule relative to the investment. You should have bought a $75 bike instead. And what do you need a fancy carbon fiber frame for? Aluminum would be just as good for you. You didn't gain anything of value with carbon fiber.

See, cost/benefit is completely dependent on each person but doesn't distract from the gains that aero equipment provides and that is proven in CFD, windtunnel studies and real world data. There is plenty of data to back it up. While you might think it costs to much or is a waste, there are probably a multitude of things that you spend your money on (both in cycling and outside of cycling) that other people would consider a waste. At least with aero equipment, there is data to support the benefit it provides. How much one wants to spend (or not spend because they don't see the value/can't afford it/are too cheap) is up to the individual to decide. But those gains are there for grabbing and some of us want to maximize our gains, in both fitness level, bike position and equipment selection.

Here is a good article on cost of wattage/aero saving: http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/puttingapriceonpower.aspx



roadworthy said:


> A last point is, I like seeing Venges, Foils and S5's on the road. In fact, I enjoy riding a century with guys on them as riding partners. I will further say, I also know in the back of my mind, I will fresher than them after 50 miles because of riding position and the properties of my Roubaix that makes it such a great bike for endurance riding.


A century isn't the best place to make comparisons as they are typically filled with a lot of "Fred's" and "Doris'" type riders. Maybe in the back of your mind you might be fresher after 50 miles than you one friend but I would not use that as a comparison for everyone you see on the road or on this forum. Plenty of us ride with aggressive setups for longer than 50 miles and are still fresh at the end of it.




roadworthy said:


> Whoops, that CAT 1 bravo somehow slipped into conversation. Easy peasy huh? Where were you at that Tri? 330W piece of cake for 2 hours? How about between a 2 mile swim and then running 12 miles? He won btw. Guess it wasn't so easy for the CAT 1 Tri guys who he competed against...only your Strava mates right? Now you are in LA territory. Maybe you should post your name. You may even be famous....lol.


Adding tri into the mix is a red herring as their strategy is completely different than a road cyclist as they have to run a significant difference after biking. Maintaining 330-350w isn't some unique ability amongst serious road cyclists.




roadworthy said:


> Discussion was about the relevancy of 330W for one hour or FTP of 99.99999% of the world population of cyclists that 'may' benefit from aero kit.


99.999999% of the world population of cyclists will never be as fast as a pro. So why spend thousands of dollars on a fancy bike like a Roubaix since you will never be as fast as a pro?




roadworthy said:


> And the rear end you are speaking from pertains to percentage of drag improvement relative to profile of frame tubing shape, wheel section and helmet profile when the reality is the *much* greater disparity of power relative to speed pertaining to smaller and weaker riders, is based upon Cd or rider position on the bike.
> 
> Below are some rough numbers that prove this point and you can gage for yourself their statistical significance or where you fall on the bell curve with your body type and riding position.
> 
> 
> Required output to maintain 45 kph (*28 mph*) on a:
> 
> Standard road bike, hands on hoods = 465 Watts
> Same bike, hands down on the drops = 406 watts
> Same bike with aero bars = 369 Watts
> Same bike, triathlon position (5.5 cm lower bar, saddle forwards)= 360 Watts


Look at post #72 in this thread. Positioning has already been mentioned as being a huge component of making a rider faster. So you should sell your Roubaix and get a Tarmac since you would be able to get lower on the Tarmac.






roadworthy said:


> Appreciate the question Ahillock, but I have a better idea.
> How about you perform some testing for the forum? No doubt you own different bikes.
> How about you take a Venge and Tarmac, a Deep V Zipp wheelset and standard say Belt Volt versus Aero helmet and do some testing for us? Also throw in a TT bike.
> Simply record speed versus wattage of different riding positions with various combinations and chart it. Be careful about weather conditions...including temperature, wind speed and direction, asphalt temp and tire pressure. Put together a histogram of this data and post it. This will prove just how small tubing shapes, wheel section and helmet shape are relative to riding position.


As I mentioned, since dunbar and you are skeptical of aero gains you are the ones that need to prove it to yourself. I have already done some basic testing myself and have enough data to know that aero matters. You need to figure out for yourself as you don't trust any of the provided data.

Again, go take your powermeter and do the Chung Method. You will find all the data you need.




roadworthy said:


> I posted the watt numbers showing how riding position changes drag by 100 watts at 28 mph. Contribution of aero kit by comparison is nebula.


You can easily gain that 100w plus another 70-90w on top of that with some smart equipment choices. It isn't mutually exclusive, you can have both.




roadworthy said:


> A Belt Volt is a very special belt that increases heart rate thereby increasing VO2. The way it works is...a small generator is connected to the back wheel of the bike with very low parasitic drag and a small DC current is modulated through the belt based upon a potentiometer on the handlebar. You can also program it through Garmin based upon Heart rate zones. Net wattage increase is said to be up to 25W for the average rider which trumps any aero contribution of frame, wheels and helmet...lol.


Wrong. You can gain way more than 25w from just frame, wheels and helmet. This has been proven.




roadworthy said:


> Time for a pop quiz since you continue to embarrass yourself but don't have the wisdom to know it...lol.
> 
> You need to relook at this video of Mr. H.
> Let's see if you have even a 'cursory'..forgive the pun...understanding of the subject at hand.
> Since you came to the party a bit late, if not more than a little drunk, watch the video and come back and explain why the non aero, fat tube dogma won the downhill. If you truly understand why, then you will be on your way to understanding the relative contribution of aero factors on a road bike.
> Mr. H Bike Test: Cervelo S5 and Pinarello Dogma 65.1 Think 2 - YouTube
> 
> If you don't posit the right answer...and I am not holding my breath...then of course you fail which you have right along. If you continue to obfuscate...I know...big word...look it up, then you are just denying the truth. Btw, project + obfuscate = Butcher territory...lol...your boi.


Why do you keep ignoring that the top bike on the leaderboard is the Felt AR? 






Watch the video roadworthy.


----------



## roadworthy

tranzformer said:


> @roadworthy, why don't you knock off the ad hominem attacks and carry on a discussion like an adult. This was an interesting topic until you come in here with your garbage and spew it all over the place. Knock it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many watts were you putting out? Who cares how fast you were riding or for how far. That doesn't tell us anything. Watts would at least give us some measure by which to understand what you are trying to say. 25 mph with a negative gradient and/or tailwind is much different than 25 mph with a headwind or strong crosswind plus rolling hills.
> 
> Since you have admitted that body position is the largest component of drag (I agree) and that it is the first thing one should do because it is free (I agree), then why did you purchase a more upright riding Roubaix rather than a more aggressive Tarmac? The Tarmac would have allowed you to get lower in the front than your Roubaix, making you more aero while in the drops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gains are greater than 1%. But I am happy that you have finally admitted that there are quantifiable gains with aero equipment.
> 
> I am also glad that you have supported the bike industry with your Roubaix purchase. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the 99.99999% who just ride a Walmart bike, a Specialized Roubaix is a waste of money. How could you waste that much on a bike when a Walmart bike would have done the job?
> 
> Not sure I would call them "smart" just because they don't ride with aero equipment. I would call them uninformed or uneducated.
> 
> Aero frames and aero wheels are not just noise. They are significant gains. Those "marginal gains" added together eventually add up to something of significance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't know many serious road bikers. You don't even need to be a pro or race to sustain 330w for an hour. Go here: https://www.strava.com/ and just check out some of the riders. Plenty of average road biking enthusiasts (like those of us on RBR) can sustain 330w for an hour. But FTP without w/kg is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice ad hominem again while trying to distract from the topic.
> 
> You have been presented with plenty of logic and data already by those stating that there are aero gains to be made through equipment choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are starting to get somewhere. You don't think it is worth the money for aero equipment. Well I know a lot of people that think the amount of money you spent on your Roubaix was a big waste of money and just lipstick on a pig. To them, you basically threw away good money when you could have gotten a bike off CL for $75. Why did you waste so much money? You know the $$$ Roubaix doesn't make you faster than the $75 bike, right? After all, it is you (the rider) that makes the bike go. You should have saved the money and worked on getting stronger instead.
> 
> Actually Zipps would give you more than 12w at 25 mph. Watts saved doesn't save directly, but it is close. Rough estimate (25mph/30mph)*27w= 22.5w. Probably looking at closer to 20w at 25 mph. However, as I have stated several times before, a better way to look at things is s/km saved as that scales with the slower speeds. With something like a Hed/Zipp/Enve wheelset, you are looking at saving 80-120 seconds over 25 miles compared to a generic alloy box rim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Cervelo S5VWD or even the Felt AR FRD are both well under 1000g for the frame. That places them in the same region as the Roubaix S-Works and many other high end traditional road bikes. The Felt also has similar vertical compliance to the Felt Z series, which is of course Felt's line that is similar to the Roubaix. In addition, the Felt AR has plenty of lateral stiffness.
> 
> I have also never heard of complaints of the S5 VWD from the one guy I ride with that owns one. Maybe in some gig test it is beat by other frames, but he seems to do just fine with it. Personally, the whole stiffness aspect of the bike industry is fairy dust compared to aero. Aero at least has been proven to save watts and make you go faster; CFD, windtunnel and real world riding (with and without a power meter). Stiffness of a frame is just some term being thrown around with no one being able to prove how much stiffness is enough, how much is too much, whether x amount of stiffness makes you y faster or if more stiffness makes and difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting again that aero does provide an advantage. Knew you would finally come around. :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we are getting back to my main point that I made several pages back. An issue with the cost can't be raised with the gains made. The title of the thread is "The Case for Aero." You kept stating there were no aero gains for a frame, wheels or helmet. You kept going on and on. Eventually it came out that your issue with cost. Well I know 99.9999% of the population thinks you spent too much on your Roubaix. They won't concede you got any value, aka cost/benefit of your road bike. They don't see the value in it because the return is miniscule relative to the investment. You should have bought a $75 bike instead. And what do you need a fancy carbon fiber frame for? Aluminum would be just as good for you. You didn't gain anything of value with carbon fiber.
> 
> See, cost/benefit is completely dependent on each person but doesn't distract from the gains that aero equipment provides and that is proven in CFD, windtunnel studies and real world data. There is plenty of data to back it up. While you might think it costs to much or is a waste, there are probably a multitude of things that you spend your money on (both in cycling and outside of cycling) that other people would consider a waste. At least with aero equipment, there is data to support the benefit it provides. How much one wants to spend (or not spend because they don't see the value/can't afford it/are too cheap) is up to the individual to decide. But those gains are there for grabbing and some of us want to maximize our gains, in both fitness level, bike position and equipment selection.
> 
> Here is a good article on cost of wattage/aero saving: http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/puttingapriceonpower.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> A century isn't the best place to make comparisons as they are typically filled with a lot of "Fred's" and "Doris'" type riders. Maybe in the back of your mind you might be fresher after 50 miles than you one friend but I would not use that as a comparison for everyone you see on the road or on this forum. Plenty of us ride with aggressive setups for longer than 50 miles and are still fresh at the end of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adding tri into the mix is a red herring as their strategy is completely different than a road cyclist as they have to run a significant difference after biking. Maintaining 330-350w isn't some unique ability amongst serious road cyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 99.999999% of the world population of cyclists will never be as fast as a pro. So why spend thousands of dollars on a fancy bike like a Roubaix since you will never be as fast as a pro?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at post #72 in this thread. Positioning has already been mentioned as being a huge component of making a rider faster. So you should sell your Roubaix and get a Tarmac since you would be able to get lower on the Tarmac.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned, since dunbar and you are skeptical of aero gains you are the ones that need to prove it to yourself. I have already done some basic testing myself and have enough data to know that aero matters. You need to figure out for yourself as you don't trust any of the provided data.
> 
> Again, go take your powermeter and do the Chung Method. You will find all the data you need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can easily gain that 100w plus another 70-90w on top of that with some smart equipment choices. It isn't mutually exclusive, you can have both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You can gain way more than 25w from just frame, wheels and helmet. This has been proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep ignoring that the top bike on the leaderboard is the Felt AR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the video roadworthy.


Whew! You win on sure volume aka bluster...lol.

Each point you make in your rambling diatribe aka manifesto can be debated ad nausseum but not worth the band width to respond because like other flat earthers, aero fairyboys will always believe what they will. Not unlike politics and religion, especially for guys who don't know the math behind it.
Carry on...lol. 
Speaking of videos tranz, lets see if you pass your aero GRD and explain why the fat tube dogma beat the Cervelo S5 down the hill. Btw, it isn't the witchcraft you base your aero suppositions on but rather predicated on thermodynamics. Lets see if you can even fathom the simple reason. If you don't understand this basic tenant, you are just rambling.


----------



## tranzformer

There you go again with the ad hominem attacks. Knock it off.



roadworthy said:


> Speaking of videos trankz, lets see if you pass your aero GRD and explain why the fat tube dogma beat the Cervelo S5 down the hill. If you don't understand this basic tenant, you are just rambling.



Please explain to me why the Felt AR and Specialized Venge beat the Dogma?


----------



## roadworthy

tranzformer said:


> There you go again with the ad hominem attacks. Knock it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to me why the Felt AR and Specialized Venge beat the Dogma?


No. I asked the question first way back and all the aeroboys are completely clueless why a fat tube bike would beat a S5 down the hill with the same rider on it.


----------



## tranzformer

roadworthy said:


> No. I asked the question first way back and all the aeroboys are completely clueless why a fat tube bike would beat a S5 down the hill with the same rider on it.


And why did two aero road frames beat a fat tube bike with the same rider on it?


The Mr. H test is more about entertainment value than any sort of true scientific measure of difference in aero of the frames. A tad hit of the brakes longer on one run than another throws the times off.

The Chung Method would be much more accurate if one wanted true data and not some entertainment value.


----------



## roadworthy

tranzformer said:


> And why did two aero road frames beat a fat tube bike with the same rider on it?
> 
> 
> The Mr. H test is more about entertainment value than any sort of true scientific measure of difference in aero of the frames. A tad hit of the brakes longer on one run than another throws the times off.
> 
> The Chung Method would be much more accurate if one wanted true data and not some entertainment value.


You are about 30% correct, but only that. I am not surprised because it continues to go over the head of all the aero fanboys here. You won't get your high school diploma in thermodynamics if you don't identify the signature reason. Quite right, the noise aka ratio of aero deficit of fat tubes to other test control factors has some weight and in fact underscores just how insignificant frame aero tube sections are. 
But you miss the keynote reason which is a bit sad but understandable.


----------



## tranzformer

You have really taken an interesting discussion and completely crapped all over it and then gone ahead to continue with your ad hominem attacks because you have no thoughtful response that actually adds to the discussion at hand. All you do is keep mentioning how you have a degree in thermodynamics and designed stuff for cars. Ok...

The issue isn't noise nor is it aero deficit of fat tubes vs. aero tubes nor does it show what you think it shows. The issue is an improper study design that does not test out what we want to know, aero of the frames. All that the Mr. H test studies, which bike can Mr. H get down the hill faster. That allows too many variables, the most important being rider influences during the ride down (how fast he pedals, when he pedals, when he hits the brakes, how hard he hits the brakes plus others). Too many variables that can't be controlled. That is why, when you want to study the aero affect of bike equipment, you need to limit those variables and control for them. Hence a windtunnel or using the Chung Method.

Since you play a thermodynamics engineer on the internet give the article, "Estimating CdA with a power meter" a read.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> Agreed, from this link at 25mph here are the numbers. Make no mistake about it, a proper TT/Tri bike setup is significantly faster at the same power.
> 
> Setup Estimated Ave CdA (m^2) Speed (km/h)	Power (W)
> Tarmac SL2 | road helmet | drop bars 0.310 40.10 * 306.6*
> Tarmac SL2 | road helmet | clip-on aero bars	0.267 40.27 *268.6*
> Tarmac SL2 | TT2 helmet | clip-on aero bars 0.256 40.38 * 261.0*
> Transition | road helmet | aero bars 0.265 40.17 *262.9* (<-Should be ~240W)
> Transition | TT2 helmet | aero bars 0.230 40.05 *229.0*


Even I have stated since the beginning that position plays the largest part. 80% of drag on a bike is rider related. However, 20% is a decently large enough proportion that there are gains to be made there. Marginal gains add up. You can improve your equipment to be more aero, while still being in a low aero position on the bike. You do both.

If you are going to buy a new bike/frameset, looking at an aero frame is worthwhile. Same thing with a helmet, if you need a road helmet, looking at and considering an aero road helmet is worthwhile. Same with wheels, if one is looking for an upgrade to their road bike, wheels can play an important part. Considering aero wheels is worthwhile.


What's interesting to me, some of the new aero road frames (Felt AR, Cervelo S5) have similar drag numbers to some of those older TT frames from 4-5 years ago (of which the Transition is one of them) and in some yaw have lower numbers. That is quite impressive imo.










vs. 




















Take a rider, call him Steve. Regardless of what his FTP is, if he has a similar fit on a traditional round tube frame with box rim wheels and a traditional road helmet vs. the same Steve on an aero road bike with aero wheels and an aero road helmet, he will be faster on the second setup. Same rider, different equipment. Talking about not being a pro or not having your fitness up to the level of Cancellara is all just a red herring and distracts from the real issue. Aero is faster than not aero.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Try making your points without all the insults please.


----------



## goodboyr

Coolhand said:


> Try making your points with*out* all the insults please.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## roadworthy

tranzformer said:


> You have really taken an interesting discussion and completely crapped all over it and then gone ahead to continue with your ad hominem attacks because you have no thoughtful response that actually adds to the discussion at hand. All you do is keep mentioning how you have a degree in thermodynamics and designed stuff for cars. Ok...
> 
> The issue isn't noise nor is it aero deficit of fat tubes vs. aero tubes nor does it show what you think it shows. The issue is an improper study design that does not test out what we want to know, aero of the frames. All that the Mr. H test studies, which bike can Mr. H get down the hill faster. That allows too many variables, the most important being rider influences during the ride down (how fast he pedals, when he pedals, when he hits the brakes, how hard he hits the brakes plus others). Too many variables that can't be controlled. That is why, when you want to study the aero affect of bike equipment, you need to limit those variables and control for them. Hence a windtunnel or using the Chung Method.
> 
> Since you play a thermodynamics engineer on the internet give the article, "Estimating CdA with a power meter" a read.
> 
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf


You need to give your ad hominem word a rest. I know you have limited vocabulary and are sore you flunked the thermo GRD...30% isn't a very good score.  And of course you are blaming the test when the test veracity stands on its own. The very small noise of test variability trumps the even smaller noise of aero tube contribution. Simple to anybody with a science background and yet you continue to beat the aero drum when average speed out on the road is much lower than the downhill speeds that Mr. H approached which highlights the square of the speed contribution of drag.

So...what to do. No doubt the answer is gnawing at you. You want to know why the dogma beat the S5 down the hill but don't have the stones to ask why. So I need a collective 'uncle' from the aero flat earthers. I need a chorus of why and I will provide the answer. Then you will pass your thermo GRD and consider whether you have the aptitude to pass the calculus associated with college level thermo. Lemme know.


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Even I have stated since the beginning that position plays the largest part. 80% of drag on a bike is rider related. However, 20% is a decently large enough proportion that there are gains to be made there. Marginal gains add up. You can improve your equipment to be more aero, while still being in a low aero position on the bike. You do both.


I agree with this but some of the numbers you were throwing out earlier in this thread were way too optimistic. I'll start by saying 30mph drag numbers are irrelevant to road cyclists but that's the speed most of manufacturers use so:

30mph on a road bike 500 watts x 11g = 5500g drag total bike & rider
5500 x 20% = 1100g drag / 11g = 100w total bike drag

You were claiming an aero frame and wheels could save 57-67w at 30mph. Do you honestly think equipment can erase 2/3 of the drag? Of course not, you would be *lucky* to save half that.


----------



## Coolhand

goodboyr said:


> Fixed it for you.


Thanks, in the words of Ralph Wiggam "Me fail English, that's unpossible!"


----------



## Rashadabd

goodboyr said:


> Surprised the moderators haven't intervened. This no longer has much to do with the original topic.


Agreed.


----------



## LVbob

Rashadabd said:


> Agreed.


It's all your fault - you started the thread.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> I agree with this but some of the numbers you were throwing out earlier in this thread were way too optimistic. I'll start by saying 30mph drag numbers are irrelevant to road cyclists but that's the speed most of manufacturers use so:
> 
> 30mph on a road bike 500 watts x 11g = 5500g drag total bike & rider
> 5500 x 20% = 1100g drag / 11g = 100w total bike drag
> 
> You were claiming an aero frame and wheels could save 57-67w at 30mph. Do you honestly think equipment can erase 2/3 of the drag? Of course not, you would be *lucky* to save half that.


You might think 30 mph is irrelevant to most road cyclists, hence the reason why seconds saved over 40km @ 25 mph or 20 mph is a better term to use when looking at different aero equipment imo. 

Not sure where you are getting your 5500g of total bike + rider drag but the Cervelo S5 + rider tests at ~2300g + change range. I think maybe the 5500g is a bit on the high side?











Just looking at the frame only, the Cervelo S3 (old S3) is about 100-200g less than the other typical road frames. 










The Cervelo S5 improved upon this and is about 200-300g less drag than other typical road frames.











As I showed previously, the new Felt AR improved upon the Cervelo S5 even more in terms of less drag. 










Even Felt is saying that the Cervelo S5 saves ~ 28w over their Felt F and that their AR saves ~37w over their Felt F. So not sure why saying an aero frame can save ~30-35w @ 30 mph is such a leap? It isn't.

I still stand by an aero frame being able to save ~30-35w @ 30 mph over a round tube frame (like a Felt F) and aero wheels (like Zipp/Hed/Enve) saving another 25-30w @ 30 mph over alloy box rims. While those total 55-65w @ 30 mph don't scale exactly down to 25 mph, it will still give you somewhere around 45-54w @ 25 mph is my guess. More importantly, like I said previously it is easier to understand the differences if you look at the data in seconds saved over 40 km. The above frame and wheels will save you ~ 325 seconds (5:25) over a 40km distance at 25 mph or 390 seconds (6:30 min) at 20 mph. I will still stand by that and the math supports it. Just hit up Mark Cote or Chris Yu on FaceBook or Twitter if you want to see if that math works out. Or PM SuperDave (Felt aero engineer) on here to ask him the same thing.

I even have data showing that an aero frame saves power (of significance) while drafting in a group/peleton. The savings are even there for the taking.


----------



## Rashadabd

LVbob said:


> It's all your fault - you started the thread.


Lol… Guilty as charged.


----------



## goodboyr

Not the fault of the person who started this thread. It actually got very interesting for a while. I think the discussion ultimately comes down to how much you want to spend on this sport/ hobby and what bike makes you happy. The people I ride with who have S5's tend to overtake others on long downhills when we are in a pack. Not very scientific I know, but the so called Chung test is definitely the way to go if you want to personally measure the values. But I went for a compromise and got aero wheels and a semi aero bike.


----------



## Trek_5200

goodboyr said:


> Not the fault of the person who started this thread. It actually got very interesting for a while. I think the discussion ultimately comes down to how much you want to spend on this sport/ hobby and what bike makes you happy. The people I ride with who have S5's tend to overtake others on long downhills when we are in a pack. Not very scientific I know, but the so called Chung test is definitely the way to go if you want to personally measure the values. But I went for a compromise and got aero wheels and a semi aero bike.


One of the problems with biking today, is that riders are so glued to the idea of speed, they'll do anything in the attempt to best everyone they see on the road. Nothing wrong with the goal of being a stronger cyclists per se, but it can take some of the enjoyment of cycling out, and cause one to miss out on the scenery and nature, and finally for us non cat racers, the milliseconds just don't matter.


----------



## roadworthy

Rashadabd said:


> Lol… Guilty as charged.


Yeah its your fault Rasha. But keep in mind who you are arguing with....aero fanboys succumbing to marketing subterfuge...it worked ...who don't have the critical thinking skills to posit why the fat tube dogma beat the slippery S5 down the hill. Trans needs to stay late in class if he ever wants to get his thermo GRD. Hard to have a meaningful discussion based upon such a limited grasp.  Its downright unfair I tell you. 
I really would like to discuss the relationship between Cd and Reynolds numbers but who here can even have that discussion?
Like runamuck said, he bought his Venge because it looks cool. That is what we are dealing with here Rasha. Doomed to fail. But I think that you, Dunbar and me are in pretty close agreement.


----------



## Trek_5200

Agreed.


----------



## goodboyr

I don't mind discussion. And disagreement. I do mind personal insults which you can't seem to avoid in each of your posts. I've reported this thread and you to the mods. Unless of course those smiley faces mean you are just kidding.


----------



## dealraker

Popularity and accuracy often aren't compatible when discussing hype and what is perfectly obvious. 30 years ago I was involved in the early stages of the sport windsurfing and we had engineers participating who had the knack of insulting (or at least others found their comments insulting) those attempting to learn planing jibes.  Instead of choosing to be offended I listened to every word from this bunch and for 25 years now I get compliments on my success rate for making fast turns.

roadworthy wins my vote hands down and he's already helped me make some sound decisions. Don't give a flip if he's aggressive with me or not- and those that are nice are simply one post from being just as abrasive anyway.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



roadworthy said:


> Yeah its your fault Rasha. But keep in mind who you are arguing with....aero fanboys succumbing to marketing subterfuge...it worked ...who don't have the critical thinking skills to posit why the fat tube dogma beat the slippery S5 down the hill. Trans needs to stay late in class if he ever wants to get his thermo GRD. Hard to have a meaningful discussion based upon such a limited grasp.  Its downright unfair I tell you.
> I really would like to discuss the relationship between Cd and Reynolds numbers but who here can even have that discussion?
> Like runamuck said, he bought his Venge because it looks cool. That is what we are dealing with here Rasha. Doomed to fail. But I think that you, Dunbar and me are in pretty close agreement.


Remember when I said no more insults. This posting vacation will help your memory I think.


----------



## George M

goodboyr said:


> I don't mind discussion. And disagreement. I do mind personal insults which you can't seem to avoid in each of your posts. I've reported this thread and you to the mods. Unless of course those smiley faces mean you are just kidding.


+1 and I'm happy that it ended the way it did. I come on here to learn things and be entertained, not to be slamming people and I started feeling very uncomfortable the way it was going. I also think you were right with the smiley face bit. Thanks to Coolhand:thumbsup: it can get back on track. 

Have a good day and ride safe.


----------



## tom_h

Dunbar said:


> Agreed, from this link at 25mph here are the numbers. Make no mistake about it, a proper TT/Tri bike setup is significantly faster at the same power.
> 
> Setup Estimated Ave CdA (m^2) Speed (km/h) Power (W)
> Tarmac SL2 | road helmet | drop bars 0.310 40.10 * 306.6*
> Tarmac SL2 | road helmet | clip-on aero bars 0.267 40.27 *268.6*
> Tarmac SL2 | TT2 helmet | clip-on aero bars 0.256 40.38 * 261.0*
> Transition | road helmet | aero bars 0.265 40.17 *262.9* (<-Should be ~240W)
> Transition | TT2 helmet | aero bars 0.230 40.05 *229.0*


The best TT riders will sit very forward on the saddle or readjust saddle, to "roll" their entire body forward, and keep their hip angle "opened" when their elbows are on the arm rests. That is pretty key to producing power in the TT position.

But the cyclist in those pics, has similar butt position both with and without using the clip-on TT bars. Also, his hip angle looks more closed when he's riding on the TT clip-ons.

My conclusion is that in the first pic of the regular "road position", he simply could have bent his elbows a lot more, made his back more horizontal, and still have had same hip angle as with the clip-ons! 

Seems his "road position" was artificially high and therefore poor aero -- to accentuate the improvement w/ clip-on bars.

Although, one of the secondary advantages of TT bars or clipons is they allow arms to be closer together,almost touching and it presents a narrower and more streamlined frontal shape. 
You can achieve some of that by riding road bars in the "ghost TT" position but I've always felt nervous and unsafe doing that -- hit a bump and your elbows slide off the road bars :-O


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Not sure where you are getting your 5500g of total bike + rider drag but the Cervelo S5 + rider tests at ~2300g + change range. I think maybe the 5500g is a bit on the high side?


At what speed? Are you forgetting that you are the one who said the rider is 80% of the drag? If you know the frame drag (say 1000-1100g which is consistent with your Cervelo graph of a "typical" road bike) than it's basic math to figure out total drag of rider plus bike (5000-5500g.) 



> still stand by an aero frame being able to save ~30-35w @ 30 mph over a round tube frame (like a Felt F) and aero wheels (like Zipp/Hed/Enve) saving another 25-30w @ 30 mph over alloy box rims. While those total 55-65w @ 30 mph don't scale exactly down to 25 mph


And I'm telling you to be more skeptical of manufacturer's claims. In order to believe that the aero frame + wheels saves 55-65w at 30mph you have to believe that you're taking the total bike drag from 950-1100g all the way down to 250-500g of drag. That sort of claim doesn't past the BS meter. Do you *honestly* believe a frame + wheels can reduce the bike drag by 60-70%?


----------



## Dunbar

tom_h said:


> My conclusion is that in the first pic of the regular "road position", he simply could have bent his elbows a lot more, made his back more horizontal, and still have had same hip angle as with the clip-ons!


The problem is you need to set the road bike position up to be comfortable on the hoods and in the drops drops. Once you set your fit up this way it's not feasible to simply slide forward 1-2cm in the drops (you'd feel bunched up and would not improve aerodynamics.) You would also be closing down the hip angle which affects breathing and at some point your legs would hit your chest. The aerobars move your whole position forward and open the hip angle back up to get around this. The Slow Twitch forum could probably tell us if his road Cda is in the normal range. I know his TT Cda of .230 is pretty respectable so I doubt very much his road position was unusual. The Slow Twitch forum will tell you that even a properly set up road bike is always compromise in the aerodynamics department vs. a TT/Tri bike and it's mostly due to position (not frame aerodynamics.)


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> And I'm telling you to be more skeptical of manufacturer's claims. In order to believe that the aero frame + wheels saves 55-65w at 30mph you have to believe that you're taking the total bike drag from 950-1100g all the way down to 250-500g of drag. That sort of claim doesn't past the BS meter. Do you *honestly* believe a frame + wheels can reduce the bike drag by 60-70%?


And I am telling you my real world data (Chung method) supports those claims. You don't need to be so skeptical. If you have a power meter, go out and Chung it yourself. 

You keep mistaking the data. Typical road bike is 950-1150g of drag. The Cervelo S5 is 750-850g. 200-300g difference in favor of the Cervelo. We aren't talking about going all the way down to 250-500g of drag. So please don't make up data.

The aero numbers are supported by competing manufacturers (Felt's data supports Cervelo's claims, Specialized data supports Cervelo data...etc.), independent tests (look at work from John Cobb) as well as data from regular guys like us that have posted online.

It is a fact that an aero set of wheels will save 25-30w. A fact supported countless times with data. 

It is also a fact that one of the new cutting edge aero frames will save ~30-35w. A fact supported with data. 

You can keep being as skeptical as you want. But being skeptical isn't supported by data, the facts or science.


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> You keep mistaking the data. Typical road bike is 950-1150g of drag. The Cervelo S5 is 750-850g. 200-300g difference in favor of the Cervelo. We aren't talking about going all the way down to 250-500g of drag. So please don't make up data.


You need to study up on the math. At 30mph 1w = 11g of aero drag

200g = 18w
300g = 27w

To put it another way, converting those 55-65w of savings back to drag you get:

55W = 605g of drag
65W = 715g of drag 

Again, it's basic math and by continuing to say I'm making stuff up you are just demonstrating your own ignorance on the subject. The wheels are counted as part of the bike drag so that's why you have to include them in the final totals.


----------



## Rashadabd

tranzformer said:


> And I am telling you my real world data (Chung method) supports those claims. You don't need to be so skeptical. If you have a power meter, go out and Chung it yourself.
> 
> You keep mistaking the data. Typical road bike is 950-1150g of drag. The Cervelo S5 is 750-850g. 200-300g difference in favor of the Cervelo. We aren't talking about going all the way down to 250-500g of drag. So please don't make up data.
> 
> The aero numbers are supported by competing manufacturers (Felt's data supports Cervelo's claims, Specialized data supports Cervelo data...etc.), independent tests (look at work from John Cobb) as well as data from regular guys like us that have posted online.
> 
> It is a fact that an aero set of wheels will save 25-30w. A fact supported countless times with data.
> 
> It is also a fact that one of the new cutting edge aero frames will save ~30-35w. A fact supported with data.
> 
> You can keep being as skeptical as you want. But being skeptical isn't supported by data, the facts or science.


Again, isn't this all just an academic discussion at the end of the day though guys? Isn't it just great material for wind tunnels, test scenarios, labs, and black boards, but fairly meaningless in real riding and racing? 

I am for the third time asking any of you to show me race footage or ride footage or describe a scenario in detail (outside of some sort of TT), where aero equipment ended up playing a crucial role in the outcome. I can show you tons of footage of guys on aero bikes, etc. getting beat by faster or fitter guys on round tube frames in sprints, breakaways and tough climbs (and have already posted some). So, if that's the case, how much does any of this even matter other than giving us something to argue about? 

Some of the aero bikes are some of the best looking in the industry and I have no problem with people liking them. In addition, I can see why folks that primarily ride on flat courses gravitate to them. I also happen to like moderately aero wheels as much as the next guy (for looks more than anything when I'm honest though), but I am bit troubled by the fact that the discussion is starting to go in the direction of you don't know what you're doing or can't compete without aero equipment or you have some magical advantage if you have it. Particularly, when race footage and ride experience leads me to the opposite conclusion (and I have tested Cervelo's S5, S2, S3, Litespeed's C1, Specialized's Venge, etc. over the years. I settled on a Cervelo R3 at the time…). 

So, again, when has aero equipment ever claimed the day for a rider? Why are major manufacturers with R&D budgets still making many of their flagship racebikes with round tubes even when they have aero bikes in their lineup? Why do many pro and amateur racers with decades of experience, intimate knowledge of the benefits of aerodynamics, and access to aero bikes still choose "all-arounders" as their race bikes (particularly when you control for sprinters like Cavendish, Kittell, Greipel, etc)? Rui Costa might be the only GC guy I know of that rides an aero bike as his primary ride (it also happens to be Merida's best bike though). 

If these gains are so significant, why aren't the guys (and gals) paid to race (or those that race out of love) who have every incentive to win not falling over themselves to take advantage of them? Moreover, why is an industry that is constantly trying to move forward and create the end all be all ride for speed and victory continue to make anything but aero equipment if it is the only way to go?


----------



## packetloss

runabike said:


> That's odd, because a bunch of guys I race with that's around my weight or more can sustain that for much longer than one hour. A few are have ftps in 370s +
> 
> And 330 for 2 hours is kind of a joke for a PT rider that's 160+ lbs. You can find Strava files of protour guys averaging that for 4-5 hours.


Enough of this. You can't just post Wattage numbers. They are meaningless on their own. You need to post Watts/KG. If it's around 5 then you are on par with CAT 1s. If it's around 6 you should give one of the pro tour teams a call, they can use your help.


----------



## 1Butcher

Rashadabd said:


> I am for the third time asking any of you to show me race footage or ride footage or describe a scenario in detail (outside of some sort of TT), where aero equipment ended up playing a crucial role in the outcome. I can show you tons of footage of guys on aero bikes, etc. getting beat by faster or fitter guys on round tube frames in sprints, breakaways and tough climbs (and have already posted some). So, if that's the case, how much does any of this even matter other than giving us something to argue about?


I think what you are asking can always be answered by 'that guy had more power'. Way too many variables. Everyone will have to weigh the same, have the same power numbers, the same clean air, etc. The only variable would be the bike and it's equipment. That is why the question about Mr H. was crazy. That one video would never prove one way or another about a aero bike. Way too many variables.

So whenever someone comes up with 'controlled scenario data', you say that does not work for you. In real life there is way too many variables to give you the answer you want. 

Maybe with the way the robot industry is advancing, a program can be made to power up some robots on bikes to compete head to head. In the mean time, I will go with the data that many of the bike company's are using. 

So I would think since your question will never be answered to your satisfaction, you should stop asking. Because we keep repeating ourselves over and over again.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> You need to study up on the math. At 30mph 1w = 11g of aero drag
> 
> 200g = 18w
> 300g = 27w
> 
> To put it another way, converting those 55-65w of savings back to drag you get:
> 
> 55W = 605g of drag
> 65W = 715g of drag
> 
> Again, it's basic math and by continuing to say I'm making stuff up you are just demonstrating your own ignorance on the subject. The wheels are counted as part of the bike drag so that's why you have to include them in the final totals.


You might be trying to do math, but that doesn't correlate with real world data. Again, where did you get your 5,550g for a road bike with a rider? As I have shown in the Cervelo S3, bike + rider drag = ~2440g and a Cervelo S5, bike + rider drag= ~2330g. 










For a non-aero road bike (Specialized Tarmac or a Cannondale Evo), you are looking at ~2640g of drag for bike + rider.










So again, where are you getting your 5500g of drag for the bike + rider? Care to post a graph, data set or a white paper showing that a typical non-aero road bike + rider is equal to 5500g of drag?


In addition, you were talking about something about having to get drag down to 250-500g of drag. Still not sure what graph you are getting that number from. When talking about an aero road bike, say Cervelo S3 @ 850-950g or the Cervelo S5 @ 750-850g vs. a regular road fame @ 950-1150g and talk about the 200-300g advantage of the Cervelo S5, we are talking about the frame only since both bikes are setup the same way. When Cervelo does their comparisons tests (as well as Felt), they use the same wheels and same components and try and get the same exact stack and reach across all the bikes they are testing. As a result, the delta gives you the aero of the frame only. The Cervelo S5 advantage of 200-300g over a regular road bike is talking in reference to just the frame, not the frame + wheels. 




Dunbar said:


> And I'm telling you to be more skeptical of manufacturer's claims. In order to believe that the aero frame + wheels saves 55-65w at 30mph *you have to believe that you're taking the total bike drag from 950-1100g* all the way down to 250-500g of drag. That sort of claim doesn't past the BS meter. Do you *honestly* believe a frame + wheels can reduce the bike drag by 60-70%?


Again, that 200-300g difference between the Cervelo S5 (750-850g) compared to the regular road bike (950-1150g) *is the difference of the frame only* as the S5 and regular road bikes were setup the exact same way.


Not to get too far off from the talk of frame + wheels, but there is plenty of data showing the significance of proper tire selection and the difference that can make. Flo showed on one of their wheels that at some yaw there can be upwards of 100g of drag difference. That is a big deal imo, even if average out the difference. That difference is right in the sweet spot of yaw that many cyclists ride in, 10-15 degrees.


----------



## tranzformer

Back to the issue of 30 mph being the industry standard but not being as applicable to the general rider. Here is this explaining why:



> The wind velocity used by Cervélo is usually 30mph. According to Cervelo’s engineers, this speed gives them the best combination of accuracy to real life conditions and the resolution to see differences in drag with different variables on the model. *Flow characteristics are consistent at speeds above and below 30mph, so drag data taken at 30mph is easily and accurately scalable to answer questions about racing at slower and faster speeds. *
> 
> Thirty miles per hour has become the de-facto industry standard for wind tunnel test speed, a standard established by Steve Hed and John Cobb in their voluminous testing more than two decades ago. Cobb was testing bikes at 30mph in the tunnel as far back as 1985.


Watts saved is somewhat scaleable to slower speeds. However, time saved is completely scaleable and you save more time at slower speeds. That is why the seconds saved per 40km @ 25 mph or @ 20 mph is a much better representation of the data for the general user imo.


----------



## Rashadabd

1Butcher said:


> I think what you are asking can always be answered by 'that guy had more power'. Way too many variables. Everyone will have to weigh the same, have the same power numbers, the same clean air, etc. The only variable would be the bike and it's equipment. That is why the question about Mr H. was crazy. That one video would never prove one way or another about a aero bike. Way too many variables.
> 
> So whenever someone comes up with 'controlled scenario data', you say that does not work for you. In real life there is way too many variables to give you the answer you want.
> 
> Maybe with the way the robot industry is advancing, a program can be made to power up some robots on bikes to compete head to head. In the mean time, I will go with the data that many of the bike company's are using.
> 
> So I would think since your question will never be answered to your satisfaction, you should stop asking. Because we keep repeating ourselves over and over again.


Aren't you just proving my point that this is just talkin' smack for talkin' smack's sake? Those same variables that you describe are at play when we ride (wind, weight differences, climbs, descents, turns, energy levels, nutrition, rest the night before, bike handling skills, fitness, etc.) aren't they? So, if you can acknowledge that, isn't a bit insane then to be putting so much stock into whether you have an aero helmet, aero wheels, or some aero tubes on your frame? It's all child's play when compared to the big "variables" that you find in those parentheses isn't it? Well, if it is, how wise is it to invest so much energy and money in child's play if you're not at the top level in those big variable categories? I'm not knocking anyone for what they have, truly I'm not. These are the questions I have slowly started to ask myself over the last five or so years and I think they are worth considering whether we agree or disagree. 

So, I guess in essence, I agree with you. The pro peloton (and every amateur one) is made up of people of different sizes weights, fitness levels, riding skills, strengths and weaknesses. However, I happen to think, no I am actually convinced at this point, that these differences play a much bigger role in the abilility to generate and maintain speed than any piece of equipment does. I say this truth is confirmed and re-confirmed is every race and group ride that takes place on the planet. You can't truly buy speed at a significant level, you earn it. Once you have it, equipment and technology can help you maximize or take advantage of it at marginal level, but not give it to you. Peter Sagan beats people on a round tube bike because he's fast. Some of the guys he beats are on aero frames, but he beats them because he is faster and fitter. He's fast on his Synapse in the cobbled classics and if you put him on a solid, but cheap Diamondback or a GT, he would be fast on that as well. You can say the same thing about Contador when he is climbing, Nibali when he is descending (or Froome and Wiggins the last couple of years). So, why not just embrace that reality. Why overstate how much aero matters out in the real world of riding (when you are not time trialing or on a flat triathlon course)? I think one of things that has kind of gone wrong in the sport is that we have taken some of the concepts and lingo that is extremely relevant in the wind tunnel and in short flat time trials and tried to apply it everywhere including places where it just doesn't matter as much. Aero is cool, but it's not close to being as relevant as we sometimes claim. Like you said, there are too many other variables at play for it to be.


----------



## tranzformer

Rashadabd said:


> Again, isn't this all just an academic discussion at the end of the day though guys? Isn't it just great material for wind tunnels, test scenarios, labs, and black boards, but fairly meaningless in real riding and racing?


No, this isn't just an academic discussion as these are real world gains that can be appreciated by you as a cyclists. Get your power meter and do the Chung method if you don't believe it. The energy saved through being more aero + using more aero equipment means (1) you can ride at a faster speed at the same power (w) output or (2) you can ride at the same speed using less power (w) and therefore less energy to be saved for another time. 

On the Cervelo RCa, it saves something like 74g of drag (7.4w) @ 25mph over the R5Ca because of the new tube shapes with Squoval 3. Those 7.4w that were saved equals more than 100 kiloJoules of energy saved over a 5-hour stage race. I'd like to save that much energy during a race, to be that much fresher and ready for the finish. Or have that much energy extra to attack off the front end. Remeber, that is just from the RCa, the S5 and S3 would provide significantly more savings of energy.




Rashadabd said:


> I am for the third time asking any of you to show me race footage or ride footage or describe a scenario in detail (outside of some sort of TT), where aero equipment ended up playing a crucial role in the outcome. I can show you tons of footage of guys on aero bikes, etc. getting beat by faster or fitter guys on round tube frames in sprints, breakaways and tough climbs (and have already posted some). So, if that's the case, how much does any of this even matter other than giving us something to argue about?


Since you asked so nicely, here is one example of race footage. *Description in detail:* 2010 UCI WC RR. Thor Hushovd, on a Cervelo S3 (old), sits in about 5-6th position, winds it up and crushes everyone for the rainbow stripes.







2010 Vuelta Espana stage 6 sprint:











2009 Omloop Nieuwsblad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzI1ofTKNvg

2009 Tour of Missouri winner:











2014 Paris-Nice stage 4 winner:










2014 Paris-Nice stage 7 winner: 












This guy seems to do pretty well on a Specialized Venge as well as Zipps:






























But that whole request by you is completely pointless and you know it. Plenty of round tube frames beat aero frames and plenty of aero frames beat round tube frames. Yada yada. We all know that the bike doesn't win the race, the rider does. However, a rider can optimize his equipment and position to be as efficiently as possible and save energy. That is known. Whether a cyclists wants to save that energy and be as efficient as possible is up to them. 

But, just because you are as efficient as you can be doesn't mean you will win the race as other riders can still be stronger than you that day, maybe you don't have the legs, maybe you went for a breakaway and were eventually caught and have nothing left in the tank, maybe your race strategy doesn't work as planned, maybe the rider on the round tube frame has a stronger team support that day...etc. Plenty of reasons why a rider on a round tube frame can beat another rider on an aero frame.

That isn't the point. The point is that you, as a rider will be faster on an aero bike with aero wheels and other aero tidbits than you would be on a non-aero bike with non-aero wheels and other parts that aren't aero. That is a fact. Now just because you yourself are faster on your aero setup than you yourself would be on the round tube frame, doesn't mean you win against someone on a round tube frame because they can still be faster than you. The point of going aero is to completely maximize your gains and make you (compared to you) as efficient and fast as possible. 




Rashadabd said:


> you don't know what you're doing or can't compete without aero equipment or you have some magical advantage if you have it. Particularly, when race footage and ride experience leads me to the opposite conclusion (and I have tested Cervelo's S5, S2, S3, Litespeed's C1, Specialized's Venge, etc. over the years. I settled on a Cervelo R3 at the time…).



If the question at hand is how a rider can be as efficient and as fast as possible equipment wise, and if they aren't willing to consider aero equipment then yes, maybe they don't know what they are doing. Having a good fit on the bike + training well aren't mutually exclusive to using aero equipment. You can do all of it. That is called maximizing your performance and your gains. 

If you consider "free" watts or time saved over 40km to be a magical advantage, then so be it, I guess you can classify it that way. Not sure the aero guys at Cervelo, Felt, Specialized, Giant...etc. would say it is that magical. Lot of time, hard work and energy is spent by those guys in their designs.




Rashadabd said:


> So, again, when has aero equipment ever claimed the day for a rider? Why are major manufacturers with R&D budgets still making many of their flagship racebikes with round tubes even when they have aero bikes in their lineup? Why do many pro and amateur racers with decades of experience, intimate knowledge of the benefits of aerodynamics, and access to aero bikes still choose "all-arounders" as their race bikes (particularly when you control for sprinters like Cavendish, Kittell, Greipel, etc)? Rui Costa might be the only GC guy I know of that rides an aero bike as his primary ride (it also happens to be Merida's best bike though).


I have shown above several examples (don't have time to find each and every example of pro races) of riders that won races aboard aero road bikes. Was it the bike that won the race? No, the rider won the race. However, the bike definitely had some play in allowing the rider to have a better opportunity/shot at winning. 

Why are round tube frame bikes still being made? Ask the manufacturers if you are interested. Plenty of reasons why, mostly do to weight, comfort and stiffness issues that aero profile tubes deal with. However, the new Cervelo S3 is fairly lightweight @1100g and is stiff and comfortable (has the backend of a Cervelo R series). The Cervelo S5 VWD comes in at <1000g. The Felt AR FRD comes in at ~ 920g for the frame, is very stiff and is comfortable (on par with a Felt Z series). 

So some of those issues that aero road bikes have are slowly going away with new shape designs and composite layups. You can't really compare an aero bike of 2014 to one from 2009. 




Rashadabd said:


> If these gains are so significant, why aren't the guys (and gals) paid to race (or those that race out of love) who have every incentive to win not falling over themselves to take advantage of them? Moreover, why is an industry that is constantly trying to move forward and create the end all be all ride for speed and victory continue to make anything but aero equipment if it is the only way to go?


Plenty of the Garmin-Sharp guys have already been racing on the Cervelo S5 and S3 this race season.










David Millar's Cervelo S3 for 2014:



















Tom-Jelte en route to winning Paris-Nice stage 4:










Different bikes for different races and situations. Garmin-Sharp has a brief description on why S3 over S5 and why pick the R5 in some races: Garmin-Sharp Pro Cycling Team Â» Product Feature: 2014 Cervelo S3


The other issue you raised of why manufacturers still make non-aero equipment should be abundantly clear from this thread and comments made in it: (1) some consumers don't believe the data and the effect aero has (2) some consumers can't afford/won't pay/are too cheap to buy aero equipment. Any smart business would have a wide product line to cater to all potential customers so that you appeal to as many as possible. Doesn't mean the customer knows best.


----------



## tranzformer

Rashadabd said:


> I am for the third time asking any of you to show me race footage or ride footage or describe a scenario in detail (outside of some sort of TT), where aero equipment ended up playing a crucial role in the outcome.


Rashadabd, another examples showing the difference that an aero frame can make. This one with a little math. I can't take credit for it but the link is provided at the end.

*Tour de France Stage 2 Equipment Effect*
Date: July 1, 2013 Author: David Bowden










he finale of the 2013 Tour de France Stage 2 was gripping, to say the least. It’s fairly rare to see a late break succeed.

In these situations the topic of equipment choice is highlighted more sharply than in a standard bunch gallop where the standard of lead out and strength of the sprinters kick are dominant factors. So I’ve done some quick analysis of the last mile (1.6km) of the race.


It’s well established that I have some slightly OCD tendencies, so it should be no (or not much of a) surprise that I timed the last 1.6km from where Jan Bakelants ditched his breakaway companions. An exercise which took 45mins because I decided to watch the preceding 30km again. More importantly – Bakelants averaged 53.3kph over that final mile on his own.

*He ended up crossing the line 1s (15m at that speed) ahead of* the fast finishing Peter Sagan and the rest of the Peloton. Clearly – for a solo effort against the wind and a hungry pack and with the stakes so high you want to have every advantage. Bakelants rides Treks Madone 7 series – with KVF (truncated airfoils) shapes to reduce aero drag. So the topic of this article is ‘how much was that worth?”

Here is the last 1.6km of the route today – heading SE to the tip of the Harbour at Ajaccio.










The wind was blowing at 14.8kph in a SSW direction with the air temperature at 26°.

I Modelled these conditions and shall compare the Trek Madone KVF to a Cannondale Super Six Evo (Peter Sagan rides one) using Cervelos wind tunnel testing. The Cervelo testing is noteworthy for using a mannequin to simulate having a rider on board and both bikes were tested with the same pair of wheels/tyres.

Note that I’m not comparing to the Cannondale just because Sagan rides it – they weren’t going head to head – it’s just a good indication of the performance of a round tubed bike.

*The difference over 1.6km in the stated conditions is 0.7s or 10.3m. Not much.*

*But ‘not much’ is frequently the difference between winning and losing.* I’m not going to dwell on the ‘what if’ scenarios of whether Sagan could have got on to his wheel and come around him if the gap was narrowed by 10m. What I will point out is that a finish line gap of only 5m would have seen Bakelants awarded the same time as the Peloton – leading to David Millar holding the Yellow Jersey for Stage 3.

So that ‘not much’ is worth a huge amount to Bakelants, his team and the sponsors.

*Ultimately Bakelants won because he put his head down and suffered for it, but it’s worth remembering that equipment choices can make crucial differences that magnify the effect of your efforts to deliver the best possible result.*

Tour de France Stage 2 Equipment Effect | SPEED Theory


----------



## Rashadabd

tranzformer said:


> Rashadabd, another examples showing the difference that an aero frame can make. This one with a little math. I can't take credit for it but the link is provided at the end.
> 
> *Tour de France Stage 2 Equipment Effect*
> Date: July 1, 2013 Author: David Bowden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he finale of the 2013 Tour de France Stage 2 was gripping, to say the least. It’s fairly rare to see a late break succeed.
> 
> In these situations the topic of equipment choice is highlighted more sharply than in a standard bunch gallop where the standard of lead out and strength of the sprinters kick are dominant factors. So I’ve done some quick analysis of the last mile (1.6km) of the race.
> 
> 
> It’s well established that I have some slightly OCD tendencies, so it should be no (or not much of a) surprise that I timed the last 1.6km from where Jan Bakelants ditched his breakaway companions. An exercise which took 45mins because I decided to watch the preceding 30km again. More importantly – Bakelants averaged 53.3kph over that final mile on his own.
> 
> *He ended up crossing the line 1s (15m at that speed) ahead of* the fast finishing Peter Sagan and the rest of the Peloton. Clearly – for a solo effort against the wind and a hungry pack and with the stakes so high you want to have every advantage. Bakelants rides Treks Madone 7 series – with KVF (truncated airfoils) shapes to reduce aero drag. So the topic of this article is ‘how much was that worth?”
> 
> Here is the last 1.6km of the route today – heading SE to the tip of the Harbour at Ajaccio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wind was blowing at 14.8kph in a SSW direction with the air temperature at 26°.
> 
> I Modelled these conditions and shall compare the Trek Madone KVF to a Cannondale Super Six Evo (Peter Sagan rides one) using Cervelos wind tunnel testing. The Cervelo testing is noteworthy for using a mannequin to simulate having a rider on board and both bikes were tested with the same pair of wheels/tyres.
> 
> Note that I’m not comparing to the Cannondale just because Sagan rides it – they weren’t going head to head – it’s just a good indication of the performance of a round tubed bike.
> 
> *The difference over 1.6km in the stated conditions is 0.7s or 10.3m. Not much.*
> 
> *But ‘not much’ is frequently the difference between winning and losing.* I’m not going to dwell on the ‘what if’ scenarios of whether Sagan could have got on to his wheel and come around him if the gap was narrowed by 10m. What I will point out is that a finish line gap of only 5m would have seen Bakelants awarded the same time as the Peloton – leading to David Millar holding the Yellow Jersey for Stage 3.
> 
> So that ‘not much’ is worth a huge amount to Bakelants, his team and the sponsors.
> 
> *Ultimately Bakelants won because he put his head down and suffered for it, but it’s worth remembering that equipment choices can make crucial differences that magnify the effect of your efforts to deliver the best possible result.*
> 
> Tour de France Stage 2 Equipment Effect | SPEED Theory


Lol…ok, so then does the aero equipment somehow become faulty suddenly on all of those stages and races where round tube bikes win? And you know that *way* more bike races are one on round tube frames than "aero" bikes? It's also interesting you point to Bakelants and mention Sagan. Who has won more races? Sagan on his round tubed Supersix Evo and Cannondale Synapse? Heck, Cannondale doesn't even have an aero road bike and how many races has Sagan, Nibali, Viviani, and other members of that team won? But Bakelants did win again yesterday and guess what he was on? Not an aero Madone, but a pretty standard Tarmac…. 

Bakelants wins stage 6 of Dauphine as Froome crashes - VeloNews.com 

Too many races and stages are won on all-around race bikes with round tubes for you to be right man (sorry). You know it, I know it. All the guys and clips you provide are examples of guys that won because the better legs that day. Those same guys have won on round tube frames during their careers as well. Otherwise the guys on the aero bikes and the aero equipment would ride away from the peleton every time and that doesn't even come close to happening. Aero equipment is a tool for marginal gains.


----------



## Rashadabd

tranzformer said:


> No, this isn't just an academic discussion as these are real world gains that can be appreciated by you as a cyclists. Get your power meter and do the Chung method if you don't believe it. The energy saved through being more aero + using more aero equipment means (1) you can ride at a faster speed at the same power (w) output or (2) you can ride at the same speed using less power (w) and therefore less energy to be saved for another time.
> 
> On the Cervelo RCa, it saves something like 74g of drag (7.4w) @ 25mph over the R5Ca because of the new tube shapes with Squoval 3. Those 7.4w that were saved equals more than 100 kiloJoules of energy saved over a 5-hour stage race. I'd like to save that much energy during a race, to be that much fresher and ready for the finish. Or have that much energy extra to attack off the front end. Remeber, that is just from the RCa, the S5 and S3 would provide significantly more savings of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you asked so nicely, here is one example of race footage. *Description in detail:* 2010 UCI WC RR. Thor Hushovd, on a Cervelo S3 (old), sits in about 5-6th position, winds it up and crushes everyone for the rainbow stripes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 Vuelta Espana stage 6 sprint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2009 Omloop Nieuwsblad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzI1ofTKNvg
> 
> 2009 Tour of Missouri winner:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 Paris-Nice stage 4 winner:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 Paris-Nice stage 7 winner:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy seems to do pretty well on a Specialized Venge as well as Zipps:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that whole request by you is completely pointless and you know it. Plenty of round tube frames beat aero frames and plenty of aero frames beat round tube frames. Yada yada. We all know that the bike doesn't win the race, the rider does. However, a rider can optimize his equipment and position to be as efficiently as possible and save energy. That is known. Whether a cyclists wants to save that energy and be as efficient as possible is up to them.
> 
> But, just because you are as efficient as you can be doesn't mean you will win the race as other riders can still be stronger than you that day, maybe you don't have the legs, maybe you went for a breakaway and were eventually caught and have nothing left in the tank, maybe your race strategy doesn't work as planned, maybe the rider on the round tube frame has a stronger team support that day...etc. Plenty of reasons why a rider on a round tube frame can beat another rider on an aero frame.
> 
> That isn't the point. The point is that you, as a rider will be faster on an aero bike with aero wheels and other aero tidbits than you would be on a non-aero bike with non-aero wheels and other parts that aren't aero. That is a fact. Now just because you yourself are faster on your aero setup than you yourself would be on the round tube frame, doesn't mean you win against someone on a round tube frame because they can still be faster than you. The point of going aero is to completely maximize your gains and make you (compared to you) as efficient and fast as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the question at hand is how a rider can be as efficient and as fast as possible equipment wise, and if they aren't willing to consider aero equipment then yes, maybe they don't know what they are doing. Having a good fit on the bike + training well aren't mutually exclusive to using aero equipment. You can do all of it. That is called maximizing your performance and your gains.
> 
> If you consider "free" watts or time saved over 40km to be a magical advantage, then so be it, I guess you can classify it that way. Not sure the aero guys at Cervelo, Felt, Specialized, Giant...etc. would say it is that magical. Lot of time, hard work and energy is spent by those guys in their designs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown above several examples (don't have time to find each and every example of pro races) of riders that won races aboard aero road bikes. Was it the bike that won the race? No, the rider won the race. However, the bike definitely had some play in allowing the rider to have a better opportunity/shot at winning.
> 
> Why are round tube frame bikes still being made? Ask the manufacturers if you are interested. Plenty of reasons why, mostly do to weight, comfort and stiffness issues that aero profile tubes deal with. However, the new Cervelo S3 is fairly lightweight @1100g and is stiff and comfortable (has the backend of a Cervelo R series). The Cervelo S5 VWD comes in at <1000g. The Felt AR FRD comes in at ~ 920g for the frame, is very stiff and is comfortable (on par with a Felt Z series).
> 
> So some of those issues that aero road bikes have are slowly going away with new shape designs and composite layups. You can't really compare an aero bike of 2014 to one from 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of the Garmin-Sharp guys have already been racing on the Cervelo S5 and S3 this race season.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Millar's Cervelo S3 for 2014:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom-Jelte en route to winning Paris-Nice stage 4:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different bikes for different races and situations. Garmin-Sharp has a brief description on why S3 over S5 and why pick the R5 in some races: Garmin-Sharp Pro Cycling Team Â» Product Feature: 2014 Cervelo S3
> 
> 
> The other issue you raised of why manufacturers still make non-aero equipment should be abundantly clear from this thread and comments made in it: (1) some consumers don't believe the data and the effect aero has (2) some consumers can't afford/won't pay/are too cheap to buy aero equipment. Any smart business would have a wide product line to cater to all potential customers so that you appeal to as many as possible. Doesn't mean the customer knows best.


"Plenty of round tube frames beat aero frames and plenty of aero frames beat round tube frames. Yada yada. We all know that the bike doesn't win the race, the rider does."

Truth, except _sometimes_ aero frames beat round tube frames (mostly flat stages involving sprints. I almost never see them ridden to the win on stages or races with serious climbs. 

Cavendish is an interesting case. If you think it's the Venge that leads to his results, how do you explain the success he had on a Dogma at team Sky just a year or so ago? 

Team Sky | Performance | Inside Mark Cavendish's bike

Here's what he accomplished on that Dogma:

Cavendish began his 2012 season at the Tour of Qatar, where after struggling with illness, he won stage three to take his first victory for Team Sky.[89] He also won stage five later in the week, moving back into the top ten of the overall classification.[90] He finished the race in sixth place, despite crashing on the final stage.[91] Although he did not win any stages at the Tour of Oman, having suffered an injury in the first stage, he returned to win the Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne.[92] Cavendish targeted a second victory in Milan – San Remo in March, but was dropped on Le Manie, 100 km (62 mi) from the finish.[93] He did not manage to finish high up in any of the other 2012 classics. In the Tour de Romandie, Cavendish showed his ability in short time trials by finishing third in the prologue, but did not take any stage wins.

A week later Cavendish took his season victories to five by winning the sprint on stage two of the Giro d'Italia. The following day, he was again in contention for victory on stage three, but in the sprint Androni Giocattoli-Venezuela's Roberto Ferrari aggressively switched lanes, clipping Cavendish and sending him to the ground and causing the whole field to stack up behind. Among other riders to fall was overall leader Taylor Phinney (BMC Racing Team). Cavendish later tweeted that Ferrari should be "ashamed to take out Pink, Red & World Champ jerseys".[94] He recovered from minor injuries to win stage 5 and 13.[95][96] Cavendish completed the Giro, but lost the points classification to Team Katusha's Joaquim Rodríguez by a single point. He did win the minor Azzurri d'Italia and stage combativeness classifications.[97] Cavendish competed in the Ster ZLM Toer GP Jan van Heeswijk, in mid-June. Despite failing to win any of the four, mostly flat, stages, Cavendish's consistency ensured that he won the overall general classification – the first of his professional career – by eight seconds.[98]

Cavendish won the final stage of the 2012 Tour de France on the Champs-Élysées, for a record fourth successive year.
In July, Cavendish won stage two of the Tour de France, his twenty-first tour stage win.[99] Cavendish was in contention for another stage victory on stage four, but was taken out in a large crash in the final 3 km (1.9 mi). Cavendish then took on a supporting role, with Team Sky attempting to win the race overall with Wiggins, and was seen carrying bottles for team-mates and even setting the pace on a Pyrenean climb.[100] The team repaid Cavendish for his hard work by helping chase down a breakaway on stage eighteen, although Cavendish alone had to chase down Rabobank rider Luis León Sánchez and Nicolas Roche of Ag2r-La Mondiale in the final 200 m to take his 22nd Tour stage win, equalling Lance Armstrong and André Darrigade.[101] Cavendish won the final stage of the Tour de France on the Champs-Elysée for a record fourth successive year and, in doing so, became the most successful sprinter in Tour history with twenty-three stage wins.[102] He also became the first person to win on the Champs-Élysées in the rainbow jersey. During the Tour, French newspaper L'Equipe named Cavendish the Tour de France's best sprinter of all time.[103][104]

Cavendish's main target for the season was the road race at the Olympics, which was held six days after the final stage of the Tour de France. A strong British squad of Wiggins, Chris Froome, Ian Stannard and Millar was assembled around Cavendish, with the team aiming to control the race and allow Cavendish to take a sprint victory on The Mall. However, the team were forced to set the pace for the majority of the race, with few nations offering any support, and on the final climb of the Box Hill circuit, a large breakaway group of over thirty riders formed. Despite the best efforts of Stannard, Wiggins, Millar, Froome and Sky team-mate Bernhard Eisel, the breakaway could not be brought back leaving Cavendish to finish twenty-ninth, forty seconds behind the winner, Alexander Vinokurov of Kazakhstan.[105]

Cavendish won three stages of the Tour of Britain, crossing the line first in Dumfries, Blackpool and Guildford.[106]

Here he is on that Dogma, stage 18 2012 TdF. Blowing past some guys on aero frames:

LTDF 2012 Stage 18 Mark Cavendish Sprints to the finish! - YouTube

As for your other points:

"We all know that the bike doesn't win the race, the rider does." 

Truth. You really could have just ended there. How significant is being "more efficient" if it doesn't result in more wins? Again, way more wins on round tube frames in most race scenarios. So, it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans once you get outside of the controlled setting of the lab and the wind tunnel does it? When you add in all of these other variables, the better/faster guy/woman wins regardless of what bike he/she is on period.


"I have shown above several examples (don't have time to find each and every example of pro races) of riders that won races aboard aero road bikes. *Was it the bike that won the race? No, the rider won the race.* However, the bike definitely had some play in allowing the rider to have a better opportunity/shot at winning." 

Truth (in bold). As for what follows, how do you then explain the situations where guys on aero bikes get beat by guys on round tube bikes? I think I can agree that the aero bikes are of some benefit on relatively flat stages and races that will end in an all out sprint, but they still get beat there a fair amount of time as well to be honest. However, they are often completely abandoned for any stages or races that involve extremely challenging climbing (because weight is a bigger variable and concern at the time). So, I guess we can't really say that aero is always on or the end of discussion, can we? That's my real point. Yes, aeor equipment is relevant and cool. Just stop listing paragraphs full of formulas and data to say that it is more signifcant than it is in real races and real riding. The guys on aero bikes get beat *most* of the time. If there were as many "free" watts out there to claim and/or if those watts are as significant as you claim, that wouldn't be the case would it? Ride what you want, like what you want, but know and be honest with others by acknowledging that the legs carry the day in the end. That's all.


----------



## tranzformer

Rashadabd I like you but I'm not sure why you can't accept that a rider (the same exact rider) and not comparing him to another rider in the same race, that particular rider is faster and more efficient on aero equipment. That is just plain fact which is supported by data, testing, science and math. There is no question about that. 

But for some reason, rather than comparing a rider to himself, you are brining in a strawman argument comparing a particular rider to his competition and trying to use that for to validate your faulty belief that aero doesn't matter. That is a false assumption and a faulty hypothesis. That is like taking you, putting you on a Specialized S-Works Tarmac and then having you race a rider faster than you on an old steel frame with 9 speed and using that as a point that you shouldn't own a carbon fiber frame since you were blown away by that rider on an older steel frame. As a result you should only ride a steel frame and your wasting your money riding a fancy carbon fiber frame. 

*When looking at aero you have to compare you as a rider on non-aero equipment vs you as a rider on aero equipment.* It isn't that hard. This can be done in a wind tunnel. You can use the Chung method in the real world. But when you are trying to compare against other riders at a race, you bring in too many variables that can't be controlled for. In a scientific study, when you have too many variables that aren't controlled and that ultimately can't be controlled for, you are left with a poor study with data that is worthless. That is what happens when you try and compare pro rider A on aero bike vs pro rider B on non-aero bike. You have worthless data.

So the whole point of aero equipment is to compare your equipment choices and options for you as a rider against yourself. I can guarantee that aero equipment will make a difference in a race. That data and math supports it. However, math and science can't guarantee a win. In addition, the rider with the highest watts won't win every sprint. In addition, the rider with the highest w/kg won't win every stage race. Racing doesn't work that way. But having the best equipment. Maximizing your max watts for a sprint or maximizing your w/kg for a stage race will give you the best chance and opportunity to win. It will make you as efficient and optimal as possible. Why leave free speed/energy/time on the sidelines because of equipment choices?


----------



## 1Butcher

Cavendish is probably the poster boy for proving aero is important. From my understanding, he does not have the most power in the peloton, but he consistently wins races. Watch all the races and he is by far lower than anyone else.

I believe that body position has most to do about being aero. I think we all can agree with that. It is by far the most cost effective way to increase speed. This has been proven in the lab and the streets.

If we can agree that aero is important at speed [like Cavendish] and we can all agree that body position has a big effect on that. Why is it so difficult to believe that the little things like helmets, wheels, frames, and components won't add up?

For the average recreational cyclist, it probably does not matter much. Buying aero components when your max speed is only 20mph may make you feel faster and help the marketing teams of many companies, but really will not add much [if any] to your max speed.

Those people that buy power meters, track every ride with their Garmin, download all that data to their computer, and look at all that data after every training ride, knows that there is a difference. If you are not one of those OCD riders, then you will never prove it to yourself or will never believe any data that will come your way. 

The rider is always the one that wins races. The last I checked, only humans are allowed to race in UCI events. Not always the strongest wins, that has been proven too. Race tactics and luck does have a play when crossing the line first. 

No matter what anyone believes, we probably all understand that training and genes will get you closer to the finishing line than anything else. But, there is no reason not to add a slight advantage by having a lighter more aero bike. 

Rashadabd, if you do not have a power meter, you should invest in one. I understand why you would not want to, they are expensive and can be a big chore with maintenance. I have offered my power meters to others so they can get some time using one. Maybe you know someone that has one you can borrow. Of course, if you do not own a computer that will see power, then you might have to borrow that too. Get Golden Cheetah [free] and download all the information for a month. Check the data. See what Tranzformer and I have seen. 

We are not saying it will allow you to start riding at 30mph. But even if it is a placebo effect, I'm certain you will see a difference. I think if you added just a helmet, you may not see the difference. But add a set of wheels, helmet, remove the bottles, frames, shoe covers, and all the other items [aka junk] that you can find you will notice a difference. But until you have tried, I honestly do not feel there is any data you will agree with because the constant answer you have is, that guy had more power. I honestly feel you will never believe, that guy had less power but was more aero, that is why he/she won. It's ok, that is why we all have opinions, but the data you support your opinions count to me. Seeing is also believing. I have seen it and I have proof. 

FYI, I do not have a aero frame [too much at this time] and I am more of a weight/tech weenie. I do have aero wheels and I do notice a difference just be looking at the numbers at the end of the ride. The day will come when it's time for a helmet, yes, an aero helmet will be what I will be looking at.


----------



## Rashadabd

tranzformer said:


> Rashadabd I like you but I'm not sure why you can't accept that a rider (the same exact rider) and not comparing him to another rider in the same race, that particular rider is faster and more efficient on aero equipment. That is just plain fact which is supported by data, testing, science and math. There is no question about that.
> 
> But for some reason, rather than comparing a rider to himself, you are brining in a strawman argument comparing a particular rider to his competition and trying to use that for to validate your faulty belief that aero doesn't matter. That is a false assumption and a faulty hypothesis. That is like taking you, putting you on a Specialized S-Works Tarmac and then having you race a rider faster than you on an old steel frame with 9 speed and using that as a point that you shouldn't own a carbon fiber frame since you were blown away by that rider on an older steel frame. As a result you should only ride a steel frame and your wasting your money riding a fancy carbon fiber frame.
> 
> *When looking at aero you have to compare you as a rider on non-aero equipment vs you as a rider on aero equipment.* It isn't that hard. This can be done in a wind tunnel. You can use the Chung method in the real world. But when you are trying to compare against other riders at a race, you bring in too many variables that can't be controlled for. In a scientific study, when you have too many variables that aren't controlled and that ultimately can't be controlled for, you are left with a poor study with data that is worthless. That is what happens when you try and compare pro rider A on aero bike vs pro rider B on non-aero bike. You have worthless data.
> 
> So the whole point of aero equipment is to compare your equipment choices and options for you as a rider against yourself. I can guarantee that aero equipment will make a difference in a race. That data and math supports it. However, math and science can't guarantee a win. In addition, the rider with the highest watts won't win every sprint. In addition, the rider with the highest w/kg won't win every stage race. Racing doesn't work that way. But having the best equipment. Maximizing your max watts for a sprint or maximizing your w/kg for a stage race will give you the best chance and opportunity to win. It will make you as efficient and optimal as possible. Why leave free speed/energy/time on the sidelines because of equipment choices?


I like talking to you guys too. It's why I come on here. Look, like I have said, I agree to a large extent. When you are talking about in the wind tunnel or TT, you are correct. All I am saying (and I think we will actually agree that it's the truth if we can get the wording right) is that an aero bike isn't always the "best equipment" for every rider in every scenario. I also cannot escape the conclusion that a fast and fit cyclist is a fast and fit cyclist no matter what decent bike you put them on and that when riding or racing in groups on varied terrain (climbs, descents, switchbacks, etc.) aeorodynamics is just one factor amongst many that matters (and it might be one of the least relevant on certain days on certain courses). 

Cavendish is fast on a Dogma or a Venge. He can win races against the best in the business on either. How significant is the aerodynamics that go into the Venge if that's the case? Maybe he is marginally faster and maybe those marginal gains matter to some, it's completely cool if they do. Let's just acknowledge that the gains are marginal when riding or racing in a live environment. That's all I am saying.


----------



## Rashadabd

"Cavendish is probably the poster boy for proving aero is important. From my understanding, he does not have the most power in the peloton, but he consistently wins races."

Lol...he is the poster boy for aero now that he is back on a Specialized, but not so much when he was on a Dogma riding for Sky. Yet, he still won regulary against some of the fastest guys in the world. I really don't have a problem with most of what you said and can agree with a lot of it, so long as we can find common ground on the fact that aero equipment is just one factor among many when it comes to generating and maintaining speed in a live riding/racing environment. I absolutely agree that body position and fit is huge in generating speed and getting out of the wind. It is by far the most significant factor in aerodynamics IMO. I do not, however, equate speed with power. Speed is made up of many factors (endurance, bike handling, power, experience, etc.). I, like you, am drawn to the wheels, but not much else. Maybe I will be as aero bikes become more and more like all-around race bikes, we'll see. The fastest person always wins, no doubt about it.  (not necessarily the most powerful or the person with the "best" equipment though).


----------



## goodboyr

Wow. 7 pages and I think everyone is close to agreement on the principles. I think 1butcher stated it best (perhaps with rashadabd in second ).
Most of the stuff we buy offers marginal improvements. Some things you can actually feel ( like aero wheels). But it sure is cool to get into the numbers when you have a pm and can measure differences. As well, a pm enables you to train and ride smarter. For example, with a pm and knowledge of your threshold and critical powers, you can pace yourself during a pull so you can last, and not fall off the back after your pull. So, combination of the best equipment for the situation and the best technology enabled training will always give you the best chance of success. After that the factors are psychology and motivation and the other human intangibles. And thats why I love this sport!


----------



## Rashadabd

goodboyr said:


> Wow. 7 pages and I think everyone is close to agreement on the principles. I think 1butcher stated it best (perhaps with rashadabd in second ).
> Most of the stuff we buy offers marginal improvements. Some things you can actually feel ( like aero wheels). But it sure is cool to get into the numbers when you have a pm and can measure differences. As well, a pm enables you to train and ride smarter. For example, with a pm and knowledge of your threshold and critical powers, you can pace yourself during a pull so you can last, and not fall off the back after your pull. So, combination of the best equipment for the situation and the best technology enabled training will always give you the best chance of success. After that the factors are psychology and motivation and the other human intangibles. And thats why I love this sport!


Lol, me too...


----------



## Trek_5200

If an aero bike gets you excited about going out on a ride, then it's worth it, but keep in mind an aero bike might mean integrated components which limit your choice of upgrade or being able to select the best components down the road as in the case of the Madone 7 and brakes.


----------



## tom_h

1Butcher said:


> Cavendish is probably the poster boy for proving aero is important. From my understanding, he does not have the most power in the peloton, but he consistently wins races. Watch all the races and he is by far lower than anyone else.
> 
> I believe that body position has most to do about being aero. I think we all can agree with that. It is by far the most cost effective way to increase speed. This has been proven in the lab and the streets.
> 
> If we can agree that aero is important at speed [like Cavendish] and we can all agree that body position has a big effect on that. Why is it so difficult to believe that the little things like helmets, wheels, frames, and components won't add up?...
> [snipped].


Yep, just look at the pic below during a field sprint (probably low 40s mph).

The left-most racer, Mezgec, has a superior position. Tyler Farrar's at far right seems the worst of the three. 

Plus, he is on a Giant Propel, which a couple independent tests have indicated is the lowest drag frame presently on the road. 

IIRC, @ 30 mph the Propel tested at least 10W lower than the next best frame, at several yaw angles. I believe there was both a Velonews test and a German TOUR magazine test.

_inrng : wednesday shorts_
_... Mezgec’s low position alone doesn’t explain the win but at close to 70km/h every aerodynamic advantage counts and position is the biggest one going. Several riders have improved their technique while Mark Cavendish is famous for producing relatively few watts but being so low on the bike that he can reach higher speeds than the others._ ...


----------



## tranzformer

Look at those aero road helmets and aero wheels.


----------



## LVbob

This thread sure has gotten a lot more pleasant in the last couple of days.


----------



## spdntrxi

LVbob said:


> This thread sure has gotten a lot more pleasant in the last couple of days.


lack of personal attacks helps....

I believe in aero and will use it ... clip on bars on for my ride tomorrow which only has 2k of climbing.


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR

LVbob said:


> This thread sure has gotten a lot more pleasant in the last couple of days.


Yes, but I'm afraid the intelligent one with no common sense will be back, he makes me want to buy a different brand of bike so I don't have to read his insults and better than everyone else attitude.


----------



## LVbob

I think the aero side did a better job of backing up their claims but I am left wondering why more pros (given what's at stake) are not riding aero frames, even when available from their sponsor. The only thing I can come up with is that they might feel that the aero advantage is negated by the harsher ride (more fatigue) of the aero frames to date. If so, this will likely change as we see some comfort added into the aero equation.


----------



## LVbob

Stumpjumper FSR said:


> Yes, but I'm afraid the intelligent one with no common sense will be back, he makes me want to buy a different brand of bike so I don't have to read his insults and better than everyone else attitude.


It helps to know how to respectfully disagree.


----------



## goodboyr

I'm hoping the mods continue to keep an eye out. This thread and the way it changed for the better is a good example.


----------



## Rashadabd

tom_h said:


> Yep, just look at the pic below during a field sprint (probably low 40s mph).
> 
> The left-most racer, Mezgec, has a superior position. Tyler Farrar's at far right seems the worst of the three.
> 
> Plus, he is on a Giant Propel, which a couple independent tests have indicated is the lowest drag frame presently on the road.
> 
> IIRC, @ 30 mph the Propel tested at least 10W lower than the next best frame, at several yaw angles. I believe there was both a Velonews test and a German TOUR magazine test.
> 
> _inrng : wednesday shorts_
> _... Mezgec’s low position alone doesn’t explain the win but at close to 70km/h every aerodynamic advantage counts and position is the biggest one going. Several riders have improved their technique while Mark Cavendish is famous for producing relatively few watts but being so low on the bike that he can reach higher speeds than the others._ ...


Again, let's not overstate the significance of things though. Here's the finish of stage 7 of the Criterium Du Dauphine from yesterday. Contador gives everything he has in the end and he (on his Tarmac) rides away from Froome who is on an aero frame (the new Pinarello Dogma F8). He is also not in some aero position as you will see, but he sure has the legs. It matters, but it's not all that matters....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRnHY-5CRvY

Different things are important at different points on a ride/route. Aerodynamics is clearly not as significant on a climb as it is in a flat sprint or a TT. Even in the sprint, body positioning is far more significant than the equipment you have. So, how much real world benefit you will get from aero equipment is probably connected to what kind of riding you do. Clearly, Alberto Contador does not believe that he needs aero equipment to be at his fastest or to put himself in the best position to win given the kind of racing he does and the goals he has (and the vast majority of the peloton seems to view things the same). He draws this conclusion even though he spends serious time in the wind tunnel refining his TT position and knowing that some of his primary competitors will be on aero bikes and use aero helmets, etc. There's a reason for that. Good legs and riding skills are always important though.


----------



## 1Butcher

Rashadabd said:


> Again, let's not overstate the significance of things though. Here's the finish of stage 7 of the Criterium Du Dauphine from yesterday. Contador gives everything he has in the end and he (on his Tarmac) rides away from Froome who is on an aero frame (the new Pinarello Dogma F8). He is also not in some aero position as you will see, but he sure has the legs. It matters, but it's not all that matters....


Of course, Froome's crash the day before had nothing to do with his performance today.

But at last, at least there is an agreement that aero is not for everyone and that Tranzformer has provided data to support the aero camp that it has some gains. I do not ever believe the amount of gains will always be agreed on, but at least there seems to be some agreement that there is some.

The cost benefit may not work for some and that's OK. By far, training and body position will provide you with the best speed numbers, but when you reach those maximums, where do you go next? Lighter? More aero? Both?


----------



## George M

1Butcher said:


> Of course, Froome's crash the day before had nothing to do with his performance today.
> 
> But at last, at least there is an agreement that aero is not for everyone and that Tranzformer has provided data to support the aero camp that it has some gains. I do not ever believe the amount of gains will always be agreed on, but at least there seems to be some agreement that there is some.
> 
> The cost benefit may not work for some and that's OK. By far, *training and body position will provide you with the best speed numbers*, but when you reach those maximums, where do you go next? Lighter? More aero? Both?


This say it all.


----------



## goodboyr

You know the end of that stage was 28% incline...........I'm sure aero is pretty irrelevant on that type of a incline.


----------



## Rashadabd

George M said:


> This say it all.


Yup, it sure does.


----------



## spdntrxi

goodboyr said:


> You know the end of that stage was 28% incline...........I'm sure aero is pretty irrelevant on that type of a incline.


yeah but and Pina F8 won today.. it's aero


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> You might be trying to do math, but that doesn't correlate with real world data. Again, where did you get your 5,550g for a road bike with a rider? As I have shown in the Cervelo S3, bike + rider drag = ~2440g and a Cervelo S5, bike + rider drag= ~2330g.


That graph is meaningless without knowing the speed the test was run at. I'm guessing from the values it was done at 25mph.



> In addition, you were talking about something about having to get drag down to 250-500g of drag. Still not sure what graph you are getting that number from. When talking about an aero road bike, say Cervelo S3 @ 850-950g or the Cervelo S5 @ 750-850g vs. a regular road fame @ 950-1150g and talk about the 200-300g advantage of the Cervelo S5, we are talking about the frame only since both bikes are setup the same way.


Those tests were run with Zipp 404's on all of the frames including the "standard road bike". The math is the same but goes in the other direction. In order to save 55-65w with an aero frame and wheels you'd need to go from 1350-1500g of drag down to 750-800g. That's a lot and I'm still very skeptical (I need to see wind tunnel tests not marketing claims.) 



> When Cervelo does their comparisons tests (as well as Felt), they use the same wheels and same components and try and get the same exact stack and reach across all the bikes they are testing. As a result, the delta gives you the aero of the frame only. The Cervelo S5 advantage of 200-300g over a regular road bike is talking in reference to just the frame, not the frame + wheels.


True, I didn't realize the graphs were all done with Zipp 404's installed. One sneaky little detail about the Felt AR series is that you must run electronic groups/wiring on their electronic-only frames to get the drag numbers represented on their graph. If you run a mechanical group set you increase drag by [email protected] That's nearly half the aero savings at that speed and probably equates to over a 10W penalty at 30mph. Yikes! ((source)

_*"The frame shapes themselves are the same however the AR FRD, AR2, and AR3 EPS are slightly more aerodynamic because they do not accommodate mechanical cable systems thus the headtube/downtube gets a slight aero penalty. A mechanical shifting system adds about ~75g of drag depending on the bike size and cable routing costing roughly 8w @ 25mph."*_

As far as carbon clincher aerodynamics here is a Velonews article where they tested aero bikes in the wind tunnel with the stock aluminum wheels and Zipp 404's. From looking at that data the savings are 4-14w @ 30mph depending on yaw angle (which tends to be under 10 degrees @ 30mph FYI.)


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> That graph is meaningless without knowing the speed the test was run at. I'm guessing from the values it was done at 25mph.


Not meaningless. Was to point out the road bike + rider drag. Not the end all be all, but was meant as a data set for our discussion. Still think your 5500g estimate is way to high. I made my point and gave some data, will leave it at that.




Dunbar said:


> Those tests were run with Zipp 404's on all of the frames including the "standard road bike". The math is the same but goes in the other direction. In order to save 55-65w with an aero frame and wheels you'd need to go from 1350-1500g of drag down to 750-800g. That's a lot and I'm still very skeptical (I need to see wind tunnel tests not marketing claims.)



If we can believe the Felt data regarding the new AR, Felt has already gotten the drag of their frame down to this range and below. If we are to believe Felt's data, Cervelo has also gotten their drag down to that range but not below with the S5. Felt even compared their own round tube frame, F1, with their AR. That data also is similar to data Cervelo has provided when they compared their S series to their R series in terms of aero. I feel that data is worthy enough to be trusted.




Dunbar said:


> True, I didn't realize the graphs were all done with Zipp 404's installed. One sneaky little detail about the Felt AR series is that you must run electronic groups/wiring on their electronic-only frames to get the drag numbers represented on their graph. If you run a mechanical group set you increase drag by [email protected] That's nearly half the aero savings at that speed and probably equates to over a 10W penalty at 30mph. Yikes! ((source)


You make it sound like Di2 isn't worth having for other reasons as well. 





Dunbar said:


> As far as carbon clincher aerodynamics here is a Velonews article where they tested aero bikes in the wind tunnel with the stock aluminum wheels and Zipp 404's. From looking at that data the savings are 4-14w @ 30mph depending on yaw angle (which tends to be under 10 degrees @ 30mph FYI.)


Mavic Open Pro is the type of wheel that Zipp uses for their comparison testing if I recall correctly. That Velonews article is interesting, but too difficult to make cross comparisons as they are comparing the stock wheels of the Cervelo, Blue, Ridley and Felt vs. the same frames with the 404s.

I didn't look to see what stock wheel set the bikes came with back then, but I'm sure one or two came with Cosmic Carbone or something similar that probably test better than Open Pros do. So it is hard to make the comparison to something like an Open Pro.


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> You make it sound like Di2 isn't worth having for other reasons as well.


The Felt AR2 with Ultegra Di2 is $6200. Add Zipp 404's and Zipp Vuka Sprint bars and you're pushing $8500-9000 (plus tax.) I'm guessing you can build the mechanical frames with Di2 and run the Di2 cables using the aero routing entering the top tube. But I wonder how much aero penalty (if any) the mechanical cable entries on the down tube cause.



> That Velonews article is interesting, but too difficult to make cross comparisons as they are comparing the stock wheels of the Cervelo, Blue, Ridley and Felt vs. the same frames with the 404s.


You can read the article here. The Cervelo S3 and Ridley Noah come with Fulcrum Racing 7 and Racing 5 AL wheels respectively. They make a good comparison to the 404's on the graph I posted above.


----------



## 1Butcher

So now there is proof that electric shifting makes me faster, my rational side feels much better now.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> The Felt AR2 with Ultegra Di2 is $6200. Add Zipp 404's and Zipp Vuka Sprint bars and you're pushing $8500-9000 (plus tax.) I'm guessing you can build the mechanical frames with Di2 and run the Di2 cables using the aero routing entering the top tube. But I wonder how much aero penalty (if any) the mechanical cable entries on the down tube cause.


Which for some cyclists is nothing and are happy to spend that much. If you already have a nice set of wheels, you can build up a frameset much cheaper. Felt is selling their complete Di2 bike for significantly higher than you could build it yourself. 

Just a note: AR FRD frameset is Di2 only. AR1 frameset is Di2 and mechanical ready. I believe both are future proof for any mechanical shifting systems that are released. 




Dunbar said:


> You can read the article here. The Cervelo S3 and Ridley Noah come with Fulcrum Racing 7 and Racing 5 AL wheels respectively. They make a good comparison to the 404's on the graph I posted above.


Thing is I (we?) don't know how a wheel like a Fulcrum Racing 7 compares to a Mavic Open Pro. Also what size tire was used in the tests? Was it the same tire? As the Flo Wheels group shouted, a poor tire choice can cost you upwards of 100g of drag at certain yaw. 



1Butcher said:


> So now there is proof that electric shifting makes me faster, my rational side feels much better now.


It isn't the group itself (shifters, RD, FR) but rather the Di2 wire management. Mechanical has the nest of cables up front by the handlebar/stem as well as the FD and RD cables entering the down tube on each side. Cervelo use to have them enter behind the stem but the large curves the cables had to take on their way could des crease shifting performance. Di2 wires are much smaller in diameter and only one enters the frame to go to Junction Box B. Usually enters behind the stem or beginning of top tube. 

Also the other part is the large loop of housing and cable loop for a mechanical RD vs the tiny Di2 wire that enters the Di2 RD. Obviously someone can clean up the cables a bit at the stem and handlebar. But you can't change the affect the down tube cable entry has nor the large RD housing loop.


----------



## tranzformer

Finally found the picture I was looking for. Like I said above, there are other reasons to own Di2 other than cleaner wire management. Particularly perfect shifting each time once setup, FD shifting, programmable feature of Di2, not having to worry about cable stretch and dirty getting into housing and affecting shifting...etc. But that is a discussion for another day.


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> Thing is I (we?) don't know how a wheel like a Fulcrum Racing 7 compares to a Mavic Open Pro. Also what size tire was used in the tests? Was it the same tire? As the Flo Wheels group shouted, a poor tire choice can cost you upwards of 100g of drag at certain yaw.


The Mavic Open Pro is one of the least aero wheels you can buy which is why so many manufacturer's like to benchmark their aero wheels against it. Nobody who cares about aerodynamics would use Open Pros. Fulcrum wheels are probably much closer to the AL wheels that come stock on most road bikes than the Mavic Open Pro. Tires wouldn't make a difference in relative performance as long as you use hold that variable constant in the wind tunnel (use same model/size tire.) Since the test was performed by Lenoard Zinn I suspect they followed sound scientific practices in the wind tunnel.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> The Mavic Open Pro is one of the least aero wheels you can buy which is why so many manufacturer's like to benchmark their aero wheels against it. Nobody who cares about aerodynamics would use Open Pros. Fulcrum wheels are probably much closer to the AL wheels that come stock on most road bikes than the Mavic Open Pro. *Tires wouldn't make a difference in relative performance as long as you use hold that variable constant in the wind tunnel (use same model/size tire.) Since the test was performed by Lenoard Zinn I suspect they followed sound scientific practices in the wind tunnel.*


That's the thing, we don't know as they didn't tell us. The details of the testing are minimal at best. Lacking is a better term. At this point we are guessing and making assumptions. That is why I say that graph is less than helpful as we don't know more about the testing procedure. 

Mavic Open Pro is very similar to many alloy box rim wheels that many cyclists get on their first road bike. Even I had a set back in the day. Upgrading from something of the Open Pro type wheel set to something like Hed/Zipp/Enve is a great upgrade for someone looking to upgrade their bike IMO.


----------



## 1Butcher

tranzformer said:


> It isn't the group itself (shifters, RD, FR) but rather the Di2 wire management. Mechanical has the nest of cables up front by the handlebar/stem as well as the FD and RD cables entering the down tube on each side. Cervelo use to have them enter behind the stem but the large curves the cables had to take on their way could des crease shifting performance. Di2 wires are much smaller in diameter and only one enters the frame to go to Junction Box B. Usually enters behind the stem or beginning of top tube.
> 
> Also the other part is the large loop of housing and cable loop for a mechanical RD vs the tiny Di2 wire that enters the Di2 RD. Obviously someone can clean up the cables a bit at the stem and handlebar. But you can't change the affect the down tube cable entry has nor the large RD housing loop.


The comment was made to justify the amount of time, money, and research I spent on installing the EPS system to my bike.

There are no wires/cables/cords or any other words you may call them, that are exposed to the air accept where they exit the front and rear derailleurs. All are routed inside all the tubes from the handle bars, stem, fork, and finally the frame. I did it for looks and would hide the brake cables too if I could [yes, I did convert my SW Tarmac SL3 to internal rear brake cable]. Ran a fiber optic cable to the stem so I can see the LED light on the interface too. 

Two bikes are this way, one had a few thousand miles on it and is now gone. The other one has just under 1k and is still in the shop/garage the last time I looked.


----------



## tranzformer

1Butcher said:


> The comment was made to justify the amount of time, money, and research I spent on installing the EPS system to my bike.
> 
> There are no wires/cables/cords or any other words you may call them, that are exposed to the air accept where they exit the front and rear derailleurs. All are routed inside all the tubes from the handle bars, stem, fork, and finally the frame. I did it for looks and would hide the brake cables too if I could [yes, I did convert my SW Tarmac SL3 to internal rear brake cable]. Ran a fiber optic cable to the stem so I can see the LED light on the interface too.
> 
> Two bikes are this way, one had a few thousand miles on it and is now gone. The other one has just under 1k and is still in the shop/garage the last time I looked.


Very nice. Sorry I read your rational comment the opposite way. 

I have Shimano Di2 on one of my bikes and I'm not sure I could buy a new bike with mechanical. I was a doubter and skeptic of Di2 until I tried it. Been converted ever since. I'm sure EPS is the same way. 

How did you route the wires through the stem and past the steer tube?


----------



## scottma

Nice. Got some pics?



1Butcher said:


> The comment was made to justify the amount of time, money, and research I spent on installing the EPS system to my bike.
> 
> There are no wires/cables/cords or any other words you may call them, that are exposed to the air accept where they exit the front and rear derailleurs. All are routed inside all the tubes from the handle bars, stem, fork, and finally the frame. I did it for looks and would hide the brake cables too if I could [yes, I did convert my SW Tarmac SL3 to internal rear brake cable]. Ran a fiber optic cable to the stem so I can see the LED light on the interface too.
> 
> Two bikes are this way, one had a few thousand miles on it and is now gone. The other one has just under 1k and is still in the shop/garage the last time I looked.


----------



## 1Butcher

The interface is in the stem. Fits nice. A hole was drilled in the handle bar for the cables go inside the stem. The fork tube has a hole drilled so the cable can pass thru the stem into the fork. The lower fork has another hole so the cable can run out of the fork and into the down tube.

I did sleeve the fork tube internally on top and externally on the bottom to strengthen the tube where the holes are at. Carbon fiber was used for that. Maybe it's for my own piece of mind since I have no clue if it is stronger or not. Remember, I'm just a Butcher, not an engineering with all the test equipment to prove it will work.

A hole was drilled at the hollow aluminum drop out for the rear derailleur and one behind the front derailleur just above the BB area, hidden from view. No reinforcing was done at those points. Those that want/care to know, the Campy EPS front derailleur stiffener does not work with Specialized front derailleur hanger.

All the cable stops were removed and a 1/8th" carbon fiber rod was used to fill the rivet holes. Matte painted to match.

The only hole that was drilled and not reinforced is the handle bars. It is quite thick there. Sure it may blow up tomorrow, but as of this time, it has all been good. FSA Carbon Wing in case you want to know.

I did this for looks and nothing else [maybe because people said I shouldn't do it too]. I can only say it works for me. 

I do agree all this aero adds up, maybe not worth the time/effort/money for most, but it does not hurt [unless my bike falls apart/explodes]. 

I'm a fan of electric. Once you have 11 speeds, the adjustments, friction, and maintenance needs to be kept an eye on. With electric, you just need to charge it up. So much easier and less time consuming for me. I'm certain you have the same mutual feelings.


----------



## Dunbar

tranzformer said:


> That's the thing, we don't know as they didn't tell us. The details of the testing are minimal at best. Lacking is a better term. At this point we are guessing and making assumptions. *That is why I say that graph is less than helpful as we don't know more about the testing procedure.*


Kind of like how Felt doesn't explicitly point out in their AR white paper that mechanical cable routing will cost you 7-10w of aero drag? Or how they don't really go into specific details about what yaw angles they use in their assumptions used to calculate savings over 40k? Ditto Cervelo's S5 white paper. 

Box section wheels like the Mavic Open Pro are not similar to what comes on most new road bikes. The Fulcrum S5/S7 are much closer to what comes stock on most road bikes.


----------



## Ahillock

Dunbar said:


> Kind of like how Felt doesn't explicitly point out in their AR white paper that mechanical cable routing will cost you 7-10w of aero drag?












Why so salty about the aero drag of mechanical? *Felt specifically and clearly pointed out that in their comparison testing that all the bikes were outfitted with Shimano Di2 9070. * Why would they need to point out that mechanical will cost you 7-10w when *none* of the comparison tests used mechanical groups? The test was frame vs. frame with the same Di2 9070 and Zipp 404FC and Zipp Vuka Sprint...etc. Throwing in mechanical would open a whole other set of issues to deal with for the test and increase cost with the $$$ to do wind tunnel tests. Felt did a good job of trying to compare apples to apples. There is always someone who will have an issue with something in an aero test.

Also, why do you care so much about the above since you probably don't believe in that figure of 7-10w of drag anyways? 




Dunbar said:


> Or how they don't really go into specific details about what yaw angles they use in their assumptions used to calculate savings over 40k?


I agree with this and is one thing that I wish they would more clearly state that. But from what I have read from SuperDave, I believe Felt focused on the 10-12.5/15 yaw region as that is where they think most riders spend more of their time. 




Dunbar said:


> Ditto Cervelo's S5 white paper.


I also agree. However, I know Damon Rinard (Cervelo engineer) has mentioned the answer to that question online somewhere. I just can't remember exactly where at the moment. 




Dunbar said:


> Box section wheels like the Mavic Open Pro are not similar to what comes on most new road bikes. The Fulcrum S5/S7 are much closer to what comes stock on most road bikes.


They did on entry level bikes. Fulcrum wheels are more of a mid-tier OEM spec imo. Again, don't distract from the issue that the test is hard to compare as there are different stock wheels being included in the test from Cervelo, Blue, Felt, Ridley along with us not knowing what size or type of tire was included in the test. That can all make a significant issue. 

Anyways, regardless of that, the Velonews article shows that the old Cervelo S3 saves 128s/40km over a standard road bike (both using Zipp 404s). However they didn't standardize the cockpit, group set or other factors that can influence the data. But 128s/40km is equal to ~32w. That is a bit higher than data that I have seen elsewhere as that number seems to fall more in line with the Cervelo S5. But the general idea is still there in terms of the Cervelo being faster than a standard road bike. Thanks for proving our point. Energy and time saved over a regular road frame FTW.


Some of you anti-aero guys just make me smile.


----------



## tranzformer

Dunbar said:


> Kind of like how Felt doesn't explicitly point out in their AR white paper that mechanical cable routing will cost you 7-10w of aero drag? Or how they don't really go into specific details about what yaw angles they use in their assumptions used to calculate savings over 40k? Ditto Cervelo's S5 white paper.



Not sure what you are trying to get to or the point you are trying to make. Why would Felt need to point out that cable routing has increased drag? That wasn't the point of their white paper at all. The white paper was a comparison against other top aero frames as well as show difference over their own Felt F round tube road frame. If you follow aero anyways, you would know that mechanical has some aero penalty due to the design of the system compared to Di2. Feel happy Felt shared that data outside of their white paper.

I believe each manufacturer uses a different formula (weighted average of yaw) to come up with their numbers. Some focus on lower yaw (-5 to +5) while others focus on the 10-15 yaw range. Maybe you can find an answer to this online with a search or maybe you can contact the manufacturer and ask them yourselves if you are trying to compare two frames and want to see which one will fit your riding environment better. But I feel you are being a bit rough on Felt and Cervelo for no reason.


----------



## tranzformer

1Butcher said:


> The interface is in the stem. Fits nice. A hole was drilled in the handle bar for the cables go inside the stem. The fork tube has a hole drilled so the cable can pass thru the stem into the fork. The lower fork has another hole so the cable can run out of the fork and into the down tube.
> 
> I did sleeve the fork tube internally on top and externally on the bottom to strengthen the tube where the holes are at. Carbon fiber was used for that. Maybe it's for my own piece of mind since I have no clue if it is stronger or not. Remember, I'm just a Butcher, not an engineering with all the test equipment to prove it will work.
> 
> A hole was drilled at the hollow aluminum drop out for the rear derailleur and one behind the front derailleur just above the BB area, hidden from view. No reinforcing was done at those points. Those that want/care to know, the Campy EPS front derailleur stiffener does not work with Specialized front derailleur hanger.
> 
> All the cable stops were removed and a 1/8th" carbon fiber rod was used to fill the rivet holes. Matte painted to match.
> 
> The only hole that was drilled and not reinforced is the handle bars. It is quite thick there. Sure it may blow up tomorrow, but as of this time, it has all been good. FSA Carbon Wing in case you want to know.
> 
> I did this for looks and nothing else [maybe because people said I shouldn't do it too]. I can only say it works for me.
> 
> I do agree all this aero adds up, maybe not worth the time/effort/money for most, but it does not hurt [unless my bike falls apart/explodes].
> 
> I'm a fan of electric. Once you have 11 speeds, the adjustments, friction, and maintenance needs to be kept an eye on. With electric, you just need to charge it up. So much easier and less time consuming for me. I'm certain you have the same mutual feelings.


Sounds really nice. Did you do all the work yourself? Any pictures of your Tarmac before it was stolen? 

I would be interested in doing something similar. Just drilling into carbon worries be a little. For good reason.


----------



## Dunbar

Ahillock said:


> Why so salty about the aero drag of mechanical? *Felt specifically and clearly pointed out that in their comparison testing that all the bikes were outfitted with Shimano Di2 9070. * Why would they need to point out that mechanical will cost you 7-10w when *none* of the comparison tests used mechanical groups?


Imagine you just bought a Felt AR and installed your favorite mechanical group set and then then came to find out you're losing out on 35-50% of the aero savings of the frame due to your choice of group set. Think about that for a second, 1/3 to 1/2 of the aero savings of the Felt AR frame comes from the type/routing of the derailleur cables. I give them kudos for disclosing it _at all_ but I feel like they should make it very clear to potential buyers. This goes to show you how easy it is to exaggerate/mislead the public on the benefits of aero gear. It also raises an interesting question regarding how aero standard road bikes can be made with clever cable routing.



> I agree with this and is one thing that I wish they would more clearly state that. But from what I have read from SuperDave, I believe Felt focused on the 10-12.5/15 yaw region as that is where they think most riders spend more of their time.


At 30mph ~80% of yaw angles encountered will be 10 degrees or less. We need to know if they're using real world yaw angles in their assumptions. If your goal is to inflate the savings just assume higher yaw angles and you get bigger estimated savings.



> They did on entry level bikes. Fulcrum wheels are more of a mid-tier OEM spec imo. Again, don't distract from the issue that the test is hard to compare as there are different stock wheels being included in the test from Cervelo, Blue, Felt, Ridley along with us not knowing what size or type of tire was included in the test. That can all make a significant issue.


Show me one new road bike that comes with box section wheels and I'll show you ten that don't. There is nothing special about Fulcrum Racing S5/S7 wheels in the aero department. I'm willing to bet Leonard Zinn would not use different tires in a wind tunnel test aimed at showing the difference in frames.


----------



## Ahillock

Dunbar said:


> Imagine you just bought a Felt AR and installed your favorite mechanical group set and then then came to find out you're losing out on 35-50% of the aero savings of the frame due to your choice of group set. Think about that for a second, 1/3 to 1/2 of the aero savings of the Felt AR frame comes from the type/routing of the derailleur cables. I give them kudos for disclosing it _at all_ but I feel like they should make it very clear to potential buyers. This goes to show you how easy it is to exaggerate/mislead the public on the benefits of aero gear. It also raises an interesting question regarding how aero standard road bikes can be made with clever cable routing.


Losing 35-50% of the aero savings? Come on now man. If we are going to take Felt's word for it that the AR saves 37w over the F frame these are the numbers we get:

7w/37w= 19%
10w/37w= 27%

Where are these 35-50% of aero savings you are getting? Also, do not bring in other numbers as we have to stick with Felt's numbers for the AR and the F (regular road frame) as it is Felt that gave the 7-10w less aero with mechanical vs. Di2. 

If someone is going with a mechanical AR, they are still 27-30w advantage over the Felt F. Not bad.







Dunbar said:


> *At 30mph ~80% of yaw angles encountered will be 10 degrees or less.* We need to know if they're using real world yaw angles in their assumptions. If your goal is to inflate the savings just assume higher yaw angles and you get bigger estimated savings.


That is almost impossible to make such a claim without knowing the location and what the typical wind speeds are. Try making those claims along the coast or in the midwest and you are making different assumptions than elsewhere in the USA. Not to mention making that assumption for somewhere like Belgium/Netherlands.

Normal yaw seen by riders is a hot topic. I know several frame manufacturers as well as wheel manufactures have devised data gathering instruments to answer just this question. Yes, a faster rider sees smaller yaw than a slower rider. Yes, a slower rider sees higher yaw than a faster rider. But to make a claim that 80% at 30 mph is < 10 degrees is a hard one to believe in without knowing the wind speed, location and how often the rider makes changes in direction in relation to the wind. Is it an out and back? Is it a square route? 

Yaw greater than 20 degrees are very rare. The sweet spot for a rider is somewhere between that range of -20 to +20. Whether you weight it towards the upper range, the lower range or towards the middle is based on certain assumptions you make. There is a website that has a graph showing the proportion of different yaw at various bike speeds 35-50 km/h with the wind speed between 0-30km/h. 










A cyclists averaging 28-31mph will experience yaw angles below 10 degrees around 45-51% of the time. Not ~80%. At 31mph, 82% of the yaw is 20 degrees and below and only around 18% is above it. 

At 25 mph (40km/h) a cyclist will experience yaw at 10 degrees around 43% of the time and at 20 degrees 27% of the time. 







Dunbar said:


> Show me one new road bike that comes with box section wheels and I'll show you ten that don't. There is nothing special about Fulcrum Racing S5/S7 wheels in the aero department. I'm willing to bet Leonard Zinn would not use different tires in a wind tunnel test aimed at showing the difference in frames.


Are we speaking about entry level bikes or mid tier and upper level bikes? 

Don't make bets about Mr. Zinn and the testing protocol that we can't answer. They didn't specifically mention anything about those issues raised. Tire size and brand and model will make a huge difference. If they are going with stock setups, I assume they are using the stock tires. As mentioned before, poor tire choices can cost around 100g of drag. I am sure on the Zipp 404 they use the same tire as they probably used one wheelset and swapped it between frames. But what tires were used for the stock bike setup? We don't know. But I would guess it is the stock tires. Can't make any comparison there when you have 5 different tires going on.


----------



## BruceBrown

Great video here about bike fit and how one's individual flexibility it key as to how they should be set up on the bike and what type of position (aero or not) works for them.

It's an hour long video, but one of the best I've seen...






Not all of us have the flexibility required to even be riding in such a great aero position.


----------



## RkFast

Guy I know who works for the other "Big S" told me that they did studies in a wind tunnel and determined the best way to get an aero "advantage?" Good ole $25 shoe covers. A bigger help than an aero frame, wheels, helmet, etc. 

But $25 shoe covers aren't very "sexy" nor do they generate a lot of $$$ for the manufacturers, do they?

I know this is internets hearsay, but stands to reason. Have a look at your shoes lately? Easily the LEAST "aero" component to cycling there is.


----------



## tranzformer

RkFast said:


> Guy I know who works for the other "Big S" told me that they did studies in a wind tunnel and determined the best way to get an aero "advantage?" *Good ole $25 shoe covers. A bigger help than an aero frame, wheels, helmet, etc. *
> 
> But $25 shoe covers aren't very "sexy" nor do they generate a lot of $$$ for the manufacturers, do they?
> 
> I know this is internets hearsay, but stands to reason. Have a look at your shoes lately? Easily the LEAST "aero" component to cycling there is.


Aero shoe covers will save 65-70g of drag. That is about 6.5-7w and will save you ~30s over 40km. Good savings but not near frame or wheel upgrade. You have this data from Scott?

Biggest Bang For Your Buck In Time Trial Equipment | CyclingTips


----------



## Dunbar

Ahillock said:


> Where are these 35-50% of aero savings you are getting? Also, do not bring in other numbers as we have to stick with Felt's numbers for the AR and the F (regular road frame) as it is Felt that gave the 7-10w less aero with mechanical vs. Di2.


I'm using the Felt F as the benchmark since "typical road bike" is too vague to be meaningful. Most of us are riding bikes close to the Felt F or Cervelo R series tube profile. On Felt's white paper you get a range of 14-28w savings at 30mph depending on yaw angle. If you weight the yaw angles typically encountered at 30mph it works out to ~15-20w of savings. Those savings will be reduced at lower speeds typically encountered by recreational road cyclists. You continue to post wildly optimistic savings but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that at this point.



> But to make a claim that 80% at 30 mph is < 10 degrees is a hard one to believe in without knowing the wind speed, location and how often the rider makes changes in direction in relation to the wind. Is it an out and back? Is it a square route?


The independent tests I've seen indicate that at 30mph 80% of yaw angles will be 10 degrees or less. Here's a test where they rode the entire Kona Ironman course (112mi) at 25mph. As you can see, at 25mph, 70% of the yaw angles encountered are 10 degrees or less. If you hold everything else constant, yaw angles go down as speed goes up. I'm sure you can find exceptions to the rule, since mother nature is involved, but I'm talking about on average what yaw angles are typically encountered. If your goal is to inflate aerodynamic savings just assume higher yaw angles.


----------



## RkFast

tranzformer said:


> Aero shoe covers will save 65-70g of drag. That is about 6.5-7w and will save you ~30s over 40km. Good savings but not near frame or wheel upgrade. You have this data from Scott?
> 
> Biggest Bang For Your Buck In Time Trial Equipment | CyclingTips


No...the OTHER Big S...and like I said..its anecdotal chatter I got from the rep. So no data.


----------



## Ahillock

Dunbar said:


> I'm using the Felt F as the benchmark since "typical road bike" is too vague to be meaningful. Most of us are riding bikes close to the Felt F or Cervelo R series tube profile.


Come on now Dunbar. Show your math. I was also using the Felt F as the benchmark when comparing the question of Di2 over mechanical. Your claim of a loss of "35-50%" of aero savings by running mechanical over Di2 is just plain wrong. I already showed you why you were wrong and why the number is around 19-27%. 

Felt AR saves 37w over the Felt F according to Felt white paper. Felt states 7-10w loss by going mechanical over Di2. Here is the math again since you missed it the first time with your claims.

7w/37w= 19%
10w/37w= 27%





Dunbar said:


> On Felt's white paper you get a range of 14-28w savings at 30mph depending on yaw angle.


I disagree with this. At the low end it is about 17w (0 yaw) and goes up into the 30w's at higher yaw.




Dunbar said:


> If you weight the yaw angles typically encountered at 30mph it works out to ~15-20w of savings. Those savings will be reduced at lower speeds typically encountered by recreational road cyclists. You continue to post wildly optimistic savings but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that at this point.


Felt already did the calculations for the weight of the yaw angles. From -10 to + 10 yaw, you are still saving 25w over the Felt F. Not the 15-20w that you just posted. You continue to post false information and I am going to call you out on it. Other posters have already provided great information refuting your claims. Whether or not you want to accept that is up to you but I am no longer surprised by your posts where you just post misleading data. 











Also you claimed that Felt didn't appropriately reveal how they calculated their time savings calculation. Here is Felt's statement on that: 



> The time savings are calculated using the average of aerodynamic drag measured at different yaw angles. Such approach is adequate, but in order to try and improve the correlation with the real world situation, we used a weighted average with an emphasis placed on more common angles of attack such as 10, 12.5 and 15 degrees. The weights were derived from our experience of aerodynamic testing in the wind tunnel and real world.


That is how Felt got their 37w savings over the Felt F. If you don't want to accept their conclusion and think the yaw they placed emphasis on is wrong, the Felt AR still saved 25w at low yaw (-10 to + 10) over the Felt F. 





Dunbar said:


> The independent tests I've seen indicate that at 30mph 80% of yaw angles will be 10 degrees or less. Here's a test where they rode the entire Kona Ironman course (112mi) at 25mph. As you can see, at 25mph, 70% of the yaw angles encountered are 10 degrees or less. If you hold everything else constant, yaw angles go down as speed goes up. I'm sure you can find exceptions to the rule, since mother nature is involved, but I'm talking about on average what yaw angles are typically encountered. If your goal is to inflate aerodynamic savings just assume higher yaw angles.


Do you call a study by Mavic an independent test? 

The test I provided above, an independent test by WingLight showed how the yaw aren't as heavily groups below a yaw of 10 degrees as the Mavic study. I agree that yaw below 20 degrees are the most common, but to state 80% are below 10 degrees just isn't correct without knowing where the riding is taking place and the type of route (out and back, straight out, square route...etc.). That Mavic study is an out and back course. Obviously will provide different numbers than one that is straight out or one that goes around in a square type route. 

Again, below 20 degrees is well accepted in cycling as being the most common yaw seen. But to know the sweet spot you need to know the location, type of riding, typical wind speed and typical rider speed.


----------



## Dunbar

Ahillock said:


> Come on now Dunbar. Show your math. I was also using the Felt F as the benchmark when comparing the question of Di2 over mechanical. Your claim of a loss of "35-50%" of aero savings by running mechanical over Di2 is just plain wrong. I already showed you why you were wrong and why the number is around 19-27%.


LOL, you fanboys are the best. Look at the Felt white paper. At 30mph comparing F to the AR goes from a low point of ~180g/15.5w @ 0 degrees to a peak of about 300g/27w @ 12.5-15 degrees of yaw. You need to weight both sides of the bike for fairly obvious reasons. You need to use realistic yaw angle distributions to calculate savings. You can't use the peak-to-trough maximal drag savings at one specific yaw angle (not that there is ~410g drag savings even shown on the chart.) Also, I'm using the "new AR" since the trick F brake is not yet an option on the production bikes. It goes without saying that the savings will be lower at speeds slower than 30mph typical of recreational road cyclists.












> Do you call a study by Mavic an independent test?


No, I call strapping test equipment to a bike and riding it in the real world realistic conditions. Here is a thread on ST  where former Zipp engineer Josh Poertner basically agrees with me regarding yaw angle distributions and shows that it's pretty easy to calculate these numbers using NWS data. In his example of 24mph with 50% above/below 11.3 degrees *on a bell curve* that would be consistent with ~70% below 12.5 degrees. Don't forget that if you reduce speed, you also reduce aerodynamic drag. I wouldn't get too excited by the fact that yaw angles are higher at lower speeds.

"_Honestly, doing all of this has basically taught us that for most courses and most conditions, solving for peak wind angle and using the assumption that the angle probability fits between 0 and calculated peak wind angle as a bell curve, is pretty accurate for the simplicity of the calc [so if you are riding 24mph, and wing angle is 10mph, do TAN^-1(Vwind/Vrider) or Tan^-1(10/24)=22.6deg. This is the MAX wind angle, so your bell curve would have it's peak at 11.3deg with 50% of wind below 11.3, 50% above, and about 60% of wind between 8 and 14degrees...some courses do not fit the bell curve, like a straight out and back, but for most courses that are some sort of loop, this model fits surprisingly well, and is easy to use/remember] Even moreso, the head tube probe generally shows on the lower side of the prediction. I've talked at length with Mark Cote formerly of MIT and now at Specialized about this very topic, and he has built his own data acquisition system and probe, and they seem to be replicating many if not all of the trends that we have spent the last 10 years working to define, and the data we have collected is totally in line with what Andrew was doing before that.

the weather service says average wind speeds accross the country run about 8mph, so in our equation that would be Tan^-1(8/24)=18deg, or which would give us a bell curve peak at 9 degrees...which is very close to Jordan's numbers (and doesn't account for reduced speed near the ground which probably make Jordan's numbers dead-on for this example). The 12.5 comes from looking at more real world rider speeds and accounting for potential higher wind speeds, say 10mph wind with 20mph rider speed (26deg peak/13deg most probable) which will be common ride/race speeds for most people. _"

Most common yaw angle when you avg 23-24mph?: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums


----------



## roadworthy

A couple of noteworthy things watching the TdF:
1. how many Specialized bikes there are in the race this year.
2. of all the big brand bikes, how few of the peloton are on aero framesets.

Tarmac has to eclipse the Venge in the TdF by 5:1...perhaps more...lots of Tarmacs in the race....even the flat stages. Of course no surprise to see the modded Roubaixes on the cobble stages.

I'm watching the young American Talansky limp in today and he isn't on a Cervelo S5...but rather on a R5...where the end of the stage is all about aero profile and descending.

So much for aero bikes.


----------



## tom_h

roadworthy said:


> A couple of noteworthy things watching the TdF:
> 1. how many Specialized bikes there are in the race this year.
> 2. of all the big brand bikes, how few of the peloton are on aero framesets.
> [snipped]


This such a long thread, I'm possibly duplicating earlier comments, but:

i) All else equal, the aero road frames tend to be heavier than conventional frames.
Eg, my 5 yr old Spesh SW SL2 (2009 model) is 1/2 lb lighter than friend's brand new Giant Propel (2014 model), even though they have similar component groups (both were custom assembled).

ii) Some say the aero tube designs make the bike too stiff or harsh in the vertical plane. Big consideration when racing for ~5 hrs/day for 3 weeks.


----------



## roadworthy

tom_h said:


> This such a long thread, I'm possibly duplicating earlier comments, but:
> 
> i) All else equal, the aero road frames tend to be heavier than conventional frames.
> Eg, my 5 yr old Spesh SW SL2 (2009 model) is 1/2 lb lighter than friend's brand new Giant Propel (2014 model), even though they have similar component groups (both were custom assembled).
> 
> ii) Some say the aero tube designs make the bike too stiff or harsh in the vertical plane. Big consideration when racing for ~5 hrs/day for 3 weeks.


Exactly. Pretty obvious that the benefits of a round tube bike trumped the miniscule aero advantage and hence the migration to all the round tube bikes in the peloton. There are exceptions of course but it appears to be the general consensus.

Which begs the question which led to quite vitriolic discussion in this thread. How about for the average rider? To me, the answer is obvious but not for all that responded.


----------



## 1Butcher

roadworthy said:


> A couple of noteworthy things watching the TdF:
> 1. how many Specialized bikes there are in the race this year.
> 2. of all the big brand bikes, how few of the peloton are on aero framesets.
> 
> Tarmac has to eclipse the Venge in the TdF by 5:1...perhaps more...lots of Tarmacs in the race....even the flat stages. Of course no surprise to see the modded Roubaixes on the cobble stages.
> 
> I'm watching the young American Talansky limp in today and he isn't on a Cervelo S5...but rather on a R5...where the end of the stage is all about aero profile and descending.
> 
> So much for aero bikes.


You are a very intelligent person but I truly do not believe that you think because there are a lot of Specialized bikes in the tour, they are the best out there. I'm certain you will agree that Specialized has spent a lot of money making certain their bikes are in the Tour.

As for aero bikes, most of us agree that there is a small advantage and that advantage has a better benefit at higher speeds. I would think that sprint victory results and which one had an aero bike would be better than comparing regular bike riders on regular races.

I think we would agree that Cavendish is a pretty good sprinter and he chooses an aero bike when ever he races [where he has a chance to win]. He probably agrees [even if it is physiological] that it gives him an edge.


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> You are a very intelligent person but I truly do not believe that you think because there are a lot of Specialized bikes in the tour, they are the best out there. I'm certain you will agree that Specialized has spent a lot of money making certain their bikes are in the Tour.
> 
> As for aero bikes, most of us agree that there is a small advantage and that advantage has a better benefit at higher speeds. I would think that sprint victory results and which one had an aero bike would be better than comparing regular bike riders on regular races.
> 
> I think we would agree that Cavendish is a pretty good sprinter and he chooses an aero bike when ever he races [where he has a chance to win]. He probably agrees [even if it is physiological] that it gives him an edge.


Here's a hypothetical for you Butcher. Lets say you are one of the best pro riders in the world. So good that you have a shot at winning the TdF. Let's say that Specialized sponsors 50% of all bikes within the pro peloton. Remember, this is your career. You don't work for Specialized and you are one of the best riders in the world.
Would you really choose to ride for a team or company that doesn't have the best bikes, knowing that less than the best bikes puts you at a disadvantage of winning the coveted race and maximizing your career? I wouldn't. If I was a top five rider on the planet, I would seek the best team with the best bikes or at least my perception of it. It doesn't work the other way around.

I will say further, that I don't believe there is much difference between top bike brands...Giant, Look, Cannondale, Trek, Cervelo, Specialized and of course I have said all along that aero bikes are more marketing myth than actual benefit compared to downside of greater weight, poorer lateral stiffness and ride compliancy. Most of the riders in the TdF agree or they would all be on aero frames. After all seconds over 3 weeks of racing in all types of conditions add up. Of the last 5 carbon bikes I have owned, there has been nothing between them in speed including my current Roubaix which I believe IS a faster bike after 50 hard miles because of riding position and frame geometry and how it minimizes my fatigue. Pros in the TdF agree with this as well as they choose a Roubaix style bike in the cobble stages. But my Roubaix for basic riding is no faster or slower than my Look I had previously, or the Cervelo I had before that or the Bianchi before that. To me, the bike at a certain level doesn't matter. It is hard to disprove however that Specialized doesn't make the best bikes on the planet. My Roubaix is the best bike I have ridden however and I have owned a lot of bikes.

As to the aero thing...what I am hearing from you is, then...or even extrapolating from the TdF, that aero frames only matter for sprinters...who never win the race btw. This maybe true, but it sure defies the so called 'aero always on' mantra extolled by many here that seem to believe the frame tube profile matters a hill of beans even among the greatest riders on the planet.

Anyway, the facts speak for themselves. Specialized and pros want to win. Tarmacs + Roubaixs >>>> ANY aero bikes in the pro peloton.


----------



## cmschmie

Is it not possible that the reason that you're seeing more Tarmacs than Venges is because the Tarmac is brand spanking new and Spesh wants all the publicity it can get?

In 2015 when the new Venge is released I'm guessing the trend will be reversed. No, not 100% of the Specialized sponsored riders will be on a Venge, but there will be more than this year.

Also, I wonder if there are aero "tweaks" to the Tarmac that they have learned from the Venge. I'll be honest, I have sat down and studied the design but it is a valid question.


----------



## roadworthy

cmschmie said:


> Is it not possible that the reason that you're seeing more Tarmacs than Venges is because the Tarmac is brand spanking new and Spesh wants all the publicity it can get?
> 
> In 2015 when the new Venge is released I'm guessing the trend will be reversed. No, not 100% of the Specialized sponsored riders will be on a Venge, but there will be more than this year.
> 
> Also, I wonder if there are aero "tweaks" to the Tarmac that they have learned from the Venge. I'll be honest, I have sat down and studied the design but it is a valid question.


Not because Spesh is pushing Tarmacs. Tarmacs have eclipsed aero bikes in the TdF since they came out. If anything, Specialized would want to showcase their Venge bike. I doubt it will change in 2015, but will see. 

As to making the Tarmac more aero, this is well documented. In fact there is a bit of a convergence between the two bikes. Specialized in fact admits complicity...they designed the Venge to have more a traditional road bike feel and the new Tarmac has adopted further aero features making it cut the air better. But physics don't lie. You can't make a wide and short frame section which is idea for lateral stiffness and vertical compliance as aero as the opposite. The conundrum for bike designers is...the constraints that make a road bike aero negatively affect its performance in terms of stiffness where they want it and ride compliancy. Strength of materials 101.


----------



## Rashadabd

cmschmie said:


> Is it not possible that the reason that you're seeing more Tarmacs than Venges is because the Tarmac is brand spanking new and Spesh wants all the publicity it can get?
> 
> In 2015 when the new Venge is released I'm guessing the trend will be reversed. No, not 100% of the Specialized sponsored riders will be on a Venge, but there will be more than this year.
> 
> Also, I wonder if there are aero "tweaks" to the Tarmac that they have learned from the Venge. I'll be honest, I have sat down and studied the design but it is a valid question.


It's actually the byproduct of different types of riders preferring different kinds of bikes gents. Climbers and GC specialists almost always gravitate toward the traditional stiffness to weight climbing bike. Sprinters and rouleurs tend to be the ones that are most interested in aero bikes. Puncheur's tend to stick with traditional bikes as well. 

There are a bunch of factors that go into a rider choosing a particular team. Salary, opportunities to ride as a team leader/protected rider, opp. to ride certain races, the language spoken on the team, where they want riders to live, etc. all factor in heavily. Equipment and support are a big part of things, but far from the only consideration. All of these teams ride really good bikes when it comes down to it.


----------



## 1Butcher

roadworthy said:


> Here's a hypothetical for you Butcher. Lets say you are one of the best pro riders in the world. So good that you have a shot at winning the TdF. Let's say that Specialized sponsors 50% of all bikes within the pro peloton. Remember, this is your career. You don't work for Specialized and you are one of the best riders in the world.
> Would you really choose to ride for a team or company that doesn't have the best bikes, knowing that less than the best bikes puts you at a disadvantage of winning the coveted race and maximizing your career? I wouldn't. If I was a top five rider on the planet, I would seek the best team with the best bikes or at least my perception of it. It doesn't work the other way around.
> 
> I will say further, that I don't believe there is much difference between top bike brands...Giant, Look, Cannondale, Trek, Cervelo, Specialized and of course I have said all along that aero bikes are more marketing myth than actual benefit compared to downside of greater weight, poorer lateral stiffness and ride compliancy. Most of the riders in the TdF agree or they would all be on aero frames. After all seconds over 3 weeks of racing in all types of conditions add up. Of the last 5 carbon bikes I have owned, there has been nothing between them in speed including my current Roubaix which I believe IS a faster bike after 50 hard miles because of riding position and frame geometry and how it minimizes my fatigue. Pros in the TdF agree with this as well as they choose a Roubaix style bike in the cobble stages. But my Roubaix for basic riding is no faster or slower than my Look I had previously, or the Cervelo I had before that or the Bianchi before that. To me, the bike at a certain level doesn't matter. It is hard to disprove however that Specialized doesn't make the best bikes on the planet. My Roubaix is the best bike I have ridden however and I have owned a lot of bikes.
> 
> As to the aero thing...what I am hearing from you is, then...or even extrapolating from the TdF, that aero frames only matter for sprinters...who never win the race btw. This maybe true, but it sure defies the so called 'aero always on' mantra extolled by many here that seem to believe the frame tube profile matters a hill of beans even among the greatest riders on the planet.
> 
> Anyway, the facts speak for themselves. Specialized and pros want to win. Tarmacs + Roubaixs >>>> ANY aero bikes in the pro peloton.


Ok, to answer your hypothetical question, I would go with the team that is going to pay me the most. That team would also have similar goals so there would not be an issue later. I do not like getting dirty or track riding. So that would leave out any Mountain Bike or Track teams.

So, since the goals would be similar, I would not have an issue what I rode. The best team would not be riding K-Mart specials. Their goals would be to get the best support crew so that would not be an issue.

I agree, at the level of the Tour Teams, they are not riding junk. Each bike team has a company that makes the bikes [frames] that I would ride. I do not know of any team that has a bike I would not ride on.

I would also agree that sprinters are not the top GC contenders of the Tour, but then again, that is not what they are in there for. I have not done the research, but I would be surprised to find out there isn't any top sprinter that does not have some type of aero equipment. Even if it is a helmet. I would also say that many of the sprinters are well protected until the end of the race. The protection they get is much greater than any aero equipment. But I would think the sprinters race is not the full race, but just the last 3-400 meters. If you think a sprinter is not worth squat because they have not won the GC, that is ok with me. But I think riders like Sagan, Cavendish, and others would disagree with you.

One last thing about the best bikes in the world, it is probably some small company that specializes in a custom frame that fits you. They are probably so small that there goal is not to be a part of the Tour, but to make their customers happy. Lightweight wheels used to be that way until they sold out. They would also be way out of my price range too.

Yes, I like Specialized bikes, I will probably ride one the rest of my life, but I'm not so naive to think they are the best in the world. They are the best for me and that is all I really care about. You ride a Roubaix, I would never buy one. I ride a Tarmac, but until the Venge comes down in a price range I can afford, I will wait. I would never say that a Tarmac is the best because there are people like you that like the Roubaix. I'm glad they make several different frames that work for many different people.


----------



## Rashadabd

"I would also agree that sprinters are not the top GC contenders of the Tour, but then again, that is not what they are in there for. I have not done the research, but I would be surprised to find out there isn't any top sprinter that does not have some type of aero equipment. Even if it is a helmet. I would also say that many of the sprinters are well protected until the end of the race. The protection they get is much greater than any aero equipment. But I would think the sprinters race is not the full race, but just the last 3-400 meters. If you think a sprinter is not worth squat because they have not won the GC, that is ok with me. But I think riders like Sagan, Cavendish, and others would disagree with you."

There are a few/number that only have aero wheels (which pretty much every pro has these days). Sagan is one of them (cannondale doesn't make an "aero" bike at all). Cancellara, Van Poppel, and Nizzolo for Trek Factory Racing actually ride a Domane (an endurance race bike) full-time believe it or not, etc (actually about a 1/3 of Trek's team rides the Domane full-time). Only two GC contenders that I can think of ride aero bikes out of the entire peloton (Froome and Rui Costa). There may be a couple of more that ride the Scott Foil for Orica Grenedge or Team I AM, but most of their GC guys have moved over to the new lightweight Scott Addict. Froome has not faired so well on his as he has had major crashes on his new Pinarello Dogma F8 every time he has raced it (not the bike's fault), Rui has performed well on his (he won Tour de Suisse (probably not the bike's fault either considering he won the world champion's jersey last year on a Pinarello Dogma).


----------



## Rashadabd

Oh, and Focus doesn't make an aero road bike either, yet they sponsor a pro team and their guys seem to do just fine (AG2R). A couple of their guys are in contention in the TdF and their sprinter (Dumoulin) has his fair share of good days. Lapierre also doesn't make an aero road bike, but they sponsor a pro team (FDJ) which has two good sprinters (Demarre and Nacer Bouhanni). Bouhanni tore up the Giro sprints with wheels as his only aero equipment.


----------



## dealraker

I'm in roadworthy's 99% and find that I'm better off on the Roubaix than the Tarmac after I spent quite a bit of time and money getting fitted repeatedly. Tarmac just got sold. I've gained a bunch of understanding reading here.


----------



## roadworthy

dealraker said:


> I'm in roadworthy's 99% and find that I'm better off on the Roubaix than the Tarmac after I spent quite a bit of time and money getting fitted repeatedly. Tarmac just got sold. I've gained a bunch of understanding reading here.


dealraker,
which model Roubaix did you get?

PS: all you have to do is look at the TdF riders in the position they ride for 100+ mile stages.
Unbelievable. Basically gymnasts on 2 wheels...lol. Most of them ride close to a time trial position. In some ways they come a bit back closer to earth on the cobble stages. Even the best, lightest and strongest guys on the planet prefer the more laid out angles of a Roubaix style bike when the road gets rough and make no mistake they are faster on this style of bike for this type of riding. Kind of makes sense that many average riders would benefit from this design as well for overall riding. I will add, nothing wrong with owning different bikes for different riding scenarios. I just know in my case, I wouldn't ride a Tarmac or Venge much because I have owned bikes like this and prefer an endurance geometry.


----------



## dealraker

roadworthy-- well you don't know how much I've appreciated your willingness to post here. It may be that the others posting are superstar riders but I'm not - but I do often ride with Cat 3, 4, and 5 guys on their training days. I've finally, and I mean FINALLY, gotten far stronger/faster and I've put a bunch of effort into it. I'm old, but I've been a lean solid athlete and I've never stopped training or competing in various things. Got too old for the feet-on-hard-surface sports so off to cycling I go 8 years ago! Began with years of mtn bike riding and racing. My Roubaix(s).....yea, I have two and I love them both: I have had the 2010 Roubaix Expert Fact 9 54 cm (bought new) which I've upgraded with a carbon crank and Dura Ace 7900 c24 wheels. And the bike I just bought, not for any reason other than the fact that I lust over its looks, a 2007 Roubaix S-Works SL Fact 10 54 cm red/black with the same wheelset. Just rode the 2007 last night with several others doing 36 miles and our riding speed average on the relatively hilly route was 19.5 mph- a hilariously fun ride with fun people. I've set the two bikes up nearly alike and I basically run a 6 degree or so 90mm stem at its lowest possible position which puts the saddle about 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inch above my bars. I am 5'9" but have short arms and short legs. I feel good riding the bikes even doing 100 milers and I'm strong compared to my peers towards the end of the rides- and thus far never once have I been anxious to get off the bike. I am 60 years old and 155 lbs. I was very weak in an aerobic sense when I began cycling although I was a runner for 32 years and a state top 20 tennis player for many years in many divisions. From the beginning though I can sprint generally as fast if not faster (from a much slower start than real sprints of course) as anyone I ride with even the guys who are far faster overall. In any event I can't tell you how much I like my bikes and how rewarding it has been lately to FINALLY figure out some things that I honestly didn't ever expect to figure out and you have helped me greatly.


----------



## roadworthy

dealraker said:


> roadworthy-- well you don't know how much I've appreciated your willingness to post here. It may be that the others posting are superstar riders but I'm not - but I do often ride with Cat 3, 4, and 5 guys on their training days. I've finally, and I mean FINALLY, gotten far stronger/faster and I've put a bunch of effort into it. I'm old, but I've been a lean solid athlete and I've never stopped training or competing in various things. Got too old for the feet-on-hard-surface sports so off to cycling I go 8 years ago! Began with years of mtn bike riding and racing. My Roubaix(s).....yea, I have two and I love them both: I have had the 2010 Roubaix Expert Fact 9 54 cm (bought new) which I've upgraded with a carbon crank and Dura Ace 7900 c24 wheels. And the bike I just bought, not for any reason other than the fact that I lust over its looks, a 2007 Roubaix S-Works SL Fact 10 54 cm red/black with the same wheelset. Just rode the 2007 last night with several others doing 36 miles and our riding speed average on the relatively hilly route was 19.5 mph- a hilariously fun ride with fun people. I've set the two bikes up nearly alike and I basically run a 6 degree or so 90mm stem at its lowest possible position which puts the saddle about 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inch above my bars. I am 5'9" but have short arms and short legs. I feel good riding the bikes even doing 100 milers and I'm strong compared to my peers towards the end of the rides- and thus far never once have I been anxious to get off the bike. I am 60 years old and 155 lbs. I was very weak in an aerobic sense when I began cycling although I was a runner for 32 years and a state top 20 tennis player for many years in many divisions. From the beginning though I can sprint generally as fast if not faster (from a much slower start than real sprints of course) as anyone I ride with even the guys who are far faster overall. In any event I can't tell you how much I like my bikes and how rewarding it has been lately to FINALLY figure out some things that I honestly didn't ever expect to figure out and you have helped me greatly.


You are very gracious and we are alike in so many ways and probably about the same riding strength and we are the same age.  I grew up competing at everything...competitive swimmer...still swim everyday...and also played tennis and college golf. I will tell you that my life has largely been dedicated to fitness and playing and only worked to make a living.  Cycling is something that really levels the playing field when it comes to age. I ride with the same guys as you..can hang with Cat 3's....1 or 2's can ride away if they feel like it.  I ride in the local A group.
The Roubaix is just a great bike. You should put Campy on one of yours. 
Where we are a bit different is I am built long and lean and I am not a strong sprinter but have a strong heart and lungs...max heart rate of 190 well above the curve for an old guy. I don't want to understate age and say it is only a number but honestly when in a group ride, I never think about....even playing field as far as I am concerned.
Like you I believe a Roubaix is an ace in the hole on centuries. My friends on slammed Cervelos and TCR's etc are more fatigued after 50 miles...I believe largely because those bikes beat them up more and their aggressive positions take their toll.

Ride safe and often and Best Regards.


----------



## dealraker

Thanks!!! In the future I'll query you from time to time on things stimulating or confusing to me.


----------



## tom_h

RkFast said:


> Guy I know who works for the other "Big S" told me that they did studies in a wind tunnel and determined the best way to get an aero "advantage?" Good ole $25 shoe covers. A bigger help than an aero frame, wheels, helmet, etc. ....


I don't believe it, not when there is so much turbulence from pedaling @ 90+ rpm.
There's likely _some _benefit, but far below the other factors. Sure, TTs can be won or lost by fractions of a second, which is why many TTers will wear shoe covers. But in any mass start race, including US-style, pro criteriums? A non-factor.

Very snug fitting, wrinkle-free clothing ranks ahead of shoe covers.


----------



## tom_h

*Alessandro Petacchi bike choice*

Adding fuel to the fire -- often a lot of personal preference involved:

_Petacchi?s S-Works Tarmac - 21 Days of Tour Tech - BikeRadar

... Alessandro Petacchi was once an Alpha sprinter in his own right, winning no less than 48 Grand Tour stages from 2000 to 2010. After bowing out of this role at the end of 2012, he joined Omega Pharma-Quick Step for 2014 as a lead-out man for Mark Cavendish ...

Interestingly, despite having the Venge aero bike as an option, Petacchi prefers the Tarmac.

_


----------



## Spark

Anyone else seen this yet?


----------



## roadworthy

Spark said:


> Anyone else seen this yet?
> View attachment 298271


Whenever I see him riding to win the TdF, its always on a Tarmac. Anybody have a pic of Nibali riding a Venge in a tour event?


----------



## dealraker

A fisherman walks into a tackle shop and immediately his attention goes to a lure with 8 hooks and 8 colors. He asks the clerk, "Does this thing really catch fish?" The storekeeper responds, "Mr. I don't sell to fish."


----------



## Dunbar

roadworthy said:


> PS: all you have to do is look at the TdF riders in the position they ride for 100+ mile stages.Unbelievable. Basically gymnasts on 2 wheels...lol. Most of them ride close to a time trial position.


From stage 15 of the TDF, the two riders in the break. Crazy how flat they can get their backs. The amount of drop they run is even more impressive when you realize how stretched out they are horizontally.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> From stage 15 of the TDF, the two riders in the break. Crazy how flat they can get their backs. The amount of drop they run is even more impressive when you realize how stretched out they are horizontally.


Aside from their capacity to suffer and ability to sustain unbelievable speed and attack, their position is most remarkable isn't it? They basically melt over the top tube they are so limber. Looks almost freakish because it is.


----------



## Rashadabd

roadworthy said:


> Whenever I see him riding to win the TdF, its always on a Tarmac. Anybody have a pic of Nibali riding a Venge in a tour event?


Never, not even close. They make special Tarmac's with a personal design for the guy.


----------



## eugenetsang

To play devil's advocate... I love Specialized and I ride an older Tarmac SL2. I love how Specialized actually spends money in building their own wind tunnel and etc. With that kind of involvement in the company, I am sure they want to design bikes that WIN and for that to trickle down to your everyday riders. 

With that said, we all know, Spesh teamed up with MacLaren to build a "special edition" Tarmac. MacLaren/Spesh said they only made 2xx of them and lots of "supposed" R/D was put into that bike.

If Specialized really wanted to win the TdF, why didn't they supply all the top contending GC riders with the MacLaren? But instead, I see a bunch of middle of the road riders with them.

Especially now, Nibali is leading the GC, wouldn't it be best for him to ride that instead? All the publicity is on him. Cameras are practically on him 24/7. It would be excellent PR for both Spesh and MacLaren, you would think right?

And with all the R/D invested with the Mac, wouldn't they want to see their baby come to fruition? Like have win the TdF with Nibali? Instead, he's winning all the stages/leading the GC on a worked up '15 S-Works Tarmac.


----------



## Rashadabd

eugenetsang said:


> To play devil's advocate... I love Specialized and I ride an older Tarmac SL2. I love how Specialized actually spends money in building their own wind tunnel and etc. With that kind of involvement in the company, I am sure they want to design bikes that WIN and for that to trickle down to your everyday riders.
> 
> With that said, we all know, Spesh teamed up with MacLaren to build a "special edition" Tarmac. MacLaren/Spesh said they only made 2xx of them and lots of "supposed" R/D was put into that bike.
> 
> If Specialized really wanted to win the TdF, why didn't they supply all the top contending GC riders with the MacLaren? But instead, I see a bunch of middle of the road riders with them.
> 
> Especially now, Nibali is leading the GC, wouldn't it be best for him to ride that instead? All the publicity is on him. Cameras are practically on him 24/7. It would be excellent PR for both Spesh and MacLaren, you would think right?
> 
> And with all the R/D invested with the Mac, wouldn't they want to see their baby come to fruition? Like have win the TdF with Nibali? Instead, he's winning all the stages/leading the GC on a worked up '15 S-Works Tarmac.


The simple fact of the matter is that GC contenders and climbers are not interested in aero road bikes for the most part. I would estimate that 90% of them or more select traditional round tubed framed bikes. They prefer the ride quality and handling that comes with traditional geometry. When it comes to bike types and the pros, it really is different strokes for different folks these days. Sprinters and rouleurs/break away specialists tend to be the guys that fall in love with aero frames. Classics guys, GC contenders and climbers almost always go the traditional frame design route as their focus is usually stiffness to weight, comfort, handling on descents, and efficiency/stiffness on steep climbs, etc. Aero road bikes are also extremely popular in the world of ITU triathlon.


----------



## 1Butcher

GC guys are protected most of the race. Climbers are best at slower speeds. Why the non aero camp uses those scenarios to prove their point just proves their ignorance. We all know aero does not shine in those scenarios. 

We keep going around and around and it has been agreed by both camps. Aero has more gains at faster speeds. Speeds that many of the posters to not see regularly. Gains that are not large either, but still, they are gains. It has been proven scientifically and marketing has proven it will make Johnny 6 pack will go faster too. Marketing brings in the money to support the R&D. I'm ok with that.


----------



## eugenetsang

I totally agree. I was just throwing in a wrench to complicate this whole "aero vs traditional" debate.

I was actually referring to the current Maclaren Tarmac and not the MacLaren Venge. They are both "Tarmacs" and was curious why isn't the "top dogs" and GC contenders riding that frame? You would think the Mac Tarmac is just a beefed up version of the '15 Tarmac right? 

For example, Tinkoff Saxo-Bank... I'd assume Alberto Contador would ride the Mac and the rest of the team ride whatever they wish. Most likely a cheaper Tarmac and have your MVP ride a more expensive R/D tested MacLaren?

Instead, when Contador crashed out... We all saw him on a regular Tarmac and (forgot the other teammate's name) he was seen hopping off his MacLaren and handing it off to Alberto. 

(I could be wrong... Its been a couple weeks since Contador had to drop out of Le Tour)


----------



## eugenetsang

Sorry, my last post on page 12 was in response to you haha.

Either way, I respect your opinion. Its spot on.


----------



## Rashadabd

​


1Butcher said:


> GC guys are protected most of the race. Climbers are best at slower speeds. Why the non aero camp uses those scenarios to prove their point just proves their ignorance. We all know aero does not shine in those scenarios.
> 
> We keep going around and around and it has been agreed by both camps. Aero has more gains at faster speeds. Speeds that many of the posters to not see regularly. Gains that are not large either, but still, they are gains. It has been proven scientifically and marketing has proven it will make Johnny 6 pack will go faster too. Marketing brings in the money to support the R&D. I'm ok with that.


I guess you are referring to me, but I wasn't "using" this reality to prove anything. I was actually just answering his question about why you're not going to see Nibali or other kinds of riders by extension on aero road bikes. To directly address your argument though, if you watch races, you will see on certain stages and sections of stages, GC contenders spend plenty of time out in the open and in break aways. It's how Nibali got his lead. As far as climbers go, what goes up, must come down. Aero bikes should excell on these lengthy descents, but they are still not selected for the reasons I stated above. They would rather just tuck down and get pretty much get the same benefits without having to sacrifice what they prefer about a bike like the Tarmac. It's just reality. That doesn't make aero frames bad though. Different strokes for different folks like I said.


----------



## Rashadabd

eugenetsang said:


> I totally agree. I was just throwing in a wrench to complicate this whole "aero vs traditional" debate.
> 
> I was actually referring to the current Maclaren Tarmac and not the MacLaren Venge. They are both "Tarmacs" and was curious why isn't the "top dogs" and GC contenders riding that frame? You would think the Mac Tarmac is just a beefed up version of the '15 Tarmac right?
> 
> For example, Tinkoff Saxo-Bank... I'd assume Alberto Contador would ride the Mac and the rest of the team ride whatever they wish. Most likely a cheaper Tarmac and have your MVP ride a more expensive R/D tested MacLaren?
> 
> Instead, when Contador crashed out... We all saw him on a regular Tarmac and (forgot the other teammate's name) he was seen hopping off his MacLaren and handing it off to Alberto.
> 
> (I could be wrong... Its been a couple weeks since Contador had to drop out of Le Tour)


My bad, that is just a resources issue IMO. Companies limit what they invest in the teams as a sponsor, unless they also own the team. They want to put the bike out their for fans to see, but aren't going to put it under every rider.


----------



## dealraker

Flex on down further in to Alpha sprinter Alessandro Petacchi's 14cm drop geometry on his 2014 Tour de France Tarmac. 

After years of being an Alpha sprinter, Alessandro Petacchi came to the 2014 Tour de France as a lead-out man for Mark Cavendish. Photos | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## roadworthy

eugenetsang said:


> I totally agree. I was just throwing in a wrench to complicate this whole "aero vs traditional" debate.
> 
> I was actually referring to the current Maclaren Tarmac and not the MacLaren Venge. They are both "Tarmacs" and was curious why isn't the "top dogs" and GC contenders riding that frame? You would think the Mac Tarmac is just a beefed up version of the '15 Tarmac right?
> 
> For example, Tinkoff Saxo-Bank... I'd assume Alberto Contador would ride the Mac and the rest of the team ride whatever they wish. Most likely a cheaper Tarmac and have your MVP ride a more expensive R/D tested MacLaren?
> 
> Instead, when Contador crashed out... We all saw him on a regular Tarmac and (forgot the other teammate's name) he was seen hopping off his MacLaren and handing it off to Alberto.
> 
> (I could be wrong... Its been a couple weeks since Contador had to drop out of Le Tour)


The answer is quite simple. There is nothing in speed between the MacLaren bike and Spesh's flagship S-works frameset. For all intents they vary only in paint job. A further nuance is, the lay up of any of the bikes supplied by Spesh for TdF riders is largely unknowable. Take carbon modulus. MacLaren bikes are said to be 12r carbon. Possible the S-works race bikes supplied to Nibali and all the others on the Tarmac are also 12r carbon. Even if they are 11r and stay at the 15 lb. weight bogie, it really doesn't matter. Also, its unknowable if the bikes supplied to the stronger riders are reinforced. Take the Roubaixes supplied for the cobble stages. They are not available to the public and custom layups with shorter head tubes that pros insist upon to be more aerodynamic.

So the question isn't why not MacLaren bikes because there is nothing in speed between them and off the shelf S-works but...why was the marketing decision made to not put tour riders on bikes with the MacLaren paint job? That is an interesting question. It was obviously decided that the MacLaren bikes are quite rare and Specialized preferred to promote their S-works model because this will translate to greater sales and more profit.
My thoughts.


----------



## eugenetsang

roadworthy said:


> The answer is quite simple. There is nothing in speed between the MacLaren bike and Spesh's flagship S-works frameset. For all intents they vary only in paint job. A further nuance is, the lay up of any of the bikes supplied by Spesh for TdF riders is largely unknowable. Take carbon modulus. MacLaren bikes are said to be 12r carbon. Possible the S-works race bikes supplied to Nibali and all the others on the Tarmac are also 12r carbon. Even if they are 11r and stay at the 15 lb. weight bogie, it really doesn't matter. Also, its unknowable if the bikes supplied to the stronger riders are reinforced. Take the Roubaixes supplied for the cobble stages. They are not available to the public and custom layups with shorter head tubes that pros insist upon to be more aerodynamic.
> 
> So the question isn't why not MacLaren bikes because there is nothing in speed between them and off the shelf S-works but...why was the marketing decision made to not put tour riders on bikes with the MacLaren paint job? That is an interesting question. It was obviously decided that the MacLaren bikes are quite rare and Specialized preferred to promote their S-works model because this will translate to greater sales and more profit.
> My thoughts.




Never thought of it in that way! Thanks for the thoughtful insight!


----------



## aclinjury

roadworthy said:


> Two points...if Yu can hold 25 mph solo for 25 miles, he should be a pro cyclist and not a wind tunnel engineer for Specialized.
> 
> *I'm a math guy. I want to see the math on why a slower rider will benefit more from aerodynamic frameset and kit. This seems to defy the exponential increase in drag versus speed.* For guys who can ride 25mph I believe aero equipment is real. For CAT 5 + average guys...no.
> 
> Also the end of the article makes a good point. Specialized just released its top race bike...the SL5 Tarmac...with big round tubes. A Venge it ain't but still at the top of the food chain for race bikes.
> 
> *As a counterpoint to all the fuss about aero bikes there are some great videos available with high speed descending between many top bikes. The fastest bikes down the hill weren't even the aero models*.


Just to clear up on the math. A cubic growth is not the same as an exponential growth.







Exponential growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And your second point makes a great case where lab data do not always jive with real world data.


----------



## roadworthy

aclinjury said:


> Just to clear up on the math. A cubic growth is not the same as an exponential growth.
> View attachment 298340
> 
> Exponential growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And your second point makes a great case where lab data do not always jive with real world data.


I guess you flunked Algebra II...lol.
Cubic growth is exponential growth.
An exponent, can be any integer value, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 >>>..doesn't even have to be an integer in fact.

Math Definitions : What Is an Exponent? - YouTube


----------



## aclinjury

roadworthy said:


> I guess you flunked Algebra II...lol.
> Cubic growth is exponential growth.
> An exponent, can be any integer value, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 >>>..doesn't even have to be an integer in fact.
> 
> Math Definitions : What Is an Exponent? - YouTube


Wow this is rich.

You're a "math guy"?. And you have on numerous occassions mentioned that you're an engineer, no? I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you did understand the difference between an exponential growth and a cubic growth, but that you simply made a mistake of using "exponential" when in fact you meant to say "cubic".

The youtube video you posted explains what an exponent is, and how exponent can be used to represent a series of same numbers multiplying by itself. The youtube video does not in anyway explain what exponential growth is.

Do you understand the equations in the Wiki link I posted?

f(x) = 2^x is considered an exponential growth due to the x variable being part of the exponent,

and

f(x) = x^3 is considered a polynomial growth, and this case we call it cubic growth due to the power of 3. 

And in case you're still ambivalent about intrepreting the visual graph in the picture, exponential growth is green. Cubic growth is blue. In the long run, exponential growth beats out cubic growth. Do you see the difference now?

And notice that I did not need to resort to belittling you to explain to you the difference between exponential growth and polynomial growth (which includes cubic growth). pfff.


----------



## myhui

aclinjury said:


> f(x) = 2^x is considered an exponential growth due to the x variable being part of the exponent,
> 
> and
> 
> f(x) = x^3 is considered a polynomial growth, and this case we call it cubic growth due to the power of 3.


Differentiation rules - Wikipedia

If we differentiate the two functions (see above on how to do it; look under "Derivatives of exponential and logarithmic functions"), the exponential growth function's slope still has its independent variable x on the exponent, whereby the polynomial growth function's slope is just x^(n-1).

How can we prove that the exponential growth function's slope is always larger than the polynomial growth function's slope?


----------



## roadworthy

aclinjury said:


> Wow this is rich.
> 
> You're a "math guy"?. And you have on numerous occassions mentioned that you're an engineer, no? I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you did understand the difference between an exponential growth and a cubic growth, but that you simply made a mistake of using "exponential" when in fact you meant to say "cubic".
> 
> The youtube video you posted explains what an exponent is, and how exponent can be used to represent a series of same numbers multiplying by itself. The youtube video does not in anyway explain what exponential growth is.
> 
> Do you understand the equations in the Wiki link I posted?
> 
> f(x) = 2^x is considered an exponential growth due to the x variable being part of the exponent,
> 
> and
> 
> f(x) = x^3 is considered a polynomial growth, and this case we call it cubic growth due to the power of 3.
> 
> And in case you're still ambivalent about intrepreting the visual graph in the picture, exponential growth is green. Cubic growth is blue. In the long run, exponential growth beats out cubic growth. Do you see the difference now?
> 
> And notice that I did not need to resort to belittling you to explain to you the difference between exponential growth and polynomial growth (which includes cubic growth). pfff.


You shouldn't belittle...especially in your case, because you are wrong...lol.
Sure is rich. You are coming here and making a false assertion about something you don't know anything about...math. Sad. Functions to the 3rd power are considered exponential functions. This lexicon is perfectly acceptable for discussion. You better repeat 8th grade math.

To bring discussion back to the relevant topic here which is the benefit of aero bikes and reduction in watts due to reduction in viscous drag based upon tube profile:
Below is an equation of force due to viscous drag…in this case the fluid being air. From a mathematical perspective this equation is many times referred in the literature as ‘quadratic’ drag. Btw, it is also an ‘exponential’ function and hence my usage of that term.
*Fd = 1/2ρ v^2 CdA

*And of course, many are interested in the relationship of Power, Speed and Drag and the following addresses that relationship:
The Power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is given by:
*Pd = Fd * v = ½ ρ v^3 CdA

*Note that the power needed to push an object like a bicycle through a fluid like air increases as the cube of the velocity. This relates to discussion about just how beneficial aero tube profiles are for recreational riders because the ‘cube’ of velocity, i.e. 3rd power of velocity, 3 also being an exponent of velocity, mathematical definition of exponent being: a quantity representing the power to which a given number or expression is to be raised, usually expressed as a raised symbol beside the number or expression (e.g., 3 in 2^3 = 2 × 2 × 2)

Therefore Velocity is vital to amount of drag reduced and why what speed amateurs ride versus pros ride at has been a contentious point of conversation as it dramatically affects the benefit.

Doubling of speed, quadruples the drag force per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

Hope that helps and also clears up your misperception of the term 'exponential' for some reason you took exception to.


----------



## roadworthy

myhui said:


> Differentiation rules - Wikipedia
> 
> If we differentiate the two functions (see above on how to do it; look under "Derivatives of exponential and logarithmic functions"), the exponential growth function's slope still has its independent variable x on the exponent, whereby the polynomial growth function's slope is just x^(n-1).
> 
> How can we prove that the exponential growth function's slope is always larger than the polynomial growth function's slope?


What you posit is going to go way over aclinjury's head. He doesn't even understand the distinction between an exponential and polynomial function so forget about comparing the two with differential calculus. 

If interested, the following addresses your assertion which you probably already know:
https://learnzillion.com/lessons/297-compare-polynomial-and-exponential-growth


----------



## myhui

roadworthy said:


> If interested, the following addresses your assertion which you probably already know:
> https://learnzillion.com/lessons/297-compare-polynomial-and-exponential-growth


What Is the conclusion of that video?


----------



## roadworthy

myhui said:


> What Is the conclusion of that video?


Maybe you couldn't open the link. Conclusion is, because the calculus is difficult to prove, by using tables and graphs for large numbers, it can be shown that exponential functions will overtake polynomial functions as X and Y approach infinity.


----------



## aclinjury

roadworthy said:


> You shouldn't belittle...especially in your case, because you are wrong...lol.
> Sure is rich. You are coming here and making a false assertion about something you don't know anything about...math. Sad. _*Functions to the 3rd power are considered exponential functions.*_ _*This lexicon is perfectly acceptable*_ for discussion. You better repeat 8th grade math.
> 
> To bring discussion back to the relevant topic here which is the benefit of aero bikes and reduction in watts due to reduction in viscous drag based upon tube profile:
> Below is an equation of force due to viscous drag…in this case the fluid being air. From a mathematical perspective this equation is many times referred in the literature as ‘quadratic’ drag. _*Btw, it is also an ‘exponential’ function and hence my usage of that term.*_
> Fd = 1/2ρ v^2 CdA...<<snipped>>...
> 
> Hope that helps and also clears up your misperception of the term 'exponential' for some reason you took exception to.



Definition of *exponential function:*

1) Exponential function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) https://www.illustrativemathematics.org/illustrations/367

3) Exponential Functions: Introduction

4) Exponential Function -- from Wolfram MathWorld


Definition of *polynomial function*:

1) Polynomial -- from Wolfram MathWorld

2) Polynomial Functions



> Polynomial Function A *polynomial of degree n* is a function of the form
> 
> _f_(*x*) = _a[SUB]n[/SUB]*x*[SUP]n[/SUP]_ + _a[SUB]n[/SUB]_[SUB] <nobr>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> </nobr> 1[/SUB]_*x*[SUP]n[/SUP]_[SUP] <nobr>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> </nobr> 1[/SUP] + … + _a_[SUB]2[/SUB]*x*[SUP]2[/SUP] + _a_[SUB]1[/SUB]*x* + _a_[SUB]0[/SUB]
> 
> where each coefficient _a[SUB]k[/SUB]_ is a real number, _a[SUB]n[/SUB]_ ≠ 0, and _n_ is a non-negative integer. The *leading coefficient *is _a[SUB]n[/SUB]_ and the *degree* is _n_.


The difference between an exponential function and a polynomial function is that in exponential function, the x variable resides in the *exponent* part, where as in the polynomial function the x variable resides in the *base* part. This is by definition.

Note. The order of *n-degree *(eg, n=1 linear, n=2 quadratic, n=3 cubic, etc) of a polynomial _does not, by definition, _indicates that a polynomial could be considered as an exponential function.

For our purposes, here are the drag equations of Force and Power:


>


Drag (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice that the *variable v* (speed) in the above two equations resides in *base* part of the expression. Therefore, both of the above equations, by definition, are polynomial functions.

In the case of the Force equation, the order of n-degree is 2 (or quadratic), and for the Power equation the order of n-degree is 3 (or cubic). However, they both still are polynomial functions, not exponential functions.

The great thing about mathematic is that, for the most part, it is a language of logic and every definition is well defined. One is either applying the definition correctly, or one is not. However, there can be no ambiguity about the meaning of the definitions themselves. So you, sir, do not need to "_help me_" clear up anything for which *you do not have a reference* to, and certainly you are not helping anyone with your childish nonsense. Agree?

There is another statement that you previously mentioned, but I did not bother to raise it up earlier because I had not posted a formal definitions of polynomial function yet. But now that I have, and I hope you understand it, I will mention that mistake. You said earlier,


> Cubic growth is exponential growth.
> An exponent, can be any integer value, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 >>>..*doesn't even have to be an integer* in fact.


Well we now know that cubic growth is not an exponential growth. But that is not what I wanted to discuss again. But the bolded part about not being an integer, you are wrong, by definition (read above links).

Honestly I have read some of your discussion in the Specialized forum and for the most part, you give good info to the users. But sometimes you need to pare down your ego a bit, because you do not know everything, nobody does. Belittling people ususally does bolster your understanding of math.


----------



## aclinjury

roadworthy said:


> What you posit is going to go way over aclinjury's head. He doesn't even understand the distinction between an exponential and polynomial function so forget about comparing the two with differential calculus.
> 
> If interested, the following addresses your assertion which you probably already know:
> https://learnzillion.com/lessons/297-compare-polynomial-and-exponential-growth


It is odd that you should post that link. That supports what I have been saying, not you. Did you know that?

And sorry NO, the video did not say that a cubic function can be considered "exponential" gowth. Glad you found the video. Hope you learn something new. Ditch your attitude.


----------



## roadworthy

aclinjury said:


> Definition of *exponential function:*
> 
> 1) Exponential function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 2) https://www.illustrativemathematics.org/illustrations/367
> 
> 3) Exponential Functions: Introduction
> 
> 4) Exponential Function -- from Wolfram MathWorld
> 
> 
> Definition of *polynomial function*:
> 
> 1) Polynomial -- from Wolfram MathWorld
> 
> 2) Polynomial Functions
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between an exponential function and a polynomial function is that in exponential function, the x variable resides in the *exponent* part, where as in the polynomial function the x variable resides in the *base* part. This is by definition.
> 
> Note. The order of *n-degree *(eg, n=1 linear, n=2 quadratic, n=3 cubic, etc) of a polynomial _does not, by definition, _indicates that a polynomial could be considered as an exponential function.
> 
> For our purposes, here are the drag equations of Force and Power:
> 
> Drag (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Notice that the *variable v* (speed) in the above two equations resides in *base* part of the expression. Therefore, both of the above equations, by definition, are polynomial functions.
> 
> In the case of the Force equation, the order of n-degree is 2 (or quadratic), and for the Power equation the order of n-degree is 3 (or cubic). However, they both still are polynomial functions, not exponential functions.
> 
> The great thing about mathematic is that, for the most part, it is a language of logic and every definition is well defined. One is either applying the definition correctly, or one is not. However, there can be no ambiguity about the meaning of the definitions themselves. So you, sir, do not need to "_help me_" clear up anything for which *you do not have a reference* to, and certainly you are not helping anyone with your childish nonsense. Agree?
> 
> There is another statement that you previously mentioned, but I did not bother to raise it up earlier because I had not posted a formal definitions of polynomial function yet. But now that I have, and I hope you understand it, I will mention that mistake. You said earlier,
> 
> 
> Well we now know that cubic growth is not an exponential growth. But that is not what I wanted to discuss again. But the bolded part about not being an integer, you are wrong, by definition (read above links).
> 
> Honestly I have read some of your discussion in the Specialized forum and for the most part, you give good info to the users. But sometimes you need to pare down your ego a bit, because you do not know everything, nobody does. Belittling people ususally does bolster your understanding of math.


I am afraid you will never understand. As to ego, as you have mentioned that before with the term arrogance you use...its people like you that make it hard to not have a large ego...because your assertions to me seem petty, sophomoric and erroneous. I am sorry but to me, you are small minded. I wouldn't have said this to you if you hadn't engaged me like you have but you chose to. You asking me to reduce my ego isn't going to happen. How could it? The highest evolved among us btw are egoless. It is your lack of self esteem or rather your ego that is the problem and what makes you intolerant of my mine. I have no problem with your ego for example because I accept the world is made of people like you. There are great thinkers and there are serial murders, great artists and wonderful musicians....some of whom btw have massive egos and guys like you who write weird things about choice of nomenclature. Life must be hard for you to be so sensitive about another person's ego on the internet you have never met. Again, petty and needless preoccupation...a waste of time...like your pedantic adherence to the term exponential. I don't really know what else to say other than I wish you liked yourself more. Also, nobody is perfect which does include you and me.


----------



## aclinjury

Well I pondered at some of the equations, played around with them a bit, to see if I could find the reason behind the popular saying saying:

"_aero benefits a slower rider more because the slower rider can save more time_"

It *is* true that the slower rider will save more time? Is this a myth? Certainly analyticaclycling.com seem to think so. So there must be a mathematical explanation to this. There has to be, right?

Let's look at the basic relation of speed (v), time (t), and distance (d).

d = (v)(t),

which can be rewritten as

t = d / v

d is a constant (eg, a 40-km time trial road)

now if we graph *t* versus *v*, we will see that t varies asymptotically as the inverse of v. I have drawn a crude graph of this relationship in my sketch. Due to this asymptotic inverse relationship, you can see that for a person to increase speed from *v1* to *v2*, he will experience a *greater* time decrease (from *t1* to *t2*)... when compared to a person who is increasing in *equal* amount of speed but going from *v3* to *v4*. That is, (t1 - t2) > (t3 - t4), even though the amount of speed increase is the same. In other words, due to this asymptotic inverse relationship, the slower rider will always going to see a greater decrease in time no matter what the drag is.

But then you ask, but how can that be true when the drag equation for Power is









This is a fair question.

If we manipulate the Power equation and the d=vt equation, we will come to the relationship

t = (d)(F) / P

In other words, *t* also varies asymptotically as the inverse of *Power*!

"_time versus speed_" relationship is exactly the same as "_time versus power_" relationship, meaning the slower rider will see a greater benefit when there is an increase in power (either thru the leg or thru the aero-effect).

You may ask, but what about all those drag related coefficients such as A, C, etc.. don't they come into play?? Well, yes they do. So far, my plot only shows a simple "1/x" type of plot. I have ignored all the modifiers such as A, C, etc.. Why did I ignore them? Well because for our purposes of trying to figure out why the slower rider stands to benefit more, we only need to see the basic form of the graph to see the point. 

However, if I were to try to figure out the *exact* power requirement, or the *exact* speed or time numbers, then yes I would use all the A, C,.. coefficients and plug in all the numbers.

I'm not a mathematician, so feel free to correct me. I will appreciate it. But please if you decide to call me name or belittle me like Roadworthy, I won't bother to respond, even if you're right. I don't think I want to play that name-calling game again.


----------



## aclinjury

roadworthy said:


> I am afraid you will never understand. As to ego, as you have mentioned that before with the term arrogance you use...its people like you that make it hard to not have a large ego...because your assertions to me seem petty, sophomoric and erroneous. I am sorry but to me, you are small minded. I wouldn't have said this to you if you hadn't engaged me like you have but you chose to. You asking me to reduce my ego isn't going to happen. How could it? The highest evolved among us btw are egoless. It is your lack of self esteem or rather your ego that is the problem and what makes you intolerant of my mine. I have no problem with your ego for example because I accept the world is made of people like you. There are great thinkers and there are serial murders, great artists and wonderful musicians....some of whom btw have massive egos and guys like you who write weird things about choice of nomenclature. Life must be hard for you to be so sensitive about another person's ego on the internet you have never met. Again, petty and needless preoccupation...a waste of time...like your pedantic adherence to the term exponential. I don't really know what else to say other than I wish you liked yourself more. Also, nobody is perfect which does include you and me.


I don't care about you and you don't care about me. Feeling is mutual. Good!

I was only looking to set the record straight between cubic growth and exponential growth. If you had even taken 3 minutes to search, you would have no doubt understood it, and say "oh ok, gotcha, my bad". End of story. But instead you chose to belittle me with your "algebra" and "8th grade" comments, and posting silly youtube stuff. You call me petty, yet you don't seem to think your silly name calling comments are petty? My my, I bow to your sainthood.


----------



## myhui

I thank _aclinjury_ for his clear and patient explanation.

In biology, exponential growth is common:

Fission (biology) - Wikipedia​
In classical mechanics, polynomial growth is common:

Classical mechanics - Wikipedia
Kinematics - Wikipedia
Newton's laws of motion - Wikipedia​
In all of the numerous equations shown in the above three references on mechanics, none of them have the independent variable appearing as an exponent.


----------



## roadworthy

aclinjury said:


> I don't care about you and you don't care about me. Feeling is mutual. Good!
> 
> I was only looking to set the record straight between cubic growth and exponential growth. If you had even taken 3 minutes to search, you would have no doubt understood it, and say "oh ok, gotcha, my bad". End of story. But instead you chose to belittle me with your "algebra" and "8th grade" comments, and posting silly youtube stuff. You call me petty, yet you don't seem to think your silly name calling comments are petty? My my, I bow to your sainthood.


I regret every single bit of rancor between us. I wish you well.


----------



## myhui

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/


----------



## aclinjury

roadworthy said:


> I regret every single bit of rancor between us. I wish you well.


Honestly I have always regard your posting in the Specialized forum as helpful for the member. My English is not my first language so I probably came off as unfriendly. I understand your reaction.


----------



## 1Butcher

Rashadabd said:


> ​
> GC contenders spend plenty of time out in the open and in break aways. It's how Nibali got his lead. As far as climbers go, what goes up, must come down. Aero bikes should excell on these lengthy descents, but they are still not selected for the reasons I stated above. They would rather just tuck down and get pretty much get the same benefits without having to sacrifice what they prefer about a bike like the Tarmac. It's just reality. That doesn't make aero frames bad though. Different strokes for different folks like I said.


The amount of time going up is much longer than going down. Since your going to spend more time going up, you might as well have a bike that excels in that. Picking an aero bike for just the down hill of the hilly stage would be nuts. 

Forget about aero, I have a tandem. My kids and I have spent many hours on it. Going up sucks, we are pretty slow. Going down, watch out. How about Nibali picks the heaviest bike so he can excel on the down hill portion, see what I mean, it would be a stupid move. Just like what you are saying about an aero bike on a hilly stage.

As for the term 'plenty of time' I would say your definition is different than mine. Rarely is a GC contender is left on his own except when they have to risk it all for large gains. If you check out Nibali, he has been protected the entire race, unless he is going for a stage win [or risking for a big gain].

Again, the points that are being made are not fully thought out. I'm certain with all the money and thought process with the big name teams, they are going to get the most out of every rider. Aero is one way. I cannot believe it is all just marketing. You and others can say it is hogwash, and that is ok with me. I would rather steer towards common sense. 

Just to make it clear, aero at higher speeds makes a difference. Aero with normal recreational riders is a waste of money. I'm certain we all agree with that.


----------



## aclinjury

I went back to re-read the orginal article on Bike Radar, and I found this



> And I can hear you already: "But I don't ride at 40km/h!" Since aerodynamic drag increases *exponentially* with speed, it's true that the force differences you might experience between an aero and non-aero setup will be less dramatic


Apparently even the person writing about aerodynamic can get confused between exponentital and polynomial growth. But in the end it doesn't matter much because the whole article was a bit of a hack job at explaning aero benefits.

And to be honest, until today when I took some time to look at some of the relevant equations, I myself didn't really understand the mathematical reason as to why a slower rider will always benefit more in the "time" department. Turns out the "time benefit" has more to do with the nature of the asymptotic inverse relationship than the "aero-ness" of any equipment. 

Yes, aero equipment does come into play, and manifest through coefficients such as A, C, etc,.. but these coefficients (and hence any aero-ness) at best only modify the graph a bit, but the basic form of the graph still holds, and the asymptotic inverse relationship is the domimating and dictating reason as to why the slower rider will stand to benefit the most.

Ok enough with the math talk. But if I'm wrong at any part, feel free to correct. My math and physics is almost 20 years ago, so they're rusty


----------



## roadworthy

aclinjury said:


> Honestly I have always regard your posting in the Specialized forum as helpful for the member. My English is not my first language so I probably came off as unfriendly. I understand your reaction.


Thanks aclinjury. I responded to your gracious PM. I was at fault here and obviously you are very accomplished at math and please accept my apology.
Btw, your English is so good, I never even noticed and I could never communicate as well as you do in a second language.
Ride safe.


----------



## aclinjury

roadworthy said:


> Thanks aclinjury. I responded to your gracious PM. I was at fault here and obviously you are very accomplished at math and please accept my apology.
> Btw, your English is so good, I never even noticed and I could never communicate as well as you do in a second language.
> Ride safe.


Yep we all been there. I'm no except and certainly no saint either. I know you're a good guy.


----------



## 55x11

the argument is not bonus, you can plug in the numbers in various cycling calculators, but basically if you can reduce drag by, say, 5%, and for flat road riding most of your energy is spent on drag forces (yes there is rolling resistance but it's negligible), then you gain 5% in drag forces. How that translates to speed is a different story, and you are correct that drag forces on faster rider increase rapidly with speed (force goes as velocity squared, not quite exponential, and power then goes as velocity cubed). But that just means that your 5% reduction in drag force results in about 2.5% increase in velocity for the same power. Regardless of speed.
So that means that each rider will gain 2.5% of their time in 40K time trial. Someone who does it in 60 min will gain 90 seconds (1.5 min), while someone who does 40K in 90 min will gain 135 seconds, or 2 min 15 seconds. So the absolute savings (in time) are greater for slower rider while relative savings are about the same.


----------



## aclinjury

55x11 said:


> the argument is not bonus, you can plug in the numbers in various cycling calculators, but basically if you can reduce drag by, say, 5%, and for flat road riding most of your energy is spent on drag forces (yes there is rolling resistance but it's negligible), then you gain 5% in drag forces. How that translates to speed is a different story, and you are correct that drag forces on faster rider increase rapidly with speed (force goes as velocity squared, not quite exponential, and power then goes as velocity cubed). But that just means that your 5% reduction in drag force results in about 2.5% increase in velocity for the same power. Regardless of speed.
> So that means that each rider will gain 2.5% of their time in 40K time trial. Someone who does it in 60 min will gain 90 seconds (1.5 min), while someone who does 40K in 90 min will gain 135 seconds, or 2 min 15 seconds. *So the absolute savings (in time) are greater for slower rider while relative savings are about the same*.



I think by now it's apparent that in term of absolute time saving, the slower rider will stand to greater time saving. But your statement regarding the relative savings is an interesting question. And so it got me thinking about the math.

So are relative savings the same for both riders? or will the slower rider see a greater relative time saving? I set to find the answer.

Hypothesis: 
I assume that the relative time savings are *not* the same. I think the slower rider will see a *greater relative saving* in time.

With the above hypothesis, we have this comparison to prove:
*(t1 - t2)/t1 is greater than (t3 - t4)/t3*; 

(Please see my sketch for what *t* means)

(t1 - t2)/t1 is the relative time saving of slow rider
(t3 - t4)/t3 is the relative time saving of faster rider

Proof:

First express time in terms of distance and speed

time = distance / speed,

so we have these t1, t2, t3, t4 equivalents:

t1 = d/v1 
t2 = d/v2
t3 = d/v3
t4 = d/v4

Now substitution (t1 - t2)/t1 and (t3 - t4)/t3 with their respective d/v expression:

(t1 - t2)/t1
(d/v1 - d/v2) / (d/v1)
...this will evaluate to
*(v2 - v1) / v2*

the substitution for (t3 - t4)/t3 is exactly the same as for (t1 - t2)/t1, so we get

(t3 - t4) / t3 to evaluate to *(v4 - v3) / v4*


So now the comparison becomes:

*(v2 - v1) / v2 *versus *(v4 - v3) / v4 
*and we need to show that (v2 - v1) / v2 is greater

v2 - v1 = v4 - v3; for the ease of proof, I have set each unit of v at 1.
let's call this big *V
*
now substitute, and we get this comparison

*V/v2* versus *V/v4
*
Since v2 is *smaller* than v4, the expression V/v2 is *greater* than V/v4.
So this means the orginal hypothesis (t1 - t2)/t1 is greater than (t3 - t4)/t3 is true.
So the slower rider will see a greater relative saving in time.


----------



## ProEdgeBiker

AERO bikes are way sexier, thats all the data I needed...


----------



## Superdave3T

Dunbar said:


> Kind of like how Felt doesn't explicitly point out in their AR white paper that mechanical cable routing will cost you 7-10w of aero drag? Or how they don't really go into specific details about what yaw angles they use in their assumptions used to calculate savings over 40k? Ditto Cervelo's S5 white paper.
> 
> Box section wheels like the Mavic Open Pro are not similar to what comes on most new road bikes. The Fulcrum S5/S7 are much closer to what comes stock on most road bikes.


Mechanical cable routing may not cost you 7-10w. Cable routing like the old AR frame, the old Cervelo Soloist SL, the Giant Propel and other "behind the stem" designs have a lower penalty than the current Venge, Felt AR V2, and Cervelo S3 mechanical cable guide ports on the sides of the downtube.

There are so many variables to tilt the scales that we tried to use identical equipment for each run, right down to saddle position, cable lengths, bar height, etc.

Bottle on bike and rider on bike comparisons were also not conducted in a legal-approved format.

You are seeing <5% of the data used for the AR frame shape development.

-SD


----------



## Superdave3T

Dunbar said:


> You save significantly less at lower speeds which is why most manufacturers don't even publish that data. Your figures for frames andwheels are high by at least 30-40%. An aero road helmet will save you around 8W at ~30mph according to the Louis Garneau data posted on their site. FTP is moot at 30mph unless you can hold that speed for an hour (remember FTP = your max 1 hour power). If you read the Felt white paper they say they modeled the savings using 10-15 degree yaw angles which I don't believe is accurate.


The savings on the new AR are improved over the old AR at every yaw position. We maximized the benefit at 10-15 for a variety of reasons including real-world data collection and a general consensus among air speed vs. race speed.


----------



## tranzformer

There is a video at the below link for those interested in seeing them conduct the test.


*How much faster is an aero bike? (video)*
Oliver Bridgewood
June 12, 2015

We tested an aero bike versus a lightweight road bike to establish which is faster and by how much

Top end road bikes can be broadly split into two categories, aero bikes and lightweight climbing bikes. Aero bikes such as the Giant Propel, Merida Reacto and Cervelo S5 are often heavier than their climbing counterparts.

In addition, they can be less stiff and less comfortable. Considering this we wanted to see if an aerobike is actually faster and if so, by how much? Is the slight increase in weight worth it?

To do this we headed down to Herne Hill Velodrome in South London, to put two bikes to the test. The bikes we chose for this experiment were the wind cheating Cervelo S5 as the aero bike and the svelte but stiff Canyon Ultimate CF SLX.

The Cervelo S5 is often considered to be amongst the most aerodynamic road bikes, featuring aero handlebars, Hed Jet 6 wheels, aero tube profiles and Shimano Dura Ace Di2 groupset. It is currently ridden by British Cycling, One Pro Cycling and MTN-Qhubeka. The weight of our S5 is 7.25kg without pedals.

The Canyon Ultimate CF SLX is the same type of frame as ridden by Movistar and Katusha. It is a race proven winner, that Nairo Quintana rode to victory in the 2014 Giro d’Italia. Our test bike is fitted with Campagnolo Super Record and Mavic Kysrium R-SYS wheels. The Ultimate is roughly a kilogram lighter than the S5.









The Canyon, left and the Cervelo, right

Our Experiment

Each bike was ridden for 10 minutes at 200W and 10 minutes at 300W. The reason for this is that we felt that 200W represents a power output sustainable by a decent club or sportive rider and that 300W is typical of a time trialist or racer. From this we wanted to establish if it is still worth getting an aerobike if you don’t ride at race pace.

Both bikes were ridden by Dr Hutch and both bikes were set up with the same position, so that the rider remained constant and that only the bike changed. Hutch rode exclusively on the hoods and maintained the same position throughout all the test runs.

It may be of benefit to Mark Cavendish in a 60kph sprint, but what about us mortals? Is there a measurable aero benefit at 200W and is the benefit greater at higher wattages? We chose Herne Hill because for all the marketing claims and wind tunnel data that exist, this isn’t the real world. You don’t ride your bike in a wind tunnel, you ride outside and Herne Hill represents the almost as much of a controlled outside environment you can get.









Dr Hutch calmly sitting at 300W on the S5

The Results

Before I get onto the numbers, I need to point some things out. Firstly we are aware that this is not the most scientific experiment in the history of aerodynamic research and there are variables that are out of our control. Things to note are that it was an unusually still day at Herne Hill, the wind was low and consistent throughout the runs we did on both bikes.

Dr Hutch, a veteran of both the track and time trialling was an excellent human guinea pig, as his pacing was very smooth and ensured metronomic power output on each of the runs. Each run began with a rolling start, to ensure that Hutch was already up to the required power output.

For power measurement we used Garmin Vector pedals and a Garmin Edge 1000 head unit. The reason for this is that we wanted to use the same power meter for consistency and that Vectors are easily swappable between bikes. To ensure accuracy, we used a torque wrench to tighten the pedals to 25 lbs/ft, where upon they were calibrated using the Garmin Edge 1000.

The Canyon Ultimate CF SLX

At 200W the Canyon travelled 5150m at an average speed of 30.9kph
At 300W the Canyon travelled 6055m at an average speed of 36.3kph
The Cervelo S5

At 200W the Cervelo travelled 5425m at an average speed of 32.6kph
At 300W the Cervelo travelled 6490m at an average speed of 38.9kph
This result is significant, as even after just 10 minutes at 300W the Cervelo S5 was 435m ahead of the Canyon (nearly half a kilometre!). If we extrapolate this to 20 minutes or an hour the difference could be massive and hugely significant in a race situation such as a breakaway.

But for mortals just hoping to achieve a personal best on their favourite sportive, the potential savings appear huge too. After just 10 minutes at 200W the Cervelo S5 was 275m ahead. Over four hours this could 6.6km if you extrapolate.

Before we all go out and buy aero bikes it is worth considering a few things. Firstly, some aero bikes may not be as efficient as others, and deep wheels on a lightweight bike could make a significant aero improvement. The Cervelo S5 is also substantially less compliant and comfortable than the Canyon too. We would also expect the Canyon to be quicker up hill as it is roughly 1kg lighter, so an aero bike may lose some ground here. To find out if an aero bike is demonstrably slower up hill, we will aim to do a further experiment in the future…

How much faster is an aero bike? (video) - Cycling Weekly


----------



## 1Butcher

No surprises here.


----------

