GCN proves 90s Trek bike as fast as $10k aero super bike
 

You are not gaining that much speed in a 2019 orbea $10k usd aero bike versus a cheap aluminum race bike from the late 90s. GCN had a good vid about this..and while there was a very slight gain in performance in that video once they updated the components on that old trek bike....

I really think if they put the aero wheels on the older aluminum trek(and lighter components found on the orbea )it would probably have even been about equal in performance to the 10k USD orbea super bike. But of course they did not want to do that to hurt their sponsors sigh...

its a great video even though by not putting the aero wheels on the trek bike it gave it a big disadvantage. What I would like to see is put the same aero wheels on that trek frame and same component group on the trek that is found on the orbea...

You have to be a professional racer to justify owning a 90s aluminum bike.

You are preaching to the choir but is the whole “aero” frame a bunch of marketing hype...that’s the question

Not a question...If it were, there would be a question mark in their somewhere...Are you having a good time trolling this forum? Please note the question mark...

How about this, post a picture of you on your bike and I'll start using question marks.

But is a trek bike as fast as a 90s $10k aero super bike?

I can’t. I had this amazing Colnago C64 with Super Record that I paid 1000.00 for because it was last years model. Unfortunately, I had to sell it because it didn’t exist...oops...I meant fit...

Shameless and persistent.

Putting 2k carbon aero rims on the Trek would have defeated the entire purpose of the test, which was to keep the “cheap” bike build under a specific price point. Not sure why these types of videos are surprising to anyone... the aero frame super bike will be faster, but not by much. It’s just logic once you understand how little of your overall drag is caused by the frame, and how marginal the gains are between an aero frame and an oval tube frame. It matters to people who need that extra 2 seconds when they’re in a solo break in a big road race and they’ve achieved their best possible fitness, but not to the rest of us. No new revelations here.

Not to disparage GCN, but... :rolleyes:

What's with the saddle on that Trek?

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...089c95b082.jpg


-Tim-

It is common for a statement of the following form to be made - "you have to be a serious racer to justify the incremental aero and/or weight gains of a high end bike". I would not exactly quibble with that one, BTW.

My experience is interesting (to me, anyway). I am in the process of adding a new bike to my existing one bike stable. That existing bike has a high end frame (Bianchi EL-OS Nivacron steel) from the mid 90's with Chorus components and pretty good Bontrager RXL wheels (when I choose to ride them). Stripped down (for comparison with manufacturers stated weights) it comes in at just over 18 pounds with the RXL's and lightweight tires/tubes.

When looking at new road bikes (as opposed to adding a gravel bike or TT bike or ...), I just wasn't willing to get one that weighed more than my upgraded Bianchi (normalized for wheel/tire weight). I can't justify that but still felt comfortable with that perspective/decision. There is a lot of that around and I don't find it unreasonable. For some there is an inherent value in owning something high end. I am kind of doing that with bikes, but the only watch I own is a $20 Casio (which I wear daily, even to a social event that is coat and tie). To each his own.

dave

Taking an alloy frame and throwing carbon Aero wheels on it to achieve nearly the same performance of a vastly more expensive bike... hmm I wonder who would do that...

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...eb8c09b3cf.png
Oh wait, I did! it's great :)

Still waiting on the Ti bike that will.....
replace the fictional $1900 carbon ill fitting Trek.......
that supposedly replaced the Ti bike that people thought was ugly.
Is that right so far? Surely you have something else to add besides another troll thread?

My set of 50mm deep CF wheels cost $40 more than the alloy wheels on my go-anywhere bike. Cost isn't really a big deterrent for wheels until you start looking at names like ENVE and Zipp. Or Lightweight.

What's up with the guy walking on water?

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...adf91e639d.jpg


-Tim-

Any older Trek will be fast if you have some MEILENSTEIN LIGHTWEIGHT WHEELS.

If I'm following, OP is supposed to be some type of troll? I don't hang around here enough to know who's who. But I'm going to provide a bit of practical real world experience that I think illustrates that all the hand-wringing over wheels/weight for a lot of cyclists is a bit overblown. Recently, I rode a loop on my entry level Allez, stock rims. The same day and within a few minutes of my own ride (I started at 11:41am and he started the loop at 11:49), a friend of mine who is an accomplished masters racer with a carbon bike and carbon aero wheels. He and I are about the same size and build. I completed the loop in 37:52 averaging 212w (max 558w), he completed the loop in 38:10 also averaging 212w (max 565w). I don't know his NP, but I can't imagine it would be much different, we were both doing steady endurance and no interval work. This is probably as close to a real life experiment one can get and the difference likely came to my body position vs his. So I do think in quite a few cases, folks are spending a lot of money for almost no perceptible gain.

Nah, it's just that your girlfriend in Canada that none of us has ever met rides it.

Well that settles it.

What I want to see is a comparison between one of those UCI-illegal Y-frame Treks from the 90's (with modern parts added) and a modern $20k superbike. Have we finally advanced in technology to the point where the Y-frame wouldn't be an unfair advantage?

*X-Files theme plays*

wwjr?

A cross bike, duh