What say you? New bike: Aero vs. Lightweight
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,903
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3258 Post(s)
Liked 2,099 Times
in
1,189 Posts
Thats interesting. I had always read that being aero, which for many doing triathlons, was riding on the aero bars and being as aerodynamic as possible, didn’t matter unless you were up over 17-18 mph or so. I always had read and assumed that energy to gain speed is mostly an effort against the wind, thus it would make sense (to me) that aero tubing and wheels will have less effect at slower speeds and it’s only when you hit certain speeds do the frame and wheel design start to be beneficial. I’ve been know to be wrong though.
Likes For Steve B.:
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PHL
Posts: 9,948
Bikes: Litespeed Catalyst, IRO Rob Roy, All City Big Block
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1332 Post(s)
Liked 398 Times
in
194 Posts
Thats interesting. I had always read that being aero, which for many doing triathlons, was riding on the aero bars and being as aerodynamic as possible, didn’t matter unless you were up over 17-18 mph or so. I always had read and assumed that energy to gain speed is mostly an effort against the wind, thus it would make sense (to me) that aero tubing and wheels will have less effect at slower speeds and it’s only when you hit certain speeds do the frame and wheel design start to be beneficial. I’ve been know to be wrong though.
#29
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,150
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3467 Post(s)
Liked 3,608 Times
in
1,810 Posts
A colleague’s Scott Foil is both light and aero. With carbon tubular wheels, it’s less than 14 lbs.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
Thats interesting. I had always read that being aero, which for many doing triathlons, was riding on the aero bars and being as aerodynamic as possible, didn’t matter unless you were up over 17-18 mph or so. I always had read and assumed that energy to gain speed is mostly an effort against the wind, thus it would make sense (to me) that aero tubing and wheels will have less effect at slower speeds and it’s only when you hit certain speeds do the frame and wheel design start to be beneficial. I’ve been know to be wrong though.
So if you do a 10 hour century, that's a lot of kJs that go into pushing through the air. If you go all in and cut your air resistance by 1/4, you've saved a lot of work, so if you're putting out the same power regardless, you'll finish faster. So far so good.
If you do a 3 hour century, being more aero is important, but at 3 hours you're not going to be able to shave much time. Impossible to shave more than 3 hours, right? If you were going to take 10, shaving 3 hours off your time is less than 1/3 the minutes, more doable. (I know the numbers are daft, I'm trying to make this easy to follow. You can math it out with real numbers.)
But it's really a matter of semantics. Below a certain speed, you don't care about speed, above a different threshold it's a drug and you want all you can get. 5 seconds is significant in a TT if it gets you on the podium. Saving 40 minutes on a long, slow recreational ride is numerically huge compared to those 5 seconds, but probably not significant to the rider.
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times
in
230 Posts
Thats interesting. I had always read that being aero, which for many doing triathlons, was riding on the aero bars and being as aerodynamic as possible, didn’t matter unless you were up over 17-18 mph or so. I always had read and assumed that energy to gain speed is mostly an effort against the wind, thus it would make sense (to me) that aero tubing and wheels will have less effect at slower speeds and it’s only when you hit certain speeds do the frame and wheel design start to be beneficial. I’ve been know to be wrong though.
I was told that aero trumps weight at speeds down to about 12 miles an hour. That is why you see riders climbing with aero wheels, especially in the professional ranks.
#32
Non omnino gravis
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne, Oz
Posts: 9,547
Bikes: https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=152015&p=1404231
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1529 Post(s)
Liked 718 Times
in
510 Posts
If you do a 3 hour century, being more aero is important, but at 3 hours you're not going to be able to shave much time. Impossible to shave more than 3 hours, right? If you were going to take 10, shaving 3 hours off your time is less than 1/3 the minutes, more doable. (I know the numbers are daft, I'm trying to make this easy to follow. You can math it out with real numbers.)
#35
6-4 Titanium
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 330
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 36 Times
in
31 Posts
I’ve read an aero frame in reality gives you like a 1% advantage because the body negates most of that aero advantage. Aero wheels however give a bigger advantage...and of course body position and getting in the drops.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
Which one is going to make you want to ride more?
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
But they probably had fake Stravas.
#40
Senior Member
Likes For asgelle:
#42
No matches
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 11,647
Bikes: two wheeled ones
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1398 Post(s)
Liked 444 Times
in
250 Posts
Part of the diminishing returns at very high speeds has to do with the amount of energy required to go even a small amount faster. Their is a point where aero does not creat a big enough advantage to overcome the wattage required.
I was told that aero trumps weight at speeds down to about 12 miles an hour. That is why you see riders climbing with aero wheels, especially in the professional ranks.
I was told that aero trumps weight at speeds down to about 12 miles an hour. That is why you see riders climbing with aero wheels, especially in the professional ranks.
1) They're sponsored to ride certain brands (not super applicable in this case) whether they're best or not, and sometimes they'll take what they actually want to ride and make it look like something from the brand they're sponsored by.
2) They have a UCI minimum weight limit that is trivially easy to hit with high dollar frames and components, so they can either add literal weights to the bottom bracket area, or they can ride deep wheels that get them some aero advantage on the climbs and a significant advantage on the descents and flats.
#43
Senior Member
I had this debate, ended up getting a lightweight frame and aero wheels (Emonda ALR disc frameset + Aeolus 5 wheelset). The wheels make a hell of a lot more difference than the frame.
#44
Senior Member
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Thats interesting. I had always read that being aero, which for many doing triathlons, was riding on the aero bars and being as aerodynamic as possible, didn’t matter unless you were up over 17-18 mph or so. I always had read and assumed that energy to gain speed is mostly an effort against the wind, thus it would make sense (to me) that aero tubing and wheels will have less effect at slower speeds and it’s only when you hit certain speeds do the frame and wheel design start to be beneficial. I’ve been know to be wrong though.
What's special about 18 mph? Do you feel any difference in a 10 mph headwind versus a 10 mph tailwind?
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 595
Bikes: Bianchi Oltre XR4 Celeste, De Rosa SK Pininfarina, Giant TCR SL, Giant Revolt Advanced Revolt 0 Gravel Bike, Trek Madone SLR, Cervelo R5 Disk
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked 124 Times
in
65 Posts
My "Aero" Bianchi Oltre XR4 is 15.0-lbs with pedals, and bottle cages. In all fairness the brake calipers are lightweight Cane Creek EE brakes and saddle is raw carbon.
Likes For Noctilux.95:
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
I've got a '15 Ridley Helium SL and a '19 Madone SLR both bought as frame sets and built with SRAM red22. Besides the proprietary parts, the only difference is shallow aluminum wheels vs 50mm carbon wheels on the two bikes. It is very hard for me to tell a difference between the two bikes except when I put them on a scale or lift them into the car. The Madone does feel like it goes downhill faster, but that is probably a placebo...
My advice, buy the bike that will make you want to ride it.
My advice, buy the bike that will make you want to ride it.
Likes For sour:
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,903
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3258 Post(s)
Liked 2,099 Times
in
1,189 Posts