canam73

I did a race once that took 4:45.

Well, took me 4:45. The winner finished in 3:17. He must have had carbon wheels or something.

AdelaaR

People without aero frames are also reaching for their bottles, lifting their heads and looking back ... so the advantage of the aero is still there whether you like it or not
I'm pretty sure reaching for your bottle 20 times in 4 hours will not lose you 2 minutes, btw, as that would mean you'd lose 6 seconds each time.

AdelaaR

He probably won because of his aero face.

canam73

Maybe:



It says aero right on his shirt.

canam73

Ok, some real world perspective. Let's take this a bit further (even though for Ironman Florida you would probably want an actual TT bike, not road frame).

But if the test found a 2.5 minute advantage in 4:20, and this was what, a 6-7 hour ride I'll round up to an even 5. Take a look at the results. That would move you up what, 20 spots? 30? 50? I think it's not hundreds or even 100. And this is somewhere in a pack of a few thousand and only do to having a faster bike, nothing to do with effort either on course or in training.

If that does something for you, ok, I won't argue that you are wrong. I'm sure you would think some things I spend money on are silly, too. But I hope you are realistic about it.

Now, for both of you:

I glanced at this earlier before the test article and some other posts were deleted. If I read it correctly, the S5 was rated the worst riding and worst handling bike in the lot. That is something that wouldn't show up in the wind tunnel test but I could see it losing you time. Especially in a longer race when fatigue becomes a major factor. Obviously it's effect would be on a course to course basis, but I certainly do not want to ride a bike 4-7 hours that is poor riding and handling. Whether it's a race or training, I ride because I enjoy it, and I want to enjoy the bike I'm on. What makes you sure and S5 would actually give you a net advantage when all aspects of riding are considered?

AdelaaR

Nothing does.
Good point.
As I said somewhere before: "depending on the course"

OldTryGuy

I edited my post with 5:50 for my 112 miles. As far as an aero advantage for all the experts, my choice of bike was after riding others some of which were more expensive and by many here the bikes of choice. The Propel just worked with my riding style and felt great to me. One has to be reminded that after a 2.4 mile swim and a 112 mile TT, there is still a 26.2 mile bone jarring road running/jogging/walking distance to be undertaken and coming off a comfortable and fast bike is extremely important.

The hundreds passed by me were all those who exited the water well in advance of my very poor swimming abilities.

The Propel Advanced SL is a wonderful frame and it would seem that so far there are some Pros who like it for the 2014 racing season.

https://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-us/...teamsriders/6/

Campag4life

OTG,
What was your average speed?....Climbing?....weather conditions?

ovoleg

bike racing isn't a solo sport. you don't gain 2.5mins on your competition by riding an aero bike

ovoleg

My power meter isnt even accurate to less than 1%...lol.

OldTryGuy

IMFL, Panama City Beach considered fast because of minimal elevation change but we had 15/20 mph winds that day. As I mentioned elsewhere, Andrew Starykowicz completed the 112 miles in 4:02:17. Expecting to knock 30+ minutes off in this year's IMFL bike unless I am one of the 100 lucky Kona World Championship lottery entry winners.

My actual bike moving time was 5:43:26 for 19.4mph average and unlike many others, I did not draft.

Can help on a solo breakaway.

ovoleg

Solo breakaway's are super rare in the local races I've seen. The few times that I've heard of it happening, the rider was above the category level to begin with and it doesnt matter that he had an aero frame and you dont, you simply got DROPPED.

You won't pull away from me by having a 5-20 W advantage. I gain more than that drafting you.

One of my teammates attacked in a cat3 and held it off for a full lap(12 miles) in a HILLY RR. Aero frame or not, he was going to drop everyone.

rekmeyata

Actually these are the most aerodynamic bicycles: https://www.aerovelo.com/2013/10/11/b...video-journal/ 70mph on flat ground.

StanSeven

I can't tell if you're joking. An independent magazine isn't a good source for testing? But Giant paying to have tests done and they come out good is?

canam73

Yeah, but it was corroborated by the pro riders on Team Giant also liking the bikes.

zvez

Why no Felts?

canam73

This is a guess, but Tour is a German magazine and being a USA company that not longer sponsors a UCI pro team Felt may not have a large enough presence there to warrant inclusion. Just as a US magazine would probably test Felt but leave out the Canyon and a couple other makes that aren't commonly available over here.

zvez

thanks for the explanation!

Campag4life

Thanks. Andy's speed for that distance is unfathomable. Amazing rider.
Congrats on the race OTG.

ovoleg

Get the bike that looks the best and one that fits you, thats my motto. If a bike motivates you to ride because it looks great, you'll become faster and you'll offset and exceed the small aero gains.

rekmeyata

Magazines have to sell the products they advertised, their not going to bad mouth a major product and a major source of income to a magazine to print how bad that product is, think about it a bit more. All these product reviews and testings they do in any magazine that advertises the product(s) their reviewing and testing will be a favorable writing, maybe not stellar reviews or testings, but enough good things said to where people will still want to try it to see if they want to buy it. Seriously, I can see Bicycle Mag write that they test rode a Trek Modone only to find it unworthy compared to all the other bikes they tested and the only thing the bike is good for is display...lets see how long Trek will keep their advertising contract with them. Weird things happen in advertising, a company may bad mouth a product they don't advertised only to be approached by that company and ask why the bad review, and the mag company, (or whatever) says that they should place an ad with their company and then let us retest the product, yup after retesting the review is more favorable using words like, the XYB bike company after reading our last review redid their bike and lo and behold it's now a favorable bike to consider buying.

canam73

I'm not disputing that your described scenario happens. I doubt anyone else is, either.

But in this specific instance of published results of an empirical test (albeit simulated) involving many brands and a couple different frame types, what would you say? That the results have been skewed to the exact order of advertising dollars spent in the magazine?

What about Storck and Neil Pryde whose aero frames lost to their non-aeroframe. Maybe they owe Tour some money?

TexMac

Why not if they can?

aaronmcd

Same reason people do this with any product. Why do people buy high performance cars instead of solely focusing on "shiny, new and better looking"? It's not going to get them to work any faster in rush hour.

Still, I'm more concerned with the aero advantage over 20 seconds than 4 hours. 1% faster in a 200m sprint for the finish is 2 meters. I'll pay extra for that.

rekmeyata

Why don't you find if Storck and Pryde do any advertising with that German mag, then tell us what you find out. It would be interesting also to see who their biggest and smallest advertiser is of the bikes tested.