gt3racerich

Wow. I really appreciate all the replies.
To answer some questions:
I am absolutely not racing. Just riding alone.
Why I would love to get an Aeroad: (flame suit on and being honest) There is a thread "Hot or not" (I think on another forum). In that context I love "Hot" bikes. I don't know if my Litespeed was hot at the time but it was for me. Record 10spd, Zipp 404s, carbon handlebars and seat post. I still love riding that bike.

Wittyname: "Buy the bike that makes you want to ride it"

I am a believer in that. Having said that at this age I do not want to make a mistake on such a large purchase.
Even though I would love an Aeroad, it was only after looking at the numbers and comparing them to what I am riding that I started thinking about one.
A few of you said to get the Endurace. While that is initially what I wanted I think I have ruled that out. I have test ridden some new road bikes (as opposed to endurance bikes) and I thought they were great. Every road bike that I have looked at is already less agressive then my bike. I am sure my riding can't compare to anyone who took the time to reply (Thanks again) but for myself I can't believe how I have improved and the harder I ride the less pain I have.

As far as the seat tube angle, they are the same for the Aeroad and the Ultimate. What I don't understand is how the top tube on the Ultimate is longer then the Aeroad. The Aeroad also has a slightly bigger head tube yet has less stack?

ddub: The reach on my bike is 37.0, the Aeroad is 37.6 and the Ultimate is 37.8.
The stack on my bike is 51.2, the Aeroad is 50.9, and the Ultimate is 52.2.
All in all, I think the differences are marginal.

Campag4life: I am new to my area and now running into a lot of guys when I am out riding. Many are older then I am and put me to shame. All are on road bikes as opposed to endurance.

So again I want to thank everyone for taking the time to reply. I know that the Ultimate would be great but again, I really have a hankering for the Aeroad. At this time neither one is available yet in the US (in my size and spec) so until they are I guess I will continue to torture my self trying to decide between the two.

Racing Dan

Without looking at the numbers Im betting the Ultimate has a higher Stack than the Aeroad and that the Endurace is even higher again. Best thing to do is measure what you have and compare to the geometry charts. Then you know what you can ride. Im betting, at 59, you are better off getting the Endurace or Ultimate unless you are very fit and flexible.

Noctilux.95

I would lean towards the better all around bike like the Ultimate if this will be your main, or only bike. I just purchased an "aero" Bianchi Oltre XR4 strictly based on the aesthetics of the bike. The sexiness of this bike will make me forget my back is hurting on mile 84

fietsbob

Buy Several, get a variety of different styles of bikes.. happy test rides..

Campag4life

As mentioned among better old riders in the 60 y.o. range...in my personal experience, about 1/2 or perhaps a hint more are on race fit bikes...some aero, some regular, most with std. short head tube. But, the other almost 1/2 are on Roubaix styled bikes including me. My neck and back hurt if I ride a 4" drop. For weaker old riders, 'most' will be on endurance bikes. Others my age and who are built just like me with a cyclist build do fine and they have been riding slammed for decades. So it depends on the rider. But these are very good old riders. Also, if you set up your endurance bike well with aero wheelset, use the drops as needed, I personally don't see much of a deficit. I can stay up with pretty much all the slammed old guys out there and if they are faster, it isn't the bike.

I will tell you, I would be on aero or pure race bike like the TCR, Tarmac, EVO, Foil etc if my body didn't complain. Aerodynamics is a big factor in riding a bicycle fast. But for my body, slammed hurts and why I am not. I personally believe its bad for the neck and the back to ride a bike that repeatedly hurts these areas...a vicious cycle of injury.

Doge

Power affects the force on your arms and hands. Same fit - flat back at 250W will have less pressure on the hands than @150W. When low, elbows bent the "pros" are likely closer to 400W (at that time), or in an aggressive dive/turn/swoop.

So the "race fit" needs to balance what the power output of the rider will be, how long the ride, road type etc.
"Old guys" that copy this pro position may have become used to the increased pressure on their hands, shoulders and/or just do shorter rides.

Dean V

Why has this turned into a bike fit thread?
The OP is happy with his fit and it sounds like he can get it on either of the frames he is looking at.

RobbieTunes

+2

I'm 58 and have ridden a lot of bikes. The aero setup is not for comfort.

Consider the following:
1-decide what kind of riding you plan to do, how far, how often, how fast.
2-look around at the road surfaces you plan to ride on regularly; it makes a difference.
3-fit
4-fit
5-fit
6-your fitness and ability
7-buy a bike for the purpose, not the speed.

This is a great aero bike, but simply not suited for my type of solo road riding.
Great in a pace line. Not so great on an all-day ride.
Wind-tunnel tested, data driven. I've never ridden in a wind tunnel.


This is almost as light, twice as smooth, and 5x as comfortable.
Not as good in a pace line, but really good all day.
Cannondale listened to their customers.....and it shows.


This is the best mix of both. The builder knows what he wants a bike to do, and builds it.
No wind tunnel. No years of feedback and focus groups. No big budget R&D. He just knows.


99.9999% of the members of this forum can't outride any of these bikes, and won't find a lot of difference between them, but the differences are there. The Felt is not fun solo, but once moving, is especially easy to move through the air. The Cannondale is an all-day machine, but less agile in a pace line if the guy in front of you decides to slow up without notice. The Wraith is the the best mix and has clearance for 700x28's, which can make it comfortable all day (even on those wheels).

My recommendation, at your age, is to seriously make a list of how, where, when and how fast you ride. Then consider your condition now and your goals for the future, get a bike that can get you from now to then, and reward yourself when you get there with a bike for it. You may just find it's the same bike that got you there.

Oh, and throw away the bike magazines after reading.
Your friends who don't sell bikes will tell you the truth about their bikes, not yours.
You can't buy speed as cheaply as you can develop it.
You can buy comfort but you can also build it.

The bike has to disappear beneath you, not become something you notice or have to overcome.
Fit is 60% of that. Efficiency is 10-15%, and you are the rest. Any "losses" in Fit and Efficiency, you have to make up for. Don't ride the bike, wear it. Look down the road, and go. Get the bike that keeps itself out of your mind the moment you get moving.

Doge

Because an aero bike, implies an aero position. If not the aero part is moot.
It still may look cool and feel good, but it will be heavier and less comfortable than a similar non-aero.

Carbonfiberboy 

Because aero is only about bike fit. The bike is immaterial to the discussion unless one has gone pro, which it only matters that you don't have one because they're heavier. Unless someone is paying you just to ride it, that is. I've never seen anyone descend faster on an aero bike. Totally unnoticeable except in seconds per 1000' descent, maybe. I can drop people by minutes on my '99 Trek just with position.

gt3racerich

Guys, just to be clear, I don't expect to be any faster on the Aeroad.
I'm just trying to figure out, with the geometry being close, why I shouldn't get the bike I like better, admittedly if only by intangibles.
I get that the Aeroad will not be as comfortable as the Ultimate due to tire size and I guess the layup of the carbon but I am judging it against my current bike that rides very stiff. And that is becoming less and less of an issue as I put the miles on.
I have changed my mind a couple of times since just this morning. I have been searching and found many photos of Aeroads set up fairly close to my bike in regard to the height of the handlebars in relation to the height of the saddle. (There are also many set ups that I would not attempt to ride)
In the three photos above posted by RobbieTunes, I may be wrong but to my eye the more aggressive, longer top tube on the aero bike is clear when compared to the Cannonade road bike. The Aeroad is not as extreme in that regard as the numbers show?

Doge says "It still may look cool and feel good, but it will be heavier and less comfortable than a similar non-aero."

Why will it be less comfortable if I can set it up basically the same as what I am currently riding? That is basically the reason I started the thread. I get that it is a bit heavier.
Thanks again for all the info everyone.

McBTC

Sounds like you're looking for negatives. How about, bad in side winds and the short wheelbase will make it feel twitchy and a bit nervy in the corners?

Campag4life

OP, if you ask the question in bold, you likely don't understand why an aero bike is heavier either.

So a quick non technical explanation. I could show the math as well but will keep it simple.

An aero bike has tube sections that look like this: () versus a conventional road bike where the tubes are shaped more like this: O

Why are aero bike tube sections more narrow and taller? Because they cut the wind better. What happens when you make a frame section more narrow and taller? Two things:
a. narrower tube section is more flexy under lateral load aka in torsion when a rider pushes harder on the pedals.
b. taller tube section is more rigid vertical which adversely affects ride quality.

So, an aero bike is shaped 'exactly the opposite' of how a designer wants to shape a bike for rider efficiency i.e. laterally stiff (versus aero narrow) and vertically compliant (versus taller tube section)

So, what does a designer do to compensate? This is where the art is. A designer must add lateral stiffness without making an aero tube section wider and a designer must add vertical compliance without making a tube section shorter.

What happens in this process? To make a skinny tubed aero bike stiffer laterally, a designer must add wall thickness on the sides. To make a taller tube section aero bike more vertically compliant, a designer must make top and bottom wall sections more flexible aka thinner. In addition, carbon lay up is changed as well to facilitate bending (vertical plane) versus more stiffness (lateral plane)

So to create an aero bike with its narrow and tall tube sections that cut the wind...to make an aero bike have even decent ride quality compared to a more conventionally shaped bike, tremendous engineering has to go into the frame design.

In summary, the net result is almost always a slightly heavier frameset that is vertically stiffer than a conventional race frame because the frame sections are taller...and...an aero bike generally doesn't have quite the handling or out of the saddle power transfer of a conventional race bike because the narrower tube sections are more flexy.

I hope that makes sense.
Lastly, most that are serious about road cycling will not opt for an aero frame versus a conventional race frame and now many incorporating aero cues like the Tarmac and TCR...two of the greatest race bikes on the planet.

The reason is simply based upon the above. The 'feel' of a race versus aero frame is typically better because the engineers that design both are cheating the opposite spectrum of stiffness as with an aero frame.

Instead, you will still see top racers on Tarmacs and TCR's because the benefit of a non aero bike maybe perceived to still trump the aero benefit of an aero bike. Same for the amateur. This is particularly true if you put the same $2K aero carbon wheelset on both bikes. 80% of a bike/rider's drag coefficient is the rider. The other 20% is the bike...but...many aspects of the aerodynamics of modern race bikes versus aero bikes is the same. The net coef of drag between the two with the same aero wheelset is very very small. So many will pick a modern race versus aero frameset everyday to ride. If you own multiple bikes however, no foul in buying an aero bike, but they typically aren't as enjoyable to ride day in. Nor is a TT bike FWIW either which is an aero bike with more aggressive riding position.


PS: A last note and often lost in the discussion. What is comfort? Far and away the biggest influence on ride quality is tire width and tire pressure. This trumps frame stiffness in fact.

But there is more. What is the single most important aspect of comfort on a road bike? Rider fit to the bike is king. In fact, its the most important element in cycling. A cushy bike with a poor riding position will be more painful to ride than a stiff road bike with an excellent riding position. Generally for a weaker rider, too aggressive a position will cause pain. I will tell you what bike designers know. They understand this dynamic but not originally. When Specialized introduced the Roubaix over 10 years ago, it rode like a wet rag. It had no life and handling was poor. What did they do over the life of the bike? Stiffen it up to make it more race-able. Why if their market is comfort? Because fit is king, not frame stiffness as much. You can have your cake and eat it too. An endurance geometry that is Tarmac like in performance and stiffness for many including this rider is the sweet spot for many aging cyclists.

Whether you can ride slammed or more upright, fit matters more than frame stiffness and frame stiffness can be
tuned a bit with tire width and pressure.

Top riders in the classics still choose an endurance bike to race because of wheelbase and overall frame angles. But....they have custom geometries so they can ride more slammed to get out of the wind. They want their cake and eat it too.

redfooj

Personally speaking, even if the advertising pitch rings true and an "aero" bike is slightly faster than a "climbing" bike for the same rider, as i enjoy climbs more than flat sections, i would derive more personal value out of something that performs better on climbs.

What i actually care about and stravanalyze over are improved climb times. Even if overall completion time for a course is faster with aerobike, thats nonconsequential to me as a non-racer.

And also as a non-racer, looks/aesthetics, and pride of ownership is utmost.

If you think the Aeroad looks cool, and its proportions seem to fit, buy it. I think it looks absolutely spanking!

kydeadhead

Suprised no one has mentioned this, I guess due to this being an internet forum where we all love geeking out about equipment and shopping with other peoples money, but neither of the bikes you mentioned will be much different speed wise in the real world that a Record, Zipp404 equipped Litespeed, especially if your fit is already dialed in on it.

Doge

Think of the down tube being oval 3" by 1" in for aero properties. It is turned to cut the wind, so the wind sees 1". The vertical compliance is going to be *something* like having a 3" round tube. For shock absorbing you'd want it turned the other way. The road vibrations come through the fork blades and rear stays that are also oriented in a plane to be most aero and least vibration forgiving. The ride can be made nicer with less material.

Bah Humbug

It's been mentioned a number of times, including by the OP.

RPK79

Advanced age professional cycling may become a thing. It could be more enjoyable for the viewers if they can walk alongside the race and see it first hand from start to finish.

Doge

You will also ride farther on a non-aero design.

Specialized sells the Tarmac and the Aero Venge and the Roubaix frames. My kid has had the first two so I know those two well, and raced Roubaix (junior) on the Tarmac. The Roubaix frame is generally too complaint for racing.

Peter Sagan road to his 1st world championship on the Tarmac. Rather than being beaten up for 100 miles on a course that had some very bumpy sections, he chose (he had a choice between the Venge and Tarmac) the more compliant frame, and had plenty left to attack at the end.

So while this is not a thread about racing, the principles apply - maybe even more. At faster speeds than you will most likely ride* a less aero bike was chosen. It was selected because after many hours in the saddle the vibration fatigue builds up and makes you slower and less able to continue - as fast, or at all.

As sometime those near 60 want things that those half our age use, maybe to feel a bit like half our age. Speaking of me of course, not you..., I see more of the hot shot kids not selecting the most aero frames the mfg makes, but selecting the "ride-centric" ones.

*Some group rides, even those filled with old guys, average speeds in the high 20s. If the purpose of the bike is to ride full gas with the boys for 30 min or so, I think an aero bike is the better choice. I just didn't read that.

Doge

Maybe the spectators can be issued eBikes and just ride along.

jitteringjr

Its helpful no doubt to some readers that might not understand all this but before you write your next dissertation, did you realize that he said that he gets it?

redfooj

The principles dont apply if one doesnt ride 100+ miles on a single go.

and if we're throwing in pro examples that arent relevant, matt hayman chose to ride 160mi of one of the bumpiest race in paris roubaix on an aero bike... and he had "plenty left" to actually win the race.

in the end, the only thing that a pro and joe have in common is that joe can pretty much buy the bike that the pros ride. and whether it be the pro's aero bike, or the pro's non-aero bike, theres no legitimate rationale for one or the other.... certainly no more legitimate than simply selecting one on the basis of coolness.

jitteringjr

I don’t remember anyone advertising endurance versus aero road bike geometry in 2004 when I bought my Bianchi and I am not sure exactly when it became a 'thing'. What I do know is if I put my 2004 Bianchi next to my 2018 Canyon Aeroad, the bottom bracket is in the same place, the seat angle is the same, the seat height is the same. I have the same overall reach and drop to the handle bars although the Bianchi spans the distance with a 55cm top tube and a 11cm stem whereas the Canyon does it at 56cm and 10cm. So my position on the bike given the three points of contact are pretty much identical. I am not riding more aero that I have been for the past 14 years.

I have now gone on 2 rides on the new Aeroad and they have been my 3rd fastest and fastest times ever on a route I have been riding religiously for the past 12 years. Yesterday’s time was .4MPH faster than the previous PR for me. Now add to that that I am about a month from turning 46 and not putting out more power than in my mid 30’s and also that I broke 4 ribs in a crash 4 weeks ago and it still hurts to breath in. I am about 60% on the spirometer they gave me at the hospital compared to my healthy volume. I had to take a week off before I had the strength to ride at all and for the past 3 weeks I have been doing nothing but very easy recovery pace on the trainer. While I don’t have a power meter to be scientific about it, I can’t be putting out the same power now as when I was not injured. So I would say the bike is faster and it’s not because of the engine or the position of the engine on the bike.

I think the bike industry is just trying to sell more bikes by offering all these different geometries. Back in the day if we wanted a more relaxed position, we would just change the stem to give more raise or less reach or adjusted the spacers to raise the bars and called it a day. Both the Endurace and Aeroad come with 27.5mm of spacers on the fork tube. You could ride in a more aggressive position on the Endurace with a slammed stem than you would be riding on an Aeroad with the stem at the full raised position given their reach and head tube dimensions. I think if the OP wants to go with the Aeroad then try to pick one of the options that come with a separate stem and bar combo so it is easier to adjust riding position over time if needed. The integrated cockpit thing is cool but not at all flexible with the fit.

gt3racerich

Great info from everyone and I really appreciate it.
It seams that the replies are divided between going with my heart (Aeroad) and going with my head (Ultimate).
Without dragging this on I would like to ask to all that have an opinion:
Assuming I can get the exact same fit, which bike do you feel would be more comfortable for 50-75 miles.
My current 2000 Litespeed, size 51cm, stack 51.2, reach 37.0, head tube 9.2, top tube 53.5, wheelbase 95.5.
Aeroed, size xs, stack 50.9, reach 37.6, head tube 11.0, top tube 52.7, wheelbase 97.8.
I will add that my bike definitely feels stiff to me (but I am having no trouble doing the miles on it) but it is all I have ridden until recently test riding some standard road bikes. They felt great but I think a lot of that has to do with the tubeless wider tires.

jitteringjr

Specifically what models are you looking at? I spoke with their sales guys and found out the approximate deliveries of bikes they are out of stock in and when they expected them to come in. I was torn between the Aeroad CF SLX 9 and the Ultimate CF SLX 9, but the Ultimate wasn't expected until after Xmas. I was already leaning towards the aeroad, but not wanting to wait that long it clinched the deal for me. Let me know and I can give you specifics or better yet, call them and get more up to date details. They were supposed to have a record version of the Ultimate already here by now and its still not on their USA website. I guess that date was pushed back to mid December. It is the regular record with the Shamal wheel if you look at their international website and pricing was going to be like $7K.