Steve B.

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.

seau grateau

You're not wrong.

RedBullFiXX

I believe GCN did a Swiss Side episode worth watching
Apparently slower riders gain more from Aero due in part to the "sail" effect

terrymorse 

A colleague’s Scott Foil is both light and aero. With carbon tubular wheels, it’s less than 14 lbs.

Seattle Forrest

You have to overcome air resistance walking at 2 mph. It's an insignificant part of the work of walking, but still must happen. On a bike at 10 mph, there's even more.

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.

colnago62

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.

DrIsotope

Ride them both. And not just around the parking lot. Bring your pedals and shoes, ride each one for 10 or 15 minutes at least. You'll know which one you prefer.

When choosing between a Cervelo S3 (aero) and an R3 (lightweight,) it was the R3. It spoke to me.

Kimmo 

I'm reminded of an old Greek turtle.

rivers

Ride them both and buy the one which brings the biggest smile to your face

MyTi

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.

colnago62

The best bang for the buck, a skin suit

WhyFi

Which one is going to make you want to ride more?

Seattle Forrest

Mobile version of this site needs a like button.

Seattle Forrest

I read that aliens built the pyramids.

But they probably had fake Stravas.

asgelle

Wheels, frame, helmet, clothes each give about the same advantage comparing best to worst. https://cyclingtips.com/2019/07/nerd...s-made-simple/

jsigone

aero and more aero

Flatballer

You have to keep two very important things in mind whenever you're looking at what the pros are riding.

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.

firebird854

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.

asgelle

Listen to the podcast linked on Post 39.

rubiksoval

What's special about 18 mph? Do you feel any difference in a 10 mph headwind versus a 10 mph tailwind?

rubiksoval

Well, yeah, he is. And so are you. Twice.

Noctilux.95

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.

sour

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.

Steve B.

The comment was "up over 17-18 mph or so". Nothing special, it's what I recall from the early days of aero bar use when triathletes were starting to use the clip-on variations on standard road bikes as an attempt to gain some free speed without investing in a dedicated TT bike. It seemed common experiences were the faster you tried to go, the more you fought the wind and that speed area seemed to be the point were a clip-on was going to be advantageous, below that not so much. Much has changed in the ensuing 25 years to modify this "theory".

Kimmo 

I tick a 'view desktop version' box on my phone's browser, and just zoom into the left panel on the index page.