Originally Posted by Jughed

Watts per CDA ratio. Lower watts/slower riders benefit more, in terms of % of the power you are riding at, than a faster rider. Say for example 10w savings at 200w vs 15w savings at 400w. The faster rider saves more watts, but less in terms of % of overall.

Same for rolling resistance, drivetrain resistance... even weight.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

In simple terms it is because the reduction in aero drag from the bike is a larger percentage of the amateur rider’s total power output. The absolute aero drag is lower because of the lower speed, but they are exposed to the air for a longer period of time over the same course.

So when all the numbers are crunched it is actually the amateurs who stand to win the most time gain from their aero bikes.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...wouldn't that translate into the faster guy "taking full advantage" of the design ? By about 5 W in your hypothetical example ?



...I think you've redefined what I was talking about. But I don't want to pursue it in another discussion about semantics. The professional rider has a number of aero advantages, not least of them training and ability to hold better body position. Which is separate from the bike design, as an issue. And which everyone agrees is a greater factor in drag dynamics. But thank you for the explanation.

I remain unconvinced that these aero frames, designed primarily with professional racing in mind, where overcoming drag at higher speeds means winning or losing, are of greater benefit to an amateur, who is not highly trained and able to hold positions that accompany the aerodynamic frame's savings in drag. This might be moving the goal post on my part. I'll cop to that in advance.

Regardless, the idea that, somehow, slower riders are benefitting more from aero frame and wheel designs as a percentage of their total effort is intriguing. As a percentage of their total effort...I just don't see it as the explanation I was looking for. As you said, it is not intuitive. "Full advantage" is probably too tenuous a concept, in terms of aerodynamics in cycling, Which is a hard topic to define. https://link.springer.com/article/10...283-017-0234-1

Most of the literature is not structured in "time over a course" results, but rather momentary analyses. I admit I have been taken in by all the hype about how modern materials and aerodynamic design have revolutionized the sport. I've never really thought about it revolutionizing the pastime at lesser athletic levels.

Originally Posted by Trakhak

In what way were those Campy Record or Chorus rim brakes lacking? I've seen them but never used them.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...wouldn't that translate into the faster guy "taking full advantage" of the design ? By about 5 W in your hypothetical example ?



...I think you've redefined what I was talking about. But I don't want to pursue it in another discussion about semantics. The professional rider has a number of aero advantages, not least of them training and ability to hold better body position. Which is separate from the bike design, as an issue. And which everyone agrees is a greater factor in drag dynamics. But thank you for the explanation.

I remain unconvinced that these aero frames, designed primarily with professional racing in mind, where overcoming drag at higher speeds means winning or losing, are of greater benefit to an amateur, who is not highly trained and able to hold positions that accompany the aerodynamic frame's savings in drag. This might be moving the goal post on my part. I'll cop to that in advance.

Regardless, the idea that, somehow, slower riders are benefitting more from aero frame and wheel designs as a percentage of their total effort is intriguing. As a percentage of their total effort...I just don't see it as the explanation I was looking for. As you said, it is not intuitive. "Full advantage" is probably too tenuous a concept, in terms of aerodynamics in cycling, Which is a hard topic to define. https://link.springer.com/article/10...283-017-0234-1

Most of the literature is not structured in "time over a course" results, but rather momentary analyses. I admit I have been taken in by all the hype about how modern materials and aerodynamic design have revolutionized the sport. I've never really thought about it revolutionizing the pastime at lesser athletic levels.

Originally Posted by Eric F

Based on my current experience with the 11s Campy Record on my Storck, compared with many years of experience with Ultegra and Dura-Ace on many other bikes...Campy brakes are pretty mediocre.

"Campagnolo is built for winning. If you're stopping, you're not winning. Campagnolo brakes are only for speed adjustment, not stopping." - Tulio Campagnolo (maybe)

Originally Posted by Eric F

Based on my current experience with the 11s Campy Record on my Storck, compared with many years of experience with Ultegra and Dura-Ace on many other bikes...Campy brakes are pretty mediocre.

"Campagnolo is built for winning. If you're stopping, you're not winning. Campagnolo brakes are only for speed adjustment, not stopping." - Tulio Campagnolo (maybe)

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Whether or not lesser riders choose to take advantage of a more aero bike depends entirely on their personal goals. But there is no requirement to be a pro rider in order to realise their full advantage. You stated earlier that only pro riders really benefit from an aero bike because they ride faster, but this is not actually true as I have explained. This is just factual information, no semantics. There is no point in debating the importance of winning and losing to pros vs amateur riders. The equipment still benefits all levels of rider.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Whether or not lesser riders choose to take advantage of a more aero bike depends entirely on their personal goals. But there is no requirement to be a pro rider in order to realise their full advantage. You stated earlier that only pro riders really benefit from an aero bike because they ride faster, but this is not actually true as I have explained. This is just factual information, no semantics. There is no point in debating the importance of winning and losing to pros vs amateur riders. The equipment still benefits all levels of rider.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Whether or not lesser riders choose to take advantage of a more aero bike depends entirely on their personal goals. But there is no requirement to be a pro rider in order to realise their full advantage. You stated earlier that only pro riders really benefit from an aero bike because they ride faster, but this is not actually true as I have explained. This is just factual information, no semantics. There is no point in debating the importance of winning and losing to pros vs amateur riders. The equipment still benefits all levels of rider.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...for the moment, let's pretend you are actually open to discussion on this topic, and not simply trying to get into another long semantic argument...semantic argument seems to be your comfort zone.

A full race bike frame is designed with people in mind, who push them along at regular speeds of 25-28mph. Thus the "stiffer" frame, more aggressive geometry, and the aero profiling features on frame and wheels. There are several elements that come into play, when I say you're not going to take "full advantage" of such a bicycle. One is that you're not strong enough for the stiffer frame to matter much for your power input. they are laterally stiff, and vertically not nearly compliant enough for mere humans going any distance.

More important is that you're going along at slower speeds than the cat 1 racer crowd. So taking "full advantage" of the aero profiles is dubious, at best. But certainly given your abilities (as an older rider, at whatever level of the sport you now enjoy), you can buy some performance advantages at the bike store. If it makes you feel any less put upon, I can't take full advantage of my steel full race frames, either. I know this because I've ridden some of them, on and off, for the past 20-25 years, and I know what I could do on them, versus what I can do on them now, similarly equipped.

But I can still "appreciate" them, for what they are. And I can still ride on them. How you've managed to concoct a semantic argument that equates "appreciate" with "take full advantage" (in use), is a mystery to me, but it must make sense to you. Like I said, semantic argument seems to be your comfort zone. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to follow the logic chain on this one.

So no, you (an old racer) "going faster" is not taking "full advantage" of the top end race bike we're discussing...the expensive ones. But your argument on this will always return to your starting point, which is price is not that big a deal to you, and you want the "best" bicycle that suits your supposed needs. If "going faster" is one of those needs, which apparently it is, then anything that might help some is worth a try...you have discretionary funding for whatever appeals to you.

You want to measure it. OK, let me know when you can hang with the Cat 1-2 guys in your local scene, then get back to me. I concede those guys are probably able to use such a bike to full advantage, even if they're not racing professionally.
...

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

I won't even stop to address the idea of a strawman here. But you'd do well to be more careful with your quotes, because it triggers some of the people in here.

I do find it quite fascinating that the same guys who push this stuff as "better", even though they ride at slower speeds, and presumably mostly for exercise value, can get so twisted around on the topic that even the slowest among us will derive a benefit from using it, proportional to cost. Thanks for that idea. It explains a lot.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Who is pushing this stuff? I’m just saying it is faster if you want to go faster. It doesn’t matter what motives people may have or how strong they are.

The more you keep digging a hole, the more obvious it is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

....and it's faster if you want to go slower, apparently. Telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about, railing about the hole I'm digging...misquoting me with a strawman and refusing to respond to what I actually wrote ? This is typical of people who have an agenda. Yours is mysterious. You don't ride a full race road bike, by your own statement in that regard. But you refuse to acknowledge that maybe what I wrote was in regard to just that sort of bike, not to aerodynamic improvements in general.

I think you once had me on ignore, and you've certainly characterized me as a "space cadet troll".

Declarative arguments are not the same as actual discussion with the idea of exchanging information. So I guess you win whatever you win here. I hope it's worthy of your time. You get the last at bat, because I'm unlikely to respond. They don't want the refugees to get too uppity in here.

Edit: Oh yeah, the idea that someone who spends more time on the course is "taking full advantage" of his pro race bike will probably be a great defense the next time someone gets cut from a professional team. They can use this thread as a reference.

Originally Posted by genejockey

You know, just on the stiffness angle, the idea that race bikes are "not nearly compliant enough for mere humans going any distance" strikes me as funny, since (based on observing thousands of fellow recreational cyclists over several decades) most non-racers are substantially heavier than World Tour pros, and you know who needs a stiffer bike? Us heavier folk. You wouldn't use the same spring rates for a 3000 lb car as for a 5000 lb car, now would you?

Originally Posted by Koyote

I am growing even more concerned about you. All of this spinning must be making you quite dizzy. Please don’t fall down and hit your head. If you did that, then you might follow up with something really crazy – like admitting that you’re wrong.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

....and it's faster if you want to go slower, apparently. Telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about, railing about the hole I'm digging...misquoting me with a strawman and refusing to respond to what I actually wrote ? This is typical of people who have an agenda. Yours is mysterious. You don't ride a full race road bike, by your own statement in that regard. But you refuse to acknowledge that maybe what I wrote was in regard to just that sort of bike, not to aerodynamic improvements in general.

I think you once had me on ignore, and you've certainly characterized me as a "space cadet troll".

Declarative arguments are not the same as actual discussion with the idea of exchanging information. So I guess you win whatever you win here. I hope it's worthy of your time. You get the last at bat, because I'm unlikely to respond. They don't want the refugees to get too uppity in here.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...why do you like the Canyon ? Is it because you only weigh in at 140 # ?

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

Edit: Oh yeah, the idea that someone who spends more time on the course is "taking full advantage" of his pro race bike will probably be a great defense the next time someone gets cut from a professional team. They can use this thread as a reference.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

This is the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Spectacularly missing the point.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

To be honest I’ve long since lost track of any reasoning behind your posts, including this one. I have no idea what I am refusing to acknowledge, but you change tack in every waffling post, so I could have easily missed it. I don’t care whether or not you respond either. It might save time if you don’t.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

This is the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Spectacularly missing the point.

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged

It's unfortunate that the discussion regarding the reasons behind the high cost of newer top-tier bikes is ending poorly. This could have been an interesting conversation about how this trend applies to many high-end consumer goods. Are manufacturers profiting from these top-end products, or are they considered more as Halo Products that don't generate revenue? For instance, given the costs associated with the S Works brand within Specialized, is it a profit center within the company once all the costs are apportioned?

Just another thread killed by bulk argumentative posts which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...so why go into this digression ? You and I both know it's in hope of finding something else you can tease out of my reply to use as another avenue of attack. Why not just find another outlet ?

Originally Posted by Koyote

I am growing even more concerned about you. All of this spinning must be making you quite dizzy. Please don’t fall down and hit your head. If you did that, then you might follow up with something really crazy – like admitting that you’re wrong.

Originally Posted by Koyote

The day's not over yet. Just wait.

Originally Posted by genejockey

Ending? "I have not yet begun to fight!"