Originally Posted by
genejockey
Because it's a larger frame. That's at least a 56. Apples to apples, dude.
Their bent elbows in the drops are more aerodynamic than your straight arms. You're exposing most of your arm to the wind, while their forearm is directly in line with the drops and the brifters.
The penny hasn't dropped for the good Prof yet.
It's 100F here and I'm about to jump in my pool - cycling training done earlier - but I'll write a long response because I'm bored. So please bear with.
As most of us know, aero road bikes are designed to allow riders to race 200+km over lumpy terrain and give the best combination of aero, weight and comfort. All three are important for road racing. Road racers cannot sustain extreme aero positions for long, lumpy races over different qualities of road surface with corners etc thrown in.
Road TT bikes are designed to be more aggressively aero than the typical aero road racing bike because they are raced over shorter, straighter, flat courses.
Triathlon TT bikes have the benefit of not been subject to strict UCI rules applicable to certain aero qualities, so they can be designed with zero limitations. Still, they are designed for generally flat routes rather than very lumpy or mountainous and can be very aggressive or mildly so or anything in-between to suit the route, distance etc. and the athlete's need for extra storage.
Track bikes are different again...here we have bikes designed for smooth, flat surfaces with no corners or obstacles to navigate. They have no gears, no brakes, sprinter's bikes will have very narrow handlebars and shorter crank arms for the steep banking sections of the velodrome.
But it is the track aero bikes for the TT's held on a velodrome that the good Prof, and his buddies bikes in the photo's he has presented, is trying to copy. He is trying to turn his road bike into an extreme track TT bike.
Now, some of the more extreme bikes we have seen there are bespoke for specific athletes and their physiques, forcing the most aggressive body position as can be sustained in a velodrome environment. They can vary too according to the distance required and what the athlete can sustain. Some famous ones, like the Lotus Type 108 that Chris Boardman rode, have been superseded by others that look less aero but are, in fact, more aero because back in those days, the preference was for aerofoil shapes whereas now, designers like Kammtail which works to present a longer aerofoil shape to the air, making them faster.
It seems clear to me that some of those bikes, like Boardman's, are where he is getting his inspiration. He is then presenting this as the way forward for road racing bikes which is utter nonsense. Road racing bikes are not TT machines. Modern road bikes are faster, lighter, stronger than they have ever been before. The Prof is trying to compare them though, with older TT bikes instead of comparing them with older road racing bikes. What a plonker!
It seems that he is also looking at bikes in pictures and not taking into account the physique of the riders it is sized for; their reach, leg length etc. Hence, they appear even more extreme but make sense when the rider they are designed for gets on it. Suddenly, the bike's geometry makes sense. But Prof here is taking an aggressive-looking aero TT bike picture and trying to mimic it with his road bike. Again, what a plonker!
The Prof isn't going any faster than he was before. He just thinks he is.
He also has this weird notion that road bikes designed for comfort are a cause of obesity, leading to death. What a twit!
Adopting an extreme aero position does not equate to more kcal's being used, does not equate to a better exercise. I ride 2-5hrs, 6x a week. I'll be doing more actual aero work than he does in time terms per week when I'm training and doing that kind of work. I'll also be doing a lot of easy comfort riding and everything else in-between - none of this is extending my life or saving it.
The Prof has a major thing for obesity - he should be praising anyone who rides a bike, no matter what, or how. It is all exercise. But he seems to want to bring a bike's design into it. He should get off his bum, and go to The Netherlands, Belgium or Denmark, where the most common bikes by far are commuter, non-aero bikes. The populations of those countries are comparatively healthy compared to many. They ride their bikes a lot. Exercise. It has nothing to do with what type of bike.
Obese people are fat because they eat too much. (I'm generalising to make a point - I know this isn't true in every case). I went from athlete to obese couch-potato and back to athlete - BMI 20, then 30 and now 22.5. So I know the process. I've done the weight-loss thing. You know what bike I used to help me lose weight? An MTB e-bike. 50km per day for 3 months and a diet. Lost 21kg. I'm only 64kg so that is a 3rd! No aero bike used. No aggressive aero position. Wow, this Prof needs to lay off that Sake!
Anyway, that's me out of this Thread, it has been funny to read, always interesting to see how others think, however bizarre. Enjoy your cycling!
