Originally Posted by
genejockey
One salient fact about aerodynamics that I haven't seen addressed is how SMALL a factor it is for most amateur riders.
The article on the CdA and position that has now been posted at least twice shows it takes an additional 35w to ride on the hoods, vs riding "aero hoods". But that's at 27 mph. Who rides at that speed? Not me!! I took a little trip over to bikecalculator.com, and input my weight(203 lbs), the average weight of my bikes (20 lbs), and a speed of 27 mph (45 kph). How much power do I have to put out to go that fast?
489w! That's nearly twice my FTP.
Now, let's say I get nice and low, go aero hoods, flat back and all. Subtract those 35w. 453w. An improvement, but hardly much. So, what about 18 mph (30 kph)?
168w. I can do that for a long time.
That's on the hoods, though. What about aero hoods, one of the most aerodynamic positions in the article? Well, it says the difference at 18 mph is 10.4w, so 158w. Significant, but not huge. SO, I don't buy that any novice cyclist is out there on the road and feeling discouraged because he can only average 18 mph, and if he could only do aero hoods all the time, he'd go 18.4 mph.
this is all so true - the discussion around every last bit of aero (even big bits of aero!) doesn’t make a huge difference at the speeds most of us cruise. my flat-ground comfy cruising rate is maybe 20mph. i wouldn’t mind going 2 mph faster, but doing so by riding on the drops or aerobars all the time, wearing a skinsuit, an aero bike, deep wheels would be cool but not worth the hassle, discomfort, cost, etc. obviously, if one were competing it would be. that 10% speed on unbroken flats would translate to maybe 3-4% more speed on the overall ride, because hills, downhills, stops and starts, traffic….