---

---

I sincerely hope people think just like you do. I will continue to ride my Felt AR ... see you at the finish.

---

"4 wheels move the body, 2 wheels move the soul"

Lets just hope others do not see the new position studies done where riding the hoods is faster than riding the drops. But then again I know someone on this thread that would disagree with that as well.

Ride Faster Instantly

Yeah...but did you see that drops position with the straight locked arms? Oy vey...

My take on that test is it was a good argument for generally higher bars (so arms are bent in the drops with same torso position).

"Bend your arms, dammit!" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

If the center position in the top picture counts as "in the drops" then sure. Based on my n=1 I'd say the proper way to do so would also be with your elbows more bent and that position should be at least about equal to bent elbows on the hoods.

Beat me to it. Exactly.

And downhill.

---

------------------

- I do all my own stunts

You got me.

I agree with you 100% and was thinking the same thing when I read the article. If you could use the drops with the horizontal arm position that would be better. Now put that position on a bike that is aero and you are doing better than a bike that is not aero.

Plus, with an aero road bar ;-) ...of course, it would also help if someone made an aero road bar with a "standard drop". All this compact drop stuff is maddening :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

compact drop is cool if you're 5'8, and a 51cm size bike looks much better if the drops don't overlap the front wheel. aesthetics are important :-)

I would think that the 0.4 kph difference in favor of the "aero bike" could be attributed to the wheels. The test would then indicate that there is no difference between the two framesets.

If you take into account how un aero standard bike frames are - some have incredibly fat tubes which make the bike less aero than a 1960s / 1980s steel frame - then the savings of an aero frame are a must. I have seen a test where an old steel frame was compared to an aero frame in a wind tunnel, same wheels same position, and the aero frame was about a minute faster over 40k than the steel frame. Now think how a fat carbon non aero frame would be even slower than the thin steel frame.

I will try to find the link.

When you get to my age you realise that bike frames have been getting stiffer particularly around the bottom bracket by about 5% every year since about 1970. Those old steel bikes must have been incredibly floppy.

The tyre pressure and position on the bike is what you can feel on a bike more than anything else.

Here is the link.

Same rider same wheels.

Watch it then think how un aero a fat tubed non aero frame must be.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XE_GKePa3CQ

A lot of the difference could be from the fork and handlebars...

I'm not the resident expert, but I think what you are missing is that a, say, 16 pound aero road bike will almost always be faster than a 13 pound non-aero road bike, -including- on courses that have lots of hills. And the same applies to wheels, heavier aero is faster than shallow light weight wheels. The weight just doesn't matter as much as marketing would lead you to believe.

Even Cervelo used to have a write-up on their sit a while back explaining that their heavier aero road bike was always faster than their more expensive super light non-aero frames, except for situations like time trialing up Alp D'huez, etc.
Cheers

little bit here, little bit there.
grab ALL THE BITS

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Thanks for sharing.

I remember seeing someone on this forum, possibly Damon Rinard, saying that some of the new non-aero bikes, including one from Giant I think, tested among the slowest bikes they ever tested. Really I don't understand why not have an aero bike especially if it is equivalent weight. I know Canyon for example makes their Aeroad bike ranging from just above to just below 7 kg, including aero wheels, so with "climbing wheels" the bikes would weigh the same as any of the uci legal "climbing bikes".

With the UCI you have a minimum weight a bike can weigh. If you can only get a bike down to 6800g then why not have the most aero 6800g bike that you can have. For those that do not have to follow such rules, then you can still have a bike that is lighter and aero. I thought the article was funny because these days, a "climbing bike" and a "light bike" CAN be the same bike.

There are a lot of options out there right now for AERO bikes that could be built up very light. I do not even have the lightest version of SLC that Cervelo made so moving to the lighter version frame, changing out my wheels for tubulars and making some lighter component changes that moves the bike into the 11 lbs range. I am sure that would classify the bike in regards to weight as a climbing bike. Then you still have to cheat the wind as much as possible until you hit the tipping point while climbing. You still have to get to the climb as fast as possible and you still have to go down the backside (unless you finish at the top).

Specialized did a test on positions for descending and they found that there was a 7-8 kph difference in position choices and couple that with descending on an aero bike vs a non aero bike and you could have the difference of close to 10 kph. So if I descend on an aero road bike in the most aero tuck position I can be dong 80 kph instead of 70 kph which I am more than happy with.

This. Exactly my thoughts.

There we go...that's more like it. I think I would need to try those down sloping tops sections though to see if that would work for me...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Why not? Well, for a LOT of people, pros included, their perception is that aero bikes just aren't light enough, are too stiff in the rear! and too flexy torsionally. I'm convinced that most of those perceptions are actually just visual. People are funny...


Taylor Phinney says "Hello" to you from Santa Barabara ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Hi Richard,

Exactly. Since the days of steel frames, bikes have gotten both better ... and worse!

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

I am convinced that an aero bike will be faster- for climbing and everything else.
Just need to find the right aero bike.
If the S5 turns out to ride as nicely as the S3 (old S5 did not), I will get an S5.
If not, I will get an S3.
I am actually hoping for the S5 as the new geometry will fit me better than current S3 geometry.
Damon? Any idea how the S5 and S3 stack up in terms of ride quality?
Either way I will be riding faster-