Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Darren325] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Darren325 wrote:

The other point I would make is this. According to the report, the S5 is absolutely the fastest bike in the test protocol. I do not dispute that at all. BUT....and I do not know the answer to this....would the S5 really be the fastest? As we know, the previous generation S5 was not very stiff in the front end...

BS. The torsional stiffness of the S5 is GREATER THAN the original S3, a frame that was "stiff enough" to win a World Championship AND a TdF Green Jersey.

If the stiffness of the front end of an S5 is "holding you back", you're doing something wrong...seriously :-/


Darren325 wrote:
would that mean even an elite rider would not be able to ride the frame to its fastest speed on a descent because he also needs the bike to hold a line through a curve?

Categorically no. See Jack's Thor example above.


Darren325 wrote:
I'm not expert; but I do notice the riders on Garmin-Sharp must think a little like me...they generally do not ride the "fastest" bike...they rode the S3 and the R5. Why? They are just stuck in their old ways or are other factors at work? This is an honest question and I'm not on my soap box here!

Those other factors can be distilled down to visual perceptions and psychological effects. Again, seriously. There are many reports that indicate this is so...

Besides, pro riders aren't necessarily hired for their logic/critical thinking abilities ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is becoming tiring, I think I made my point. You don't know the contribution that each of the differences between testing on the road and on the rollers has on the difference in Crr values. It could be that frame stiffness played a role.

Correlation between tire models doesn't have any importance. Correlation of the shift of Crr values between different bikes is what matters here.

http://cds-0.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Epic-o wrote:
This is becoming tiring, I think I made my point. You don't know the contribution that each of the differences between testing on the road and on the rollers has on the difference in Crr values. It could be that frame stiffness played a role.

Correlation between tire models doesn't have any importance. Correlation of the shift of Crr values between different bikes is what matters here.

You got me curious, so I reanalyzed all of my data to see if I could ferret out any difference. Here are the Crr results:

1. Bontrager Aerowing TT F & R

on P2T (n=3): 0.0035 +/- 0.0001
on P3T (n=1): 0.0038

2. Veloflex Record F & R

on P2T (n=1): 0.0032
on P3T (n=5): 0.0035 +/- 0.0004

3. Veloflex Record F, Tufo S3 Pro R

on Javelin Arcole (n=2): 0.0043 +/- 0.0001
on P2T (n=1): 0.0052

So for the 1st two sets of tires, Crr was slightly lower when I tested using the P2T than when I tested using the P3T. For the 3rd set of tires, however, Crr came out higher when testing using the P2T vs. a Javelin Arcole. The samples sizes and differences are small, however, so I'm not sure much can be drawn from this analysis.
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom,

Are you referencing the latest Gen S3/S2? If so, it's the same mold? Why S2 w/aero wheels and S3 Ult (no mention of aero wheels)?

I'm sure this has been covered but has Cervelo released empirical data around the lastest iteration of the S3/S2 vs say last gen S3/S2?
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [juha-pdx] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
juha-pdx wrote:
Tom,

Are you referencing the latest Gen S3/S2? If so, it's the same mold? Why S2 w/aero wheels and S3 Ult (no mention of aero wheels)?

I'm sure this has been covered but has Cervelo released empirical data around the lastest iteration of the S3/S2 vs say last gen S3/S2?

Because he stated a budget of $5000. S3 has a different fork and UDi2 at that level IIRC. Good point though, 1&2 on that list should probably be swapped on a "bang for the buck" basis.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How do those results change if you compensate for ambient temps?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is it safe to assume that any watt savings difference from a road bike vs. an aero road bike would be the same for a 120lb rider vs a 180lb rider both with a 4.0 w/kg FTP ? Or is it exponential math of absolute watts or absolute speed that dictates the watt differences ?
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [cobalt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The watts savings is a function of speed.
So on the flats the 180lbs rider might save more watts, as he will likely be a bit faster. On the hills, about the same.



cobalt wrote:
Is it safe to assume that any watt savings difference from a road bike vs. an aero road bike would be the same for a 120lb rider vs a 180lb rider both with a 4.0 w/kg FTP ? Or is it exponential math of absolute watts or absolute speed that dictates the watt differences ?



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
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:


Categorically no. See Jack's Thor example above.

Besides, pro riders aren't necessarily hired for their logic/critical thinking abilities ;-)


Thor is a great example of a rider who wasn't hired for his thinking ability. In 2010 he said he had never seen drugs in cycling and he was shocked when Armstrong confessed to doping. Really Thor?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hushovd-i-have-never-seen-drugs-in-cycling




Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Epic-o wrote:
Watt Matters wrote:
I did. It still doesn't answer the question as to why it shouldn't, when in fact it does.


Crr on smooth rollers should be quite different to Crr in field testing due to the effect of normal load fluctuations and road roughness
You've misunderstood. Of course the Crr on road is higher than on smooth rollers, no one has said otherwise.

However a tire that tests better than another on the rollers will also test better on the road.

e.g.
Roller testing shows tire A > tire B by X%
Road field testing also shows tire A > tire B by X%

IOW one can translate the relative performance of roller testing to real world usage.
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
Darren325 wrote:

The other point I would make is this. According to the report, the S5 is absolutely the fastest bike in the test protocol. I do not dispute that at all. BUT....and I do not know the answer to this....would the S5 really be the fastest? As we know, the previous generation S5 was not very stiff in the front end...


BS. The torsional stiffness of the S5 is GREATER THAN the original S3, a frame that was "stiff enough" to win a World Championship AND a TdF Green Jersey.

If the stiffness of the front end of an S5 is "holding you back", you're doing something wrong...seriously :-/


Darren325 wrote:
would that mean even an elite rider would not be able to ride the frame to its fastest speed on a descent because he also needs the bike to hold a line through a curve?


Categorically no. See Jack's Thor example above.


Darren325 wrote:
I'm not expert; but I do notice the riders on Garmin-Sharp must think a little like me...they generally do not ride the "fastest" bike...they rode the S3 and the R5. Why? They are just stuck in their old ways or are other factors at work? This is an honest question and I'm not on my soap box here!


Those other factors can be distilled down to visual perceptions and psychological effects. Again, seriously. There are many reports that indicate this is so...

Besides, pro riders aren't necessarily hired for their logic/critical thinking abilities ;-)

Hi Tom,

I'm not so sure I agree. The Tour article I referred to explicitly calls out the Cervelo on its "relatively low stability." In addition, in the new S5, Cervelo's marketing team goes to great length to point out the increase in stiffness in the new frame. Those two pieces of information does suggest the feedback Cervelo was getting from its pro riders were for greater stiffness, whether that stiffness simply contributed to "feel" or "speed" or both, I am not sure.

The fact that an elite rider can win with a frame is a vindication of the rider, not always the frame. Also, I don't know how technical the descent referenced was...at those speeds I might imagine it was a straight shot...but as a triathlete and father, not a professional GC rider, I do not have the balls to descend at anything like those speeds given the inherent risks! Big respect for the riders who make that look easy!. (which does demonstrate your point...aren't necessarily hired for their critical thinking skiils)!!

In addition, bike performance is all relative. I think we can all agree that an average carbon frame sold in 2014 would blow the doors off the most expensive racing frame built in the 90s in terms of stiffness, aero, and weight. So the fact the S5 is stiffer than the previous S3 is normal, but not indicative that in today's market, the S5 is stiff enough. And given that Cervelo further stiffened the new S5 frame over the version in the Tour test I have referenced, they obviously saw advantages for doing so. In the end, Tour came down to the same two frames I did in my search for a road bike to replace my Foil Team issue that balanced aero and comfort: the R5 and the Addict SL. Would have been super happy on either bike, but I could get the addict for a whole lot less...and that adds comfort and speed to my wallet! :)
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Darren325] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Darren325 wrote:

Hi Tom,

I'm not so sure I agree. The Tour article I referred to explicitly calls out the Cervelo on its "relatively low stability." In addition, in the new S5, Cervelo's marketing team goes to great length to point out the increase in stiffness in the new frame. Those two pieces of information does suggest the feedback Cervelo was getting from its pro riders were for greater stiffness, whether that stiffness simply contributed to "feel" or "speed" or both, I am not sure.

Please name me a new version of a bike that isn't touted as being "stiffer"? That is standard marketing talk for every new bike no? So I don't think this proves anything. Maybe you are correct, but pointing out the bolded section above as proof seems weak.
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Darren325] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Darren325 wrote:

I'm not so sure I agree. The Tour article I referred to explicitly calls out the Cervelo on its "relatively low stability."

And that opinion is based merely on values from their torsion rig testing, which has a problem with its boundary conditions. It's pretty clear to see that the Tour torsion test doesn't reflect actual usage and loading.


Darren325 wrote:
In addition, in the new S5, Cervelo's marketing team goes to great length to point out the increase in stiffness in the new frame. Those two pieces of information does suggest the feedback Cervelo was getting from its pro riders were for greater stiffness, whether that stiffness simply contributed to "feel" or "speed" or both, I am not sure.

The fact that an elite rider can win with a frame is a vindication of the rider, not always the frame. Also, I don't know how technical the descent referenced was...at those speeds I might imagine it was a straight shot...but as a triathlete and father, not a professional GC rider, I do not have the balls to descend at anything like those speeds given the inherent risks! Big respect for the riders who make that look easy!. (which does demonstrate your point...aren't necessarily hired for their critical thinking skiils)!!

In addition, bike performance is all relative. I think we can all agree that an average carbon frame sold in 2014 would blow the doors off the most expensive racing frame built in the 90s in terms of stiffness, aero, and weight. So the fact the S5 is stiffer than the previous S3 is normal, but not indicative that in today's market, the S5 is stiff enough. And given that Cervelo further stiffened the new S5 frame over the version in the Tour test I have referenced, they obviously saw advantages for doing so. In the end, Tour came down to the same two frames I did in my search for a road bike to replace my Foil Team issue that balanced aero and comfort: the R5 and the Addict SL. Would have been super happy on either bike, but I could get the addict for a whole lot less...and that adds comfort and speed to my wallet! :)

Yeah, it's too bad that due to faulty tests like the Tour rig and false assumptions by riders that Cervelo has to play the "torsional stiffness" marketing games with everyone else :-/

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [uo5nVEtj9] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
uo5nVEtj9 wrote:
Anachronism wrote:
davidalone wrote:

+1. you make no effort to normalise the power at which everyone was riding. Roadies attack on hills to drop people, not riding steady state. in fact even if you're riding normally it's quite common to have power go up when riding uphill.


This is exactly my point, on a group ride/race it is easy to keep up on the flats when riding in a pack with or without the added advantage of an aero bike. On the hills where the pace is pushed the advantage goes to the lighter bike.


What races are you doing?

Ever been attacked (or have you ever attacked) at 50 km/h in a crosswind? That aero bike will make a difference. When you're biting your stem in a gutter you'll know just how much power gets pushed on the flats.

Ever been attacked (or have you ever attacked) at 75 km/h on a downhill? That aero bike makes a difference.

And at 20 km/h uphill the aero might make a difference too, but significantly less. However, even if you only save 5 watts, you're now saving 5 watts for 20 minutes.
davidalone wrote:
sigh. no no no no no.

If someone rides 400 watts on the flats or the hill, its going to be tough for you to keep up either way. you made no mention of what power people were putting out on the flat or the hill. if in your group ride people were ambling along at 200 watts and then suddenly went off at 400 watts of course you'd be dropped on the hill and find it harder- in fact it's very common! the aero bike or the light bike is not going to help you with 200 watts either way! get a powermeter and ride in your next group ride. I guarunteee you the power ramps up once you hit any hill.

seems you don't exactly how aero works, so this is a VERY SIMPLIFIED analogy

an aero bike might save you somewhere around 10 watts ( comparing best and worst) at say 40kph. drag squares with speed, so a doubling in speed gives 4 times more drag. at 20kph you would be saving somewhere around 3-4 watts ( comparing best to worst). maybe. aero is always 'on', even if you're drafting. the wats savings are slightly less, but it's there.

so say you have an identical twin riding with you in a race. you're on the light but absolutely un-aero bike. he's on the aero bike. you're both in the same race.
Now let's say the race is 'on' with lots of attacking going on around 40-45kph. you see this at critical points in races- just before a decisive corner, hill, the finish line etc. suppose 20% of race time is spent when the race is 'on' . in a 3 hour race thats about ten minutes your twin is pushing ten watts less than what you need to keep up to the peloton's speed. 10 minutes at 10 watts above your FTP could be enough to cook you, while ten minutes at FTP is pretty much sustainable if you have the fitness.

An aero bike won't automatically make you a winner but it can make those 'hard' moments just abit easier, and saves you energy so that you're fresher at the critical moments.
I probably should have mentioned I am not a top 1%er like most of the posters here seem to be (ambling along at 200 watts?). I don't have a power meter and it's not in the budget anytime soon but I am definitely not sustaining anything near 400 watts - probably more like 200-250.

I do almost exclusively triathlons and my local club time trial. I usually average 22-23mph on a sprint tri and 20-21 at a Half distance on my cervelo P2 and I don't worry that much about weight. At one local sprint tri my bike split was 30th out of 500 with some decent competition.

I do have a pretty good understanding of aerodynamics, I can see the case of a strong crosswind negating much of the advantage of drafting but in most cases, in my experience and from what I have read, the benefit of drafting is huge. Obviously if someone is massively stronger than you they will get away but I have had no problem sticking with riders who are a little stronger than me on the flats on the group rides I have done.

I will have to take the word of more experienced riders that an aero frame helps in group ride/ draft legal races but I am curious how this transfers over to riders of lower ability. If the weight difference is less than a pound I can easily see the balance being tipped for the aero bike assuming other factors where also close. That three pound figure was put out by someone other than me.

As far as descending I am always one of the fastest guys on my tri bike or non aero road bike. I often pick up a few spots on long descents at hilly tris and I have a few KOMs on descents including a segment into Keene at IMLP.
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Anachronism] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It is difficult to have a good understanding of aerodynamics in cycling if you also don't use power. They are linked because with a powermeter you can actually do quite accurate field testing of equipment and see the difference it makes. This makes it far easier to spot any spurious marketing claims from bike companies. THe argument of aero vs weight has been well modelled and studied. cervelo and flo have published data with that regards- and the advantage is massively in favour of aero.

most of us are 'ambling' along at 200 -250 watts in our rides most of the time. ( protour races average 230-250 watts over 6 hours, and can then put out 1000 watt sprints at the end. if you can do that for 6 hours hey you may have a shot at being a pro) power is linked to how much muscle mass and fitness you have, so 200W for a 50kg woman on a relative scale may be more of an effort than 200W for a 90kg man. Most riders can easily put out 400 watts- its just how long you can stay there.
a
the fact is drag is drag. it doesn't matter if you're a pro or an amateur, you're still riding through the air. you may not be racing along at an average speed of 42 km/h, like the pros do, but every second you spend riding that aero bike is making it more effecient to keep up to that certain speed.

Is the aero bike for everyone? probably not. if you can't get a good fit on it, another bike that gets you lower ( and maybe even less drag!) may be a better idea. but that's unlikely given the amount of options out there. if you can't afford one, then obviously not ( but there are cheaper options out there.) if you don't race, or don't like riding fast in groups, then mechanical simplicity of a standard bike is nice, and there are plenty of nice non-aero bikes out there.

But if you race, at any level, and are buying a bike to do so, and can afford one- then yes. aero all the way.
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Anachronism] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Anachronism wrote:
I have had no problem sticking with riders who are a little stronger than me on the flats on the group rides I have done.

Anachronism wrote:
I will have to take the word of more experienced riders that an aero frame helps in group ride/ draft legal races

Imagine sticking with a slightly stronger rider in one of these group rides. Would it be nicer if you could have spent a little less energy doing that?

Imagine a slightly more strong slightly stronger rider, that you couldn't quite keep with. Would it be nicer if you were able to stay with them for the same energy that allowed you to stay with the slightly less strong slightly stronger rider?

That is how an aero frame helps in a group ride. You are still facing a good deal of wind resistance in a draft.

Massively simplified explanation warning -

If your 200W effort riding into the wind on a flat bit of road was 20% overcoming CRR and 80% overcoming drag, for example. Probably not unrealistic. 40W is fighting CRR and 160W is fighting the wind. You come into a draft and find that your effort falls to 160W, which is a massive 20% reduction in effort from sitting in. Your CRR remains the same, so 40W. Your fight against CRR is now 25% of your effort, you are still spending 75% of your effort pushing the wind out of the way. Does an aero frame still help you then?
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Darren325] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Darren325 wrote:
but as a triathlete and father, not a professional GC rider, I do not have the balls to descend at anything like those speeds given the inherent risks!

Thors descent's were not a straight shot no.
And if you don't have the balls to descend fast, all the more reason to be on an aero bike, you won't be exploring the limits of stiffness anyway.

I'll have your S5 for you ready to pick up.



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
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Anachronism] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Enter a cat 4/5 bike race and you will experience it.
At some point someone WILL do 400 watts on a flat, and you might need to do 360 watts to hold their wheel or 345 watts if you had an aero road bike.

345 is less, that will be easier, and that is good.

You can't win a bike race without at some point being in the wind, either.

If you don't race bikes, then there is no point in spending money on an aero bike, or a carbon one.


Anachronism wrote:
If someone rides 400 watts on the flats or the hill, its going to be tough for you to keep up either way. you made no mention of what power people were putting out on the flat



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
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [tucktri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I recently purchased an s5vwd and love it. I can't imagine wanting a stiffer frame. In fact, this frame felt very stiff once I transferred over my parts. Nothing a few pounds of pressure can't fix, but still a noticeable change over my prior frame. My personal experience is that this bike is a fantasticly nimble machine. I have been tossing it around with sprints, hard corners, etc. Most of this perception probably comes from it being a 54 vs my previous 56 frame. I guess my take away is that all these frame differences are smaller than other variables like tire pressure, size and geometry. You can select/dial those in to get the feel/fit you want. I personally don't place as much stock in opinions /tests of stiffness and ride quality (my own included) and prefer to base my decisions on wind tunnel tests and my ability to get low on a bike.

Instead of a bike/bike comparison I would love to see a test of the complete rider/ bike package. Standard high end setup vs someone that pays attention to the details- aero, position, clothing, latex tubes, good crr tires etc. What is the magnitude of all these marginal gains for a normal rider? V
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Orbilius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
good tires, clothing, frame, and wheels certainly has more positive effect on bike race results that beet juice does.

Hell, just tires alone do =)



Orbilius wrote:
Instead of a bike/bike comparison I would love to see a test of the complete rider/ bike package. Standard high end setup vs someone that pays attention to the details- aero, position, clothing, latex tubes, good crr tires etc. What is the magnitude of all these marginal gains for a normal rider? V



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
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
People find it hard to believe that $30 of latex = $5000 in frame!
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
good tires, clothing, frame, and wheels certainly has more positive effect on bike race results that beet juice does.

Never underestimate the power of the simple beet:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/...ii/S1089860314002936

(That said, patient populations in whom NOS-mediated NO production is impaired seem to benefit more.)
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [Orbilius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: VN: Aero bikes vs. Climbing bikes. GCN video [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
Enter a cat 4/5 bike race and you will experience it.
At some point someone WILL do 400 watts on a flat, and you might need to do 360 watts to hold their wheel or 345 watts if you had an aero road bike.

345 is less, that will be easier, and that is good.

You can't win a bike race without at some point being in the wind, either.

If you don't race bikes, then there is no point in spending money on an aero bike, or a carbon one.


Anachronism wrote:

If someone rides 400 watts on the flats or the hill, its going to be tough for you to keep up either way. you made no mention of what power people were putting out on the flat

Agreed on all points but an aero frame is a small part of an equation. A frame accounts for what, 16% of the total aerodynamics of a bike, and if you add the rider it probably goes down to 6%? For me I'd rather have a frame I know that is comfortable and I don't have achy body parts after 2 hours in the drops. When I shopped for bikes I did look at the S3/2, Madones, and a few others and the geometry didn't match my fit. Granted, we are talking 2-3 centimeters but after a few years and $500 in fitters fees it is dialed in. I know that position puts me in the most comfortable and efficient position and I can stay there for hours.

Maybe I'm sacrificing some speed but my positioning (bent elbows, vertical back), skinsuit, shoe covers, being shaved, and deep dish wheels makes me more efficient than 95% of the riders in a race. I'm only a Cat 4 but at that level very few are min / maxing their aero effectiveness.

After seeing the advantages of an aero handlebar, I will more than likely purchase one before race season. I would like to see someone come out with an aero handlebar that has some consideration to riding IAB. Maybe they do already. Try as I may, my elbows just get too slippery to ride that way.

After getting into triathlon poor, and going from a road bike with Open Pros and Gatorskins up to a TT bike with a skinsuit, fast wheels / tires, and every other positive factor I know the advantages, but I also bought a road bike that didn't fit as well which is a huge factor.
Quote Reply

Prev Next