I'm not including the new AR here, since I've not had the chance to measure one yet.
If you guys are headed to SD in the next month or so maybe we could exchange some equipment in a gentlemen's agreement. Our on-bike rider isn't static like your DaveZ dummy and you don't have an AR. We only published the data collected that was deemed legally acceptable by our global sales team. Competitor comparisons are much trickier outside the USA. As for the dummy and our new AR, perhaps we could swap/share for a couple hours?
As I said previously in this thread, the S5 still sits atop the heap at low yaw; no doubt the head tube, seat tube/stay/post you have works wonders here. I know you've tested our previous AR designed in 2007 and would agree it still was a good option for those looking for aero as a higher metric over weight, stiffness, and ride compliance (Cervelo notwithstanding). We certainly had gains with the new bike's aerodynamics but it is the torsional stiffness and cockpit comfort I'm most pleased with. A back-to-back "parking lot" test ride between the old AR and and the new model won't show the consumer the aero gains but those two categories put the bike in a new realm.
The new AR is no longer an aero road bike. It's just a road bike. Period. A modern bike must be aero to be considered "modern". Same with wheels, helmets, clothes, etc...
In any case, the comment about finishing 2nd in everyone's test isn't really valid here. Cervelo was indeed the lowest drag on -5/0/5 and very close with -10/0/10 average. Of course the fit of the two bikes is very different, too so that factor may play as important role as any for consumers.
Thanks for your contribution here.
Dave Koesel - Category Leader Roval, Power, On-bike Components https://rovalcomponents.com/