There is no simple answer to such a question, as it depends on how fast your ride, how far you ride, and under what conditions you ride.

Comparing apples to apples over 40K, you're talking a few seconds at the most. The non-aero bikes you listed are still pretty aero and pretty fast.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

Bike alone: (45km/hr, no rider)
road bike frame - baseline
aero road frame - 10-15W faster
TT/Tri bike - another 10-20w.
off the top of my head, roughly half those numbers for 30km/hr.

In 2014 Felt released some data on the IA, and AR. The AR data baselined with a felt F series frame. I believe similar wind tunnel protocols were used for all the bikes. I think it was all non rider, and the AR and F had the same stuff, minus the frames.

I think there was about 750g of drag between the F and the IA. The AR sat in between... about 300g faster than the F. I think it was at 45km/hr, and it worked out to maybe the AR being 15w faster than the F, and the IA being another 15-20W faster still. Don't quote me on it as this is all off the top of my head. Also remember that with a rider in the picture, the IA would crush all. I have a F and an IA and the speed for effort output is just crazy on the IA.

Mind you, as has been shown, a good aero road bike with a comparable TT setup with be near as fast as a tt/tri bike (recent cycling weekly video with boardman bikes). The AR can flip the post for a tt position. throw on some aero bars, or even a tt front end... and I bet it is comparable to an IA/DA at low yaw.
Just remember, it is less about your bike, and more about your position. tri bikes have an advantage with integration (less aero losses for having a ton of crap on bike).

Great reply, cheers.

Felt released this data with they launched the Felt Aero Road. In their white paper @0º it looks around 200g of drag between an F-series and the Felt Aero Road with the F-brake (think omega-like). The frames you listed are a lot more aero than the F as I don't think that was a top level consideration when that bike was designed. Therefore, the gap could/might be closer between newer "pure" road bikes and their aero counterparts.

---

My YouTubes

Your numbers simply don't add up. Considering that 50g of drag at 30 mph is ~7.3 watts (or 5.9 at 45 kph), 750g would be ~90 watts of drag at 45 kph.

If something is 15W faster at 45 kph, it suggests ~125g difference in drag. 20W would be another 160g difference; for a total of ~300g at 45 kph. So which one is it, 300g or 750g?

Perhaps you should stick to starting trolling posts and leave the technical stuff alone until you learn the basics?

Trolling: It was too soon wasn't it? ;-)

Yeah my numbers are effed, but it was all off the top of my head. I just had another quick look, and at zero yaw the F was about 970g, AR 790g, and IA was 640g. So the spread was more in the realm of 300g.

so based on your gram to watt numbers... (again quick math, and don't worry I am not giving up my day job)

45km/hr
F series: baseline (a frame with no aero consideration. Note that in the testing it had the same wheels/bars/etc as the AR... so non-aero frames are a huge penalty, no wonder modern road bikes are bending over backwards to add aero features)
AR: ~22w faster
IA: ~40W (~18w faster again)

30km/hr (I used 3.4x conversion of watts saved for 45km/hr to 30km/hr... calculator this time)
F: baseline
AR: 6.5W faster
IA: 12w faster (5.5W faster again)

As stated by another in this thread, modern road bikes are now narrowing the difference between them and an "aero" road frame. So the lines are blurring. An on the top end tt/tri bikes, further gains are becoming challenging. IF anything, trends to disc brakes and wider tires/rims is slowing down or reducing the performance of aero bikes (Aero road bike test from Tour Mag is one example, where in most cases older rim brake versions of a given aero bike were a touch faster than their new disc updates).