Now the long anticipated Cervelo P4 is revealed, it is a good time to contemplate what sort of advantages these so-called “aero” bikes really brings to the world.
Yesterday, I was flipping a bicycle magazine here in Japan and found a shocking fact. The time that took to finish Mt. Norikura hill climb, one of the most popular hill-climb events here, did not change much since the event started about 20 years ago. Many of the guys who participated the event this year assembled sub-6 kg bikes. Some bikes went really close to weigh less than 5 kg, or 11 pounds. Bikes twenty years ago generally weighed 8 kg (17.6 pounds) or more even if they were considered “light” by the standards back then. So, whopping 37% reduction in weight has not really translated into time saving. What is wrong?
Now, the question I would like to ask is this: Are so-called aero bikes the same case as the hill-climb bikes? Are we fooled by bike industry to spend thousands of dollars just only for a frame to get (questionable) advantages? If you look around the latest triathlon/TT bikes, they are practically identical; Cervelo P3C, Pinarello Montero, Redlay Dean, Ceepo Venom, Fuji D-6, Felt DA, Argon 18 E-114, Look 596 Tri, … . You can add your favorite dream bike to the list and compare, and you see the point. Now there is P4, which is presumably 20% more aero than its predecessor P3C but is $1,500 more expensive.
Is this hype justifiable? Does it have any substance?
I know that in 1989, Greg LeMond won Tour de France by 8-second lead over Laurent Fignon largely because LeMond used aero bike but Fignon didn’t. I think this is forever etched deeply in cyclists’ psyche. I also have to confess that I have just purchased Argon 18 E-144. So, I am just guilty as anyone else. But probably because of my guilt, I want assurance of the presumed advantage. With the money I invested, I (and my wife particular) don’t want to hear that the answer is in the air, blowing in the wind…
The bike themselves may have gone through quite a transformation with regards to their aerodynamics but …we as riders have not. We’re still the biggest problem.
Personally, I try not to get wrapped up in all of this. Hell I can’t even stay in the aero position for the whole bike leg on anything longer an olympic. So what good is an $8k bike to me.
My favourite claims would be the BS by the clowns at Bike Sports Michigan that Macca could have done this bike split and I could won this if I were on a P3…ever heard of race tactics? Ever heard of a run? Blatant BS.
. Bikes twenty years ago generally weighed 8 kg (17.6 pounds) or more even if they were considered “light” by the standards back then. So, whopping 37% reduction in weight has not really translated into time saving. What is wrong?
are you sure about this? Hill TT specialists have long been fans of fixies and drillium. I suspect they were running under 7kg even in the bad old days before carbon. I wouldn’t count on any significant weight advantage.
And there were very slippery bikes 20 years ago, they weren’t as widely available though.
For those of us who self test there is plenty of evidence that there is substance in the aero claims.
I was at the Masters National Time Trial Championships this year on my P3C with a Zipp 808 on the front and a Zipp Sub-9 on the rear. Pretty much state-of-the-art stuff.
The guy who won my age group handed me my ass on a platter. He was riding a 2004 vintage (or thereabouts) aluminum P3. He had some decent race wheels, but certainly not the latest and greatest. What he had that he would probably tell you made the most difference was a power meter and one of the best coaches/trainers in the business (Max Testa). (It probably didn’t hurt, either, that he had femurs that appeared to go from his ankles to his neck. )
The relative importance of an “aero” bike versus a round-tube standard road bike … significant.
The relative difference between “aero” bikes … not very significant.
The biggest difference comes from getting the body into the aero position. It’s the body that’s responsible for most of the drag.
I’ve been racing the P3C for 18 months now and I still haven’t beat the times I did previously on my P3sl. But I’m not getting any younger, either.
You’re mixing apples and oranges. Weight saved on hillclimbs due to a lighter bike is a very simple math problem easily quantified by the various calculators out there like analyticcycling.com. Remember that weight saved by a lighter bike is generally not that large a percentage of the total rider/bike/kit package, so that while lighter bikes do save measurable time on a hillclimb, it’s not that dramatic and is way less important the the performance of the riders themselves.
Time saved due to aero stuff is harder to quantify, although if you’ve got the time and inclination it can be done with field testing. Also, the “xx savings on a 40k TT” bandied about are generally based on best case conditions: a flat course with no turns and no wind. Real world savings are generally going to be significantly less as the more time you spend climbing hills, braking for turns, slowing down to get around slower competitors, etc, the less the absolute gains will be.
Nonetheless the aero stuff does work. I’ve been riding the same hilly TT for 11 years, and despite aging from 43 to 54 years during that time, my PR was set this past year, over time I’ve vastly improved my position and equipment and that’s made the difference. And that’s on a hilly TT, mind you.
20 years ago breaking 1 hour for the 40 K TT was very respectable. Sure pros did it easily, but on the State or regional level it made you somewhat of a stud. Now its easily middle of the pack at most TT.
Or look at the hour record. Basically full aero is worth about 5 km in an hour.
I think frames get lots of scrutiny because they are the most expensive component and define the bike’s identity. Because it represents $4K plus, the little differences (and they are little compared to things like the rider’s frontal area for example) become one of the decision points. Whether AG riders “need” the latest zooty stuff is another discussion.
All true, of course AGers don’t need to do tris. Its a hobby. Strangely enough I’ve know middle income guys with families whose hobby is restoring an old car. No one blinks if the guy says he’s spent 20K over 2-3 years on that hoby. Spend the same amount on a bike and you’re insane in most peoples eyes. Either way its disposable income to make you happy.
Well put. $20,000 hot rod in garage is OK. But, an $8,000 bicycle is insane. Both are cool in their own circles. The hot rod is just more generally accepted.
Me, I’d be happy with a $2,000 TT bike. But, that is another story.
It isn’t “BS” Sir. Do the calculation based on his bike split. Macca had the 10th fastest bike split and *his slowest bike split in three Ironmans *the year he won.
Now, you may be correct in saying it could be race tactics- that may have been a decision he made to conserve energy on the run, monitor the other competitors, follow a pre-determined race plan or some combination of all those things. However, based on a strictly mathmatical comparison of the time savings we’re seeing claimed on forums and by Cervelo, it may have exerted enough change to affect the outcome.
The fact of the matter is, and go ahead and check the race results on line to verify this (we did). Macca was faster on the bike *when he was on other bikes. *He was faster in the race when he was on his newest bike.
Luckily for Macca what we always say is true: It *is *mostly the athlete and not the bike. Mostly.
Another thing about your comment Sir, I said “could”, not “would”. If you are a fan of politics you know the gulf that seperates those two words can be enormous- which is why I chose it.
You’re mixing apples and oranges. Weight saved on hillclimbs due to a lighter bike is a very simple math problem easily quantified by the various calculators out there like analyticcycling.com. Remember that weight saved by a lighter bike is generally not that large a percentage of the total rider/bike/kit package, so that while lighter bikes do save measurable time on a hillclimb, it’s not that dramatic and is way less important the the performance of the riders themselves.
Time saved due to aero stuff is harder to quantify, although if you’ve got the time and inclination it can be done with field testing. Also, the “xx savings on a 40k TT” bandied about are generally based on best case conditions: a flat course with no turns and no wind. Real world savings are generally going to be significantly less as the more time you spend climbing hills, braking for turns, slowing down to get around slower competitors, etc, the less the absolute gains will be.
Nonetheless the aero stuff does work. I’ve been riding the same hilly TT for 11 years, and despite aging from 43 to 54 years during that time, my PR was set this past year, over time I’ve vastly improved my position and equipment and that’s made the difference. And that’s on a hilly TT, mind you.
Great to see someone improve bike times between 43 and 54. I’m mid-40’s myself and still getting faster, wondering at what point training and technique will be overcome by age decline. Besides position/equipment, though, you also have to factor in 11 years worth of training…
How exactly do long femurs improve performance? It’s always been my view that long legs have more wind resistance due increased frontal area.
Leverage. Power to the pedals.
I’m not a physiological expert, but if you look at MOST (not all) top tier time trialists, they go to the larger/taller end of the riders in the sport of cycling. Levi Leipheimer is a notable exception, but he is exactly that … an exception. Some smaller riders with ample (cottages of wattage) and super-aero positions can overcome.
I was at Nat’s in 90 behind a guy on a crappy looking spray painted road bike with clip-ons,i thought i can catch him,he left SO hard i looked down at the road to see if he left rubber on the road,i thought to myself,i will not catch him,he did a 54ish
.
It isn’t “BS” Sir. Do the calculation based on his bike split. Macca had the 10th fastest bike split and *his slowest bike split in three Ironmans *the year he won.
Now, you may be correct in saying it could be race tactics- that may have been a decision he made to conserve energy on the run, monitor the other competitors, follow a pre-determined race plan or some combination of all those things. However, based on a strictly mathmatical comparison of the time savings we’re seeing claimed on forums and by Cervelo, it may have exerted enough change to affect the outcome.
The fact of the matter is, and go ahead and check the race results on line to verify this (we did). Macca was faster on the bike *when he was on other bikes. *He was faster in the race when he was on his newest bike.
Luckily for Macca what we always say is true: It *is *mostly the athlete and not the bike. Mostly.
Another thing about your comment Sir, I said “could”, not “would”. If you are a fan of politics you know the gulf that seperates those two words can be enormous- which is why I chose it.
I thought it was understood that the year he won, he stopped playing the super-biker game with the Germans and redoubled his efforts as a runner (with the guidence of Allen). That, to me anyway, explains a slower bike split than the Specialized. Are you implying that the Specialized is that un-aero?
)