I am curious about anyones opinion of Aero frames vs. non-aero Super Light Frames. Obviously, many companies have done relentless wind tunnel testing to maximize the wind resistance of there bikes. However, can the advantages of aero be measured against that of a light frame (ie. seconds/minutes saved).
My view is that the frame’s aero-ness is not important enough to drive a bike decision. If it’s really a tie in your mind (they both fit and you like them both…), then I guess I’d choose aero as long as the weight difference is less than a pound (which is almost always the case).
Now, with wheels – aero is much, much better than light, even on hilly courses. The sole exception would be a true uphill time trial.
If you can get yourself in the optimized aero position, then it may matter. I see so many people riding “super-aero” bikes and they look like a big sail on top of the thing. You are the biggest drag item in the equation. If you can’t get aero yourself, then the bike isn’t going to help too much.
Always remember, Dave Scott won Hawaii on a Steel Huffy Road Bike.
Aero is much more important than light except on the very steepest of hills. This article wil put it in perspective.
“many companies have done relentless wind tunnel testing to maximize the wind resistance of there bikes.”
I certainly hope not! 
Let’s take a look at the hour record. Ian from Fitwerx sums this up very well.
At the end of 1999, the UCI made modern aero equipment illegal for hour record attempts. They reinstated Eddy Mercx’s 1972 record and stripped Chris Boardman of the mark he had set a few years earlier using modern aero equipment and positioning. At the end of 2000, Chris Boardman followed the “new” UCI rules to reclaim the hour record. He used a similar position and a similar sub 14lbs bike to the what Eddy Mercx used in 1972 and beat Eddy’s record by about 12 meters. Much more notable, however, was that Chris Boardman didn’t even come close to beating the record that he set using modern aero equipment that the UCI stripped from him at the end of 1999. Chris’s earlier, “assisted”, hour record distance was close to 3 miles further than the mark he set unassisted in 2000! That means his average speed was 3 mph slower than the “assisted” record he had set a few years earlier. Equally notable is that the “assisted” record he set in the mid 1990’s was done riding a 24.5lbs (about 10 lbs heavier!) aero bike in a modern aero position. That is how important aerodynamics is. Over 10 lbs heavier, yet his average speed was 3 mph faster.
Good questions. A couple thoughts: The bike (Bottechia) Greg LeMond used to win the final time trial in the 1989 Tour de France weighed over 25 pounds. In the uphill time trial up Mount Ventoux in the 1987 Tour de France Jean Francois Bernard of Le Vie Claire used a heavier time trial bike for the flat section to the bottom of the clmb, switched bikes, then mounted a super-light climbing bike for the ascent of the Ventoux.
In general, on most triathlon courses, all popularly available tri bikes are light enough for elite level competition. Weight becomes a bigger issue on courses involving significant climbing such as large mountain passes.
So for most people, I would suggest proper fit, an aerodynamic body posture, aerodynamic wheels and clothing are more iportant than even saving 2 pounds off an 18 pound or 19 pound bike.
That was a typical weight. My old Miele 12 sp weighed 24 lbs and was considered as a “lightweight” race bike.
“But LeMond’s TT that day still stands as the fastest in tour history, doesn’t it? And that bike wasn’t exactly aero by today’s standards, either. Talk about an engine!”
That TT was also downhill.
Although I agree with this analysis in theory, this is simply NOT what happens at road racing events…pro or amatuer. There are soooo many other varibles to consider to success rather than simply what is faster in a windtunnel or via calculation.
Looking at nearly every set-up on any major tour would prove otherwise.
Triathlon is a lil bit different game and we always seem to be so hung up on “aero” and forget about the other factors.
Smitty,
You answered yer own point there - “it is simply NOT what happens at ROAD racing events.”
…Cuz they all ride in a pack for 95-99% of the time, so aero don’t matter (except to whomever is pulling at the time perhaps)
If road racing involved riding solo for extended periods of time (like, say a time trial perhaps?) you’d see them on aero bikes. Which you do then.
If I’ve learned anything here since I became a pos(t)er, it’s that aero trumps weight in the vast majority of Triathlon applications. This was very hard for a weight-weenie like myself to accept, but accept it I have.
Ride on-
M
General rule of thumb:
High weight is bad for acceleration (this means going uphill OR sudden sprints - like what you would expect in a road race or crit)
High aero is good for cruisin’
Let your riding style determine where you fall in the continuum
.
That’s fine if you’re been brainwashed! ;o)
Drink the Kool-Aid. It tastes good. Join us… 
d
.