Okay, to add to that, I found a post by SuperDave stating that he's running 27mm Vittoria Paves on his Felt AR and the new 2016 Scott Foil is rated for 28mm according to bike radar.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
TOUR MAG AERO TEST 2016
Moderator: robbosmans
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
The aeroad can take 30mm tyres, but the limiting factor is the brakes, not frame.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
-
cyclespeed
- Posts: 1132
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:45 am
OK, I've just speed read the entire 28 pages....!
Here's what i don't get;
Top level pros like Contador, Aru, Nibali, etc. all desperately want to win. Their teams and their sponsors desperately want them to win. They train and tweak like crazy to win. Some (who knows?) may even dope to win, to get that extra 20 watts to beat Froome or Porte.
And yet we are told that the best aero bikes will save you MINUTES over the hour compared to a basic old SL5 Tarmac. At the 40 to 50km/h speeds the pros ride at, this advantage just gets bigger.
And yet, all 3 of the riders I mention above ride the SL5 and the SL4 for years before that.
Why?
Here's what i don't get;
Top level pros like Contador, Aru, Nibali, etc. all desperately want to win. Their teams and their sponsors desperately want them to win. They train and tweak like crazy to win. Some (who knows?) may even dope to win, to get that extra 20 watts to beat Froome or Porte.
And yet we are told that the best aero bikes will save you MINUTES over the hour compared to a basic old SL5 Tarmac. At the 40 to 50km/h speeds the pros ride at, this advantage just gets bigger.
And yet, all 3 of the riders I mention above ride the SL5 and the SL4 for years before that.
Why?
Troublemaker 
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
I think a factor a lot of people don't take into account is the potential loss of training time going to a different bike. Every moment they can, they're training. They're not like us where we can spend a Sunday dicking around with a new bike to get it dialed in. There's risk in getting a new bike for them. Also, I'm sure a handful are superstitious like every other sport and going away from their tried and true formula is a risk they're not willing to make.
Sent from my Venue 8 7840 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Venue 8 7840 using Tapatalk
-
cyclespeed
- Posts: 1132
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:45 am
RyanH wrote:I think a factor a lot of people don't take into account is the potential loss of training time going to a different bike. Every moment they can, they're training. They're not like us where we can spend a Sunday dicking around with a new bike to get it dialed in. There's risk in getting a new bike for them. Also, I'm sure a handful are superstitious like every other sport and going away from their tried and true formula is a risk they're not willing to make.
Sent from my Venue 8 7840 using Tapatalk
I'd love to believe that, but these guys are surrounded by professional mechanics, trainers, etc. etc. A mechanic can have a bike set up exactly to Alberto's size and spec in a matter of hours. Down to the last mm. The old Venge for example (albeit supposedly not that aero) even has the exact same geometry as the Tarmac.
And I don't believe its a 'ride what they offer you' thing either. If Bertie and his entourage thought that by riding a Madone or an F8 say, they would have a far better chance of winning the Tour, then I don't think they would hesitate for a moment to change team - I doubt they have huge love for Specialized, certainly not enough to throw a win away.
So either the data from tests like these is too simplistic or not 'real-world' enough, or there is another factor at play, such as comfort, handling, etc.
cyclespeed wrote:I'd love to believe that, ....
That's why Nibali next year might end up riding a Merida Reacto; at first I thought he was just chasing a bigger paycheck and team leadership, but then I understood that it will be for confuse the other riders for using one of the least aero bikes in the market!
cyclespeed wrote:OK, I've just speed read the entire 28 pages....!
Here's what i don't get;
Top level pros like Contador, Aru, Nibali, etc. all desperately want to win. Their teams and their sponsors desperately want them to win. They train and tweak like crazy to win. Some (who knows?) may even dope to win, to get that extra 20 watts to beat Froome or Porte.
And yet we are told that the best aero bikes will save you MINUTES over the hour compared to a basic old SL5 Tarmac. At the 40 to 50km/h speeds the pros ride at, this advantage just gets bigger.
And yet, all 3 of the riders I mention above ride the SL5 and the SL4 for years before that.
Why?
What you have to remember is that time is generally gained in the mountains (where speeds are much lower) and TTs (where the TT bike is much quicker). When you're drafting in the pack then it really doesn't make that much difference whether the bike is aero or not.
-
cyclespeed
- Posts: 1132
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:45 am
motty89 wrote:cyclespeed wrote:OK, I've just speed read the entire 28 pages....!
Here's what i don't get;
Top level pros like Contador, Aru, Nibali, etc. all desperately want to win. Their teams and their sponsors desperately want them to win. They train and tweak like crazy to win. Some (who knows?) may even dope to win, to get that extra 20 watts to beat Froome or Porte.
And yet we are told that the best aero bikes will save you MINUTES over the hour compared to a basic old SL5 Tarmac. At the 40 to 50km/h speeds the pros ride at, this advantage just gets bigger.
And yet, all 3 of the riders I mention above ride the SL5 and the SL4 for years before that.
Why?
What you have to remember is that time is generally gained in the mountains (where speeds are much lower) and TTs (where the TT bike is much quicker). When you're drafting in the pack then it really doesn't make that much difference whether the bike is aero or not.
OK, but even in the mountains, these guys are often climbing at between 20 and 30km/h so not that slow.....
And even in the peloton, you still have to pedal, there is still drag - you are moving at 50km/h ish, so even sheltered, you still have to pedal. Better to spend 200W here, than 230 surely?
I remember a moment in the Tour, I think it was 2 years ago, where there was a flatish stage and Bertie was trying to reduce his deficit against Froome. There was a strong side wind and Bertie attacked leaving Froome stranded in the peloton. About 10 or so riders went with Contador and I think Cavendish won the stage. So at any moment in a Grand Tour, you can find yourself in a break, or struggling to close a break, where you are forced out of, or to the head of the peloton, where aero becomes important again.
These teams have hosts of technicians, managers, tacticians, and the riders themselves are not stupid. They know all about aero because they refine it to the nth degree for their TT runs. So why not on the other stage days?
Simply because a TT is about the fastest person that goes from A to B, where every nano second counts.
In a road race is not about the fastest time but who finish first.
In a road race are many parameters that set the Aero advantage of a road race bike to almost zero. In this condition its' of no meaning.
Aero is not understand by many here.
A rider has more benefit with a bike with good handling and where he feels comfortable on, than just extra Aero elements on a bike which suits him less.
The difference between a normal road race bike and an Aero one is pure marketing to sell more bikes to normal consumers.
In a road race is not about the fastest time but who finish first.
In a road race are many parameters that set the Aero advantage of a road race bike to almost zero. In this condition its' of no meaning.
Aero is not understand by many here.
A rider has more benefit with a bike with good handling and where he feels comfortable on, than just extra Aero elements on a bike which suits him less.
The difference between a normal road race bike and an Aero one is pure marketing to sell more bikes to normal consumers.
-
prendrefeu
- Posts: 8580
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
BRM wrote:In a road race is not about the fastest time but who finish first.
Would the racer who finishes first in a road race also be the one to cross the line in the least amount of time compared to his competitors? This is regardless of a flat route or a climber's route, the race is won by the racer who completes the course/route in the least amount of time whether it be for the day (single day race) or cumulative (multi-day race).
The principle of "least amount of time" still applies to the principle of "who finished first."
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Tour's current protocol is half mannequin at 45kph, right? So, in a simplistic way, we should add approximately 100 or 150 watts to get the total expected wattage for a full person?
I think that helps put in perspective how little difference there is among the top end frames. Seeing that the TMR01 and Foil is at approx 212w of drag, that's about 8w higher than the leaders, which seems like a lot at 3.9%. When adding the extra drag, (let's use 130 to match Cervelo's published numbers), then 342 vs 334, it's a 2.4% difference. Still probably significant but it's approaching the error rate of the tunnel and a power meter. On the other hand, non aero frames vs aero, with the adjustment, are still up to 10% higher than the top aero frames.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I think that helps put in perspective how little difference there is among the top end frames. Seeing that the TMR01 and Foil is at approx 212w of drag, that's about 8w higher than the leaders, which seems like a lot at 3.9%. When adding the extra drag, (let's use 130 to match Cervelo's published numbers), then 342 vs 334, it's a 2.4% difference. Still probably significant but it's approaching the error rate of the tunnel and a power meter. On the other hand, non aero frames vs aero, with the adjustment, are still up to 10% higher than the top aero frames.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
