*Tour Aero Bike Tests*

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

robeambro
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:22 pm
Big yikes at that Izalco Max result. By far the worst recent result, worse then even the new Specialissima which at least is fairly light.
I'm a bit unsure whether I trust Tour results anymore - we're talking about old-gen-Emonda watts here, iirc it's also fairly slower than the old-gen-R5.

I understand that eyeballing a frame isn't a good way to judge how aero it is, but I don't know see how this is possible.

alanyu
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:10 pm

by alanyu

robeambro wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:35 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:22 pm
Big yikes at that Izalco Max result. By far the worst recent result, worse then even the new Specialissima which at least is fairly light.
I'm a bit unsure whether I trust Tour results anymore - we're talking about old-gen-Emonda watts here, iirc it's also fairly slower than the old-gen-R5.

I understand that eyeballing a frame isn't a good way to judge how aero it is, but I don't know see how this is possible.
By eyeballing Izalco is already a slow bike. Almost non-aero tube shape everywhere

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



toxin
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:56 pm

by toxin

They could have gone with square or triangular tubes which would be even worse (it does happen, somehow) but yeah, does not look like aero was any kind of serious priority when designing this bike. Two piece cockpit too. Similar result to V3RS too so not really unusual.

reedplayer
Posts: 843
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:10 am

by reedplayer

GrassQ wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 3:16 pm
Tour 5/2024 tested aerobikes in about 5.000 eur pricepoint.
New bike was Focus Izalco max 8.9, aero 231 watts with stock wheels novatec R4, and with zipp 404 (my 2018) 227 watts.
It seems that they dont any more publish frame and fork weights
What i find somewhat surprising is, that a Novatec R4 wheelset, pricepoint ca 800.- Euro, is only 4 watts slower than a Zipp 404.

toxin
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:56 pm

by toxin

Well it all depends, really. A more aerodynamic downtube can take better advantage of the cleaner air from the front wheel, and a more aero frame will mess up the airflow less meaning the rear wheel can have a bigger impact. Or the Novatec wheels are actually pretty aero, or maybe the 404s just dont work well with that frame for some reason :noidea:

robeambro
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

alanyu wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:57 pm
robeambro wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:35 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:22 pm
Big yikes at that Izalco Max result. By far the worst recent result, worse then even the new Specialissima which at least is fairly light.
I'm a bit unsure whether I trust Tour results anymore - we're talking about old-gen-Emonda watts here, iirc it's also fairly slower than the old-gen-R5.

I understand that eyeballing a frame isn't a good way to judge how aero it is, but I don't know see how this is possible.
By eyeballing Izalco is already a slow bike. Almost non-aero tube shape everywhere
So the Izalco is slow, about 21w slower than the fastest bikes out there (say, a Cervelo S5 / Tarmac SL8 / Dogma) according to Tour's protocol.

Yet,

- another test (albeit sans mannequin and probably an altogether different protocol) show that a 1980s bike with box section rims is 21w slower than a Cervelo S5 @ 47km/h. https://youtu.be/jZx01mmY2JA?si=tgbn0HsBvAazoWVh ,

- another test w/ rider on shows that a similarly old bike is around 25w slower than a modern Dogma @ 45km/h. https://youtu.be/1mJ06mro5fw?t=579

- another test w/rider on shows that an older Pinarello Think from 2012 is around 15 watts slower than a modern Dogma https://youtu.be/MQBcLk_kpBw?t=334

- another test found that a Foil is about 3w faster than an Addict (which is another non-aero focused bike) at 30km/h (which will probably be around 6-8w at 45km/h. https://youtu.be/n4I_yGKsrsA?t=642

But yeah, despite all of this, the Izalco is 20w slower than a Tarmac SL8. Mmmkay.
Not wanting to translate results across different tests, but I struggle to see how many other tests correlate with some results from Tour. Likewise, not saying that this is a whole Hambini-like farce, but I am a bit surprised / confused, to be honest.

aeroisnteverything
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:43 pm

by aeroisnteverything

robeambro wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:09 pm
alanyu wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:57 pm
robeambro wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:35 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:22 pm
Big yikes at that Izalco Max result. By far the worst recent result, worse then even the new Specialissima which at least is fairly light.
I'm a bit unsure whether I trust Tour results anymore - we're talking about old-gen-Emonda watts here, iirc it's also fairly slower than the old-gen-R5.

I understand that eyeballing a frame isn't a good way to judge how aero it is, but I don't know see how this is possible.
By eyeballing Izalco is already a slow bike. Almost non-aero tube shape everywhere
So the Izalco is slow, about 21w slower than the fastest bikes out there (say, a Cervelo S5 / Tarmac SL8 / Dogma) according to Tour's protocol.

Yet,

- another test (albeit sans mannequin and probably an altogether different protocol) show that a 1980s bike with box section rims is 21w slower than a Cervelo S5 @ 47km/h. https://youtu.be/jZx01mmY2JA?si=tgbn0HsBvAazoWVh ,

- another test w/ rider on shows that a similarly old bike is around 25w slower than a modern Dogma @ 45km/h. https://youtu.be/1mJ06mro5fw?t=579

- another test w/rider on shows that an older Pinarello Think from 2012 is around 15 watts slower than a modern Dogma https://youtu.be/MQBcLk_kpBw?t=334

- another test found that a Foil is about 3w faster than an Addict (which is another non-aero focused bike) at 30km/h (which will probably be around 6-8w at 45km/h. https://youtu.be/n4I_yGKsrsA?t=642

But yeah, despite all of this, the Izalco is 20w slower than a Tarmac SL8. Mmmkay.
Not wanting to translate results across different tests, but I struggle to see how many other tests correlate with some results from Tour. Likewise, not saying that this is a whole Hambini-like farce, but I am a bit surprised / confused, to be honest.
I think your answers are in what you wrote. They are different tests, using completely different protocols, hence show different numerical results in terms of wattage difference measured. Rider/no rider/ mannequin; yaw sweep; weights assigned to yaw angles - everything matters for what the measured values will be.

thirdsun
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:20 pm

by thirdsun

aeroisnteverything wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:17 pm
robeambro wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:09 pm
alanyu wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:57 pm
robeambro wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:35 pm


I'm a bit unsure whether I trust Tour results anymore - we're talking about old-gen-Emonda watts here, iirc it's also fairly slower than the old-gen-R5.

I understand that eyeballing a frame isn't a good way to judge how aero it is, but I don't know see how this is possible.
By eyeballing Izalco is already a slow bike. Almost non-aero tube shape everywhere
So the Izalco is slow, about 21w slower than the fastest bikes out there (say, a Cervelo S5 / Tarmac SL8 / Dogma) according to Tour's protocol.

Yet,

- another test (albeit sans mannequin and probably an altogether different protocol) show that a 1980s bike with box section rims is 21w slower than a Cervelo S5 @ 47km/h. https://youtu.be/jZx01mmY2JA?si=tgbn0HsBvAazoWVh ,

- another test w/ rider on shows that a similarly old bike is around 25w slower than a modern Dogma @ 45km/h. https://youtu.be/1mJ06mro5fw?t=579

- another test w/rider on shows that an older Pinarello Think from 2012 is around 15 watts slower than a modern Dogma https://youtu.be/MQBcLk_kpBw?t=334

- another test found that a Foil is about 3w faster than an Addict (which is another non-aero focused bike) at 30km/h (which will probably be around 6-8w at 45km/h. https://youtu.be/n4I_yGKsrsA?t=642

But yeah, despite all of this, the Izalco is 20w slower than a Tarmac SL8. Mmmkay.
Not wanting to translate results across different tests, but I struggle to see how many other tests correlate with some results from Tour. Likewise, not saying that this is a whole Hambini-like farce, but I am a bit surprised / confused, to be honest.
I think your answers are in what you wrote. They are different tests, using completely different protocols, hence show different numerical results in terms of wattage difference measured. Rider/no rider/ mannequin; yaw sweep; weights assigned to yaw angles - everything matters for what the measured values will be.
Indeed. Also Tour is pretty confident in their results. I remember them mentioning that they can reproduce their results very accurately.
  • Canyon Aeroad CF SLX 8 Di2
  • Cervelo Caledonia Rival eTap AXS
  • Vitus Venon Evo
  • Canyon Grail CF SL 8 Di2

robeambro
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

aeroisnteverything wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:17 pm
robeambro wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:09 pm
alanyu wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:57 pm
robeambro wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:35 pm


I'm a bit unsure whether I trust Tour results anymore - we're talking about old-gen-Emonda watts here, iirc it's also fairly slower than the old-gen-R5.

I understand that eyeballing a frame isn't a good way to judge how aero it is, but I don't know see how this is possible.
By eyeballing Izalco is already a slow bike. Almost non-aero tube shape everywhere
So the Izalco is slow, about 21w slower than the fastest bikes out there (say, a Cervelo S5 / Tarmac SL8 / Dogma) according to Tour's protocol.

Yet,

- another test (albeit sans mannequin and probably an altogether different protocol) show that a 1980s bike with box section rims is 21w slower than a Cervelo S5 @ 47km/h. https://youtu.be/jZx01mmY2JA?si=tgbn0HsBvAazoWVh ,

- another test w/ rider on shows that a similarly old bike is around 25w slower than a modern Dogma @ 45km/h. https://youtu.be/1mJ06mro5fw?t=579

- another test w/rider on shows that an older Pinarello Think from 2012 is around 15 watts slower than a modern Dogma https://youtu.be/MQBcLk_kpBw?t=334

- another test found that a Foil is about 3w faster than an Addict (which is another non-aero focused bike) at 30km/h (which will probably be around 6-8w at 45km/h. https://youtu.be/n4I_yGKsrsA?t=642

But yeah, despite all of this, the Izalco is 20w slower than a Tarmac SL8. Mmmkay.
Not wanting to translate results across different tests, but I struggle to see how many other tests correlate with some results from Tour. Likewise, not saying that this is a whole Hambini-like farce, but I am a bit surprised / confused, to be honest.
I think your answers are in what you wrote. They are different tests, using completely different protocols, hence show different numerical results in terms of wattage difference measured. Rider/no rider/ mannequin; yaw sweep; weights assigned to yaw angles - everything matters for what the measured values will be.
Yes, but all the other tests (from different wind tunnels, by different experts) yield results that are fairly similar. From those, you get the idea that, compared to a super aero modern frame, a frame from 30-40 years ago is 20-30w slower, whilst a semi-modern frame is 10-15w slower, and a modern non-aero frame is maybe 5-10w slower. The numbers across different tests "make sense", even though the tests shouldn't be comparable.

Then you throw some Tour results into the mix and they don't agree at all with any of that.

Anywho - I will continue live happily, arguing about aero tests is not a hill I will die on. :D

aeroisnteverything
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:43 pm

by aeroisnteverything

Separately, Tour tested Canyon SLX. This is what - a third test of the current model? Oddly, it's now 206w vs 202w with the CFR they tested earlier. Apart from the group set specs, everything else should be pretty much identical to the earlier test, so am curious about this difference.

... And one wishes they spend the windtunnel time testing BMC and/or the new Factor, rather than retesting different iterations of the same Canyon. I think the latter is getting so much good marketing with MVDP winning everything that they could hardly ask for more nowadays.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 13037
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

aeroisnteverything wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:44 pm
Separately, Tour tested Canyon SLX. This is what - a third test of the current model? Oddly, it's now 206w vs 202w with the CFR they tested earlier. Apart from the group set specs, everything else should be pretty much identical to the earlier test, so am curious about this difference.

... And one wishes they spend the windtunnel time testing BMC and/or the new Factor, rather than retesting different iterations of the same Canyon. I think the latter is getting so much good marketing with MVDP winning everything that they could hardly ask for more nowadays.

The CF SLX has what looks like 1.5-2cm worth of additional spacers. The 105 FD is also bulkier than the Dura-Ace one on the CFR MvdP bike.

pmprego
Posts: 2624
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:10 pm
aeroisnteverything wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:44 pm
Separately, Tour tested Canyon SLX. This is what - a third test of the current model? Oddly, it's now 206w vs 202w with the CFR they tested earlier. Apart from the group set specs, everything else should be pretty much identical to the earlier test, so am curious about this difference.

... And one wishes they spend the windtunnel time testing BMC and/or the new Factor, rather than retesting different iterations of the same Canyon. I think the latter is getting so much good marketing with MVDP winning everything that they could hardly ask for more nowadays.

The CF SLX has what looks like 1.5-2cm worth of additional spacers. The 105 FD is also bulkier than the Dura-Ace one on the CFR MvdP bike.
This is song to my ears... I always reasoned that whats good is for me to get a very agressive bike, with low front end that tests very good in he wind tunnel if my position will have to remain the same as with any other bike (I'm assuming my position is dialed and does not change across bikes).

alanyu
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:10 pm

by alanyu

robeambro wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:09 pm
alanyu wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:57 pm
robeambro wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:35 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2024 4:22 pm
Big yikes at that Izalco Max result. By far the worst recent result, worse then even the new Specialissima which at least is fairly light.
I'm a bit unsure whether I trust Tour results anymore - we're talking about old-gen-Emonda watts here, iirc it's also fairly slower than the old-gen-R5.

I understand that eyeballing a frame isn't a good way to judge how aero it is, but I don't know see how this is possible.
By eyeballing Izalco is already a slow bike. Almost non-aero tube shape everywhere
So the Izalco is slow, about 21w slower than the fastest bikes out there (say, a Cervelo S5 / Tarmac SL8 / Dogma) according to Tour's protocol.

Yet,

- another test (albeit sans mannequin and probably an altogether different protocol) show that a 1980s bike with box section rims is 21w slower than a Cervelo S5 @ 47km/h. https://youtu.be/jZx01mmY2JA?si=tgbn0HsBvAazoWVh ,

- another test w/ rider on shows that a similarly old bike is around 25w slower than a modern Dogma @ 45km/h. https://youtu.be/1mJ06mro5fw?t=579

- another test w/rider on shows that an older Pinarello Think from 2012 is around 15 watts slower than a modern Dogma https://youtu.be/MQBcLk_kpBw?t=334

- another test found that a Foil is about 3w faster than an Addict (which is another non-aero focused bike) at 30km/h (which will probably be around 6-8w at 45km/h. https://youtu.be/n4I_yGKsrsA?t=642

But yeah, despite all of this, the Izalco is 20w slower than a Tarmac SL8. Mmmkay.
Not wanting to translate results across different tests, but I struggle to see how many other tests correlate with some results from Tour. Likewise, not saying that this is a whole Hambini-like farce, but I am a bit surprised / confused, to be honest.
Did you carefully watch the video?

First Silca video: Gitane with some areo design and 21 mm tubular scored 144 W, while Lemond with true retro round tubes and narrow tyres scored 169 W. S5 scored 123 W with 32 mm tyres. There is alreay 46 W difference @ 48 kmh, or 38 W @ 45 kph :noidea: Put a 25 mm tyre S5 will be at least 4 W faster.

Second GCN video: w/o a rider, a retro bike is 31.7 W slower than a Dogma at zero yaw. Again narrow tyres on a retro bike vs. modern width tyre on a Dogma. W/ a rider? Geo/position/posture is different and it brings the most impact, as your body contributes 70-80% to aero drag.

Skip the third for the same reason.

These two are good match, and the true retro bike is still 8-15W slower than Izalco Max. NOT OFF with Tour test.

Last, at least they tried keeping the same geo/position/posture at their best. Addict is 3.7 W slower than Foil @ 30 kmh, which means 12.5 W slower @ 45 kmh. Tour results were: Addict 219 W with ERC 1100 48 vs. Foil @ 206 W with 454. Not off again. :noidea:

What I can see through these videos, three of them agree with each other and Tour results pretty well. :noidea: :noidea: :noidea:

Editted: correction on Addict number.
Last edited by alanyu on Thu Apr 11, 2024 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

toxin
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:56 pm

by toxin

Foil was tested with 454s which are on the slow side, especially at higher yaws cause the design makes them stall earlier

alanyu
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:10 pm

by alanyu

toxin wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2024 5:19 pm
Foil was tested with 454s which are on the slow side, especially at higher yaws cause the design makes them stall earlier
Correction: Addict RC was 219 W with old ERC 1100 48 in 08/2020 issue. 454 should be faster.

Find some more recorded numbers: Addict RC with shallow wheels = 221 W, with 404 = 217 W.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply