*Tour Aero Bike Tests*

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

Moderator: robbosmans

HBike
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:22 pm

by HBike

tmrace wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:52 pm
spdntrxi wrote:
Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:02 am
SL7 was I think 210
Aeroad was 204
New Scott Foil 206
New Giant Propel 209
BMC TimeMachine 210
2022 Cervelo S5 was 205
2023 Cervelo S5=???
I have not seen a number for Gen7 Madone yet
From what I'm understanding here the number for the new Scott Foil was measured with the 454. Did Tour release a number with the control 404 wheelset too?

I don't want to reopen the 454 vs 404 debate we all know the 454 is slower, I just want to see how the Scott stacks up with the regular 404 wheelset if Tour tested that.
These are weighted averages of values at various yaw angles. In my opinion, it would be more helpful to additionally get a comparision of power values at various angles in this case, to show, where you gain an advantage, especially when deep section wheels are involved.

I think it is dangerous to take a single value as gospel, since different weightings and average procedures lead to different single numbers. It is usefule of course for comparison, but not unique.

User avatar
wheelsONfire
Posts: 6283
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Location: NorthEU

by wheelsONfire

I wouldn't even want to get a bike with a 36cm bar. 40cm C-C is the narrowest i'll go.
I could agree that crank lenght and cockpit size should be determined at purchase.
I wouldn't even want to buy a 5K Euro bike (or frameset) and not be able to decide what cockpit my bike ends up with.
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)


Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



User avatar
C36
Posts: 2471
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:24 am

by C36

tmrace wrote:
From what I'm understanding here the number for the new Scott Foil was measured with the 454. Did Tour release a number with the control 404 wheelset too?
No, was only tested with the 454.

spdntrxi
Posts: 5789
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

C36 wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:56 am
tmrace wrote:
From what I'm understanding here the number for the new Scott Foil was measured with the 454. Did Tour release a number with the control 404 wheelset too?
No, was only tested with the 454.
getting lazy I guess and frankly Scott is not German MFG
2024 BMC TeamMachine R Building
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL- getting aero look makeover
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault - completed project, full Xplr package

mrbrown4001
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:42 am

by mrbrown4001

spdntrxi wrote:
C36 wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:56 am
tmrace wrote:
From what I'm understanding here the number for the new Scott Foil was measured with the 454. Did Tour release a number with the control 404 wheelset too?
No, was only tested with the 454.
getting lazy I guess and frankly Scott is not German MFG
That seems pretty sketch tbh. Looks like they saw the foil was testing close to the aeroad and decided not to test it with co from wheels to save appearances


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

robeambro
Posts: 1829
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

wheelsONfire wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:10 am
I wouldn't even want to get a bike with a 36cm bar. 40cm C-C is the narrowest i'll go.
I could agree that crank lenght and cockpit size should be determined at purchase.
I wouldn't even want to buy a 5K Euro bike (or frameset) and not be able to decide what cockpit my bike ends up with.
It's not that 36cm is a must, I would imagine that the wattage difference between a well-executed aero position on 38cm and the same on a 36cm bar would be rather small for most (average size) people. There's much more to be gained from making the "well-executed aero position" happen, and to hold it for longer periods of time, which is a mix of equipment choices, but also bike fitting and core training..

There should be a thread like "here's a few pics of me on the turbo, how do I get more aero" - would help starting the right conversations, rather than what we often have which is silly debates about half a watt saved on whatever frame.

User avatar
wheelsONfire
Posts: 6283
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Location: NorthEU

by wheelsONfire

robeambro wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:49 pm
wheelsONfire wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:10 am
I wouldn't even want to get a bike with a 36cm bar. 40cm C-C is the narrowest i'll go.
I could agree that crank lenght and cockpit size should be determined at purchase.
I wouldn't even want to buy a 5K Euro bike (or frameset) and not be able to decide what cockpit my bike ends up with.
It's not that 36cm is a must, I would imagine that the wattage difference between a well-executed aero position on 38cm and the same on a 36cm bar would be rather small for most (average size) people. There's much more to be gained from making the "well-executed aero position" happen, and to hold it for longer periods of time, which is a mix of equipment choices, but also bike fitting and core training..

There should be a thread like "here's a few pics of me on the turbo, how do I get more aero" - would help starting the right conversations, rather than what we often have which is silly debates about half a watt saved on whatever frame.
Yes, i agree with you!
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)


Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.

Mocs123
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 9:19 pm

by Mocs123

True. Every time I think about buying a lighter or more aero componant, I try to tell myself the three biggest things that impact my speed on the bike are 1.) My power output 2.) My body weight 3.) My position on the bike - all of which I can improve on for virtually no cost, of course improving those things are hard! I do enjoy and appreciate the tour tests though, as they are the only real independant data sets we have on how fast these frames are.
2015 Wilier Zero.7 Rim - 6.37kg
2020 Trek Emonda SLR-7 Disc - 6.86kg
2023 Specialized SL7 - 7.18kg

User avatar
wheelsONfire
Posts: 6283
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Location: NorthEU

by wheelsONfire

Mocs123 wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:56 pm
True. Every time I think about buying a lighter or more aero componant, I try to tell myself the three biggest things that impact my speed on the bike are 1.) My power output 2.) My body weight 3.) My position on the bike - all of which I can improve on for virtually no cost, of course improving those things are hard! I do enjoy and appreciate the tour tests though, as they are the only real independant data sets we have on how fast these frames are.
Many years ago one pro cyclist was interviewed about cycling and bikes/ components yada yada. The first thing he said was that too many people into cycling wanting to get somewhere, are far too much into buying new, the latest and greatest. He also told the interviewer that a more or less mainstream bike today is way better than what pro riders used to ride. So yes, i guess many are just finding excuses to buy new stuff but it's perhaps not what we should focus on.
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)


Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.

spartacus
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

by spartacus

robeambro wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:49 pm

There should be a thread like "here's a few pics of me on the turbo, how do I get more aero" - would help starting the right conversations, rather than what we often have which is silly debates about half a watt saved on whatever frame.
No offense but that's just a waste of everyone's time TBH. Reddit is full of that kinds stuff though if that's what you're interested.

robeambro
Posts: 1829
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

spartacus wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:18 pm
robeambro wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:49 pm

There should be a thread like "here's a few pics of me on the turbo, how do I get more aero" - would help starting the right conversations, rather than what we often have which is silly debates about half a watt saved on whatever frame.
No offense but that's just a waste of everyone's time TBH. Reddit is full of that kinds stuff though if that's what you're interested.
Whilst I agree that it may not yield results for everyone, it's hardly any more of a waste of time than talking about whether this frame or that frame is 1w faster. IMO.

spartacus
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

by spartacus

robeambro wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:03 pm
spartacus wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:18 pm
robeambro wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:49 pm

There should be a thread like "here's a few pics of me on the turbo, how do I get more aero" - would help starting the right conversations, rather than what we often have which is silly debates about half a watt saved on whatever frame.
No offense but that's just a waste of everyone's time TBH. Reddit is full of that kinds stuff though if that's what you're interested.
Whilst I agree that it may not yield results for everyone, it's hardly any more of a waste of time than talking about whether this frame or that frame is 1w faster. IMO.
Good point actually!

Mocs123
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 9:19 pm

by Mocs123

I wonder what the margin of error is for these tests?
2015 Wilier Zero.7 Rim - 6.37kg
2020 Trek Emonda SLR-7 Disc - 6.86kg
2023 Specialized SL7 - 7.18kg

apr46
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:46 pm

by apr46

spartacus wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:35 pm
robeambro wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:03 pm
spartacus wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:18 pm
robeambro wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:49 pm

There should be a thread like "here's a few pics of me on the turbo, how do I get more aero" - would help starting the right conversations, rather than what we often have which is silly debates about half a watt saved on whatever frame.
No offense but that's just a waste of everyone's time TBH. Reddit is full of that kinds stuff though if that's what you're interested.
Whilst I agree that it may not yield results for everyone, it's hardly any more of a waste of time than talking about whether this frame or that frame is 1w faster. IMO.
Good point actually!
One way to do this would be to use a stationary / smart bike to find some positions you can ride comfortably at threshold power and take frontal pictures from a tripod positioned at the same place and look to see what setup reduces your frontal area the most. This way you can check for elbows out when tired etc. Then you go out and A/B test a couple against your current position. Once you have resolved that, then tests like the Tour test can help you pick the fastest bike that fits.

I attemped to do this and ended up designing my own bike because none of them worked for me. While the bike was being produced, 2 bikes were launched that would meet my requirements, the Trek Domane RSL and the Chapter2 Koko. I would love to stick my bike along side those two into a wind tunnel and see which is the fastest and by how much--in lieu of that the Tour data is at least helpful for some bikes.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



spartacus
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

by spartacus

I feel like if someone was really motivated to analyze their position they should use the Chung method or something instead of relying on whatever "looks" aero while you're on a stationary trainer. But if there are glaring issues with the position they're possibly visible.

Post Reply