Thank you.
*Tour Aero Bike Tests*
Moderator: robbosmans
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:35 am
Well said.Nereth wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:40 amThis comment seems misplaced for so many reasons (depending on your intent with it...)naavt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:26 amSo basically... a pair of socks! For the ones who are not racing and seeking every marginal gain because of that... Puts me to wonder.Nereth wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:11 am
On that basis, I expect to save conservatively 1-3 watts from the venge, and optimistically maybe up to 4-5 on same wheels. From an SL6, I expect you will save noteably more, but I'm not sure how aero the SL6 was. Take all those numbers and knock a quarter off for a 40kph setpoint.
1) In my specific case, my original frame was destroyed in a car crash, as I said in my post. The replacement has nothing to do with marginal gains.
2) I'm comparing a top end aero frame to another aero frame. Why are you expecting more than a few watts from what is, at best, a side-grade?
3) Are you new to marginal gains? You get 3-4 watts each from frame, wheels, handlebar, (and a lot from kit), you end up 15W ahead. Now you're doing your pulls at 105% FTP instead of 110%. Now you can pull for twice as long for the same amount of match burned. That is NOT marginal any more. You are now significantly fresher after an hour. Not to mention that you get slightly more rest in the draft and get to the front a bit fresher as well!
4) Maybe you already HAVE the aero socks, and want something else on top of that? They're not mutually exclusive!
It's the same old nonsense from the anti-weight weenie crew in relation to hill climbing.
"Take a sh1t instead of spending £500 on titanium bolts", they say.
What if you've already taken a sh1t?
You're absolutely right about the accumulation of marginal gains. Science innit. If you're not interested in it, fine; if going 0.2kph faster doesn't matter to you, fine; but personally I am sad b@stard, I have knocked raving and pretending to talk to girls in nightclubs on the head and now very much enjoy the pursuit of that additional 0.2kph. Every now and then I win a tenner at a local time trial too, so it's all worth it.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
New Tour, new entries:
Canyon Ultimate CF SL 8 Aero (50/62mm ARC 1600): 216
Rose Xlite 06 (60mm Rose RC Sixty): 215
Unfortunately no 404 results. Surprised by the Canyon. They did not do that much on the aero side. I was expecting more from the Rose, especially on 60mm rims..
Canyon Ultimate CF SL 8 Aero (50/62mm ARC 1600): 216
Rose Xlite 06 (60mm Rose RC Sixty): 215
Unfortunately no 404 results. Surprised by the Canyon. They did not do that much on the aero side. I was expecting more from the Rose, especially on 60mm rims..
Thanks! I already said it when they tested the Xlite 04 (224 watt): In terms of aerodynamics it's rather disappointing. They advertise it as a do-it-all race bike and mention aero performance several times. The Tour results disappoint me.henau212 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:21 pmNew Tour, new entries:
Canyon Ultimate CF SL 8 Aero (50/62mm ARC 1600): 216
Rose Xlite 06 (60mm Rose RC Sixty): 215
Unfortunately no 404 results. Surprised by the Canyon. They did not do that much on the aero side. I was expecting more from the Rose, especially on 60mm rims..
The Ultimate is comparable but in that case I knew what to expect. Plus, Canyon has an actual aero option with the Aeroad.
- Canyon Aeroad CF SLX 8 Di2
- Cervelo Caledonia Rival eTap AXS
- Vitus Venon Evo
- Canyon Grail CF SL 8 Di2
The 2021 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX 9 had 221W (Zipp 404) / 224W (50mm DT Swiss)henau212 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:21 pmNew Tour, new entries:
Canyon Ultimate CF SL 8 Aero (50/62mm ARC 1600): 216
Rose Xlite 06 (60mm Rose RC Sixty): 215
Unfortunately no 404 results. Surprised by the Canyon. They did not do that much on the aero side. I was expecting more from the Rose, especially on 60mm rims..
Do you know if the Cervelo R5 listed here is the current one or the previous generation?CN2000 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:35 pmThe 2021 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX 9 had 221W (Zipp 404) / 224W (50mm DT Swiss)henau212 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:21 pmNew Tour, new entries:
Canyon Ultimate CF SL 8 Aero (50/62mm ARC 1600): 216
Rose Xlite 06 (60mm Rose RC Sixty): 215
Unfortunately no 404 results. Surprised by the Canyon. They did not do that much on the aero side. I was expecting more from the Rose, especially on 60mm rims..
NLC86 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:09 amDo you know if the Cervelo R5 listed here is the current one or the previous generation?CN2000 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:35 pmThe 2021 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX 9 had 221W (Zipp 404) / 224W (50mm DT Swiss)henau212 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:21 pmNew Tour, new entries:
Canyon Ultimate CF SL 8 Aero (50/62mm ARC 1600): 216
Rose Xlite 06 (60mm Rose RC Sixty): 215
Unfortunately no 404 results. Surprised by the Canyon. They did not do that much on the aero side. I was expecting more from the Rose, especially on 60mm rims..
This one
What I find somewhat interesting is that Tour attributes some of the R5 un-aeroness to (quote) "relatively wide rims".
Dogma numbers keep surprising me. I just can't believe the kinky Pinarello tubes, which, IIRC Pinarello themselves admitted only to serve "aesthetic function", to outperform Specialized wind tunnel engineered bike by such a margin.
Dogma numbers keep surprising me. I just can't believe the kinky Pinarello tubes, which, IIRC Pinarello themselves admitted only to serve "aesthetic function", to outperform Specialized wind tunnel engineered bike by such a margin.
Minimum bike categories required in the stable:
Aero bike | GC bike | GC rim bike | Climbing bike | Climbing rim bike | Classics bike | Gravel bike | TT bike | Indoors bike
Aero bike | GC bike | GC rim bike | Climbing bike | Climbing rim bike | Classics bike | Gravel bike | TT bike | Indoors bike
Same here, but I also question the very good aero score for the SL7 with its relatively small, semi-traditional tube shapes.
Two things are possible; that what we intuitively believe makes a frame more aero is not quite right, or these aero tests need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Likely a bit of both. It's all hard to reconcile with a bike like the Cannondale System Six testing at 203 watts.
Of course if my Factor Ostro earns a fabulous score I will regard these tests as gospel.
Last edited by Mr.Gib on Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.
-
- Posts: 12566
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm
mrlobber wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:17 pmWhat I find somewhat interesting is that Tour attributes some of the R5 un-aeroness to (quote) "relatively wide rims".
Dogma numbers keep surprising me. I just can't believe the kinky Pinarello tubes, which, IIRC Pinarello themselves admitted only to serve "aesthetic function", to outperform Specialized wind tunnel engineered bike by such a margin.
The Dogma F does have a very narrow HT, tight clearance at the top of the fork, a tall BB area, and extremely narrow ST / seatpost.
SystemSix could really use some of aero update to regain its status.
1) Taller BB area fill to about top of the chainring.
2) Narrower seat tube and seatpost, similar to the new SuperSix.
3) Slightly narrower head tube. The steerer tube is no longer round on new SuperSix and the cable routing was changed. Actual head tube structure inside cosmetic headtube design is scraped. It wouldn't take as much space to route all the hoses and wires anymore.
4) Slightly narrower downtube to be used with flat-side aero water bottle released together with the new Supersix.
1) Taller BB area fill to about top of the chainring.
2) Narrower seat tube and seatpost, similar to the new SuperSix.
3) Slightly narrower head tube. The steerer tube is no longer round on new SuperSix and the cable routing was changed. Actual head tube structure inside cosmetic headtube design is scraped. It wouldn't take as much space to route all the hoses and wires anymore.
4) Slightly narrower downtube to be used with flat-side aero water bottle released together with the new Supersix.
You can't tell just by looking at them, what is the most aero. If people designed things based on what they looked like we'd be driving around bubble shaped cars like they had in the 50's for space age looking concepts.Mr.Gib wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:05 pmSame here, but I also question the very good aero score for the SL7 with its relatively small, semi-traditional tube shapes.
Two things are possible; that what we intuitively believe makes a frame more aero is not quite right, or these aero tests need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Likely a bit of both. It's all hard to reconcile with a bike like the Cannondale System Six testing at 203 watts.
Of course if my Factor Ostro earns a fabulous score I will regard these tests as gospel.
The R5 as tested is also negatively impacted by its stem/handlebar combo which certainly has a major impact on its CdA.
As for the SL7, there isn't much wrong with it at all. It's not full on aero-optimized but it's a hell of a compromise between aero and lightness. Specialized has its work cut out for them to come out with a successor.
As for the SL7, there isn't much wrong with it at all. It's not full on aero-optimized but it's a hell of a compromise between aero and lightness. Specialized has its work cut out for them to come out with a successor.
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:35 am
2016 Scott foil premium tested at 216w.
New foil tested at 206w.
Scott says the new one is 16w "quicker" than the old one
New foil tested at 206w.
Scott says the new one is 16w "quicker" than the old one
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com