Merida Reacto 2021

[guadzilla]

If the Venge is two watts faster, that would still be more relevant than a 200g weightsaving. Just because park tool doesn't make an "aero scale", people act as if weight was more relevant than aerodynamic drag. It's not.

I'll repeat what I wrote: "You can argue whether it is significant or not, but apparently Spesh doesnt think so."

Considering the error margin of aero tests, 2W is pretty much noise. Considering the total rider weight, 200gm weight saving is also pretty much noise. People are free to debate about the theoretical benefit of this... personally, it is at a level where it ceases to matter to me.

[guadzilla]

In that case I totally agree, different wheel profiles and said aero and cross wind benefits are just navel gazing (aka marketing).

I have a pair of 'old' Easton EC90 55mm aero rims. Are they fast? Yes! Can they climb? Kinda! Would I choose to ride them in high winds? No! But I bet the same would apply to the latest and greatest aero rims from Specialized/Trek/Giant/Zipp/etc.

Aero rims are a done deal, great for calm days, not so much for windy ones.

Yup, pretty much. And i think bikes are reahing a similar point of convergence re aero vs weight.

Going back to the Merida - I do wonder to what degree they share R&D and engineering with Spesh They have been very careful to keep their brand distinct from Spesh (presumably to avoid diiluting Big Red), but it would be a bad business decision to not share the R&D to some degree.

[kgt]

Considering the error margin of aero tests, 2W is pretty much noise. Considering the total rider weight, 200gm weight saving is also pretty much noise. People are free to debate about the theoretical benefit of this... personally, it is at a level where it ceases to matter to me.

Ok, but it is not the same. 200gr is something you can objectively measure, no matter if 200gr less are important to someone or not. Claims like 2W less or 7sec faster in a 40km course are just ridiculous, as Raoul Luesher said in his last video and hambini says all the time. These are 100% debatable claims that just came out of marketing departments.

[FlatlandClimber]

Considering the error margin of aero tests, 2W is pretty much noise. Considering the total rider weight, 200gm weight saving is also pretty much noise. People are free to debate about the theoretical benefit of this... personally, it is at a level where it ceases to matter to me.

Ok, but it is not the same. 200gr is something you can objectively measure, no matter if 200gr less are important to someone or not. Claims like 2W less or 7sec faster in a 40km course are just ridiculous, as Raoul Luesher said in his last video and hambini says all the time. These are 100% debatable claims that just came out of marketing departments.

Nope. It's actually the other way around. You can measure drag savings just as you can measure weight. However, YOU and I can't measure it at home, so you dismiss it as rubbish. It's not about claims, but these 2 Watts are measured independently from Spesh/ Merida's claims (Tour Mag). 2 Watts saving at 200 Watts total drag is a 1% saving.
200g saving, for me at least (and I am sub 8% BF), is a whopping saving of 0.25%. What is more important, unless you are going ridiculously slow, The weight saving effect is next to nothing (well under 0.1 W of rolling resistance). If you dismiss all of this as BS, just don't participate in the discussion, this is proven by science.

[kgt]

Considering the error margin of aero tests, 2W is pretty much noise. Considering the total rider weight, 200gm weight saving is also pretty much noise. People are free to debate about the theoretical benefit of this... personally, it is at a level where it ceases to matter to me.

Ok, but it is not the same. 200gr is something you can objectively measure, no matter if 200gr less are important to someone or not. Claims like 2W less or 7sec faster in a 40km course are just ridiculous, as Raoul Luesher said in his last video and hambini says all the time. These are 100% debatable claims that just came out of marketing departments.

Nope. It's actually the other way around. You can measure drag savings just as you can measure weight. However, YOU and I can't measure it at home, so you dismiss it as rubbish. It's not about claims, but these 2 Watts are measured independently from Spesh/ Merida's claims (Tour Mag). 2 Watts saving at 200 Watts total drag is a 1% saving.
200g saving, for me at least (and I am sub 8% BF), is a whopping saving of 0.25%. What is more important, unless you are going ridiculously slow, The weight saving effect is next to nothing (well under 0.1 W of rolling resistance). If you dismiss all of this as BS, just don't participate in the discussion, this is proven by science.

You can measure drag, for sure, but how and where? At which speeds? Using which technology? Taking into account which variables? In a wind tunnel, using CFD or out on the road? Using constant or transient flow dynamics? A number of 2W, more or less, can be 0w or 5w or -4W depending on the circumstances.

I don't care for 200gr more either but measuring aero drag is always context dependent, so less objective than measuring weight. In any case there are so many variables in real conditions; claiming that bike A actually has 2W less drag than bike B is just ridiculous according to Luescher (and I agree).

[robbosmans]

Considering the error margin of aero tests, 2W is pretty much noise. Considering the total rider weight, 200gm weight saving is also pretty much noise. People are free to debate about the theoretical benefit of this... personally, it is at a level where it ceases to matter to me.

Ok, but it is not the same. 200gr is something you can objectively measure, no matter if 200gr less are important to someone or not. Claims like 2W less or 7sec faster in a 40km course are just ridiculous, as Raoul Luesher said in his last video and hambini says all the time. These are 100% debatable claims that just came out of marketing departments.

Nope. It's actually the other way around. You can measure drag savings just as you can measure weight. However, YOU and I can't measure it at home, so you dismiss it as rubbish. It's not about claims, but these 2 Watts are measured independently from Spesh/ Merida's claims (Tour Mag). 2 Watts saving at 200 Watts total drag is a 1% saving.
200g saving, for me at least (and I am sub 8% BF), is a whopping saving of 0.25%. What is more important, unless you are going ridiculously slow, The weight saving effect is next to nothing (well under 0.1 W of rolling resistance). If you dismiss all of this as BS, just don't participate in the discussion, this is proven by science.

Those 2 watts are measured in a wind tunnel thats the problem, wind in the outside world is turbulent as hell, so 2 watts in a wind tunnel is negligible in the real world


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[FlatlandClimber]

That's why aero testing is performed at various yaw angles. The implications can be applied to various speeds. A three percent saving (Stock SW SL7 v Stock SySix Hm) holds true at 25kph (probably 100-130 Watts of drag) or 50kph (probably >400W of drag). 2% is 2%. There will be situation where it is a little more, and others where it is a little less, 2% is just the average of all yaw angles tested. 200g or even 900g (SL7 lighter than SySix) will never be two percent. Not even for the lightest rider up Aiger North Face.
I said several times, ride what you want, what makes you happy, what you like riding on.
But claiming a "light aero bike" is objectively any faster than a "full aero bike", anywhere, just is nonsense.

[FlatlandClimber]

Considering the error margin of aero tests, 2W is pretty much noise. Considering the total rider weight, 200gm weight saving is also pretty much noise. People are free to debate about the theoretical benefit of this... personally, it is at a level where it ceases to matter to me.

Ok, but it is not the same. 200gr is something you can objectively measure, no matter if 200gr less are important to someone or not. Claims like 2W less or 7sec faster in a 40km course are just ridiculous, as Raoul Luesher said in his last video and hambini says all the time. These are 100% debatable claims that just came out of marketing departments.

Nope. It's actually the other way around. You can measure drag savings just as you can measure weight. However, YOU and I can't measure it at home, so you dismiss it as rubbish. It's not about claims, but these 2 Watts are measured independently from Spesh/ Merida's claims (Tour Mag). 2 Watts saving at 200 Watts total drag is a 1% saving.
200g saving, for me at least (and I am sub 8% BF), is a whopping saving of 0.25%. What is more important, unless you are going ridiculously slow, The weight saving effect is next to nothing (well under 0.1 W of rolling resistance). If you dismiss all of this as BS, just don't participate in the discussion, this is proven by science.

Those 2 watts are measured in a wind tunnel thats the problem, wind in the outside world is turbulent as hell, so 2 watts in a wind tunnel is negligible in the real world


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

The wattsavings by making your bike lighter, that this whole forum with hundreds of thousands of posts revolves around, are a lot more negligible.
While air outside is a lot more turbulent than in a wind tunnel, there are still a lot of real world applications. If this wasn't the case, why does Specilaized's "climbing bike" just look like a venge now? An aero handle bar, aero wheels and Aero tubes/forks do create real world advantages, that you can measure outdoors.

[robbosmans]

Ok, but it is not the same. 200gr is something you can objectively measure, no matter if 200gr less are important to someone or not. Claims like 2W less or 7sec faster in a 40km course are just ridiculous, as Raoul Luesher said in his last video and hambini says all the time. These are 100% debatable claims that just came out of marketing departments.

Nope. It's actually the other way around. You can measure drag savings just as you can measure weight. However, YOU and I can't measure it at home, so you dismiss it as rubbish. It's not about claims, but these 2 Watts are measured independently from Spesh/ Merida's claims (Tour Mag). 2 Watts saving at 200 Watts total drag is a 1% saving.
200g saving, for me at least (and I am sub 8% BF), is a whopping saving of 0.25%. What is more important, unless you are going ridiculously slow, The weight saving effect is next to nothing (well under 0.1 W of rolling resistance). If you dismiss all of this as BS, just don't participate in the discussion, this is proven by science.

Those 2 watts are measured in a wind tunnel thats the problem, wind in the outside world is turbulent as hell, so 2 watts in a wind tunnel is negligible in the real world


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

The wattsavings by making your bike lighter, that this whole forum with hundreds of thousands of posts revolves around, are a lot more negligible.
While air outside is a lot more turbulent than in a wind tunnel, there are still a lot of real world applications. If this wasn't the case, why does Specilaized's "climbing bike" just look like a venge now? An aero handle bar, aero wheels and Aero tubes/forks do create real world advantages, that you can measure outdoors.

I am only saying that small watt savings measured in a windtunnel are negligible


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[FlatlandClimber]

Nope. It's actually the other way around. You can measure drag savings just as you can measure weight. However, YOU and I can't measure it at home, so you dismiss it as rubbish. It's not about claims, but these 2 Watts are measured independently from Spesh/ Merida's claims (Tour Mag). 2 Watts saving at 200 Watts total drag is a 1% saving.
200g saving, for me at least (and I am sub 8% BF), is a whopping saving of 0.25%. What is more important, unless you are going ridiculously slow, The weight saving effect is next to nothing (well under 0.1 W of rolling resistance). If you dismiss all of this as BS, just don't participate in the discussion, this is proven by science.

Those 2 watts are measured in a wind tunnel thats the problem, wind in the outside world is turbulent as hell, so 2 watts in a wind tunnel is negligible in the real world


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

The wattsavings by making your bike lighter, that this whole forum with hundreds of thousands of posts revolves around, are a lot more negligible.
While air outside is a lot more turbulent than in a wind tunnel, there are still a lot of real world applications. If this wasn't the case, why does Specilaized's "climbing bike" just look like a venge now? An aero handle bar, aero wheels and Aero tubes/forks do create real world advantages, that you can measure outdoors.

I am only saying that small watt savings measured in a windtunnel are negligible


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

And I am only saying that even a 3 or 4 pound weightsaving on a system is more negligible.

[Pato]

Looking good on may details.
Not so when looking at geometry table though. Seems to use single fork for every sizes with varying head tube angle.
They make it handle well for medium size but made minimum effort to scale the bike down again. XS and XXS size rider should avoid such bike.

I'm the kind of rider who usually uses an XS or XXS (around 375 Reach / 500 Stack) and don't see anything wrong with it, as a matter of fact it's the only bike I've seen that has a decent wheelbase, most XS/XXS are around 970mm which translate into a very twitchy handling, especially with a steep HA and long fork offset.
For the tests I've done, I'd prefer a shorter fork offset (42mm) and slacker HA of around 69.5º/70º to compensate for wheelbase and avoid toe overlap with 410mm chainstay.

69.5 HTA and 42mm fork offset make it 82mm trail. That's slower handling than most Gravel bike.
If it is really that good then bike size medium and up where there is no such toe overlap limitation like smaller size would jump on this kind of slow handling geometry. But no, medium size and up racing road bikes gravitate to neutral handling around 56-62mm trail.
Smaller rider shouldn't have to tolerate geometry that is not even close to ideal like medium size and up. We can get long wheelbase and also the same neutral handling (rather than slower) with more fork offset rather than just making head tube more slack alone. Cannondale, Specialized, Cervelo etc. are all doing this quite right.
Look at Cannondale SuperSix Evo size 48 or SystemSix size 51. SuperSix Evo size 48 have 985mm wheelbase and 58mm trail. The bike has only 375mm reach too, unlike Reacto size XS which make it 384mm. They achieve it through 71.2degree HTA pair with 55mm fork offset. More fork offset in the smaller size is what needed to keep small bike have long wheelbase (with not so long reach/ top tube length) and handle the same way as larger bikes (with similar/same trail value). Unfortunately, it's where many manufacturers cut the cost by not offering it.

And why would you need faster handling when you're usually going above 33km/h on straight roads except when going uphill, and even twisty roads for a bike are still pretty much straight.
Stability and grip while leaning is a factor to consider, which short trail pretty much does not help it actually does quite the oppposite. A short trail and too much fork offset reduces grip when leaning the bike into a corner at 50km/h.
This geometry made much more sense with 19mm tires 30y ago, but as rubber is getting wider geometry should adapt to take the most benefit out of it.
I understand fast handling is necessary in a parking lot going around cones but that's not what road cycling is about, which is speed. At speed you lean countersteering, anybody who comes from motorcycle racing knows how that works.
Road cycling in one of the most conservative sports there is, the use of tubulars and strict UCI rules already proves that. Bike geometry is basically unchanged for the last 30 years except for seat tube angle and most probably it won't change, not because it's perfect but just because that's the way it is.

[guadzilla]

Ok, but it is not the same. 200gr is something you can objectively measure, no matter if 200gr less are important to someone or not. Claims like 2W less or 7sec faster in a 40km course are just ridiculous, as Raoul Luesher said in his last video and hambini says all the time. These are 100% debatable claims that just came out of marketing departments.

Oh for sure, one attribute may be easier to measure (the 200gm lower weight probably sells more) - but I was talking about the impact of those differences in the real world. Eg, I have yet to be in a race where 200gm has made a difference in my performance. OTOH, while i would happily take a 2W gain here, there and everywhere I could (I have lost TT podiums by a few seconds in the past), it isnt clear what a 2W difference in a test under one set of conditionstranslates to in the real world, under different conditions and a different rider. So the accuracy of that "2W" number is hard to assess, also m aking it more or less negligible.

I actually think the decision by Specialized to say "f'k it, these bikes are close enough to not make a difference" is probably the most honest message coming out of the bike industry of late, although as usual, Big Red ties itself into quite a few knots to try to reconcile these messages with their previous ones.

Anyway, back to Merida....

[guadzilla]

Those 2 watts are measured in a wind tunnel thats the problem, wind in the outside world is turbulent as hell, so 2 watts in a wind tunnel is negligible in the real world

RChung, whose credibility and experience i trust in a lot more than the Youtube attention whore, has said that while wind tunnel testing doesnt factor in transient state, the results from the wind tunnel do correlate to performance. Take that for what it is worth. But that applies towars rider testing - equipment, position, etc.

When it comes to bike comparisons, I agree with you: the same test conducted under different protocols or even a different wind tunnel could likely have different results. Tire choice, wheel choice, dummy choice, accuracy of the wind tunnel all play a role. So that 2W difference likely falls within the error margin of the test.

[Hexsense]

Looking good on may details.
Not so when looking at geometry table though. Seems to use single fork for every sizes with varying head tube angle.
They make it handle well for medium size but made minimum effort to scale the bike down again. XS and XXS size rider should avoid such bike.

I'm the kind of rider who usually uses an XS or XXS (around 375 Reach / 500 Stack) and don't see anything wrong with it, as a matter of fact it's the only bike I've seen that has a decent wheelbase, most XS/XXS are around 970mm which translate into a very twitchy handling, especially with a steep HA and long fork offset.
For the tests I've done, I'd prefer a shorter fork offset (42mm) and slacker HA of around 69.5º/70º to compensate for wheelbase and avoid toe overlap with 410mm chainstay.

69.5 HTA and 42mm fork offset make it 82mm trail. That's slower handling than most Gravel bike.
If it is really that good then bike size medium and up where there is no such toe overlap limitation like smaller size would jump on this kind of slow handling geometry. But no, medium size and up racing road bikes gravitate to neutral handling around 56-62mm trail.
Smaller rider shouldn't have to tolerate geometry that is not even close to ideal like medium size and up. We can get long wheelbase and also the same neutral handling (rather than slower) with more fork offset rather than just making head tube more slack alone. Cannondale, Specialized, Cervelo etc. are all doing this quite right.
Look at Cannondale SuperSix Evo size 48 or SystemSix size 51. SuperSix Evo size 48 have 985mm wheelbase and 58mm trail. The bike has only 375mm reach too, unlike Reacto size XS which make it 384mm. They achieve it through 71.2degree HTA pair with 55mm fork offset. More fork offset in the smaller size is what needed to keep small bike have long wheelbase (with not so long reach/ top tube length) and handle the same way as larger bikes (with similar/same trail value). Unfortunately, it's where many manufacturers cut the cost by not offering it.

And why would you need faster handling when you're usually going above 33km/h on straight roads except when going uphill, and even twisty roads for a bike are still pretty much straight.
Stability and grip while leaning is a factor to consider, which short trail pretty much does not help it actually does quite the oppposite. A short trail and too much fork offset reduces grip when leaning the bike into a corner at 50km/h.
This geometry made much more sense with 19mm tires 30y ago, but as rubber is getting wider geometry should adapt to take the most benefit out of it.
I understand fast handling is necessary in a parking lot going around cones but that's not what road cycling is about, which is speed. At speed you lean countersteering, anybody who comes from motorcycle racing knows how that works.
Road cycling in one of the most conservative sports there is, the use of tubulars and strict UCI rules already proves that. Bike geometry is basically unchanged for the last 30 years except for seat tube angle and most probably it won't change, not because it's perfect but just because that's the way it is.

My last post about this geometry stuff in this thread.
I own two bikes with very different trail value. One retired race bike that become my commuter has 76mm trail (70.5 deg HTA with low fork offset). And SS Evo with trail=58mm. The biggest handling difference I notice is that, the high trail bike has so much more self centering force that it need steeper lean for the same corner. SS Evo, not only have lower trail but higher fork offset also make front end of the bike drop further when I counter steeer the handle bar to the side. It simply need less lean angle of the bike frame to turn. That make tight corner at high speed and also pedaling through corner much easier. High speed stability from outside factor mostly provide by the wheelbase length. Having same long wheelbase but less trail means it make input from the rider have more control authority but the increased stability from long wheelbase is still there to reduce effect of outside factor.

I think we can agree to disagree what geometry of modern racing road bike should be. But 71.2deg HTA and 55mm fork offset is new approach which is not explored years ago. You have it wrong that this high fork offset help low speed corner around cone. It doesn't, while the trail is reduced, the bike tend to wonder a bit more at very low parking lot speed due to higher wheelflop as side effect of low HTA angle+ high fork offset compare to traditional geometry. The modern approach of higher fork offset start to feel nice when you start to counter steer at higher speed. Disagree all you want, I think I explained everything I got from my experience, maybe we just have different take on this. And I still stand with my take that the bike in size small/xs doesn't have the same HTA as any larger size, why would it not have different fork offset to neutralize the handling to feel the same (which they can also use that detail to advertise their attention to detail, optimized geometry for every size etc.) All I can see is that offering dedicated fork for small sizes cost them more money.

[Unniti]

Looking good on may details.
Not so when looking at geometry table though. Seems to use single fork for every sizes with varying head tube angle.
They make it handle well for medium size but made minimum effort to scale the bike down again. XS and XXS size rider should avoid such bike.

I'm the kind of rider who usually uses an XS or XXS (around 375 Reach / 500 Stack) and don't see anything wrong with it, as a matter of fact it's the only bike I've seen that has a decent wheelbase, most XS/XXS are around 970mm which translate into a very twitchy handling, especially with a steep HA and long fork offset.
For the tests I've done, I'd prefer a shorter fork offset (42mm) and slacker HA of around 69.5º/70º to compensate for wheelbase and avoid toe overlap with 410mm chainstay.

69.5 HTA and 42mm fork offset make it 82mm trail. That's slower handling than most Gravel bike.
If it is really that good then bike size medium and up where there is no such toe overlap limitation like smaller size would jump on this kind of slow handling geometry. But no, medium size and up racing road bikes gravitate to neutral handling around 56-62mm trail.
Smaller rider shouldn't have to tolerate geometry that is not even close to ideal like medium size and up. We can get long wheelbase and also the same neutral handling (rather than slower) with more fork offset rather than just making head tube more slack alone. Cannondale, Specialized, Cervelo etc. are all doing this quite right.
Look at Cannondale SuperSix Evo size 48 or SystemSix size 51. SuperSix Evo size 48 have 985mm wheelbase and 58mm trail. The bike has only 375mm reach too, unlike Reacto size XS which make it 384mm. They achieve it through 71.2degree HTA pair with 55mm fork offset. More fork offset in the smaller size is what needed to keep small bike have long wheelbase (with not so long reach/ top tube length) and handle the same way as larger bikes (with similar/same trail value). Unfortunately, it's where many manufacturers cut the cost by not offering it.

And why would you need faster handling when you're usually going above 33km/h on straight roads except when going uphill, and even twisty roads for a bike are still pretty much straight.
Stability and grip while leaning is a factor to consider, which short trail pretty much does not help it actually does quite the oppposite. A short trail and too much fork offset reduces grip when leaning the bike into a corner at 50km/h.
This geometry made much more sense with 19mm tires 30y ago, but as rubber is getting wider geometry should adapt to take the most benefit out of it.
I understand fast handling is necessary in a parking lot going around cones but that's not what road cycling is about, which is speed. At speed you lean countersteering, anybody who comes from motorcycle racing knows how that works.
Road cycling in one of the most conservative sports there is, the use of tubulars and strict UCI rules already proves that. Bike geometry is basically unchanged for the last 30 years except for seat tube angle and most probably it won't change, not because it's perfect but just because that's the way it is.

The reason why so many road bikes are so twitchy is because people think that makes them faster and more nimble. It's the same reason why we were on super narrow tires at absurd pressures only a couple years ago.