Bianchi Oltre RC 2023

[mrbrown4001]

I wish modern aero bikes focused on "making aero comfortable and easy", narrow bars made for best ergonomics in aggressive positions (eg sphinx, drops), relatively good comfort without having to resort to 30c+ tyres, storage solutions to avoid using saddle bags, practical aero water bottles.. The fastest bike for amateurs will be the one that allows you to stay aero the longest and the one that is the most aero once you've put all of your gps mount and unit, bottles and possibly spares on the bike.

Instead what we get is a "wind tunnel race" where all brands aim to make a bike that is a smidge faster at 45km/h in a laboratory. Think about this Oltre - they tout the advantages of the cockpit but what happens when you add a GPS unit there (and where can you even put it)?

They do that. It's called a tri bike

I wonder if things would change if the UCI relaxed rules about fairings to explicitly make them okay for necessary riding accessories.

I still think @justkeepedaling’s point stands that brands aren’t doing enough within the UCI limits to make aero more useable. Especially with handlebars and the cockpit options across the entire oltre range are a perfect example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cajer]

How are people this naive? It's absolutely a deliberate part of the marketing. It doesn't work - at all. But it's a cheap stick on which they can successfully market as being UCI illegal to the muppets who'll consider buying it. This is a prime example of marketing led tech. Almost guaranteed that marketing came up with the initial concept - a stick on feature that would be UCI-illegal which they could then leverage to get people who don't know better to buy it because they think (wrongly) it will make them faster.

I didn't even read Bianchi's statements on the deflectors and right away figured out it was using the F1 side mirror aerodynamics concept to reduce drag.

But hey, aero features on F1 cars are all about marketing.

Also, what in the world are you saying regarding wind speed and relative freestream velocity? Do you even understand that when you moan that you can't ride at 50 kph?

No one is doubting the theory, it's the microscopic scale, relatively slowww application and dubious benefits shrouded in marketing bs that makes any real world benefit questionable if not unquantifiable. Look into the probe setups required to accurately measure the pressure differential in models for these arrangements, yeah not sure. If another brand did it, it would potentially be taken more seriously as a concept, even just as a concept, than this particular one jumping the shark and riding the coat tails of past glory and pastel pantones, for which it is just a matter of time before it is a meme.

They don't use probes for pressure differential on the frame in the tunnel, unless you're talking about the aero probes being used for outdoor riding.

As far as other brands, Cervelo S5 and Simplon Pride II both have split stems and are amongst the most aero bikes out there. Nobody has done the air deflectors, but somebody has to be the first mover. It was a recent development in F1 to begin with, introduced only in 2018.

I'm a bit skeptical of air deflectors on bikes, they would likley be better served by just making the airfoil longer (as it's no where near the UCI limits here). The use in F1 and the rear view mirrors makes sense due to it needing a large rear area for the acutal mirror and difficult to aifoil shape due to length/depth limitations thus almost requiring a buff body.

IMO bikes just aren't bulky enough to see much benefit from air deflectors

[simbikotic]

I read (almost) this whole thread and I don't think anyone said this yet, but apologies if I missed it...

This frame design and geo is super interesting (to me) it seems to address some real problems in the comfort + weight tradeoffs of aero bikes.

1. Horizonal top-tubes are more aero but lead to a high junction with the seat-tube so less seatpost out and less comfort. By lowering the stack they have created a horizontal top tube design that allows for more seatpost out than other higher stack designs. 51cm seat tube on the 53 frame is respectable.

2. Lowering the stack also gives the frame smaller triangles, which means stiffer for a given mass of material used, or lighter for a given stiffness target. The claimed weight of the frame is indeed quite good.

3. A consequence of the unusually low stack is the bike needs a riser stem to make it rideable by anyone except a pro-yogi. Usually riser stems look terrible. In this case (only my opinion) the design looks considerably less terrible than usual. Chapeau.

I can't wait to read some ride reports. It will be really interesting to hear how this geo affects ride feel. Likely this interesting geo will have much more of an impact on the rider experience than the funny air intake.

[Gaz9]

There's far too much debate here over the technical aspects of the bike in my opinion... the most upsetting part is the horrendous aesthetics. A bit of style and good taste in our sport is worth a couple of kph surely!

[spokenwords]

I think the thing that bugs me the most is the fact that the fairings are bolt on. If the numbers prove their worth then commit to them and mold the headtube. Dont make them bolt on. It kinda tells me they dont like them that much either.

[TobinHatesYou]

I think the thing that bugs me the most is the fact that the fairings are bolt on. If the numbers prove their worth then commit to them and mold the headtube. Dont make them bolt on. It kinda tells me they dont like them that much either.

The removable nature of the fairings is entire due to the fact that they knew the UCI would disapprove. Better to bolt them on than to take the risk. They could have gotten cute and marketed them as external cable routing guides, but the UCI would have likely ruled them illegal either way.

[Stendhal]

I think the thing that bugs me the most is the fact that the fairings are bolt on. If the numbers prove their worth then commit to them and mold the headtube. Dont make them bolt on. It kinda tells me they dont like them that much either.

The removable nature of the fairings is entire due to the fact that they knew the UCI would disapprove. Better to bolt them on than to take the risk. They could have gotten cute and marketed them as external cable routing guides, but the UCI would have likely ruled them illegal either way.

Absolutely. After I posted the first message on this, I read the rest of the Cycling News article that reported the story (the article had been behind a pay wall on the computer on which I first read it). The UCI wrote to Cycling News that Bianchi submitted the bike without the deflectors to the UCI and obtained approval for the frame as configured. Thus, the bike is UCI-okay in that configuation, but not with the deflectors attached. So does the bike as sold include a UCI-approved decal as most approved frame do, when if dislayed with the deflectors on a showroom floor it would not be usable in a UCI-sanctioned event in that configuration? I don't knew whether cyclist good enough to race in a UCI-sanctioned event would buy their own bikes, but if so there's the potential for confusion and disppointment.

[blaugrana]

I think the thing that bugs me the most is the fact that the fairings are bolt on. If the numbers prove their worth then commit to them and mold the headtube. Dont make them bolt on. It kinda tells me they dont like them that much either.

The removable nature of the fairings is entire due to the fact that they knew the UCI would disapprove. Better to bolt them on than to take the risk. They could have gotten cute and marketed them as external cable routing guides, but the UCI would have likely ruled them illegal either way.

Absolutely. After I posted the first message on this, I read the rest of the Cycling News article that reported the story (the article had been behind a pay wall on the computer on which I first read it). The UCI wrote to Cycling News that Bianchi submitted the bike without the deflectors to the UCI and obtained approval for the frame as configured. Thus, the bike is UCI-okay in that configuation, but not with the deflectors attached. So does the bike as sold include a UCI-approved decal as most approved frame do, when if dislayed with the deflectors on a showroom floor it would not be usable in a UCI-sanctioned event in that configuration? I don't knew whether cyclist good enough to race in a UCI-sanctioned event would buy their own bikes, but if so there's the potential for confusion and disppointment.

It will surely depend on the country, but I think in most of Europe amateur races (proper road races, not sportives) are UCI sanctioned, so the usual rules apply. Whether the comissaires bother to check as long as you don't show up in something really weird is another matter, of course.

Sure, you don't need to worry about that if you only "race" sportives, or group rides, but then you can also use aero extensions and get a lot more UCI-illegal speed for your money. Making such an expensive bike illegal to race is just absurd: if they want to push what a bicycle can be outside of the rules, they should go much further than that. This is just sitting in no man's land.

[TobinHatesYou]

Even in "UCI" races in the US like Tour of the Gila, the UCI rules only apply to that specific "pro" category and not the amateur ranks below it.

[mikemelbrooks]

The BMC time machine is not UCI legal with its aero bottle cage/ toolbox and the Orbea Orca aero comes with a non UCI legal toolbox it's not like Bianchi are breaking new ground.

[eucalyptus]

Even in "UCI" races in the US like Tour of the Gila, the UCI rules only apply to that specific "pro" category and not the amateur ranks below it.

What ranks do you race in?

[Lina]

If you live in a smaller country without a large cycling scene there is at least one UCI race every year if you're in the top category. The national championship race.

[TobinHatesYou]

What ranks do you race in?

The only time UCI rules/regs would ever apply to me is at amateur or master's nationals.

[js]

Not sure if the video Ritxis shared at the bottom of page one is available anywhere else, but the fact the headtube in those videos - during shots where they had it in the windtunnel and were demonstrating the 'aeroness' of the front end - didn't have the fairings on it is what really confirms for me that these are a marketing add-on.

I know the biggest gains in the system are by making the rider more aero, but as mentioned in a few other articles now - the idea of creating vortices to lower drag for the rider REQUIRES additional drag from the bike. And if all your rider-benefiting vortices are right along the top tube (either just above or just beside), how much of the rider can you actually find there to benefit.

I'm happy to wait on independent testing to confirm it, but I'd be shocked if this bike ends up as a world-beater. And I think we'd all pass out from the shock if it ended up being 30% better than any other aero bike as they've claimed.
(That really is the type of statement that throws out all credibility)

[Ritxis]

Not sure if the video Ritxis shared at the bottom of page one is available anywhere else, but the fact the headtube in those videos - during shots where they had it in the windtunnel and were demonstrating the 'aeroness' of the front end - didn't have the fairings on it is what really confirms for me that these are a marketing add-on.

I know the biggest gains in the system are by making the rider more aero, but as mentioned in a few other articles now - the idea of creating vortices to lower drag for the rider REQUIRES additional drag from the bike. And if all your rider-benefiting vortices are right along the top tube (either just above or just beside), how much of the rider can you actually find there to benefit.

I'm happy to wait on independent testing to confirm it, but I'd be shocked if this bike ends up as a world-beater. And I think we'd all pass out from the shock if it ended up being 30% better than any other aero bike as they've claimed.
(That really is the type of statement that throws out all credibility)

They will be editing the video.......
What "funny" makes me the most about brands when they use the word "aero" it's today's mantra.......it's like some make comparisons with F1, there is someone who is the first to make "comparisons" with aeronautics