If you can get aero benefits at similar weight, why wouldn’t you? I think what we are seeing is that all arounder bikes that incorporate some aerodynamic features and that can be built up relatively light are making specialty road bikes (aero and climber bikes) less attractive. Lightweight gravel bikes are doing the same thing to endurance and all road bikes.
Intuitively, I've always felt a lightweight bike is a better option for most people. It feels nimble and makes a tangible difference on climbs, or anytime you have to overcome a negative change in acceleration. In other words, the only time weight truly doesn't matter is when you are steady speed on the flats or descending in a more or less straight line. Personally, I would go lightweight bike with 40-50mm aero wheels as the ideal weight/aero compromise.
@@michaellee7046 A few hundred grams will be completely negligible in terms of acceleration, most cyclists get up to cruising speed within a few seconds, 10-15 at most.
@@yutiros5174 You might be underestimating just how much change in acceleration there is on a typical bike ride. Unless you have long stretches of smooth asphalt, there will be a lot of deceleration to overcome. Traffic lights, climbs, cornering, evasive maneuvers, various obstacles, even rough pavement is a decelerating force, as your bike vibrates up, down, and sideways, creating deceleration that you have to overcome. An aero bike helps you cut through the air, but is a disadvantage for everything else.
Horses for courses, of course, but where I live with a mix of flat, hilly and mountainous as well as a mix of smooth tarmac and rougher areas, an all rounder works best for me. I don’t love love the look of my new Tarmac SL8, but it just does everything well. Climbs like a dream, accelerates so fast when you stomp on the pedals l, its corners better than any bike I’ve had and it is 95% as aero as the best aero bikes. I guess if you live in all hills or just on the flats, but 90%+ should be getting an all rounder similar to the Tarmac. Unless you believe in N+1 and you have the money for it.
Aero bikes have got lighter and lightweight bikes have got more aero - basically everything is meeting in the middle to the point where there isn’t a huge difference between any of them anymore. Just buy what you like the look of and you think will bring you enjoyment and make you want to ride.
Put slightly wider tires with the right pressure on aero bikes (like pros) and with the aero gains that FAR outweigh the 1% efficiency gains that you just recovered for 150 usd anyways, and you just have a better bike by all measures with 0 downside. Period.
But it doesn't. Riding in a wind tunnel does not mimic a race or fast group ride. The best bike is something that does everything well, and even then, fitness trumps equipment.
Biggest hurdle though is the lump of meat on the bike. For vast majority of us, a more aero bike or climbing bike completely negated by our limitations as cyclists. Everything is geared to and compared to pro riders so us mere mortals base our purchases on what they ride seeing as bike manufacturers almost always advertise wtih them in mind. The marketing spiel of "it's lighter, faster more aero" etc. Aero becomes way more important the faster you go, so a rider who is riding at 40kph+ consistently will benefit more but most of us don't ride at that speed. Well I don't unless going downhill.
Right. Effects of rider posture and extra, non-functional body weight completely overwhelm frame efficiency differences. But ride a long descent, or deal with a sustained headwind, and you ARE likely to realize significant aero benefits.
Lighweight para nosotros los mortales globeros, Las aero para los profesionales, las ganancias marginales es algo que nosotros no vamos a notar nunca xD
I see Orbeas a LOT online. See them in races. I think in 20 years of riding I recall seeing only ONE on the road. Saw like 30,000 each of Giant, Trek, Specialized. I do believe the company exists and actually sells bikes. But.. where are they?
Wouldn’t it depend on who you are and where you ride? If I lived in Cumbria, I’d want a climbing bike. If I lived in Norfolk, I’d want an aero bike. I live in Manchester so want both 😊
How about a modern all-rounder in that case like SL8 or Ostrom VAM maybe? These seem to climb just as well as the pure climbing lightweight bikes unless you're doing tons of >10%
You must be kidding! There was no wind tunnel testing to measure the watts saved from an aero frame. This is a one sided test that is really weak. Test a bike like Tarmac or Madone against the Orbea climbing bike with wind tunnel testing. Promise you that a climbing/aero bike will out perform a pure climbing bike every day. Especially with a tubeless set-up. Very disappointed in the headline of this video, the one sided testing, and the conclusion. Would also like a disclosure about whether Orbea paid for this video. The future of ultra-light climbing bikes is destined for the weight weanies that will pay a premium, but not race. The Athos is a prime example. The badge of honor of "Not UCI legal" and the S-Works brand makes a HUGE profit off those people. But this is just mental masturbation! They get off thinking about how fast they are.....
Yeah The aero frame is going to have about 10w less drag at 40kph.. Maybe 15 at the very most. The power loss from efficiency was actually not presented clearly. It ranged from - well - he said 3 watts I think. But he also said 1 to 3%. Although -- the tarmac data - which is more applicable for most of us - was only 1% so let's use that. The clearest number he said was 3 watts. So... if the aero bike loses 3w to efficiency but gains 10+ from reduced drag - that's clear. Using the percentages: For 30kph - say a test rider needs to do 170 watts. 1% is about 2 watts vs maybe a 5-7 watt aero difference. So the aero frame wins only slightly For 40kph - say a test rider needs to do 240 watts - so - still about 2 watts and the aero frame still wins by around 10w If you compare the 3% numbers... then that power loss wipes out a lot of the aero benefits. What this might show is that for slow gravel riders, an aero bike might not be much/any benefit
I don’t get it: at my price point of 5k there is no weight difference between aero and „lightweight“ bike. Is there any reason i should not go for an aero?
Lightweight Aero make sense. My next bike will be a sub-17lb (~16.5 lbs) aero bike with mid depth wheels (sub 1300 grams). I’m considering the Factor Ostro Vam 2.
I am more interested in knowing where I can get drums to ride on so I can get all this rolling resistance efficiency. Sick of all those stupid flat roads sucking up my energy.
Yes, phase out climbing bikes. Then in around 10 years, a video titled.... "why you NEED a climbing bike!" Yawn. Ride light, get good fitness and enjoy effing cycling! You don't need to spend a fortune, buy used always and focus on the engine rather than fawning over new trends. Seen enough of this marketing BS.
The heaviest aero bike used by those pro are still much faster on climbing than my all around bike, because the so called 8 kg heavy is still 2 kg lighter than mine
👍 For professional riders who reach speeds above 30 kph on the decisive climbs the fastest option might well be an other one than for the rest of the world.
@@JohannesCycling along that same thought, spending thousands just to save that 0.5kg won't do much for the rest of the world who weighs 85kg. better off losing body weight which is free
Not a fan of the Orca Climbing bike I feel like the all-around 2023 Orca OMX would better suit the pro teams along with the Orca aero option, the OMX is aero where it needs to be, climbs great and the pro peloton is full of similar designed bikes, S-works sl-8, Scott addict, ect.
I feel like the actual aerodynamics come from the geometry of the bike, more than the frame itself. Aero frames can be faster mostly because its riding position is more aggressive. Comfort can be a trade off here, and imo lightweight allrounder would be a better option for non-racers.
Flawed test setup. The weight of the lighter bike will be felt when climbing and acelerating. And you mostly never always clime steady, you have micro-accelerations all the time.
As a recreational cyclist I really don’t see the appeal of aero bikes. I’d wager I’d lose far more speed due to position on the bike than I would gain from riding an aero bike over a climbing bike.
Weight and aerodynamic claims are amazing … and then you put a big heavy slab on a rider in these bikes …. Marginal differences over egg’d to convince you you need a new bike
Aero bikes certainly are better if you are alone and not on a long steep climb. Of course, the tires are fat to make em tolerable and to justify the disc brakes. On a normal climb of 6-10% and a few miles length, most riders might average 10 mph. Not much aero there. Next time you want to test the effects of a heavier bike...go climb something big, record the time. Then, stick a few lbs in you pockets and do the same climb. nuff said
Idiotic ad for Orbea masked as a test. Yes maybe at 40kmh you save 3w in efficiency with the lightweight bike, but you probably save five times that in aero efficiency with the aero bike, but of course this time they want to sell the lightweight bike so let's only mention that. Yawn.
Yeah, this one is comical. Who's climbing what at 30-40kph?? The KOM for Mont Ventoux is Tadej doing the 21km climb at avg 7.1% grade in an hour. So 21kph, for an absolute all-time great. If you're doing that at 30kph you're PED doped out of your mind or motor doping, Jamie! You're saving your e-motor 3W. This vid puts the nail in the coffin for light-weight climbing bikes, it doesn't promote them.
You dont “probably save five times as much” by going with the aero bike. Even as per TOUR magazines tests, which are not real world test and are done with just dummy legs and no rider, the difference between the worst and the best ever aerodynamic bike in a wind tunnel is about 20 watts. Consider a rider on it and it drops to less than 5 watts of difference between the new Foil RC and the Addict RC ( refer to Cade media’s video on this). The real takeaway from this video is that essentially what you are gaining through aero gains you end up losing through efficiency losses. So ride what you like and think looks best in your garage. All these data points are simply marketing gimmicks.
if you don't got the bucks and aren't a pro, you won't get a climbing bike unless it comes with rim brake and light shallow alloy wheels. A climbing bike is below 7kg.
If you can get aero benefits at similar weight, why wouldn’t you? I think what we are seeing is that all arounder bikes that incorporate some aerodynamic features and that can be built up relatively light are making specialty road bikes (aero and climber bikes) less attractive. Lightweight gravel bikes are doing the same thing to endurance and all road bikes.
Intuitively, I've always felt a lightweight bike is a better option for most people. It feels nimble and makes a tangible difference on climbs, or anytime you have to overcome a negative change in acceleration. In other words, the only time weight truly doesn't matter is when you are steady speed on the flats or descending in a more or less straight line. Personally, I would go lightweight bike with 40-50mm aero wheels as the ideal weight/aero compromise.
Except that for a lot of people, riding at a steady speed on flat ground is like 90% of their ride time.
@@yutiros5174stop and go at traffic lights?
@@michaellee7046 A few hundred grams will be completely negligible in terms of acceleration, most cyclists get up to cruising speed within a few seconds, 10-15 at most.
@@yutiros5174 Then they can get an aero bike :)
@@yutiros5174 You might be underestimating just how much change in acceleration there is on a typical bike ride. Unless you have long stretches of smooth asphalt, there will be a lot of deceleration to overcome. Traffic lights, climbs, cornering, evasive maneuvers, various obstacles, even rough pavement is a decelerating force, as your bike vibrates up, down, and sideways, creating deceleration that you have to overcome. An aero bike helps you cut through the air, but is a disadvantage for everything else.
nothing looks cooler than a climbing frame with 50mm or more depth wheels 💪🏼💪🏼
Credit must be given to SSE. That rig is incredible and has so much potential to unlocking Crr and vibrational loss knowledge.
SL8; Cannondale Evos Super Six... what were once "climbing bikes" seem to have gotten some aerodynamic refinement.
Horses for courses, of course, but where I live with a mix of flat, hilly and mountainous as well as a mix of smooth tarmac and rougher areas, an all rounder works best for me.
I don’t love love the look of my new Tarmac SL8, but it just does everything well. Climbs like a dream, accelerates so fast when you stomp on the pedals l, its corners better than any bike I’ve had and it is 95% as aero as the best aero bikes.
I guess if you live in all hills or just on the flats, but 90%+ should be getting an all rounder similar to the Tarmac. Unless you believe in N+1 and you have the money for it.
While everyone waiting aero bikes to lose weight, climbing bikes improved more on the aerodynamics resulting climbing bikes to be unbeatable
Aero bikes have got lighter and lightweight bikes have got more aero - basically everything is meeting in the middle to the point where there isn’t a huge difference between any of them anymore.
Just buy what you like the look of and you think will bring you enjoyment and make you want to ride.
Put slightly wider tires with the right pressure on aero bikes (like pros) and with the aero gains that FAR outweigh the 1% efficiency gains that you just recovered for 150 usd anyways, and you just have a better bike by all measures with 0 downside. Period.
Then you do the same with the climbing bike and you’re back to having a difference
But it doesn't. Riding in a wind tunnel does not mimic a race or fast group ride. The best bike is something that does everything well, and even then, fitness trumps equipment.
It would be nice if the graphs had proper axis and labels rather than time on the Y axis. Doesn't exactly mean much in relation to the results
Exactly
I'm still on my 2013 Cannondale Supersix HiMOd Black Inc. No aero, no electronic, no disc... And yeah, tubular rulez! :)
Buy whatever you like the look of.
Finally, some actual scientific facts!🎉
Now, let's have some more comparisons regarding aero.
Thank you.❤
If climbing bike is 3w more efficient than aero, how many watts is aero bike more "aero" than climbing bike?
The test may say more about the Orca Aero than it does about climbing vs aero bikes in general.
Agreed. My Scott Foil is the newer of my 2 Bikes and I still go for my Scott Addict RC more.
May I ask why? The Foil looks like a pure aero bike, and the Addict RC a modern lightweight climber but not a modern all-rounder. Would you agree?
Biggest hurdle though is the lump of meat on the bike. For vast majority of us, a more aero bike or climbing bike completely negated by our limitations as cyclists. Everything is geared to and compared to pro riders so us mere mortals base our purchases on what they ride seeing as bike manufacturers almost always advertise wtih them in mind. The marketing spiel of "it's lighter, faster more aero" etc. Aero becomes way more important the faster you go, so a rider who is riding at 40kph+ consistently will benefit more but most of us don't ride at that speed. Well I don't unless going downhill.
Right. Effects of rider posture and extra, non-functional body weight completely overwhelm frame efficiency differences.
But ride a long descent, or deal with a sustained headwind, and you ARE likely to realize significant aero benefits.
Enough with the ads. How about compared to your new aeroad? Which would you choose? :)
We always seem to forget in these tests that80- 90% of the time we’re sitting in the draft of others, so who cares how aerodynamic the bike is.
What a clever Orbea advertisement! Still fun content.
Interesting test, but you should've taken aero gains into consideration in the test.
Jeez wasn’t it just last year people were saying aero is dead and now they’re flipping the script?
Lighweight para nosotros los mortales globeros, Las aero para los profesionales, las ganancias marginales es algo que nosotros no vamos a notar nunca xD
Bikes like the Argon 18 Sum Pro are a great way to get the best of both worlds.
An issue that is not addressed is whether the aero benefits of the Orca Aero offset the stiffness and weight advantages of the Orca climbing bike.
Very interesting!
I see Orbeas a LOT online. See them in races. I think in 20 years of riding I recall seeing only ONE on the road. Saw like 30,000 each of Giant, Trek, Specialized.
I do believe the company exists and actually sells bikes. But.. where are they?
In Spain. They are everywhere!
Wouldn’t it depend on who you are and where you ride? If I lived in Cumbria, I’d want a climbing bike. If I lived in Norfolk, I’d want an aero bike. I live in Manchester so want both 😊
How about a modern all-rounder in that case like SL8 or Ostrom VAM maybe? These seem to climb just as well as the pure climbing lightweight bikes unless you're doing tons of >10%
You must be kidding! There was no wind tunnel testing to measure the watts saved from an aero frame. This is a one sided test that is really weak. Test a bike like Tarmac or Madone against the Orbea climbing bike with wind tunnel testing. Promise you that a climbing/aero bike will out perform a pure climbing bike every day. Especially with a tubeless set-up.
Very disappointed in the headline of this video, the one sided testing, and the conclusion. Would also like a disclosure about whether Orbea paid for this video.
The future of ultra-light climbing bikes is destined for the weight weanies that will pay a premium, but not race. The Athos is a prime example. The badge of honor of "Not UCI legal" and the S-Works brand makes a HUGE profit off those people. But this is just mental masturbation! They get off thinking about how fast they are.....
Yeah
The aero frame is going to have about 10w less drag at 40kph.. Maybe 15 at the very most.
The power loss from efficiency was actually not presented clearly. It ranged from - well - he said 3 watts I think. But he also said 1 to 3%. Although -- the tarmac data - which is more applicable for most of us - was only 1% so let's use that.
The clearest number he said was 3 watts. So... if the aero bike loses 3w to efficiency but gains 10+ from reduced drag - that's clear.
Using the percentages:
For 30kph - say a test rider needs to do 170 watts. 1% is about 2 watts vs maybe a 5-7 watt aero difference. So the aero frame wins only slightly
For 40kph - say a test rider needs to do 240 watts - so - still about 2 watts and the aero frame still wins by around 10w
If you compare the 3% numbers... then that power loss wipes out a lot of the aero benefits. What this might show is that for slow gravel riders, an aero bike might not be much/any benefit
@@FT__Cool_Stuff______-of5pi All valid points, but not testing the aero makes this invalid to me.
That Orca is a good looking bike, glad this wasn’t just another aero vs climbing bike aero test😍
I don’t get it: at my price point of 5k there is no weight difference between aero and „lightweight“ bike. Is there any reason i should not go for an aero?
Lightweight Aero make sense. My next bike will be a sub-17lb (~16.5 lbs) aero bike with mid depth wheels (sub 1300 grams). I’m considering the Factor Ostro Vam 2.
Put some light deep carbon wheels on climbing bike seems fine enough
Specialized agrees Orbea. Aethos for the win! Even the new SL8 has technology from the Aethos.
I am more interested in knowing where I can get drums to ride on so I can get all this rolling resistance efficiency. Sick of all those stupid flat roads sucking up my energy.
Yes, phase out climbing bikes. Then in around 10 years, a video titled.... "why you NEED a climbing bike!"
Yawn. Ride light, get good fitness and enjoy effing cycling! You don't need to spend a fortune, buy used always and focus on the engine rather than fawning over new trends.
Seen enough of this marketing BS.
The heaviest aero bike used by those pro are still much faster on climbing than my all around bike, because the so called 8 kg heavy is still 2 kg lighter than mine
I always see pro riders opt for their team aero bike now even on mountain stages. Like WVA won that medium mountain stage at the Vuelta on his S5
👍 For professional riders who reach speeds above 30 kph on the decisive climbs the fastest option might well be an other one than for the rest of the world.
@@JohannesCycling along that same thought, spending thousands just to save that 0.5kg won't do much for the rest of the world who weighs 85kg. better off losing body weight which is free
Climbing bike anytime for me
Not a fan of the Orca Climbing bike I feel like the all-around 2023 Orca OMX would better suit the pro teams along with the Orca aero option, the OMX is aero where it needs to be, climbs great and the pro peloton is full of similar designed bikes, S-works sl-8, Scott addict, ect.
Scott sponsored teams just use the Foil.. q36.5 and DSM 🤫
I feel like the actual aerodynamics come from the geometry of the bike, more than the frame itself.
Aero frames can be faster mostly because its riding position is more aggressive. Comfort can be a trade off here, and imo lightweight allrounder would be a better option for non-racers.
I'm going to let my mates spend their money on aero bikes while I draft off them on my lightweight bike, lol.
Aethos Fanboy here without owning one
Notice how they're not really raced ?
@@petersouthernboy6327 I race mine! 150-300 mile events though
@@petersouthernboy6327because they’re below the 6.8kg limit
@@petersouthernboy6327notice how you’re not a professional racer?
@@michaellee7046 That’s right, I’m an amateur racer. If the Aethos was such hot shit - why does Specialized use the SL-8 for their teams?
Flawed test setup. The weight of the lighter bike will be felt when climbing and acelerating. And you mostly never always clime steady, you have micro-accelerations all the time.
As a recreational cyclist I really don’t see the appeal of aero bikes. I’d wager I’d lose far more speed due to position on the bike than I would gain from riding an aero bike over a climbing bike.
Weight and aerodynamic claims are amazing … and then you put a big heavy slab on a rider in these bikes …. Marginal differences over egg’d to convince you you need a new bike
Soon there probably won't be a climbing bike. As technology develops and bikes get lighter, aero bikes will hit the UCI weight limit.
Aero bikes certainly are better if you are alone and not on a long steep climb. Of course, the tires are fat to make em tolerable and to justify the disc brakes.
On a normal climb of 6-10% and a few miles length, most riders might average 10 mph. Not much aero there.
Next time you want to test the effects of a heavier bike...go climb something big, record the time. Then, stick a few lbs in you pockets and do the same climb. nuff said
I agree with you but most amateur riders are probably riding a lot of flat and rollers to get to a big climb on that route.
the best climbing bike is bmw r1250 rs
Idiotic ad for Orbea masked as a test. Yes maybe at 40kmh you save 3w in efficiency with the lightweight bike, but you probably save five times that in aero efficiency with the aero bike, but of course this time they want to sell the lightweight bike so let's only mention that. Yawn.
Yawn!? For not remaking a test that has been done 100 times before? THAT would be yawn!
@@jaybikes99 Should've incorporated cda efficiency AS WELL.
@jaybikes99 No, it hasn't. Not between these two bikes.
Yeah, this one is comical. Who's climbing what at 30-40kph?? The KOM for Mont Ventoux is Tadej doing the 21km climb at avg 7.1% grade in an hour. So 21kph, for an absolute all-time great. If you're doing that at 30kph you're PED doped out of your mind or motor doping, Jamie! You're saving your e-motor 3W. This vid puts the nail in the coffin for light-weight climbing bikes, it doesn't promote them.
You dont “probably save five times as much” by going with the aero bike. Even as per TOUR magazines tests, which are not real world test and are done with just dummy legs and no rider, the difference between the worst and the best ever aerodynamic bike in a wind tunnel is about 20 watts. Consider a rider on it and it drops to less than 5 watts of difference between the new Foil RC and the Addict RC ( refer to Cade media’s video on this). The real takeaway from this video is that essentially what you are gaining through aero gains you end up losing through efficiency losses. So ride what you like and think looks best in your garage. All these data points are simply marketing gimmicks.
Now compare it to a "do it all" bike like the tarmac sl8 or factor ostro 😉
most of the drag is in your position 😂😂 not the bike 😂😂
Orca is basically a niche brand. Their market share doesn't quite match their price. And that wheel drum isn't real world at all 😂
Orbea *
if you don't got the bucks and aren't a pro, you won't get a climbing bike unless it comes with rim brake and light shallow alloy wheels. A climbing bike is below 7kg.
Unless you just love a climbing bike for it's looks! It's all about enjoying the bike. If it makes you happy, the other stuff really doesn't matter.
Jamie: "Have Climbing Bikes Had Their Day? "
Every eBike: 👀
No body cares….
What a nonsensical advert.