After more than 20 years into cycling I understood that the most important thing, for me, is comfort. As soon as a bike is comfortable I'm eventually able to produce more watts, for longer and repeat the effort easier the next day. Comfort actually means less pain and more efficiency in general. Even getting in an aero position, in a comfortable way, completely outperforms the "aero-gains" of a 20K super trooper aero bike. This is my humble opinion on this debate.
That is very true. However if, in order to be comfortable, you need to be more upright, this would inevitably be less aero and negate the need for a profiled frame or reduce its efficiency.
@@fede1275personally, I'd rather spend money on a bike fit than the latest equipment fad. In my experience, for my moderate fitness level, comfort _doesn't_ mean an upright position, rather a frame + components which do NOT stretch me out too much, so as to avoid risk of fatigue-related injury.
Aero is all very well if you're riding solo, but if you're on a disciplined club ride in a pace line with a set speed, it should really only help if on the front or moving to the front.😊
My list of priorities when choosing a frame in descending order of importance: 1) manufacturing quality 2) geometry 3) quality-price ratio 4) weight 5) aero
As an older 60kg rider. I want an overall system weight that is low and responsive. So always lightweight. I’m probably strongest on hills, so for me, lightweight everyday. Great video. 🙌
Totally agree with your analysis. I have a climb / endurance type of bike that can be used as an allrounder incl. mountains if I go abroad once or twice per year to the Alpes. Yet, I have just purchased the Canyon Aeroad as well, simply because Denmark is a fairly country (although hills and winds are plenty), but when I do my interval trainings on the flats with the team, nothing beats the feeling when you push. Plus, it looks fantastic. I know, I am an easy target for the marketing campaigns. They made me buy two (!) bikes at the age of 54 as if I was ever going to win any race. But I love and we only live once. In any case, I list 11 kg in 18 months so something must be working 😂
Hello Federico! I prefer a lightweight bike overall, to make it more aero I just add a longer stem, then adjust the saddle position. Another big factor for aero is the jersey, what a difference that makes.
Excellent vid. I'm building a new bike right now and I landed with the same conclusion that the light weight bike is best for what I want to do, which is ride long hilly rides like grand fondos. So I went with the Orbea Orca frameset. I'll spec it with a 1 piece aero handlebar and use my Reynolds 45 wheels as standard. But for fast weekday group rides (less than 30 miles and rolling terrain) I plan to just pop in my Reynolds 65 wheels to hold faster speed on the flats at almost no weight penalty. Boom best of both worlds.
Hi Frederico, I think that your observations are very much right. My own observations are though a little bit different. I have got three bikes. All with modifications. A Bianchi Oltre XR4 rim brake (7,1 kg). A Scott Addict RC Pro disc (7,1 kg) and a Scott foil RC disc (7,7 kg). The bike I like to ride best is the XR4. But the Foil is the fastes bike in a rolling course in all wind conditions also when it is mostly cross winds. I have timed again and again. The foil does on average 2 km/t faster average. On climbs it is only marginal slower than the lighter bikes. I have to mention that the foil gives the me the possibility to have the best aero position on the bike and at the same time feel comfortable, so that could account for the speed difference, but my opinion is that the bike also contribute to the faster speed. Keep up you very good videos.
Yes, it actually makes sense. The XR4 would feel better as for the same weight the rim brake bike will have less weight on the wheels (rotors, spokes, thru axles). Maybe that route is favourable for the Foil and you are still strong enough to reduce the effects of side winds and get the aero benefits. The drawbacks are then felt more in the climbs.
Interesting video, Fede. I had a lightweight bike (Giant TCR) and an aero bike (Canyon Aeroad) at the same time, and must say that I preferred the lighter bike. The Aeroad was probably faster on the flat, but it felt less responsive and 'alive'. Although not exactly heavy (at 7.3 kg without pedals), the Aeroad was also slower up the hills. Now I've sold them both and bought an all-rounder (Specialized Tarmac SL8). Not quite sure whether it's the best of both worlds or if it falls between two stools -- it's not quite as good a climber as the TCR (but better than the Aeroad) and not quite as fast on the flat as the Aeroad (but probably faster than the TCR).
Aero or climbing bike, whatever it may be, if you're a strong rider you're a strong rider. Pogacar among others has shown that! That being said, I really like light weight bikes. They make climbing so easy consequently quite fun!
Aero comes from many places. Shorter than normal length cranks allow you to be much more efficient in the wind because of the lack of height you legs go in circles. The the free bit from it is it is also easier to be in the drops for longer. Shorter cranks went from 172 to 165 years ago works wonders. You will not notice the short cranks after one ride
@@fede1275 yeah but frame shapes and even crazy expensive wheels can't do what cranks and a bar swap on your existing bike can. People miss the boat that you the rider is the biggest drag and tube or rim shapes are truly irrelevant if you don't make you more efficient cuttin thru the wind. Narrow bars and short cranks is the true answer
Changed my lightweight bike to an aero bike since a couple of months… a little bit of more weight but the ride is much more comfortable. The light weight bike was a little too snappy/nervous, the aero bike is also stiff but it keeps the trajectory.. We have here a lot of “side wind” in NL… I was afraid for a lot of discomfort with the aero frame +deep dish wheels… but turns out it handles it far better than the light weight bike
I suggest a lightweight frame with a fully optimised position ie aftermarket 36cm bars etc. The S5's etc with full integration don't allow finessing position,a terrible option.
Ideally, having both. If you can't afford 2 bikes? The all-rounder. These are both only if speed is what you're seeking and beating PBs and your riding buddies is what you enjoy. If none of that interests you, whatever you get the best deal on or a city bike. Take it slow, enjoy the scenery and just enjoy cycling.
I have them both, 8 kg aero Look 795 blade RS (original) and 6,5 kg Time VXS Translink. I can't tell which one is faster, but lighter Time is much much much more reactive and responsive, and also more comfortable, so it feels faster than my Look aero bike.
Fede, not trying to come off as a jerk... but, actually, the aero tube profiling with the elongated profiles actually create more of a sailing effect in windier conditions and can create thrust. It's head on, where narrower/smaller front end is faster at low yaw.
If I look at my aero bike from the side I can see a lot more surface, so it could create more resistance and drag in crosswinds. However if you are a very strong rider the wind generated from the movement could overcome that and the efficiency of the aero bike could be then work again.
@@tommyfreckmann6857 I am not disputing that, I am just discussing at what speed/conditions you do get these benefits. For the wheels is a lot earlier than the frame. In cycling, because of the lower speeds, this aspect is crucial as we are more subject to sidewinds than other faster vehicles.
@@fede1275 at approx 20mph, average yaw angles are less than 10 degrees, even in moderately windy conditions. And at 25mph, it's closer to 5 degrees yaw.
I have Aethos SWorks with Roval Rapid CLX wheels, it's about 6.8 kg with all stuff. On descends and flats noticeably faster than with light shallow wheels. So Its still light bike with aero components and its works much better)
@@Silidons91 Yes, this is however more on individual circumstances. I am 87Kg, I can push a 50mm wheel and not get bothered by crosswinds, so for me might work better and I get the aero advantages. Lighter riders might be better off with a slimmer/shallower wheel.
That's the world we are living in. Everything is coming back. It has always been the lightweight bike to rule them all. Them came the Aero era. But where are we going now? Back to lightweight. But modern geometry can offer both. Look at the Giant TCR, Bianchi Specialissima, Specialized SL7 & The Pinarello Dogma F.
The bottom bracket of the new Pinarello looks huge. Perfect spot for a hidden motor...As for the marketing, every sport and activity is the same. Basically trying to get guillible consumers to buy the next best thing. If they make a minor tweak which makes it 0.0001% faster then yes it is quicker than previous model but ultimately the limiting factor is the lump of meat sitting on it.
Actually really enjoyed that. I get it's one opinion but lots of unfiltered sense. I race and have gone back to a lighter rim brake bike recently. Snappier in the acceleration
My current bike bought new in 2017 was designed in ~2014 as a climbing bike but had aero features. They had the designated aero bike, but my bike model was the "climbing" version. Its actually a great "all rounder" built with lighter weight but also for comfort with thin dropped seat stays. So the concept is nothing new. I agree Aero vs lightweight is all about that small window. We have an undulating summit Rd here which gets very windy as the hills and valleys accelerate the wind and make it swirl and eddy around like water over rocks in a stream. When windy If I take my 50mm "aero" wheels it gets really quite scary with all the gusts and I have to ride under ~35kph sometimes even on the downhills just to keep in control. I so regret my wheel choice on days like that!. If I take my same bike and put on "climbing" wheels the ride is so much more enjoyable and faster as the crosswinds and gust don't effect me so much. I have had my bike blown out from under me before while riding the aero wheels. I was riding sideways in a 50 to 60kph crosswind and as I went around a headland on the flat having just turned 90degrees a big ~80kph gust ( confirmed by local weather stations after getting home) unexpectedly hit me from the side. Moments before it was a direct headwind but luckily I was only going about 15kph because of it. So horses for courses!
I have both types of bikes, on the aero one, when I press the pedals, I feel how it advances in the forward direction, while on the light one, I feel how it loses power in a direction other than forward, so the geometry and rigidity of the frame also matter, and in my case aero is over the light version. On climbs, I feel the disadvantage difference due to the weight between the bikes only on slopes over 10%.
BOTH! I have a top-end 2021 Aero Bike at 7.2 kg. The new "All-rounder" top-end bikes are PROHIBITAVELY expensive. Also, disk-brakes are NOT aero. I paid 3000 EUR for my aero mechanical rim brake super bike. I am going to keep it for many years.
Great video Fede 👍🏽. For me I’ve really had enough of the marketing hype just buy what makes you happy, I’m not bothered about 6% stiffer or 3% lighter , at the end of the day we’re the engine for the bike . It might be nice to be able to keep up with your friends but I’m in the cycling for enjoyment. Also have you cut your grass yet 🤣!!!!!!! Have a great weekend 👍🏽
Nice video! Would like to add that, the velobuild frame you have with the wheels you use in that bike are not as stiff as the combination in the canyon bike, so the “feeling” on the velo is not as should be on a original venge with stiff wheels as the hypers.your canyon bike is much more responsive than the velo for sure.
That's correct, the Hyper wheels on the Ultimate are amazing. But I have been riding both bikes with the same Prime wheel and same groupset before, just to single out the frame differences only
@@fede1275 I have my velo/ looks like the pina F/ and a sl4 swords with cheap elite wheels, on the velo I run hypers 65 to create the real flat aero go fast feeling, still the sl4 feels more responsive when I push. Not super big difference but there is a difference. Will wait to get a low profile hyper wheels, I think the lun 20/38 , I am pretty sure the sl4 gonna be crazy fast and stiff. I will wait till the elite are dead first. Men, this addiction is a good addition. 🤣🤣🤣
As mentioned before I have the Aeroad and the Ultimate. I experienced the Aeroad to maintain speed when I go straight out on flats and its nos as willing to turn as the Ultimate and also Aeroad is less responsive Thant Ultimate but the Aeroad look cooler than the Ultimate. Both bikes can do everything but now I choose Ultimate for climbs and terrain with many turns and small hills because it wants to play with you and it's fun and lighter. The Ultimate I get used to from day 1 and the Abroad I needed to learn more to use especially turning cause it wants by itself to go straight. I feel like a pro when I go straight on flats on the Abroad with 40-45 km pr. hour and you need to work less than on the Ultimate when you have reached a good speed. My Ultimate has 50mm rims and the Abroad 62mm and surprisingly the 62mm wheelset did better in hard windy conditions than the 50mm rims on Ultimate. It's a fact the 62mm are 300gr. heavier Than the 50mm., and the Abroad I have has a 400gr. fork and 995gr. frame comparing to previous model which had 330gr. fork and 1080gr. frame. Definitely the 430 gr. fork was meant to make it stiffer but maybe also more stability on the fronwheel in harder windy conditions in combination with the heavier wheel set and I like the wheels as they are now for my riding conditions and is afraid to experiment with a lighter wheel set on the Abroad if it will loose stability.
I have a penchant for skinny tubes and mind that tells me a handsome looking retro bike just rides better. But none of those things really help my personal aero dynamics of a wardrobe. Maybe my bike sponsor would be bedroom furniture by Ikea🤟
Harkening back to your prior video, if the questions _only_ either _aero_ or _light_ my choice is actually *_comfortable_* - reasonably light would be nice, but not a prerequisite.
Ciao Fede! Great video. Come stai? Is 7.2 kg considered a heavy bike? Is 220ish watt bike considered a non-aero? Well, that’s what Pogi rode to win his 3rd tdf title, won 5 stages, and maillot jaune. IMO it’s all in our minds. The more we think about such, the less focus we are. As you mentioned, cycling is not motor racing. Rider has bigger role. Training, nutrition, conditioning, team & individual strategy play much bigger role while some cyclists focus more on the equipment which gives us only marginal gains. Mods on Pogi’s bike were made to optimize his biomechanics and riding style on specific terrain (descending on those ‘col’ at nearing 100kph require extra confidence → bigger tires, tighter steering, body balance & skill). Meanwhile, manufacturers must sell products & make some profits. The easiest to sell is something immeasurable (aero effectiveness) and something desirable (looks, colors). Fitness is something un-sexy to sell & requires something hard for the laymen; that is discipline. Someone might say F1 are won on aero effect, but what most don’t know: aero on auto racing is to get the car more planted & grip better. Athlete doping issues only exist on sports where muscle & lung play important role, otherwise the UCI will scrutinize on wing flex, illegal carbon layups, questionable tire compounds etc. Great video, Fede. Keep it up!
@@abhimawa1 yes, I love his dedication to achieve the perfect fit for every situation and type of ride, such an amazing rider. But if he had a 6.8Kg bike with similar characteristics I'm sure he will jump on it! He struggled with the transition to discs from the rim V3RS and they went with exotic components like carbon ti chainrings, titanium bolts and more to reduce weight. Now he seems happy
@@fede1275 perhaps the bike gave him more confidence structurally? But, again, it’s clear what direction the mods on Pogi’s bike were aimed at: lighter not aero. if I have to choose between ’lighweight’ vs ‘aero fins’, I’d have opted for lightweight. It’s a sure thing. More nimble, accelerates better. Aero? It’s 80% the rider (proven). Looks? I am more into classic style like Caraceni, Boglioli, Pini Parma, than ripped jeans & big-logo oversized jackets or any fad trend (if you know what I mean 😊)
sure, most top brands are going to use just one all around bike, also Canyon toned down the Aeroad to make it more usable everywhere. Strangely Van Rysel is going to reveal a new aero bike, looks like my Velobuild 😂
LOOK 795 Aerolight, the pinnacle of both! But don't expect it to be a doddle to maintain - that's the main drawback, oh and of course the cost, yes the cost :). Otherwise any quality handmade steel/alloy or titanium rim brake frame will be superior for most riders all of the time. And don't forget TUBULAR tyres are also what you want despite the misinformation out there peddled by those with vested interests. BTW this comes from 44 years of road bike experience.
Yes, that's what the industry wants everyone to believe because they need to sell something new when we already have the actual best. Do not be afraid of them, especially these days with good taping options instead of glue. If you want the best mix of performance, comfort, grip, light weight, convenience and durability use Continental Competition Tubulars either 22mm or 25mm. You will not be disappointed.
Remember they also have the benefit of using whatever air pressure is required for the conditions of use. Higher psi equals easier to pedal because of less rolling resistance. Don't ever believe the rubbish the marketers say 😉.
@@fede1275 specialized say the SL7 and 8 are faster than the old venge. And it seems Trek is going down the same path with the Madone (or emonda) thinning out the tubes. Even current Propel is much thinner to what it use to be. It's going to be a hard sell if they go back to big chunky tubes in the future.
@@DanTuberit's a play on words and circumstances. Overall SL8 and SL7 can be faster than the Venge, for the same reasons my Ultimate can be faster than my Velobuild: overall the thinner frames are better in a variety of wind conditions. At high speed and at a favourable angle true aero bikes are faster. Otherwise why don't they choose thin frames for a TT?
I think the light bike feels better however having some aero features will help get the best of both worlds. Aero bar and maybe a set of 40-50mm wheels and you’re pretty close to the aero bike but still lighter and a nicer feel. Dave Arthur done an aero test and at human speeds a tcr was faster than the new madone but at pro speeds obvs the madone was faster. Same wheels
Exactly. I wanted to see the differences between my two bikes and I had the same 50mm wheels, similar bars and position. I would not go for shallow wheels on the lightweight bike as I also want some speed. I remember DA test, as I found out the aero bike can be faster, but mostly ridden at higher speed. I could not understand how some marketed these as less effort for the same speed.
I think both - aero and weight - are overrated in the cycling community. Physics says that 1kg of weight at climbs up to about 7% is worth less than 5 watts. GCN has tested this and they've come to the results pretty close to the theoretical ones. One can save way more than 5 watts being more aerodynamic. But what you said about problems with aero frames (and wheels) is quite true, for example in a crosswind. As you said, the most important about aerodynamics is our position on the bike, while the frame can give us only very marginal gains. But the same goes for weight, actually. This is especially true for bigger, heavier persons. In their cases, the bike's weight is a relatively small fraction of the total system weight. This might be of bigger value for smaller riders and in certain cycling disciplines in which you have to decelerate and accelerate often (criterium, cross country, etc.). This was a purely efficient/performance-wise approach. There is also a 'feel' aspect to this. I can understand one can prefer the feel of responsiveness of a lighter bike. However, I wonder how much this is the actual difference in responsiveness and how much is just a placebo effect. Anyway, I think spending the extra money to make our bike lighter or more aero is equally a waste if we don't race professionally and we don't really need those tiny gains.
I follow your points on aero, we more or less agree. I still don't trust very much the theoretical modelling, to me there are so many other variables in a ride that might not come out on the tests done at that moment. For the weight I have to insist: I tried so many combinations, from 10Kg with my Merida Scultura 200 disc, through around 8Kg of my Velobuild, all the way to sub 7Kg of my Canyon Ultimate rim. The lightest bike it's on another level for responsiveness, acceleration, climbing ability, agility, it is driven by my brain power. I also ride my winter Ultimate, same bike with heavier components: it feels almost like a different bike altogether. You would need to try for yourself, it is a great feeling. If weight was not so crucial in cycling, there would not be such a premium to buy lighter kit. Every gram reduction costs a lot of money because it counts.
@@fede1275, last summer I switched from a 16 kg steel touring bike to about 11 kg aluminium gravel bike. I can say, I've felt a difference at some climbs (I don't have many of them in my area). Of course, both bikes handle quite differently, but those are quite different designs. It's hard to compare them. I do not claim weight doesn't change a thing, but it is hard for me to believe it is that much. Let's take a 75 kg rider. If a bike weighs 10 kg, the whole system is 85 kg. Let's change the bike to 7 kg. That's 82 kg for the system. That's a change of about 3,5%. I think every gram costs so much not because it counts but because it is costly to produce components so light that still do their job reliably enough. There is demand for those parts from the cycling world, and hence industry provides them. Again, if someone is racing, every slight advantage counts. But for everyday riding? I'm not convinced. Don't take me wrong - if I could really afford a top-end carbon bike I would probably buy one. But still, I don't think the gains are worth the money. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that. The world would be a boring place if we would agree on everything. 😉
@@fede1275 perhaps. I don't want to insist on something while not having much experience in the subject, of course. Maybe because I have a scientific background, I actually prefer to trust 'numbers' instead of my feelings. Tests in wind tunnels and other 'laboratory' experiments have the plus of isolating features in question from other factors. As you said yourself, in the 'real world' many things can happen to influence a bike's behaviour and a rider's feelings. Hence, we can't really know is this due to weight, or maybe some other factor in the construction of the bike. Still, I do trust your experienced opinion on the bike under 7.5 kg being felt way better than heavier machines. But why is that? I'm not sure of this. Do you feel differently on the bike with a full water bottle and an empty one? Because this is a difference of about 500 g. Take a larger bottle or make it two, and you will have a 1 kg. I can believe swapping my old 16 kg touring bike for something under 7.5 kg would be a major change and would be quite noticeable (but again, this would be two completely different constructions). Since I'm a small guy (162 cm), I guess I would even feel a switch from my 11 kg gravel bike. But I continue to speak here about changes of a couple of kilograms. People are sometimes excited about tens or hundreds of grams, and this is completely insane from my perspective. Again, I believe your feelings but I'm not sure the weight alone is responsible for them. Unfortunately, I can't afford a bike weighing under 7.5 kg and I probably won't soon. And true be told - I don't need one. Sure, I like the feel of speed and nimbleness, but I usually ride alone, I don't race, and I'm more about exploration, touring and adventure (getting healthier and fitter are a side benefits for me). Do I start from traffic lights in that part of the second faster or slower doesn't really matter to me. If I finish my 100 km ride (though I've never done such distance yet) 4 minutes later or earlier also won't make a difference for me. So, I guess I search in cycling slightly different things. Anyway, sorry for another block of text. Wish you and all others good riding (regardless of the frame's weight and shape). 😉
Then rimbrakes makes even more fun to ride ultimate but discversion is really good on long descends on f.ex. Gran canaria and the duraacegrips are very light to press and breaks very fast but here in Denmark the rim better in terms of riding but disc let the rims live longer my opinion
Morning. How much of a benefit does an aero or super bike(whatever they call the latest greatest)really provide. I put out decent power and am wondering would I really get a noticeable benefit from a newer aero/super bike over my 5 year old carbon road bike. Unfortunately Cycling Media is part of the problem.those guys talk up the tech when it's actually just crap.
Not an easy answer, but to me a stronger rider on a rolling terrain can push a more aero bike and get its benefits. I was just pointing out that bikes like SystemSix or S5 might have a narrower window where they can be beneficial. If you are not that strong they could be detrimental, especially uphill.
After trying out one of the best marketed bikes (dogma F, aeroad, s5) i went with the sl8 this year. In personal experience the more aero a frame was the more it rode like a dog. Especially the s5 and the aeroad where horrible (sluggish, heavy and uncomfortable).
Fred..,its all about what a individual wants as for me it's always going to be aero as light weight dont matter as i weight 218 lbs & being 58 years old racing everywhere is definitely not a thing for me so aero it is as my Reacto is light enough for me that does all i need it to do happy days...,👊🏾
I am having difficulty to understand why there is much discussion about this topic. The frame weight difference between the two is not more than 300 gr in many brands. Perhaps I do not have either type of bikes and that's why I am struggling to understand how 300 gr difference makes the bikes feel different given that 300 gr is only a very small fraction of the total system weight. If I were to choose one, I would go for aero or something in between (SL7/8 or Van Rysel)
I was referring to bikes with much wider differences. True aero bikes are the SystemSix, Ribble Ultra, Scott Foil, Cervelo S5. In most cases these go beyond 8.5Kg or more. These bikes can give a huge advantage in the flats, but inevitably feel sluggish at slow speed and need a strong rider. SL8, VanRysel, Ostro, Propel, the new Trek and so on are all-around bikes with some aero profiling, but not true aero bikes. These are good compromises that can do it all.
@@fede1275 yeah but we should not be comparing the total bike weight as it includes the components weights. For instance canyon aeroad could be 8.2 or 7.2 kg depending on mostly the components. For instance dores the frame weight difference between the system six and the super six is much larger than 300gr? Similarly for Scot foil and addict is there much difference in frame weight?
@@muratmustafa4532 I would say that with similar component there would be around 500/800g between true aero and lightweight frames. Modern "aero" bikes are in reality all-arounders, where especially the rear section has been slimmed down heavily.
1. Aero benefits for ¨slow¨ riders (25 to 35 kmph) does matter too because you are longer underway. 2. The shape of aero bike-tubing does not have to be more costly. 3. Aero shaped bikes (and wheels) perform particular better under a yaw-angle (slow riders benefit here even more because apparent wind and true wind differ more.) 4. Its all free speed. (but mostly found with the rider (clothing, position)) 5. The weight penalty starts to outweigh aero in ascends over 4 percent for us (pro-riders 7 percent) Better tyres are expensive but effective for speed gains. (Tyre/rim combos are also important aero factors)
I agree that below 35 Km/h the aero benefit comes mostly from the rider position, differences in the frame only would be very marginal. Considering just the frame, aero to me comes in place beyond that speed.
@@fede1275 You still do not seem to understand numero uno. Its not about your or mine opinion. I am just quoting the science that is available on the internet.
@@karelvandervelden8819 I am giving you my experience based on a multitude of rides. The science out there is based on modelling, that in my opinion hardly reflects the true riding conditions. The proof is that bikes are now changing shapes, almost contradicting the previous science. Before the sun was rotating. Then the earth was rotating. Then the sun is rotating again??
I am only prepared to spend little bit more for speed and efficiency. I believe I can't realistically add much more, even with my exposed cables and old tech
Fast riders benefit far more from an aero bike than a lighter bike. I don't recall the exact gradient where the lightweight bike becomes more favourable, but it's unexpectedly steep (like 7% or so). Unless you're riding in the mountains, you're always in an aerofield. WT teams are going for the one-bike-to-rule-them-all approach because of logistics and costs and not because the aero bike actually sucks. Just look at the last TDF where riders could have picked the ultimate but went for the aeroad on every stage. I don't see that changing unless the 6.8kg limit gets decreased since most aero bikes are not far off. The difference between aero frame and lightweight is usually only around 200-300g.
I agree that aero counts also on the climbs, but it is not the frame, but the body position. At those speeds a wide profiled frame can be an hindrance more than a benefit, due to the possible wind turbulence and the bike would overall not be efficient. Wide profile work with a forced flow at good speed coming at a favourable angle.
This is a tricky topic. For a heavy rider (80kg 90 kg 100kg...) the weight of the bike is not that noticeable. Remember 500ml water is 0.5kg, 2 bottle is 1kg. Honestly can you "feel" it without looking if you have water or not (or just tell how much is left in relative accuracy) in the bottle??? If you can, maybe you can justify that lightweight bike. Depending on riding conditions/routes, you may have carried a spare tube and a pump one day, have some extra clothes one day, or even gloves on/off one day. The GoPro is something about 0.2 kg with mount. A multi tool is 0.15 kg+. A saddle bag is 0.2kg+ or something. If you say lightweight matters, you should be able to notice all those differences when you ride. To be honest, I don't. My day to day variation of performance, goal/mood/how I want to do the ride, weight of myself (1-2 KG variation is very normal for me day to day, even within a day) are all greater than that... Maybe for a feather weight rider say 50 kg 60 kg something they might be able to feel a difference. But for me the lightest I got is 75 kg. I doubt any real world difference would be perceived there. However the aero is real. Unless you are very unfit and couldn't sustain 200 watts even. The biggest recent speed gains I had is just to go from -10 90mm stem to -6 110mm stem then finally to -17 120mm stem with all the spacers removed. Suddenly for the same effort I'm seeing more and more 40+kph on my head unit. However again, I don't think the key here is the bike. The Germany Tour magazine test is a great source, it shows that the frame itself with a control wheel of Zipp 404 can save you 20-30 watts when compared with a round tube shaped traditional bike. But the difference between recent bikes, are all within the error margin. And there's that argument there, that the new SL8 is "faster" just because it comes with a narrow bar, which is a lot narrower than a lot of people used to (so the people's baseline), by default. You can say this is cheat, because they are leading you to believe that it's from the frame, however that could just be the OEM bars. You are a lucky man to be able to have all those new bikes. I believe any of those bikes could perform just well. You should just enjoy the ride. I think the only thing could make you happier is to just -- get a sponsor!
Good points! In my experience a 500g difference in the bike weight is very noticeable. Also to reduce the bike weight by 500g the industry is still charging a lot of money for the components, so it might matter. I went from butyl tubes to TPU, then different wheels and so on, every step was a marked improvement. I agree with your aero comment and the stem, I also slammed mine and found out how much easier was to keep the speed. The differences in the wind tunnel to me are higher than real life, as we could not really test the sidewinds effect on the most aero optimised tubes. Overall the influence of the frame is there, but over played sometimes by marketing.
@@fede1275 Really??? Did you test the 500g difference from the bike or from yourself??? (let's say, 500ml water in bottle, on bike or in back pocket). It's a perceived difference or it's only after checking time ??? Sometimes a perceived difference turns out to be not in the clock, and sometimes it's the opposite. Let's just say for me I can notice 1kg difference in the first 1 or 2 minutes, after that I'll just forget. I had times that when I'm in that "zen" state I almost forget which bike I'm on on a long climb. Of course science won't lie if I did the same climb TT with body weight matched on the same day, the lighter bike will always be faster in a few seconds. But for different days, the variation of my own body weight probably is greater than that. Just recently I got a PB one day completely unprepared with the clip-on aero bars on... Sometimes it's just as ridiculous as that. I now completely in peace about weight -- both myself and the bike. The new pursuit here is aero, it seems a lot of low-hanging fruit out there, like the handlebar width and shape. Anyway just share my 0.02, no disrespectful, the vibe here is to enjoy whatever you have/like and don't fall for the industry -- especially the marketing stuff. I do believe all the benefits of lightweight and aero, it's just that price tag and the snake oil marketing that is doubtful. You can/should have those benefits, but just shouldn't at this price.
@@xuchenglin6256 Definitely 500g off the bike can be felt in the handling, agility and acceleration. of course once at speed the weight effect is dampened, but I do like a responsive bike for my style of riding. In any climb the lighter bike feels and performs so much better. I do ride 2 Canyon Ultimate, with different components with almost 1.5Kg between them and the difference is incredible. My sub 7Kg Ultimate rim including pedals, cages and computer mount gives me a superb feel, the bike seems to be controlled by my thoughts!
@@fede1275 Just curious, if this 500g is from that water bottle on the fast bike, is this still so prominent? Is there any chance that it's the other component that made the perceived feeling different? For example I was shocked by how huge a difference a very stiff handle bar can make the handling much much more directly while not exactly shows on the speed number. Same goes with shoes, though we can all feel that stiffer shoes are so much more power transfer, but when it comes to actual power number no matter it's scientific research or our real world testing... There's almost nothing at all. What I wonder is, is there any chance that you are chasing the wrong star? We all know usually lighter equipment is at higher tier in manufacturer's hierarchy, That usually also means stiffer, smoother, slicker, and just better... It could not be just the weight.
@@xuchenglin6256 there are so many variables and sometimes it's easy to lose focus. It's also not easy to have a precise testing of the different equipment. Stiff shoes feel a lot better, but science is saying power transfer is the same. Where is the truth? Are you testing soft shoes when new or when the fibreglass has gone soft? Through the pushing phase or at different section of the stroke? Too many variables to count. I have been shaving the weight off the same bike and every time I felt a clear improvement. I can still compare it to my other Ultimate, with different components. You would need to try yourself and it will be evident
Aero frames are even faster in cross winds than lightweight bikes. All my segment KOMs are all out efforts up 4-6% grades at over 40 kph. Aero still matters. I also have multiple descent KOMs, even on a lightweight bike. But guys on Dogmas with deep wheels definitely have a big advantage. I have to push near 800 Watts to be at that speed. 80+ kph down a 5-6% grade. PS, I'm not even convinced your "aero bike" has ever seen a wind tunnel or CFD model
It's actually what I was trying to say. If you go up 6% at 40 kph you are definitely forcing most of the wind to come up in a favourable position for your body and the bike to be as efficient as possible. Of course you will get all the benefits. I am just not convinced that an average rider could believe that buying a SystemSix or a Ribble Ultra would make him faster regardless. To me these bikes have a smaller window where they can perform than what they tell us. My Velobuild shape seems okay, they used to create aero shapes when CFD computers did not exist, but I understand your point. I'm happy when such a cheap bike comes up high in the daily contested segments on my rides 😀
first of all whats light? i wouldnt consider 6.8kg light because its easily achievable with no exotic parts, unless youre talking a full on aero bike with disc. however its very possible to get an older aero bike like an s works venge rim brake to 6.8kg as its a sub 1000 gram frame. its also possible to get a disc brake aero bike to 6.8 but that would require expensive parts and certain compromises. so for me a light bike is 12-14lbs, i would never ride a bike that weighs more than 16lbs it just makes no sense unless it was a commuter/ beater bike, or off road rig. so would you rather a 12.5lb light bike where you can throw on aero wheels for another 200 grams or an aero bike fully integrated at 16lbs? both disc or both rim to keep it fair. that depends on the type of riding you do but for the most part the aero bike will be faster and many consider that light, which its not, its a standard weight for a road bike.
Yes, good points. To me at the same weight a more aero profiled bike could be beneficial, but you would need a stronger rider to achieve speeds where the wind generated from the movement overcompensate the possible side winds. A lower speed rider to me could be better off on a thinner frame. Some aero bikes are pushing over 8.5Kg, with the myth that weight does not matter. These would need a super strong rider to get some benefit and would definitely feel sluggish to a normal rider.
I feel like people don't understand that they didn't go back to lightweight. After years RnD they managed to optimize the aero frame to be lighter. Tarmac SL8 is more aero than the Venge. There is no point in having an aero bike that is less aero than an all around bike and then have a lightweight bike that is almost as light as the all around bike...
On this one I am not sure. TT/triathlon bikes are designed for the flats and maximum speed. They have wide shaped tubes. True aero bikes are road bikes very close to the TT designs, Venge, SystemSix, Orca Aero, Ultra, Foil and so on. They follow the same concept. These bikes are the fastest, but in a small window of opportunity, i.e. flat or rolling terrain and favourable wind. I am sure the SL8 is a great bike, but does not have these aero features. It is a bike designed to work well in a wider variety of conditions, like the V4RS. The problem is that nowadays you can't sell a bike without saying the magical word "aero", so to me Specialized are stretching the terminology too much, going beyond what is realistic. Otherwise following the same logic if the SL8 and its thin tubes are more aero, we should see a new generation of TT bikes with the same SL8 shape? There is always a trade off in shapes, I agree all around bikes are overall the better choice, but you should not say they also trump over true aero bikes in their own category.
@@fede1275 I don't have time to look it up right now (maybe be I''ll look it up tomorrow and update you on that), but I am pretty sure that the SL8 posts better numbers than the Venge on aerodynamic tunnels. Tour magazine said it was one of the best performing bikes in their test (I believe second best). Over the years, they figured out that the majority of aerodynamic benefits come from the handlebar and the head tube, by the time air comes through the rear triangle there isn't much to be gained. So no need to have large tubes other than the looks. TT bikes for me are more about position of the rider, but it's a completely different breed of a bike. If an all-rounder posts very similar numbers to a pure aero bike, but it's also lighter, then I do think that it makes the aerobike obsolete.
@@JustSueMeyes, but at the same time I believe the parameters have shifted to represent a variety of situations, those where an all around bike performs at the best. Tour magazine have also evolved their test to mimic real life situations. SL8 and it's shape is efficient, but not magic. They were more honest when they launched the SL7, acknowledging the compromise to have a more well rounded bike.
Is it me or the camera Fed…everyone seems to ride a small bike frame for their body size😂 oh and I prefer light bikes, still looking for a cervelo r3 or 5
@@fede1275 You're 100% right. At the end of the day they're a business and there to make money so they will tell us consumers anything to sell their products. 5% stiffer frame or 5watts saving doesnt interest me at all.
I know, it's the other bikes that tend to be offended when they find me higher on the segments leader board with my cheap Velobuild. Actually with a know brand I will be flying then 😀
I also own one gravel Chinese bike which I've build myself and I love it. I just wanted to highlight the fact that even if the bike looks aero it does not mean it is. And this applys not only to velobuild but any other bike :)
@@kubackjeee Yes, but to an extent. People were building fast aero cars and bikes even before computers and CFD, so you can draw some conclusions that would not be so far off.
Aero manufacturers gimmick they know that disc brake bikes are heavier so they are trying push aero as being faster 🤣🤣🤣🤣Lightweight is all that matters to me not keen on lugging a so called aero bike up hills
@@fede1275 in order to sell more bikes to people who already own more bikes than they have actual space to store their quiver they must create dissatisfaction with the current and past technology and sell the dream of “go-faster glory” when the only way to go faster is to look like a skeleton on steroids and have a VO2 of 85+ ☠️
A lightweight aero bike will always be faster than a heavy aero bike. And fuckin' stop recording yourself while riding! You need to pay attention to what's around you. Filming yourself on the move endangers yourself and others. Get off the bike for filming.
To me a lightweight aero bike is an all-around bike, the heavy ones are the true aero, that deserve that definition. True aero bikes are close to a TT bike, without the silly handlebars and would be the fastest on a flat terrain with a strong rider. All-around bikes are faster everywhere else.
After more than 20 years into cycling I understood that the most important thing, for me, is comfort. As soon as a bike is comfortable I'm eventually able to produce more watts, for longer and repeat the effort easier the next day. Comfort actually means less pain and more efficiency in general. Even getting in an aero position, in a comfortable way, completely outperforms the "aero-gains" of a 20K super trooper aero bike. This is my humble opinion on this debate.
That is very true. However if, in order to be comfortable, you need to be more upright, this would inevitably be less aero and negate the need for a profiled frame or reduce its efficiency.
@@fede1275 I'm not going to win any tour in the next few years. Nevertheless ... who knows :)
@@fede1275personally, I'd rather spend money on a bike fit than the latest equipment fad. In my experience, for my moderate fitness level, comfort _doesn't_ mean an upright position, rather a frame + components which do NOT stretch me out too much, so as to avoid risk of fatigue-related injury.
Aero is all very well if you're riding solo, but if you're on a disciplined club ride in a pace line with a set speed, it should really only help if on the front or moving to the front.😊
@@malcontent_1 definitely fit is everything. Having said that you could also find a performance position that is not uncomfortable.
“I haven’t got a bike sponsor, which is a shame, but for now I can say what I want.” 😆 Appreciate the honesty! (for now). Ride on. 🚴🏻♂️☮️
😀😂
Ride a bike. The bike you own. Enjoy the ride. Breathe the air. Feel the wow. Simple.
As someone who does not go for weekend rides in a wind tunnel, I enjoy my steel bike.
100% I ride a steel Italian frame under 7kg best handling bike I've ever ridden and I've owned everything except TI.
Whats the name of the bike?@@MarcraM82
@@nilsholz5168 pegoretti responsorium
@@nilsholz5168 pegoretti responsorium
My list of priorities when choosing a frame in descending order of importance: 1) manufacturing quality 2) geometry 3) quality-price ratio 4) weight 5) aero
Light bike is better overall. But for normal cyclists like me it doesn’t matter. I’m heavy so light weight doesn’t matter, so aero for me.
As an older 60kg rider. I want an overall system weight that is low and responsive. So always lightweight. I’m probably strongest on hills, so for me, lightweight everyday. Great video. 🙌
👍👍
Totally agree with your analysis. I have a climb / endurance type of bike that can be used as an allrounder incl. mountains if I go abroad once or twice per year to the Alpes.
Yet, I have just purchased the Canyon Aeroad as well, simply because Denmark is a fairly country (although hills and winds are plenty), but when I do my interval trainings on the flats with the team, nothing beats the feeling when you push. Plus, it looks fantastic.
I know, I am an easy target for the marketing campaigns. They made me buy two (!) bikes at the age of 54 as if I was ever going to win any race. But I love and we only live once. In any case, I list 11 kg in 18 months so something must be working 😂
That's great!! Definitely the Aeroad feels great on the flats!
Always enjoy your perspective Federico.
Thank you!
It's comforting to know that no matter which bike I buy, it's the fastest.
Always like that, hahaha
It's got to be what you like to ride I prefer lightweight every time I own a Look 695 RS rim brake only weighs 7.1kg great content again fredrico.
Great bike!
this video was so cool to look at. The topic, the people the bikes, the food.. just awesome. i would die for a ride out like this tbh
For me the sweetspot would be a light all-rounder and a bike fit to get me into a position that's aero AND comfortable.
Just most important to a roadbike: the looks! Aero is more sculpturesque, so I would take the weight penalty for sure.
The look is awesome, I mentioned it at the end
Hello Federico! I prefer a lightweight bike overall, to make it more aero I just add a longer stem, then adjust the saddle position. Another big factor for aero is the jersey, what a difference that makes.
Thank you for making this video. I have a lightish weight bike and I've always wondered if aero bikes were in fact faster...
Yes, they can be faster, but on a smaller window of opportunity than we were told
Excellent vid. I'm building a new bike right now and I landed with the same conclusion that the light weight bike is best for what I want to do, which is ride long hilly rides like grand fondos.
So I went with the Orbea Orca frameset. I'll spec it with a 1 piece aero handlebar and use my Reynolds 45 wheels as standard.
But for fast weekday group rides (less than 30 miles and rolling terrain) I plan to just pop in my Reynolds 65 wheels to hold faster speed on the flats at almost no weight penalty.
Boom best of both worlds.
Seems a great setup!
Hi Frederico, I think that your observations are very much right. My own observations are though a little bit different. I have got three bikes. All with modifications. A Bianchi Oltre XR4 rim brake (7,1 kg). A Scott Addict RC Pro disc (7,1 kg) and a Scott foil RC disc (7,7 kg). The bike I like to ride best is the XR4. But the Foil is the fastes bike in a rolling course in all wind conditions also when it is mostly cross winds. I have timed again and again. The foil does on average 2 km/t faster average. On climbs it is only marginal slower than the lighter bikes. I have to mention that the foil gives the me the possibility to have the best aero position on the bike and at the same time feel comfortable, so that could account for the speed difference, but my opinion is that the bike also contribute to the faster speed. Keep up you very good videos.
Yes, it actually makes sense. The XR4 would feel better as for the same weight the rim brake bike will have less weight on the wheels (rotors, spokes, thru axles). Maybe that route is favourable for the Foil and you are still strong enough to reduce the effects of side winds and get the aero benefits. The drawbacks are then felt more in the climbs.
Interesting video, Fede. I had a lightweight bike (Giant TCR) and an aero bike (Canyon Aeroad) at the same time, and must say that I preferred the lighter bike. The Aeroad was probably faster on the flat, but it felt less responsive and 'alive'. Although not exactly heavy (at 7.3 kg without pedals), the Aeroad was also slower up the hills. Now I've sold them both and bought an all-rounder (Specialized Tarmac SL8). Not quite sure whether it's the best of both worlds or if it falls between two stools -- it's not quite as good a climber as the TCR (but better than the Aeroad) and not quite as fast on the flat as the Aeroad (but probably faster than the TCR).
Yes, similar to what I experienced when I tried the Aeroad and the Ultimate. The SL8 definitely seems a well rounded choice.
Aero or climbing bike, whatever it may be, if you're a strong rider you're a strong rider. Pogacar among others has shown that!
That being said, I really like light weight bikes. They make climbing so easy consequently quite fun!
Middle ground to light weight in my opinion, my trek Domane slr has an aero cockpit and aero wheels, its also pretty light at 15 LBS, love it.
Aero comes from many places. Shorter than normal length cranks allow you to be much more efficient in the wind because of the lack of height you legs go in circles. The the free bit from it is it is also easier to be in the drops for longer.
Shorter cranks went from 172 to 165 years ago works wonders. You will not notice the short cranks after one ride
Sure, there are a lot of other factors. Here I just wanted to discuss frame shapes.
@@fede1275 yeah but frame shapes and even crazy expensive wheels can't do what cranks and a bar swap on your existing bike can.
People miss the boat that you the rider is the biggest drag and tube or rim shapes are truly irrelevant if you don't make you more efficient cuttin thru the wind.
Narrow bars and short cranks is the true answer
Thank you dear friend, beautiful video and I made it in my all green outfit, as great to ride with you :)
Great ride indeed!! You looked immaculate!
Changed my lightweight bike to an aero bike since a couple of months… a little bit of more weight but the ride is much more comfortable. The light weight bike was a little too snappy/nervous, the aero bike is also stiff but it keeps the trajectory..
We have here a lot of “side wind” in NL… I was afraid for a lot of discomfort with the aero frame +deep dish wheels… but turns out it handles it far better than the light weight bike
I believe for your terrain the aero bike might be the better choice!
My titanium touring bike is 8kg and the every day bike. For fondo/century rides its 6.6kg 2nd hand scott carbon. if i want AERO I move to the drops.
I suggest a lightweight frame with a fully optimised position ie aftermarket 36cm bars etc.
The S5's etc with full integration don't allow finessing position,a terrible option.
Ideally, having both. If you can't afford 2 bikes? The all-rounder. These are both only if speed is what you're seeking and beating PBs and your riding buddies is what you enjoy. If none of that interests you, whatever you get the best deal on or a city bike. Take it slow, enjoy the scenery and just enjoy cycling.
I have them both, 8 kg aero Look 795 blade RS (original) and 6,5 kg Time VXS Translink. I can't tell which one is faster, but lighter Time is much much much more reactive and responsive, and also more comfortable, so it feels faster than my Look aero bike.
Absolutely and for me feel is everything!! Great bikes!
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "it doesn't get any easier, you just go faster"
For me best option is a light bike with some aero benefits. Put on deep wheels for the flats and shallow for the climbing.
That seems to be the best compromise for me, all-around bike with 45/50mm wheels.
Fede, not trying to come off as a jerk... but, actually, the aero tube profiling with the elongated profiles actually create more of a sailing effect in windier conditions and can create thrust. It's head on, where narrower/smaller front end is faster at low yaw.
Overall is it measurably and noticeably faster?
If I look at my aero bike from the side I can see a lot more surface, so it could create more resistance and drag in crosswinds. However if you are a very strong rider the wind generated from the movement could overcome that and the efficiency of the aero bike could be then work again.
@fede1275 that increased side surface/profile area is exactly how aero wheels work. Their sailing effect is also more defined.
@@tommyfreckmann6857 I am not disputing that, I am just discussing at what speed/conditions you do get these benefits. For the wheels is a lot earlier than the frame. In cycling, because of the lower speeds, this aspect is crucial as we are more subject to sidewinds than other faster vehicles.
@@fede1275 at approx 20mph, average yaw angles are less than 10 degrees, even in moderately windy conditions. And at 25mph, it's closer to 5 degrees yaw.
I have Aethos SWorks with Roval Rapid CLX wheels, it's about 6.8 kg with all stuff. On descends and flats noticeably faster than with light shallow wheels. So Its still light bike with aero components and its works much better)
Absolutely, wheels make a huge difference, to me the aero frame has got a much smaller window of opportunity.
Deep wheels are worse if you have any type of crosswind...
@@Silidons91 Yes, this is however more on individual circumstances. I am 87Kg, I can push a 50mm wheel and not get bothered by crosswinds, so for me might work better and I get the aero advantages. Lighter riders might be better off with a slimmer/shallower wheel.
Talking bollocks
@@Tarmaccyclocross it would be great to discuss
Thanks.
That's the world we are living in.
Everything is coming back. It has always been the lightweight bike to rule them all. Them came the Aero era. But where are we going now? Back to lightweight.
But modern geometry can offer both.
Look at the Giant TCR, Bianchi Specialissima, Specialized SL7 & The Pinarello Dogma F.
The bottom bracket of the new Pinarello looks huge. Perfect spot for a hidden motor...As for the marketing, every sport and activity is the same. Basically trying to get guillible consumers to buy the next best thing. If they make a minor tweak which makes it 0.0001% faster then yes it is quicker than previous model but ultimately the limiting factor is the lump of meat sitting on it.
I saw that, it's becoming a bit excessive imo
Actually really enjoyed that. I get it's one opinion but lots of unfiltered sense. I race and have gone back to a lighter rim brake bike recently. Snappier in the acceleration
Yes, it's really an addictive feeling and difficult to leave it
My current bike bought new in 2017 was designed in ~2014 as a climbing bike but had aero features. They had the designated aero bike, but my bike model was the "climbing" version. Its actually a great "all rounder" built with lighter weight but also for comfort with thin dropped seat stays. So the concept is nothing new. I agree Aero vs lightweight is all about that small window. We have an undulating summit Rd here which gets very windy as the hills and valleys accelerate the wind and make it swirl and eddy around like water over rocks in a stream. When windy If I take my 50mm "aero" wheels it gets really quite scary with all the gusts and I have to ride under ~35kph sometimes even on the downhills just to keep in control. I so regret my wheel choice on days like that!. If I take my same bike and put on "climbing" wheels the ride is so much more enjoyable and faster as the crosswinds and gust don't effect me so much. I have had my bike blown out from under me before while riding the aero wheels. I was riding sideways in a 50 to 60kph crosswind and as I went around a headland on the flat having just turned 90degrees a big ~80kph gust ( confirmed by local weather stations after getting home) unexpectedly hit me from the side. Moments before it was a direct headwind but luckily I was only going about 15kph because of it. So horses for courses!
I have both types of bikes, on the aero one, when I press the pedals, I feel how it advances in the forward direction, while on the light one, I feel how it loses power in a direction other than forward, so the geometry and rigidity of the frame also matter, and in my case aero is over the light version. On climbs, I feel the disadvantage difference due to the weight between the bikes only on slopes over 10%.
BOTH! I have a top-end 2021 Aero Bike at 7.2 kg.
The new "All-rounder" top-end bikes are PROHIBITAVELY expensive. Also, disk-brakes are NOT aero.
I paid 3000 EUR for my aero mechanical rim brake super bike. I am going to keep it for many years.
I did not want to mention rims in this video, but I agree
Great video Fede 👍🏽. For me I’ve really had enough of the marketing hype just buy what makes you happy, I’m not bothered about 6% stiffer or 3% lighter , at the end of the day we’re the engine for the bike . It might be nice to be able to keep up with your friends but I’m in the cycling for enjoyment. Also have you cut your grass yet 🤣!!!!!!! Have a great weekend 👍🏽
Well said! I had an initial clip confirming my son cut the grass, but I removed it hahahah
Hahaha love that Fede 👍🏽
Nice video! Would like to add that, the velobuild frame you have with the wheels you use in that bike are not as stiff as the combination in the canyon bike, so the “feeling” on the velo is not as should be on a original venge with stiff wheels as the hypers.your canyon bike is much more responsive than the velo for sure.
That's correct, the Hyper wheels on the Ultimate are amazing. But I have been riding both bikes with the same Prime wheel and same groupset before, just to single out the frame differences only
@@fede1275 I have my velo/ looks like the pina F/ and a sl4 swords with cheap elite wheels, on the velo I run hypers 65 to create the real flat aero go fast feeling, still the sl4 feels more responsive when I push. Not super big difference but there is a difference. Will wait to get a low profile hyper wheels, I think the lun 20/38 , I am pretty sure the sl4 gonna be crazy fast and stiff. I will wait till the elite are dead first. Men, this addiction is a good addition. 🤣🤣🤣
As mentioned before I have the Aeroad and the Ultimate. I experienced the Aeroad to maintain speed when I go straight out on flats and its nos as willing to turn as the Ultimate and also Aeroad is less responsive Thant Ultimate but the Aeroad look cooler than the Ultimate. Both bikes can do everything but now I choose Ultimate for climbs and terrain with many turns and small hills because it wants to play with you and it's fun and lighter. The Ultimate I get used to from day 1 and the Abroad I needed to learn more to use especially turning cause it wants by itself to go straight. I feel like a pro when I go straight on flats on the Abroad with 40-45 km pr. hour and you need to work less than on the Ultimate when you have reached a good speed. My Ultimate has 50mm rims and the Abroad 62mm and surprisingly the 62mm wheelset did better in hard windy conditions than the 50mm rims on Ultimate. It's a fact the 62mm are 300gr. heavier Than the 50mm., and the Abroad I have has a 400gr. fork and 995gr. frame comparing to previous model which had 330gr. fork and 1080gr. frame. Definitely the 430 gr. fork was meant to make it stiffer but maybe also more stability on the fronwheel in harder windy conditions in combination with the heavier wheel set and I like the wheels as they are now for my riding conditions and is afraid to experiment with a lighter wheel set on the Abroad if it will loose stability.
Yes, similar to what I found when I tried the Aeroad and the Ultimate disc. However my Ultimate rim is so much more responsive than the disc one
Another excellent video! Thank you!
Thank you!
For me Aero + Lighter Bike is heaven.
It's call an all-around bike then!
I have a penchant for skinny tubes and mind that tells me a handsome looking retro bike just rides better. But none of those things really help my personal aero dynamics of a wardrobe. Maybe my bike sponsor would be bedroom furniture by Ikea🤟
Great video mate 👍I ride Trek Emonda and love it 👌so I go for light weight 🤟
Nice one!
I’m a lover of a light bike.
Harkening back to your prior video, if the questions _only_ either _aero_ or _light_ my choice is actually *_comfortable_* - reasonably light would be nice, but not a prerequisite.
Ciao Fede! Great video. Come stai? Is 7.2 kg considered a heavy bike? Is 220ish watt bike considered a non-aero? Well, that’s what Pogi rode to win his 3rd tdf title, won 5 stages, and maillot jaune. IMO it’s all in our minds. The more we think about such, the less focus we are. As you mentioned, cycling is not motor racing. Rider has bigger role. Training, nutrition, conditioning, team & individual strategy play much bigger role while some cyclists focus more on the equipment which gives us only marginal gains. Mods on Pogi’s bike were made to optimize his biomechanics and riding style on specific terrain (descending on those ‘col’ at nearing 100kph require extra confidence → bigger tires, tighter steering, body balance & skill). Meanwhile, manufacturers must sell products & make some profits. The easiest to sell is something immeasurable (aero effectiveness) and something desirable (looks, colors). Fitness is something un-sexy to sell & requires something hard for the laymen; that is discipline. Someone might say F1 are won on aero effect, but what most don’t know: aero on auto racing is to get the car more planted & grip better. Athlete doping issues only exist on sports where muscle & lung play important role, otherwise the UCI will scrutinize on wing flex, illegal carbon layups, questionable tire compounds etc. Great video, Fede. Keep it up!
@@abhimawa1 yes, I love his dedication to achieve the perfect fit for every situation and type of ride, such an amazing rider. But if he had a 6.8Kg bike with similar characteristics I'm sure he will jump on it! He struggled with the transition to discs from the rim V3RS and they went with exotic components like carbon ti chainrings, titanium bolts and more to reduce weight. Now he seems happy
@@fede1275 perhaps the bike gave him more confidence structurally? But, again, it’s clear what direction the mods on Pogi’s bike were aimed at: lighter not aero. if I have to choose between ’lighweight’ vs ‘aero fins’, I’d have opted for lightweight. It’s a sure thing. More nimble, accelerates better. Aero? It’s 80% the rider (proven). Looks? I am more into classic style like Caraceni, Boglioli, Pini Parma, than ripped jeans & big-logo oversized jackets or any fad trend (if you know what I mean 😊)
sure, most top brands are going to use just one all around bike, also Canyon toned down the Aeroad to make it more usable everywhere. Strangely Van Rysel is going to reveal a new aero bike, looks like my Velobuild 😂
LOOK 795 Aerolight, the pinnacle of both! But don't expect it to be a doddle to maintain - that's the main drawback, oh and of course the cost, yes the cost :). Otherwise any quality handmade steel/alloy or titanium rim brake frame will be superior for most riders all of the time. And don't forget TUBULAR tyres are also what you want despite the misinformation out there peddled by those with vested interests. BTW this comes from 44 years of road bike experience.
Indeed! Tubulars might be maybe too much for me, but I am sticking to 25c on hooked rims and TPU tubes.
Yes, that's what the industry wants everyone to believe because they need to sell something new when we already have the actual best. Do not be afraid of them, especially these days with good taping options instead of glue. If you want the best mix of performance, comfort, grip, light weight, convenience and durability use Continental Competition Tubulars either 22mm or 25mm. You will not be disappointed.
Remember they also have the benefit of using whatever air pressure is required for the conditions of use. Higher psi equals easier to pedal because of less rolling resistance. Don't ever believe the rubbish the marketers say 😉.
The aero only bike is on the way out. Light weight with aero benefits is where it's at.
Yes, but my fear is that the aero details benefits on thinner frames are highly overestimated
@@fede1275 specialized say the SL7 and 8 are faster than the old venge. And it seems Trek is going down the same path with the Madone (or emonda) thinning out the tubes. Even current Propel is much thinner to what it use to be. It's going to be a hard sell if they go back to big chunky tubes in the future.
@@DanTuberit's a play on words and circumstances. Overall SL8 and SL7 can be faster than the Venge, for the same reasons my Ultimate can be faster than my Velobuild: overall the thinner frames are better in a variety of wind conditions. At high speed and at a favourable angle true aero bikes are faster. Otherwise why don't they choose thin frames for a TT?
@@fede1275 Maybe cos they don't exist, TT's don't get raced up hills.
sure, but if a slimmer frame is more aero than a wide profiled one, as they are now saying, why TT bikes also don't go slimmer in the same way?
awesome video!
I think the light bike feels better however having some aero features will help get the best of both worlds. Aero bar and maybe a set of 40-50mm wheels and you’re pretty close to the aero bike but still lighter and a nicer feel.
Dave Arthur done an aero test and at human speeds a tcr was faster than the new madone but at pro speeds obvs the madone was faster. Same wheels
Exactly. I wanted to see the differences between my two bikes and I had the same 50mm wheels, similar bars and position. I would not go for shallow wheels on the lightweight bike as I also want some speed. I remember DA test, as I found out the aero bike can be faster, but mostly ridden at higher speed. I could not understand how some marketed these as less effort for the same speed.
I think both - aero and weight - are overrated in the cycling community. Physics says that 1kg of weight at climbs up to about 7% is worth less than 5 watts. GCN has tested this and they've come to the results pretty close to the theoretical ones. One can save way more than 5 watts being more aerodynamic. But what you said about problems with aero frames (and wheels) is quite true, for example in a crosswind. As you said, the most important about aerodynamics is our position on the bike, while the frame can give us only very marginal gains. But the same goes for weight, actually. This is especially true for bigger, heavier persons. In their cases, the bike's weight is a relatively small fraction of the total system weight. This might be of bigger value for smaller riders and in certain cycling disciplines in which you have to decelerate and accelerate often (criterium, cross country, etc.). This was a purely efficient/performance-wise approach. There is also a 'feel' aspect to this. I can understand one can prefer the feel of responsiveness of a lighter bike. However, I wonder how much this is the actual difference in responsiveness and how much is just a placebo effect. Anyway, I think spending the extra money to make our bike lighter or more aero is equally a waste if we don't race professionally and we don't really need those tiny gains.
I follow your points on aero, we more or less agree. I still don't trust very much the theoretical modelling, to me there are so many other variables in a ride that might not come out on the tests done at that moment.
For the weight I have to insist: I tried so many combinations, from 10Kg with my Merida Scultura 200 disc, through around 8Kg of my Velobuild, all the way to sub 7Kg of my Canyon Ultimate rim. The lightest bike it's on another level for responsiveness, acceleration, climbing ability, agility, it is driven by my brain power. I also ride my winter Ultimate, same bike with heavier components: it feels almost like a different bike altogether. You would need to try for yourself, it is a great feeling. If weight was not so crucial in cycling, there would not be such a premium to buy lighter kit. Every gram reduction costs a lot of money because it counts.
@@fede1275, last summer I switched from a 16 kg steel touring bike to about 11 kg aluminium gravel bike. I can say, I've felt a difference at some climbs (I don't have many of them in my area). Of course, both bikes handle quite differently, but those are quite different designs. It's hard to compare them. I do not claim weight doesn't change a thing, but it is hard for me to believe it is that much. Let's take a 75 kg rider. If a bike weighs 10 kg, the whole system is 85 kg. Let's change the bike to 7 kg. That's 82 kg for the system. That's a change of about 3,5%. I think every gram costs so much not because it counts but because it is costly to produce components so light that still do their job reliably enough. There is demand for those parts from the cycling world, and hence industry provides them. Again, if someone is racing, every slight advantage counts. But for everyday riding? I'm not convinced. Don't take me wrong - if I could really afford a top-end carbon bike I would probably buy one. But still, I don't think the gains are worth the money. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that. The world would be a boring place if we would agree on everything. 😉
@@sherab2078 maybe you should try one and see, below 7.5 Kg it's a different world
@@fede1275 perhaps. I don't want to insist on something while not having much experience in the subject, of course. Maybe because I have a scientific background, I actually prefer to trust 'numbers' instead of my feelings. Tests in wind tunnels and other 'laboratory' experiments have the plus of isolating features in question from other factors. As you said yourself, in the 'real world' many things can happen to influence a bike's behaviour and a rider's feelings. Hence, we can't really know is this due to weight, or maybe some other factor in the construction of the bike. Still, I do trust your experienced opinion on the bike under 7.5 kg being felt way better than heavier machines. But why is that? I'm not sure of this. Do you feel differently on the bike with a full water bottle and an empty one? Because this is a difference of about 500 g. Take a larger bottle or make it two, and you will have a 1 kg. I can believe swapping my old 16 kg touring bike for something under 7.5 kg would be a major change and would be quite noticeable (but again, this would be two completely different constructions). Since I'm a small guy (162 cm), I guess I would even feel a switch from my 11 kg gravel bike. But I continue to speak here about changes of a couple of kilograms. People are sometimes excited about tens or hundreds of grams, and this is completely insane from my perspective. Again, I believe your feelings but I'm not sure the weight alone is responsible for them. Unfortunately, I can't afford a bike weighing under 7.5 kg and I probably won't soon. And true be told - I don't need one. Sure, I like the feel of speed and nimbleness, but I usually ride alone, I don't race, and I'm more about exploration, touring and adventure (getting healthier and fitter are a side benefits for me). Do I start from traffic lights in that part of the second faster or slower doesn't really matter to me. If I finish my 100 km ride (though I've never done such distance yet) 4 minutes later or earlier also won't make a difference for me. So, I guess I search in cycling slightly different things. Anyway, sorry for another block of text. Wish you and all others good riding (regardless of the frame's weight and shape). 😉
Then rimbrakes makes even more fun to ride ultimate but discversion is really good on long descends on f.ex. Gran canaria and the duraacegrips are very light to press and breaks very fast but here in Denmark the rim better in terms of riding but disc let the rims live longer my opinion
Absolutely!
One of the first aero road bike was the Ridley Noah from 2006, not 2015.
Sure, I tried to mention the early 2000s as a starting point, then some of the most iconic ones came later on
Morning.
How much of a benefit does an aero or super bike(whatever they call the latest greatest)really provide. I put out decent power and am wondering would I really get a noticeable benefit from a newer aero/super bike over my 5 year old carbon road bike. Unfortunately Cycling Media is part of the problem.those guys talk up the tech when it's actually just crap.
Not an easy answer, but to me a stronger rider on a rolling terrain can push a more aero bike and get its benefits. I was just pointing out that bikes like SystemSix or S5 might have a narrower window where they can be beneficial. If you are not that strong they could be detrimental, especially uphill.
After trying out one of the best marketed bikes (dogma F, aeroad, s5) i went with the sl8 this year. In personal experience the more aero a frame was the more it rode like a dog. Especially the s5 and the aeroad where horrible (sluggish, heavy and uncomfortable).
Yes, the SL8 seems to be a great all-rounder and very responsive, from the feedback I heard
@@fede1275 yeah i never was a specialized fanboy but the stiffness to weight on that frame blew me away.
I love rim brake bike whatever they are light or aero.
👍👍
Fred..,its all about what a individual wants as for me it's always going to be aero as light weight dont matter as i weight 218 lbs & being 58 years old racing everywhere is definitely not a thing for me so aero it is as my Reacto is light enough for me that does all i need it to do happy days...,👊🏾
I am having difficulty to understand why there is much discussion about this topic. The frame weight difference between the two is not more than 300 gr in many brands. Perhaps I do not have either type of bikes and that's why I am struggling to understand how 300 gr difference makes the bikes feel different given that 300 gr is only a very small fraction of the total system weight. If I were to choose one, I would go for aero or something in between (SL7/8 or Van Rysel)
I was referring to bikes with much wider differences. True aero bikes are the SystemSix, Ribble Ultra, Scott Foil, Cervelo S5. In most cases these go beyond 8.5Kg or more. These bikes can give a huge advantage in the flats, but inevitably feel sluggish at slow speed and need a strong rider. SL8, VanRysel, Ostro, Propel, the new Trek and so on are all-around bikes with some aero profiling, but not true aero bikes. These are good compromises that can do it all.
@@fede1275 yeah but we should not be comparing the total bike weight as it includes the components weights. For instance canyon aeroad could be 8.2 or 7.2 kg depending on mostly the components. For instance dores the frame weight difference between the system six and the super six is much larger than 300gr? Similarly for Scot foil and addict is there much difference in frame weight?
@@muratmustafa4532 I would say that with similar component there would be around 500/800g between true aero and lightweight frames. Modern "aero" bikes are in reality all-arounders, where especially the rear section has been slimmed down heavily.
@@fede1275 Ok I see!
i will probably never buy an aero bike, first because of the price, but most important because i need comfort, more than speed and back Pain 😅
1. Aero benefits for ¨slow¨ riders (25 to 35 kmph) does matter too because you are longer underway.
2. The shape of aero bike-tubing does not have to be more costly.
3. Aero shaped bikes (and wheels) perform particular better under a yaw-angle (slow
riders benefit here even more because apparent wind and true wind differ more.)
4. Its all free speed. (but mostly found with the rider (clothing, position))
5. The weight penalty starts to outweigh aero in ascends over 4 percent for us (pro-riders 7 percent)
Better tyres are expensive but effective for speed gains. (Tyre/rim combos are also important aero factors)
I agree that below 35 Km/h the aero benefit comes mostly from the rider position, differences in the frame only would be very marginal. Considering just the frame, aero to me comes in place beyond that speed.
@@fede1275 You still do not seem to understand numero uno. Its not about your or mine
opinion. I am just quoting the science that is available on the internet.
@@karelvandervelden8819 I am giving you my experience based on a multitude of rides. The science out there is based on modelling, that in my opinion hardly reflects the true riding conditions. The proof is that bikes are now changing shapes, almost contradicting the previous science. Before the sun was rotating. Then the earth was rotating. Then the sun is rotating again??
@@fede1275 You are not the first person who puts perception and believe over science.
it's actually the science that keeps changing, I'm confused 😂
What book was that?
It's called Bike! A Tribute to the World's Greatest Cycling Designers
bikes are now expensive fashion items. Do you have last year's design? Tut tut. When do LVMH start making bike brands?
I am only prepared to spend little bit more for speed and efficiency. I believe I can't realistically add much more, even with my exposed cables and old tech
LVMH technically do... Pinarello. Well, they did own Pina. I think they sold them last year.
Fast riders benefit far more from an aero bike than a lighter bike. I don't recall the exact gradient where the lightweight bike becomes more favourable, but it's unexpectedly steep (like 7% or so). Unless you're riding in the mountains, you're always in an aerofield. WT teams are going for the one-bike-to-rule-them-all approach because of logistics and costs and not because the aero bike actually sucks. Just look at the last TDF where riders could have picked the ultimate but went for the aeroad on every stage.
I don't see that changing unless the 6.8kg limit gets decreased since most aero bikes are not far off. The difference between aero frame and lightweight is usually only around 200-300g.
I agree that aero counts also on the climbs, but it is not the frame, but the body position. At those speeds a wide profiled frame can be an hindrance more than a benefit, due to the possible wind turbulence and the bike would overall not be efficient. Wide profile work with a forced flow at good speed coming at a favourable angle.
I don’t mind riding aero or lightweight for as long as they are comfortable and reliable. Bikes from 10 years ago ride so harsh even at 40 psi 🥲
As a Deliveroo rider i prefer a light bike since my backpack destroys all my aerodynamic
Makes sense!
What was the name of the book?
Bike! A tribute to the World's Greatest Cycling Designers
Thank you 👌🏻
Such a shame this obsession with faster faster faster. For me, it's comfort comfort comfort. Harder to sell though....
Yes, because faster means you also need to spend more. If it is about comfort you would not need all the marginal gains expensive kit.
❤
This is a tricky topic. For a heavy rider (80kg 90 kg 100kg...) the weight of the bike is not that noticeable. Remember 500ml water is 0.5kg, 2 bottle is 1kg. Honestly can you "feel" it without looking if you have water or not (or just tell how much is left in relative accuracy) in the bottle??? If you can, maybe you can justify that lightweight bike. Depending on riding conditions/routes, you may have carried a spare tube and a pump one day, have some extra clothes one day, or even gloves on/off one day. The GoPro is something about 0.2 kg with mount. A multi tool is 0.15 kg+. A saddle bag is 0.2kg+ or something.
If you say lightweight matters, you should be able to notice all those differences when you ride. To be honest, I don't. My day to day variation of performance, goal/mood/how I want to do the ride, weight of myself (1-2 KG variation is very normal for me day to day, even within a day) are all greater than that...
Maybe for a feather weight rider say 50 kg 60 kg something they might be able to feel a difference. But for me the lightest I got is 75 kg. I doubt any real world difference would be perceived there.
However the aero is real. Unless you are very unfit and couldn't sustain 200 watts even. The biggest recent speed gains I had is just to go from -10 90mm stem to -6 110mm stem then finally to -17 120mm stem with all the spacers removed. Suddenly for the same effort I'm seeing more and more 40+kph on my head unit.
However again, I don't think the key here is the bike. The Germany Tour magazine test is a great source, it shows that the frame itself with a control wheel of Zipp 404 can save you 20-30 watts when compared with a round tube shaped traditional bike. But the difference between recent bikes, are all within the error margin. And there's that argument there, that the new SL8 is "faster" just because it comes with a narrow bar, which is a lot narrower than a lot of people used to (so the people's baseline), by default. You can say this is cheat, because they are leading you to believe that it's from the frame, however that could just be the OEM bars.
You are a lucky man to be able to have all those new bikes. I believe any of those bikes could perform just well. You should just enjoy the ride. I think the only thing could make you happier is to just -- get a sponsor!
Good points! In my experience a 500g difference in the bike weight is very noticeable. Also to reduce the bike weight by 500g the industry is still charging a lot of money for the components, so it might matter. I went from butyl tubes to TPU, then different wheels and so on, every step was a marked improvement. I agree with your aero comment and the stem, I also slammed mine and found out how much easier was to keep the speed. The differences in the wind tunnel to me are higher than real life, as we could not really test the sidewinds effect on the most aero optimised tubes. Overall the influence of the frame is there, but over played sometimes by marketing.
@@fede1275 Really??? Did you test the 500g difference from the bike or from yourself??? (let's say, 500ml water in bottle, on bike or in back pocket). It's a perceived difference or it's only after checking time ??? Sometimes a perceived difference turns out to be not in the clock, and sometimes it's the opposite. Let's just say for me I can notice 1kg difference in the first 1 or 2 minutes, after that I'll just forget. I had times that when I'm in that "zen" state I almost forget which bike I'm on on a long climb. Of course science won't lie if I did the same climb TT with body weight matched on the same day, the lighter bike will always be faster in a few seconds. But for different days, the variation of my own body weight probably is greater than that. Just recently I got a PB one day completely unprepared with the clip-on aero bars on... Sometimes it's just as ridiculous as that. I now completely in peace about weight -- both myself and the bike. The new pursuit here is aero, it seems a lot of low-hanging fruit out there, like the handlebar width and shape. Anyway just share my 0.02, no disrespectful, the vibe here is to enjoy whatever you have/like and don't fall for the industry -- especially the marketing stuff. I do believe all the benefits of lightweight and aero, it's just that price tag and the snake oil marketing that is doubtful. You can/should have those benefits, but just shouldn't at this price.
@@xuchenglin6256 Definitely 500g off the bike can be felt in the handling, agility and acceleration. of course once at speed the weight effect is dampened, but I do like a responsive bike for my style of riding. In any climb the lighter bike feels and performs so much better. I do ride 2 Canyon Ultimate, with different components with almost 1.5Kg between them and the difference is incredible. My sub 7Kg Ultimate rim including pedals, cages and computer mount gives me a superb feel, the bike seems to be controlled by my thoughts!
@@fede1275 Just curious, if this 500g is from that water bottle on the fast bike, is this still so prominent? Is there any chance that it's the other component that made the perceived feeling different? For example I was shocked by how huge a difference a very stiff handle bar can make the handling much much more directly while not exactly shows on the speed number. Same goes with shoes, though we can all feel that stiffer shoes are so much more power transfer, but when it comes to actual power number no matter it's scientific research or our real world testing... There's almost nothing at all. What I wonder is, is there any chance that you are chasing the wrong star? We all know usually lighter equipment is at higher tier in manufacturer's hierarchy, That usually also means stiffer, smoother, slicker, and just better... It could not be just the weight.
@@xuchenglin6256 there are so many variables and sometimes it's easy to lose focus. It's also not easy to have a precise testing of the different equipment. Stiff shoes feel a lot better, but science is saying power transfer is the same. Where is the truth? Are you testing soft shoes when new or when the fibreglass has gone soft? Through the pushing phase or at different section of the stroke? Too many variables to count. I have been shaving the weight off the same bike and every time I felt a clear improvement. I can still compare it to my other Ultimate, with different components. You would need to try yourself and it will be evident
Can anyone explain to me what is the impact of the weight of the cyclist? If I'm 10kg too heavy, does it matter if my bike is 8kg?????
@@wendyjohnson6835 if possible try yourself a lighter bike if it feels better to ride or not
Aero frames are even faster in cross winds than lightweight bikes. All my segment KOMs are all out efforts up 4-6% grades at over 40 kph. Aero still matters. I also have multiple descent KOMs, even on a lightweight bike. But guys on Dogmas with deep wheels definitely have a big advantage. I have to push near 800 Watts to be at that speed. 80+ kph down a 5-6% grade.
PS, I'm not even convinced your "aero bike" has ever seen a wind tunnel or CFD model
It's actually what I was trying to say. If you go up 6% at 40 kph you are definitely forcing most of the wind to come up in a favourable position for your body and the bike to be as efficient as possible. Of course you will get all the benefits. I am just not convinced that an average rider could believe that buying a SystemSix or a Ribble Ultra would make him faster regardless. To me these bikes have a smaller window where they can perform than what they tell us. My Velobuild shape seems okay, they used to create aero shapes when CFD computers did not exist, but I understand your point. I'm happy when such a cheap bike comes up high in the daily contested segments on my rides 😀
Total bollocks
@@Tarmaccyclocross go to Kona and tell me which riders are on round tubes to be faster
first of all whats light? i wouldnt consider 6.8kg light because its easily achievable with no exotic parts, unless youre talking a full on aero bike with disc. however its very possible to get an older aero bike like an s works venge rim brake to 6.8kg as its a sub 1000 gram frame. its also possible to get a disc brake aero bike to 6.8 but that would require expensive parts and certain compromises. so for me a light bike is 12-14lbs, i would never ride a bike that weighs more than 16lbs it just makes no sense unless it was a commuter/ beater bike, or off road rig. so would you rather a 12.5lb light bike where you can throw on aero wheels for another 200 grams or an aero bike fully integrated at 16lbs? both disc or both rim to keep it fair. that depends on the type of riding you do but for the most part the aero bike will be faster and many consider that light, which its not, its a standard weight for a road bike.
Yes, good points. To me at the same weight a more aero profiled bike could be beneficial, but you would need a stronger rider to achieve speeds where the wind generated from the movement overcompensate the possible side winds. A lower speed rider to me could be better off on a thinner frame. Some aero bikes are pushing over 8.5Kg, with the myth that weight does not matter. These would need a super strong rider to get some benefit and would definitely feel sluggish to a normal rider.
I feel like people don't understand that they didn't go back to lightweight. After years RnD they managed to optimize the aero frame to be lighter. Tarmac SL8 is more aero than the Venge. There is no point in having an aero bike that is less aero than an all around bike and then have a lightweight bike that is almost as light as the all around bike...
On this one I am not sure. TT/triathlon bikes are designed for the flats and maximum speed. They have wide shaped tubes. True aero bikes are road bikes very close to the TT designs, Venge, SystemSix, Orca Aero, Ultra, Foil and so on. They follow the same concept. These bikes are the fastest, but in a small window of opportunity, i.e. flat or rolling terrain and favourable wind. I am sure the SL8 is a great bike, but does not have these aero features. It is a bike designed to work well in a wider variety of conditions, like the V4RS. The problem is that nowadays you can't sell a bike without saying the magical word "aero", so to me Specialized are stretching the terminology too much, going beyond what is realistic. Otherwise following the same logic if the SL8 and its thin tubes are more aero, we should see a new generation of TT bikes with the same SL8 shape? There is always a trade off in shapes, I agree all around bikes are overall the better choice, but you should not say they also trump over true aero bikes in their own category.
@@fede1275 I don't have time to look it up right now (maybe be I''ll look it up tomorrow and update you on that), but I am pretty sure that the SL8 posts better numbers than the Venge on aerodynamic tunnels. Tour magazine said it was one of the best performing bikes in their test (I believe second best). Over the years, they figured out that the majority of aerodynamic benefits come from the handlebar and the head tube, by the time air comes through the rear triangle there isn't much to be gained. So no need to have large tubes other than the looks. TT bikes for me are more about position of the rider, but it's a completely different breed of a bike. If an all-rounder posts very similar numbers to a pure aero bike, but it's also lighter, then I do think that it makes the aerobike obsolete.
@@JustSueMeyes, but at the same time I believe the parameters have shifted to represent a variety of situations, those where an all around bike performs at the best. Tour magazine have also evolved their test to mimic real life situations. SL8 and it's shape is efficient, but not magic. They were more honest when they launched the SL7, acknowledging the compromise to have a more well rounded bike.
All these blokes saying aero but cant hold an aero position for more than 10 minutes 🤔
That's another issue... But could also be a fit issue!
Is it me or the camera Fed…everyone seems to ride a small bike frame for their body size😂 oh and I prefer light bikes, still looking for a cervelo r3 or 5
Unfortunately it's the wide angle lens of the GoPro 😀
If you're tall you're screwed
Colleagues?
I think the manufactures will tell us anything to make people buy more bikes. It's all about money to them.
It's just that marketing should avoid the same generalisation and be honest on product pros and cons
@@fede1275 You're 100% right. At the end of the day they're a business and there to make money so they will tell us consumers anything to sell their products. 5% stiffer frame or 5watts saving doesnt interest me at all.
Prova a chiedere a Bianchi e ti fai mandare una bella specialissima in Inghilterra, per loro buona pubblicità 😅
In effetti dovrei!! Un'amica ha ricevuto una Oltre nuova
The cycle industry wants me to sell my Grandmother!
You have to do what you have to do 😂😂
@@fede1275 ebay it is then!
I don't think its the bike that's the problem its the diet lol. Losing fat is the best gain any cyclist can make before looking at equipment
No offence bro but you cant compare known brands to velobuild. The fact that it looks aero does not mean it is aero.
I know, it's the other bikes that tend to be offended when they find me higher on the segments leader board with my cheap Velobuild. Actually with a know brand I will be flying then 😀
I also own one gravel Chinese bike which I've build myself and I love it. I just wanted to highlight the fact that even if the bike looks aero it does not mean it is. And this applys not only to velobuild but any other bike :)
@@kubackjeee Yes, but to an extent. People were building fast aero cars and bikes even before computers and CFD, so you can draw some conclusions that would not be so far off.
Aero, disc brakes, tubeless.🤣
And hookless...
@@fede1275 absolutely!!
Aero manufacturers gimmick they know that disc brake bikes are heavier so they are trying push aero as being faster 🤣🤣🤣🤣Lightweight is all that matters to me not keen on lugging a so called aero bike up hills
I understand you now...
stop making excuses and get the aeroad already
😂😂
All over priced, just go for a Chinese frame and half the price… the Chinese market will be taking over hopefully
Already on it with my Velobuild!
Who cares! Buy a classic steel race bike! More importantly what kind of pedals and cleats are you using? And do you use a power meter?
It seems that the whole industry cares and a lot of cyclists as a consequence 😁
I am using Shimano road pedals, no power meter.
@@fede1275 in order to sell more bikes to people who already own more bikes than they have actual space to store their quiver they must create dissatisfaction with the current and past technology and sell the dream of “go-faster glory” when the only way to go faster is to look like a skeleton on steroids and have a VO2 of 85+ ☠️
@@fede1275 ruclips.net/video/pxvDUrrjQGk/видео.htmlsi=e7-CwVZRFqLBrs4l
ruclips.net/video/pxvDUrrjQGk/видео.htmlsi=I6Cf_hriImjKw_PX
A lightweight aero bike will always be faster than a heavy aero bike. And fuckin' stop recording yourself while riding! You need to pay attention to what's around you. Filming yourself on the move endangers yourself and others. Get off the bike for filming.
To me a lightweight aero bike is an all-around bike, the heavy ones are the true aero, that deserve that definition. True aero bikes are close to a TT bike, without the silly handlebars and would be the fastest on a flat terrain with a strong rider. All-around bikes are faster everywhere else.
I like Aero, looks cooler 😁
❤