Well that is even more reason why you can’t draw anything conclusive about the bike and your PR. You have nothing quantitative to base it on (other than your time).
WAY too many other variables unaccounted for.
1 Like
Iv got 70+ times going back 4-5 years. Weather plays a part but all my good times are when it has a tail wind, which is when I usually head this way sound. Also coming off my worst 2 months of training in 3 years.
My 2nd best time was on a mason definition alloy endurance bike with 50mm wheels so honestly on solo rides around my area aero doesn’t make a vast difference.
On what planet is your area, and what is the atmosphere like there? 
Seriously - aero makes the same difference everywhere. I will repeat what has already been stated. Your repeats with zero controls over a very short time period provide zero conclusions. If you wanted to get serious, it isn’t hard. Look up the Chung Method, or just go here https://na.rule28.com/pages/cycling-aerodynamics-calculator . You are going to need a power meter and control for a number of other variables to learn anything.
4 Likes
Stravas rng power numbers are worthless unless you have extremely specific conditions.
You cannot compare different rides on different days using it and expect to get a reliable result.
The effect of aero gains have been proven over and over in the wind tunnel and if you have a power meter and some time you can easily confirm these outdoors.
1 Like
So let me see if I have this right….out of 70+ rides, across 4-5 years, you set your best time (with no record of the power you put out) on a frame that is less aero, has a “full stack of spacers”, was running arguably less aero wheels and unknown tires, and your worst 2 months of training in 3 years. So what was the cause of this result since you are less fit and are on a bike that is less aero?
Congrats on the PR, seriously……but it is pretty clear you set a PR simply because you were either pedaling harder or had a serious tailwind.
4 Likes
I live in a fairly hilly area and the roads aren’t exactly great condition. I have done 12 runs on my Supersix in similar conditions.
We all know aero gains can be proved in a wind tunnel but for an average rider in less than ideal conditions I’m not sure it makes a massive difference.
I thought I wouldn’t get near my top times on my Domane compared to the Supersix let alone beat it.
1 Like
Observations between my 56cm Canyon ultimate rim brake with zipp 404 nsw (old ones 17mm internal) and 58cm SL8. Biggest thing I notice is stability in windy conditions. The zipps catch side winds badly causing me to correct and slow down. The sl8 & rovals just keep rolling, get up to speed and it belts along… It’s much more stable with the wider wheels and much more comfortable with the smooth frame and wider tyres. Great back end.
Went with recommended larger frame, interestingly Canyon recommended 56cm, Spec 58cm.
It’s quite a bit heavier but I don’t notice riding.
That’s exactly my experience and the reason I started this thread. In real world world conditions I found the difference between an aero and non aero bikes are marginal. So I choose what I fancy riding on the day, my aero or non aero bike. 
Your new Domane is likely more aero than an old supersix. It definitely mentions aero on the Trek website. So I guess you have demonstrated aero does work.
He also went from a 28mm (maybe a 30mm tire) to a modern 34mm tire and stated he has rough roads. Maybe he also went to modern tire pressures, but that is unknown to us.
Lots of variables here with no hard repeatable (controlled) data - none the less good job and enjoy your new bike and keep up the good work!
3 Likes
What’s the segment name so we can look it up?
I doubt it’s as aero as the supersix that is a gen3 2022 frame so pretty aero.
Tyres are always GP5000s used to switch between 28-30s now on 32s which all measure 2mm wider on my wheels
Why?
Trek say their new domane has been wind tunnel designed. It only has to fit you slightly better than the cannondale to be more aero.
We have no way of knowing which is more aero till you test them both properly.
But saying one of two non aero frames is less aero than the other doesnt make sense.
2 Likes
Without quoting any irrelevant outdoor segment times I can confidently say my Gen 7 Madone aero bike feels considerably faster pretty much everywhere than my old Emonda SL non-aero bike, and the faster you go the faster it wants to go. It also seems easier to stick back to the back of the group ride after a turn on the front, and the position (sure you can probably replicate this on an old bike) likely is responsible for much of the speed. The bike is also amazingly stable in the wind, more than my old Emonda was which is still surprising to me. I’ve ridden my old Emonda again since selling to a friend and it just doesn’t feel as quick, even if I force myself into a faux-narrow handlebar position to mimic the Madone.
IS IT actually considerably faster? Maybe, maybe not. This might be the same type of feeling people get on snappy lightweight bikes, that also don’t actually go uphill considerably faster than something even 1kg heavier
i mean, thats the main thing with an aero bike, it really kicks in when you go faster. The faster you go the more wind resistance, the more importance an aero bike has compared to a non aero bike.
If I compare my endurance rides at low intensity the aero bike (canyon aeroad 2024) and my ‘old’ van rysel (2021 endurance model), it isnt a big difference. Like maybe 1/2km/h.
But on my fast rides (tempo/treshold) holy shit. The moment you go beyond 30km/h it becomes such a massive difference. I think sometimes (headwind) as much as 3/4km/h.
I have to say though, a lot of these differences I think you can negate if you just put a fast wheelset on an endurance/non-aero bike… they already make a big difference.
Probably right. Worth mentioning that my Emonda did have an integrated (but non aero) cockpit and 50mm Aeolus wheels (17.5 IW 27EW) with 25mm tires measuring 27, while the Madone has an integrated aero cockpit and a 3 generations newer version of Aeolus 51mm wheels (23iw 31ew) with 28mm tires measuring almost 31. I think the wider tire and subsequently lower pressure also helps make the bike feel faster too since it tends to glide more over less than ideal pavement.
I don’t know how many people watch or buy into anything from the Nero Podcast but Jesse got a Chinese do it all frame and did some time comparisons to his old TCR with equally narrow bars and deep wheels on a loop he’s been doing for years and it was something like 20w savings.
Personally I don’t race but I do like to KOM hunt and on many segments I do get to average the 40-45kph that they’re using in marketing (and often more on flats) and when I’m doing 7-8 min efforts at 115-120% FTP being able to save even 10w is a big deal. It’d take a lot of work for me to add 10w to those efforts
Unpopular opinion: the Tour magazine test is marketing more than science. It’s a cool number to see and it’s an advertising point for bike manufacturers to boast, but it’s almost meaningless in real world situations. I see the Tour aero number the same way I see a bike weight. It’s cool to see a low number, but put a rider on the bike and that number is meaningless.
Now I’m not saying aero isn’t real or important. Far from it. But testing a bike without a rider is akin to testing an aero helmet by itself on a stand. It might show huge differences but with a rider on the bike it’s going to change drastically. There are so many other factors like helmets, riders, riding position, water bottles, handlebar shape and width, stack height, rider kit, socks, shoes, wheels that to me, the bike only test is nothing more than a cool number to look at. That and the fact that the Tour test protocol isn’t standardized very well makes comparisons kind of useless.
No, you can’t negate it….you can perhaps minimize the differences, but you can’t negate it. Important distinction.
Considering not every rider will be built like the test dummy nor be able to hold the same test position as someone decides to test with, I feel like it’s just a variable that will create even more discrepancy. They do at least use legs which interact with the bike, and we all have legs that interact more or less the same with the bike too. I do think Tour testing gets way more weight put on than it’s worth though, but sometimes it can be useful, or if nothing else interesting
1 Like