Ok, dredging up an old and always heated debate. Aero vs non aero bike. I have a Cannondale SuperSix Evo (newest gen). It’s my everyday bike. I also have an old beater Allez Sprint from like 5-6 years ago (semi aero, exposed cables) that I race on. I want a new bike. I like the Cannondale for the most part, like there’s nothing major that I dislike. I just want to get a fun road bike to ride. But the big aero advertizing has got me. I think maybe I should upgrade the Allez race bike and get some aero gains. So I’m stuck. I want a lightweight or just fun bike like the new Scott Addict RC or even the Colnago C68, which isn’t aero or light but it’s beautiful and I’ve read it rides like a dream. But I just have this nagging thought in my head, "those aren’t aero, you’re going to be slow, think of DJ and all the aero watts you’d be losing. Get the Scott Foil, get the Canyon Aeroad. Aero is king and everything else is slow. Why can’t I shake this feeling that I need to buy an aero bike? Why can’t I get the fun bike? I could even race the SuperSix and be within a few watts of the all out aero bike, but my mind keeps saying every watt counts. What would backwards hat Dylan say if I bought the Addict because it’s super light?
So my main question is, is the Scott Foil or Canyon Aeroad really that much more aero than a Cannondale SuperSix? Tour puts them at 203W vs 207W if I remember correctly. That’s nothing right?
I’m a pretty hardcore aero geek….and in 2022, I went from a Canton Aeroad to a Giant TCR….about as polar opposite as you can get. Exposed cables, HUGE non-aero downtube, etc.
Still hanging with the same groups, still taking my turns at the front and still performing as always. And the TCR is the best riding carbon bike I have ever had.
Now, my choice was somewhat driven by COVID scarcity (and wanting to support my LBS), but I don’t regret the choice.
All that said, my next frame will almost certainly be an aero frame because I am still an aero geek.
The latest Gen Supersix Evo has aero test very well for an all around bike. The tour tests or the Cyclingnews test confirm that. At best, you are going to get a couple watts by moving to a “more” aero frame. You are NEVER going to notice this.
I’m a very aero leaning rider too but have put major miles on non aero round tube bikes as well. My biggest takeaway from all this is ride what you like. I do believe an aero bike is faster. How much is where the debate can really begin, but who cares? Back to ride what you like. If you feel fast maybe you’ll ride like it. Controversial as this line of thinking may be, it is only one persons opinion.
Random observations: I went from a 2023 Canyon Ultimate with deep aero wheels to a 2024 Canyon Aeroad with similarly deep wheels - on my loop that I have done hundreds of times in all sorts of conditions, my times on the downhills and undulating stuff is consistently several seconds faster on the Aeroad. The first month I had the bike I kept getting strava prs on random segements. It happened so many times that I can’t think its simply ‘new bike legs’.
I think all the new ‘aero’ bikes are so nice that you shouldn’t worry about what is faster, we are talkin a couple of watts here and there. You should get the bike that you can’t stop looking at. My bike has a spot in the living room
Ok, back to my decision. My shop has a Scott Addict RC. It’s beautiful. I want it. But I’d have to sell my SuperSix Evo. So I’d be going from a decently aero SuperSix to a not aero Addict RC for racing. Am I crazy for going to a non-aero bike for racing?
I had a beauty yesterday set a PB on one of my favorite segments. The thing is this was on my new Domane complete with a full stack of spacers, 40mm wheels and 34mm tyres.
Last 2 years of rides were on a gen 3 Supersix with 28-30mm tyres and 50mm rims. So I’m not sure how much effect aero has on my local pretty poor roads.
I have 70 times over this and beat my previous best by 6 seconds.
Just to note these are Strava estimated watts, I had a higher ftp previously.
You set a PB because you put out +100w more than your previous efforts. You can’t really read anything into whether the bike helped or hurt your time because of the massive watt variation.
It is impossible to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion based on a handful of times and broad bike descriptions without any other context like power or weather conditions.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
