What a great and thoughtful insight. Thanks.
I bought my Venge 3 years ago because my racing style was a lot of off the front stuff as a cat 5 into cat 4 and 3. As I’ve gotten older and catted up, I find I am (or should be) spending less time off the front. And so the bike that’s replacing my Venge is a much less aggressive geometry that I’ll enjoy riding the 300 days of the year where I am NOT racing… with the fact that being in the group more, maximizing aero matters less and compliance and comfort are more important for my old butt. The Venge (same geo as SL7) had gotten painful to ride long days on even before it got its viking burial.
1 Like
You probably don’t want to ride at your maximum sustainable effort 100% of the time.
Meanwhile aero gains are nonsense for the vast majority of the time when you’re not on the front or TTing.
Position matters, rolling resistance matters, the rest a lot less than claimed while riding with others.
Re Alaphillippe’s bars: width is way more important than the aero shape, how many in the pro peloton are still on 40, 42 or even wider?
I can’t understand Alaphillipe’s problem with aero bars unless he could feel they were flexy / flimsy - assuming the same shape on the drops & hoods, they should feel identical.
Anyone notice that the latest greatest Ribble aero bars go quite wide near the tops as it allegedly breaks the airflow before it gets to the riders even less aero legs. The width on the tops looks kind of like round bars to me. I think aero is so much more complex than at first glance, like yes round bars have to be less aero when considered on their own, as part of a system though, maybe not. Same goes for most parts of a bike.
World tour teams using Ribble bikes: 0
I do support them for producing their top-end aero bike with no bar options: 36cm on the tops, flared to 40cm or something, for all sizes.
It’s really annoying to see aero road bikes in the fancy shop near me that come stock with a $600 one piece aero bar-stem… in 44cm.
3 Likes
As I’m sure you are aware the number of world tour teams using Ribble bikes has everything to do with how much money the bike sponsor has and very little to do with how good the bikes are (within reason). The Ribble was tested in the wind tunnel and allegedly this bar design had merit, who knows but when someone comes out of the wind tunnel and says, hey these (almost round) bit on the bars gives an aero advantage it’s good to take note at least. The fact that aero road bikes with a $600 one piece “aero” bar come in 44cm tells you everything you need to know about bike companies commitment to actual aero. In the group I ride in, every now and again someone will show up on the latest greatest aero something or other and it doesn’t seem to make any difference to when that person gets dropped or not. The exact same sentiment was echoed by someone on the Chris Miller YouTube. (he does a show with Jesse Coyle who’s a top Australian rider, think he rode pro Conti level). He was saying he was riding with a guy who’d swapped from the Cervelo S5 to R5 (or other way round, can’t remember) but he said it made zero difference to how he rode on any of the groups he rode with. I’m not a total naysayer or anything, I ride an aero ish frame, 50mm wheels, aero jersey but I don’t know. It’s certainly not as clear cut as the marketing makes it seem.
1 Like
I don’t have much to add - despite racing my n+1 eyes keep getting turned to ti or steel bikes rather than the ones that may help me in a race - but I have found it interesting that the latest top end “aero” bikes have evolved to less traditionally aero looking - latest propel; specialized ditching the venge and all in for the Tarmac for examples.
3 Likes
I don’t think the rolling resistance watt numbers from Bicycle Rolling Resistance are accurate.
They’re still great for seeing if tyre A is faster than tyre B, but the actual watt differences are not accurate.
Josh Poertner from Silca explained it in a podcast.
I think the aero watt savings are there, but you have to consider that if you sit in the peloton (not taking wind) for 95% of the race, it’s not going to make a difference for that period of time.
And if his race is to sit in the wheels and go all-out in a steep climb like Mur de Huy at the end, aero is probably not his main concern.
2 Likes
Signifying nothing. World team tour teams aren’t saying “Hey, you know who has really great bikes? Brand X….we should ride them.”
There is a reason it is called “sponsorship”.
2 Likes
Product development is an iterative process…rarely do you have the perfect product from the get-go.
This is especially true in terms of aerodynamics…we continue to learn more about how it behaves with bicycles, equipment and riders. It doesn’t necessarily mean things were “wrong” before, just that things continue to get “better”.
2 Likes
@awoffinden we are on opposite sides of this opinion but I definitely, 100% get what you are saying! Big differences like riding on the tops vs a mid-aero position on the hoods are above our threshold of perception so pretty much any test is going to detect that difference.
But even a large-ish aero improvement like an aero helmet is usually below your threshold of aero detection. Even though an aero helmet can be a fairly large improvement. And a great many aero changes that you can be certain sure are going to make a difference will not behave as you expect when tested rigorously. I can assure you that a $1100 time trial cockpit can be slower than a $400 time trial cockpit! I can assure you that some changes that add a lot of frontal area are actually quite a bit faster (for the princely sum of sub $100 dollars).
So it doesn’t always make sense and nothing is harder than trying to convince a cyclist who spent $1000 on a solution that the expensive solution isn’t as good as what they already had. 
But, hey, that’s me. Some of the most fun I’ve had on the bike has been aero testing. For my money, there can’t be very many people in cycling history that have brought so much tech power to just the average non-supported cyclist than @rchung. Chung Virtual Elevation is so powerful, so elegant, and SO ABSOLUTELY FREE!!
@awoffinden if ever you take some time to really test your bike rigorously in the field, I think you’ll find a lot of free speed. That was my experience.
6 Likes
Hey I like free speed! Go on, what’s your quick top picks, easy low hanging fruit, Moderately aero frame, aero wheels, what’s next on the list?
I had just brought a Ribble SL for riding road bike TT this year as a bit of variety. Basically if the race has a road bike section I’ll enter it - if not I get the TT bike out. Is the Ribble quicker than my Ridley Helium with Hunt wheels - who knows I haven’t ridden it yet. Am I looking forward to getting out on it this summer? - hell yes…which when you are an amateur like most of us is the most important thing 
2 Likes
The marketing depts generally compare things against the least aero thing they can find. Same with tires and rolling resistance, they often compare to running garden hoses (relatively speaking). I think the gains are truly marginal if you’re running stuff that was designed with at least a modicum of aerodynamic consideration.
The SL7 has essentially the same geometry as the 2020 Venge (some very minor differences). They didn’t ditch anything in terms of aerodynamics, in reality. A few of the SL7 owners I know dislike the SL7 much more than their prior year models of Tarmac because it doesn’t fit them as well, they don’t like how it handles, and it’s not as comfortable. I know of one who sold his SL7 and went back to riding his SL4. Another who did the same with his SL6. And another who now likes the SL7 better.
For me personally, I went from a 2009 Cannondale Super Six which was much more upright, fat round tubes everywhere, box rims, and a windbrake on my head for a helmet to my Venge, 50mm rims, Evade helmet… so of course there’s a difference.
The real tell will be when I get my new non-aero specific (but still a modern racing) frame with the same 50mm rims and the same helmet… will I notice anything? My guess is a resounding “no”. (Caveat that my position will be different, and more comfortable/compliant).
3 Likes
that all makes sense. Report back when you have the new bike.
1 Like
With wheel aerodynamics, the rim depth is the main driver. There are some differences in watts between brands in independent testing, but if you have a decent set of aero wheels in a good depth (like say 50mm), the upgrade isn’t going from Winspace Hypers to Enve. The aero upgrade is putting an 80 on the back or something like that.
But the cheapest and easiest gains come from making the rider more aero. Position, kit fit, helmet. Those are all relatively inexpensive and efficient aero gains. The frame makes the least cost-efficient gain, and wheels are somewhere in the middle.
IMO in terms of buying a bike, getting something that fits you well and is comfortable in position is WAY more important than how aero that position actually is. If you can’t stay low for very long because the geometry is too aggressive for you, it doesn’t matter how the geometry works in your favor when you have to come up to the hoods or the tops every few minutes. (Granted, that is trainable to a certain extent).
(Edited to fix a couple mistakes.)
2 Likes
Your words are wise…let me add a little information that is secondary but might make a difference. Two wheels with the same rim depth can perform very differently depending on the course. A narrower rim profile is aerodynamically superior at low yaw angles.
Also, I find a wider rim profile is superior at larger yaw angles. A ‘V’ rim profile is super freakin’ twitchy in a cross wind compared to a similar depth ‘U’ rim profile. I’m not sure if it’s actually the impact of crosswind airflow detaching from the rim…or whether the sketchy twitch makes it harder to hold an aero body position…but that makes the ‘v’ rim profile way inferior in a cross wind.
That’s all stuff that @kurt.braeckel already knows but I’m just throwing it out there in case there are other interested readers.
1 Like
Oh for sure. When you take into account handling, some wheels shine and others that might test faster in the tunnel become uncomfortable as hell to ride on.
FWIW the Roval CL50s are fantastic wheels that came on the Venge. I’ve yet to find need to upgrade. I run Hed Jet 60s on my TT bike, same deal. Great wheels. Both are relatively cheap in the world of aero wheels, especially since the Jets are rim brake! I think specialized has raised the price on the CL50s though… used to be like $1400 for the set which isn’t bad considering they test very fast and handle extremely well.
3 Likes
I was purely commenting on the looks, no judgement in an area I’m definitely not qualified to comment.
And given I mentioned the propel, Giant seem to have moved it more towards the TCR fit wise. From what I’ve ready, as the SL7 and Propel Advanced Pro 0 are definitely in lotto win territory rather than realistic for me!
1 Like
Yes the price of bikes is a WHOLE other thing. Really is a pain.
2 Likes