Yeah, you said that already. But how?
For someone who isn’t snarky, you seem pretty snarky. @jn92
That’s the joke!
Read the rest of my comment, I picked the R5 randomly
Looks a little bit like they are responding to some disliking the small dimples on the saddle!
So you can’t tell me how they test the aeroperformance of frames or point me to a source?
Well, this is internet – if you don’t use smileys liberally, sooner or later somebody will misread you. Even if you point out you’re joking, somebody still misunderstands
Anyway, that’s beside the point. OP wants to discuss specific topic and then there are lot of persons trying to derail it. Whether for joking or idealism spreading, it still makes following topic harder for interested participants.
I have pointed you to a source, their magazine.
They put a bike into a wind tunnel, put a pedaling lower body dummy on top, and test at 45kph at various yaw angles. They then re-test with a different set of wheels, that is standardized (ZIPP 404). They do not test frames only, but full bike set ups, and do the second testing with standardized wheels for better comparability.
I cannot provide more detail, so let‘s stop going in circles here.
Thanks. Must have overread that in your first response or it wasn’t there in the initial version when I read it. So, sorry for derailling the thread. Carry on
Dont really know how they make the sl7 much better. Its lighter then almost all aero bikes and its not much slower. Will be interesting to see tour mag test it. They can run deeper tubing like the new s5 and maybe save a few watts.
I def think people are reviewing and buying what they feel is the best bike. Tour mag is really the only company to throw out independent aero data. I wish they would throw some gravel bikes in the mix as aero and gravel matter the most.
There have been rumors about a re-Venge for a while now. Don’t know if that’s happening. I believe the tarmac will stay very much GC focused, so 6.8kg development target.
There is not a ton really. I hope they do not increase tire clearance, as 32c (and the 34c Vittoria Next and Schwalbe Pro One also fit) is plenty for a race bike.
I guess they‘ll try to save a few grams here and there.
I‘d imagine they’ll transfer some of the choices from the Aethos for improved comfort and weight.
And then most of the aero gains will likely be delivered via the new cockpit. I am not particularly keen on a 1 piece solution there, though.
For a road bike, I dont think I need more tire room. I have seen someone fit a 35c on the back though.
Everyone is going 1 piece, they held out for a long time.
I would like to see different clip-on aerobar solution. Current one from Venge hides integrated bike computer holder, enforcing to attach it to aerobar instead, looks ugly, imho.
factor has a cool option for aero bars on the ostro
Do you happen to have link to any picture? Quick search found nothing…
Yeah, that’s a really cool option, but it makes sense for the OSTRA Gravel, where Aero bars are allowed. I doubt Specialized will do something like that for their GC road racing bike. They‘ll sell the bike wit the claim of „xxx grams lighter“, and this would be rather detrimental.
Its a 1 piece bar and then the hanzo TT extensions mount to it. I should have one in 2 months
Thanks. I was wondering in general. Right now, for me personally, it is not too important: interested in self-supported 24h TT (not race, just my own), considering for that some tri-bike with lot of storage instead, still looking around.
Agree with that. I’m “tired” of seeing bike brands keep making more room for wider tires. A road bike does not need 32c+ tires on it; that’s a gravel bike.
That would be the coolest model name. If they don’t do that, they’re stupid.
It hasn’t been more than a meme thus far, but I agree that the name is great.