Due to my exquisite maths skills. at 11:00 I took 70% as the rider drag which is 350W but said 75% in the video. But please remember, I'm only 5 years old so don't roast me.
Does the math make more sense if the rider drag is more like 90% of the total drag? For some reason, I always thought the bike only accounted for 10% (maybe less if you don't include the wheels) so the % improvements they always claim are such a tiny % of the total, the bike marketing is very misleading. Vingegaard rode the far more traditional, lightweight R5 most of the Tour de France. He only rode the S5 on the last, flat, ceremonial stage for marketing purposes of introducing the new S5.
At 10:00, I think 8 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 7 + 8 + 8 = 52, rather than 44. In the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter of course. The internet is very funny with bikes - it's either complete cynics or sycophants/blind amateurs. I understand why companies put so much hype behind these things, but surely it would be the easiest thing in the world for some RU-vidr to grab a 2013 model and a newer bike and actually see which is faster?
Don't forget to add the drag savings over the years from helmets, jerseys, shoes, socks, wheels etc, and you're at more like 100W of savings. Meaning that if I raced Vindergaard on a 2022 S5 in the latest clothes against him on a 2013 S5 in 2013 clothing, then I would beat him.....LOL.
In about 70years the S5 will have so little drag it will have not only cancelled out the drag of the bike but also the rider; thus solving the worlds energy crisis by generating forward motion for nothing. It will then mean any unfit knacker with enough money can get strava KOMs for free.
haha yes, I guess the marketing dept will just rebase their numbers to state watt savings at even more ridiculous speeds. Like 5W saving at 60kmph. FFS
Source needed for Cervelo claiming to have aero gains every single year. From what I've followed, they've claimed gains from generation to generation. They claimed 5.5 Watts from 2019 to the version in 2014 (V stem version introduced). The latest 2022 version is 8 Watts faster than the 2019 model, with 6 of those Watts being from the wheels. These are entirely believable gains
This is an interesting and relevant technical paper: BASSETT, DAVID R. JR; KYLE, CHESTER R.; PASSFIELD, LOUIS; BROKER, JEFFREY P.; BURKE, EDMUND R.. Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical data. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: November 1999 - Volume 31 - Issue 11 - p 1665. They provide aerodynamic drag correction factors allowing the drag power at 48 kpm to be estimated for various changes. A round tube standard track bike with aero bars and disk or composite wheels required 327 W, whereas Chris Boardman's Lotus composite bike from the 1992 Olympics dropped the drag requirement to 304W, so only a 23W reduction with a huge change in aerodynamic bike design...and Cervelo is claiming 52W reduction through small refinements to a similar design!
Vingegaard actually didn’t win a single stage of his 2 stage wins on the S5 but he rather win them on the more traditionally designed R5 which is Cervelo’s lightweight climbing bike equivalent so my point is both S5 and R5 would likely feel very different when riding out although I don’t speak out of experience
@@RepsacZ yep I think it's more to do with the fact that WVA can still output sustained efforts of 500-550 watts in the third week of a grand tour rather than the bike he's sitting on 🤔
@@georgesj9536 Or it's the bike he's simply paid to ride! Put WVA on a 1980's steel tubed Colnago with downtube shifters and he is still dropping everyone on that stage. 🙂
I really enjoy this kind of post from you Hambini where you gives us enough technical information that enables us to understand things more clearer and more so to decipher the bullcrap from the sales and marketing blurb the bicycle manufacturers put out there.
I think legendary Lockheed engineer Kelly Johnson (who was responsible for aircraft such as the P-38 and SR-71 and its specialist variants - which he and his engineers created with nothing more than slide rulers back in ye olde times) said, "If it looks good, it flies good." But it's absolutely certain that the "looks good" part included the extensive engineering required to ensure that the "flies good" part held up to performance expectations. That said, "looking good" in the bike biz over the years does not necessarily translate into, or guarantee, that "riding good" or good or exceptional bike performance is assured by any means. This is the possible reason why Cervelo and other manufacturers emphasize looking good (aka aerodynamics) while fudging the performance. Because, I think, the effort to truly embody both at the same level of quality would be too much work versus cost of design, manufacturing and marketing. Therefore, as long as a bike, frame or component *looks good,* any company's marketing department can pretty much get away with anything it says and not be taken to task by the average consumer. The flip side is that the bikes ridden by Jonas Vingegaard and his mates on the Jumbo Visma team get more massaging and attention to all details than you'll ever get from your hairdresser.
Indeed. Another problem of "eyeball aero" is establishing causation. Everyone looks at these aero frames and goes bonkers, immediately assume a huge advantage. Then you look at a fairly standardized test like Tour Mag's and the Specialized Tarmac SL7 either beats them or gets within striking distance while weighing 2Kg less. 🤷♂️
Very possible that the savings announced come from influencing the rider’s position I think it’s the rubble bike that has part of his watt saved claim explained by reducing de with of the handlebar, which in turns makes the rider more aero. Slap a narrower handlebar on your actuel bike to get almost the same saving !
Raced and trained on 3 S series, on the earlier end of your timeline. Had to warranty two frames for manufacturing tolerance issues and quality issues in the bottom bracket area. I kept good faith with them, but after a third, I just got rid of the frame and was done with them. Won't ever get their bikes again. Just my experience, and yours might be better, or maybe they changed and improved manufacturing after 2018. Totally a ymmv thing. I will say they felt fast. Pretty much agree with Hambini here. Looks fast (other S series felt fast to me). Historically bad manufacturing, yeah, that was my experience as well.
I think the Reserve wheel design approach is really good. Recreating that turbulence spectra and coherence is definitely possible in the wind tunnel using an active grid upstream of the test section, although the video doesn’t confirm that.
The marketing blurb and rim shape sound exactly the same as what Zipp was saying about their Firecrest shape almost 10 years ago. Looks very similar to the bastard child of a 404 and 303.
2 года назад
"That may be an inflammatory comment" That was probably the closest to an apology I've seen on this channel.
Thiis reminds me of the accumulated weight savings on motorcycles. Over twenty years or so, they were such that the bikes would have floated out the doors of the dealers all alone... well, not quite, but you get the idea. Somehow though, the mass (almost) always increased. Question of how it was measured. It's pretty obvious that a good proportion of the 150-ish Watts of drag is carried in a big part by the wheels (which have likely gone up given the discs and fatter tyres), which implies that the frame drag is down by more than half. Right. Maybe those power savings are not meant to be compounded? Anyway, I'll go for a ride on my rim-brake climbing bike.
A portion of the 150W bike drag should be Rrolling resistance mostly related to your tires... making the numbers for aero savings even more "impressive".
I don’t know about that wind can also cause drag people always think a higher Psi= more speed but from my testing it just depends for example I calculated my weight and went with a 30psi vs 70 and found to be doing 4-8mph more on the lower psi when there is wind resistant on the lower psi however when there is no wind am a lot faster on the higher psi…also another thing to add I found that riding on a wet road makes your resistance less to near 0 I don’t know the science behind that but I hope bike manufacturers will pick it on it
Companies like Enve are even more insane. $8,400 for their "custom road" frameset which really is not remotely close to being a true full custom frameset. 🙂
A proper timeline reaming for Cervelo! I like the look of the bike but realize the only nice thing about the bike is the group set. I’ll stick with slightly used cheap DA 7900 found on e bay and rim brake wheels.
I'd say that you can't separate rider and bike contributions to drag below the top of the handlebars. As some improvements in bike design may overlap into rider drag, ie around the seat tube and post and rear wheel. Any cleaned up air over the frame is going to affect the drag over the riders legs as well. So maybe half of the improvement in drag might actually come from what we'd otherwise consider rider drag. The way to test is to check drag difference with and without rider on the bike.
“I don’t know if the bike industry think we are idiots”…of course they think we are idiots. They are charging thousands and thousands for badly designed, untested and then, to make matters worse, totally lacking any QC in the process. I’m still riding 20+ year old Campag 10 speed on a conventional (by todays standards) Colnago V2r with cable discs. I’ve totally lost faith in anything the cycling world does. From the press that reports it to the boutique manufacturers, they all just want the churn to carry on. It’s good we have people like you, peak torque, Leuscher, Waynos Fotos and maybe a few others calling them out for it.
And don't forget, difficult to service and full of single source parts which no doubt will be obsolete in a few years. I'll stick with external cables, rim brakes and standard size metal parts thanks bike industry.
Exactly! I went to future proof myself with discs and I got the frame at a silly price NOS because it’s not fully integrated or dropped seatstays. I’m not bothered about all that.
Just like any fighter plane at the moment, the aero aspect knowhow already reached it limit, the only way is to put on more a powerful thrust engine to fly faster. For faster bicycles, needed more powerfull pedalling pair of legs and can sustained long period of times.
Hambini placing the Cannondale and Cervelo side by side underscores how similar competing bike designs are as they're increasingly informed by aerodynamics. As manufacturers seek further efficiency gains I expect the differences between them will continue to be reduced. At some point I wonder if the only differences will be the paint schemes.
Good one! Please make more to expose the bs and ream the wanketeering teams a couple of new holes all nicely aligned and round. It would be really interesting if you made a video explaining how the braking forces differ between rim and disc. How does the disc’s braking force on the non drive side affect the rider vs central braking force of rim brakes etc.
Loving your "inflammatory" comment! These are always good for repelling those whose pens aren't working. edit: Oh God, I cracked at cockpit and Tyrone, hahaha
Good morning Hambini , I have enjoyed your videos from the start and believe it's mostly impart of your for mentioned Common Sense making your material easier for a non pro trained engineer to understand while teaching some of the advanced material but to the S5 2023 you brought up some great points which seems to be a common thread over the past couple decades and in my belief is 100 percent marketing not 30 - 50 percent as used to be maybe even less so in a nut shell it's the super compitition in the market that is destroying it and making long time racers like myself stick to what may be considered vintage to some of the newer riders but never the less show what 23 mil tires and 9 speeds can do . Thanks Dude , always appreciated
Been watching these roasting videos for years now. How are you still aged 5? Must be at least 7 or 8 now?! Could you please share an honest opinion about the Orbea Orca Aero with his/her aero fanny pack. Crapateer bull crap or makes a bit sense? Much appreciated 🤘
While the closest I get to riding a bike is watching the tour de france from my sofa But From 2013 to today have the erodynamics of the rider not reduced from 350kw at all,through helmet / clothing material?
When the folks from Reserve talked to the cyclingtips podcast about these wheels, they said that their aero testing was done with a group that does architectural aerodynamics. For whatever that's worth.
@@Reanimator999 Aerodynamics for buildings is quite important for some buildings. It prevents them from falling down, as well as problems with glass among other things.
Just ballparking figures but I'm a relatively large rider at 6'1" and on a standard aluminum bike with a non-areo fork I used 447W to do 47kph for 4km on a 1.3km loop track outdoors. This was on a 30⁰ day so less drag in the warm air, but I don't think anyone would need 500+ watts to do 45kph
Have you not seen the headtube of a systemsix from another angle? back side of it is completely flat, like an inch and a half wide. s5 at least looks like it conforms more to that aerofoil shape (for the headtube at least)
Hey Hambini. I am new to cycling and have found your videos very helpful. Keep up the great work along with the epic rants. Lol. Quick question. For the recreational road cyclist. Which is better.. rim, mechanical disc or hydraulic disc? I am more concerned with safety cause I'm in Asia right now. It's rainy season and having good brakes is crucial.
Same as aero, most of the controllable part of rider safety comes from rider behaviour, if you're very used to anticipating a ton at all times and always ride in a bit more of an upright position that allows for a great field of view, you never really needs discs much (unless you're facing a crazy steep descent on every ride, off course) Also, it ain't hydraulic vs mechanical that makes the biggest difference in stopping efficiency, it's the disc diameter. On an MTBike you have access to either (i should say mostly) 180mm ones or 160 mm, on road bikes tends to be 160mm or 140mm cause y'know, over 160mm it makes it too obvious aero's been long gone out the window. I'd go hydraulic if you have a totally trustworthy bikeshop nearby to save you the maintenance hassle, if not a very good mechanical one works just fine, you just have to make sure you use good quality cable housings as well to prevent unnecessary cable degradation and keep things tight.
Chao Ban. Given some of rain storms I've experienced in Asia, I'd definitely go with hydraulic disc brakes, if you're going to be riding in them much (especially with the "rules of the road" I've experienced in Viet Nam). Or the mechanical cable actuated hybrid hydraulic disc brakes to safe money and make things more repairable in the city. If you're going to be bike touring, then definitely rim brakes as there's little chance of finding anyone with hydraulic fluid, tools for a brake bleed, or replacement brake pads out in the country side.
@@lastfm4477 xin chào! Thank you for the reply. It sounds like you have considerably experience cycling in Vietnam. Where in Vietnam did you do most of your cycling? Do you by chance know of any good trustworthy & competent mechanics in Da Nang area?
I think where Cervelo is falling behind in aerodynamics is in not considering that there will be water bottles used on the bike. On the Pinarello Dogma F (and even F12), the back of the down tube is flat where the bottle cage mounts. They didn’t design the frame pretending there wouldn’t be a bottle there. They know that the back edge of the down tube won’t be the actual trailing edge of the tube in real use. BMC did this even better with the Teammachine. They include their Aerocore bottle cage that aerodynamically mounts seamlessly with the downtube.
@@rkan2 I don’t know if you’re insinuating that riders don’t keep bottles on their bikes, but I can tell you from watching races and being in races with team cars that we most certainly do keep bottles on our bikes.
If you have a car with half a dozen "spare" bikes following you every time you ride, then the build quality is more or less irrelevant. For the other 99.5% of us.........that's why my Cervelo is an old alloy Soloist
Have Cervelo fixed their creaky BB problems? I bought an R3 from a few years back that came with a creaky bottom end as standard equipment from the factory. After much faffing around including a couple of trips to the local Cervelo dealer who could not figure it out the problem magically disappeared one day and has not come back. I did replace the crankset but not the BB which still has the factory BBRight nonsense. Seems to be holding together but is Cervelo still providing this err feature, on their new bikes?
I owned the original Cervelo Carbon Soloist (2007). It was fast, aero, but PUNISHING. I SOLD it in 2014. I never had a good 100+ km ride on it. I still have a 2005 Cervelo Aluminum P3SL, which I still consider a great bike, both for TTs and 200+ km rides. But, “The proof of the pudding is in the Tasting”. Jumbo Visma rode Cervelo; Jumbo Visma won the Tour. Wout Van Aart won the TTs. UAE was riding Colnago. A key factor in UAE losing was a broken chain. . . Maika was gone.
JFYI fit and rider position, and aero optimizations on the bike will have a significant impact on watts needed to go a given speed. On my TT bike, I go 45kph at about 260 watts, that’s on a 2007 Cervelo P3C. On my 2009 Cervelo S2 road bike at 45kph, I’m pulling about 440 watts on flat ground.
Haha... Ultimate proof Hambini really knows his stuff; 'Jumbo stroopwafels are better than Albert Heijn's', even the trivia are up to and above standards👍🏻😁👍🏻
@@Hambini Oh my... Well actually for someone who lives practically 'round the corner (15min citybike ride) from the Philips museum, that can hardly be too specific 😂
Sounds like Cervelo is taking the cues from the golf driver marketing play book. I was hitting 300y drives back in 1996, and "gained 30 yards" with each new driver I bought. I now drive the golf ball 874y on average, which is ALMOST TRIPLE what Tiger Woods average drives are. Seriously though, I bought a Cruzbike V20 recumbent bike and it takes me about 210watts to reach 40kph on a flat course with no wind. Fast roadies will latch on for a bit, but once I wind it up to about 280w and they don't really get any draft off me they will drop off after a minute or so because they still have to push around 400w to keep up. With a tailwind, a small Japanese rider on a Cervelo P5/6 and I took off within minutes of each other on a flat 25km section. It costs me 211w to do 45.7kph for it, but it costs him 286w to do 45.6kph for it. That is a 75w difference. I'm 178cm and 80kg, and 54 years old. I continued on for another 18km up the river keeping it in the mid 40s, while he pulled off at the 25km marker. I can hold 200w for 4 hours, but some young bucks should be really close to 300w, if not more. That kind of racing would be RIDICULOUS!!!!
@@lastfm4477 4iiii. It is a crank based PM, but the Favero Assioma PMs might be a pretty good option as well. When mine bites the dust I will switch if I can get a decent deal because I would like to do a bit of testing between the V20 and my TT bike so I can provide real world testing to show others who are considering switching to a recumbent, even though that data already exists. My CdA on my V20 is about 0.200, and with a bit of tweaking I think I can maybe get it down to 0.190 to be as slippery as possible. Some recumbent riders get down to 0.150 or lower because they are small and use even more aero recumbent bikes. Without a wind tunnel or a professional fitting, a rider on a TT bike is going to have a hard time getting down to about a 0.200. Some get lower, but that is gonna cost a lot.
Marketing bollox aside, to be fair I think this is a much better effort than the last model - their ability to make round holes to a certain size, or lack thereof, notwithstanding. Headtube / steerer destruction is supposedly fixed. Clearance for bigger tires for shitty roads is good (if you think roads in the UK are bad you ain't seen nothing). Cockpit's attachment a bit better. Prices are stupid, but the frameset has remained the same price, unlike virtually every other brand that are racing each other to the $10k number. Reserve wheels appear to be actually attempting to make something aero in real world conditions, unlike virtually every other company, whether they've been successful is another matter. Bottom line, at a minimum, it has to be better than that sh** stain new Madone.
Preface - I hate disc brakes and none of my road bikes have them. However, it's a bit simplistic to trash discs aerodynamically on account of pumping losses without considering the wider context. A caliper brake in its conventional position on a front fork seriously messes up the airflow. In addition, the use of a disc allows the hydraulic line to be routed through the head tube and fork. Coupled with cable free electronic shifting, this allows for a very clean front end in terms of airflow. Sure, you're transferring the turbulent flow towards the bottom half of the bike - but that half of the bike is pretty messy anyway disc or non disc. I still hate discs but I can see their merits in a total system context.
I was told that rim brakes sit right in the already disturbed airflow due to vicinity of the rotating wheels. If that is true it is also false to assume that rim brake "seriously messes up the airflow". This is just what the cycling industry wants you to believe.
@@The86rick "Cables and lines actually do have quite a bit of impact aero wise" I can't recall anyone would even be able to measure significant difference of drag due to cables... Do you have any basis for your claim?
@@jkk916 At the risk of stating the obvious, anything that protrudes into the air will cause drag. In response to your earlier comment, if you look at the direction of bike system design, the focus of effort has largely been on cleaning up the airflow across the top half of the bike, hence integrated handlebar-stems, concealed cables, aero seatposts and dropped chainstays - and disc brakes. Also, as Kardo comments, there is much more flexibility allowed the design of the fork in the crown area when the potential disruption of a caliper brake is eliminated. Bicycle wheels suffer from rotational and translational drag but neither is particularly related to any particular section of the wheel.
@@costelloandsilke7321 "At the risk of stating the obvious, anything that protrudes into the air will cause drag." Why then add big protruding chunk of metal that rotates right on the front? There is no way to hide it. On the other hand, rim brakes can be quite easily integrated into the forks if that really matters. So to me it is quite obvious how the airflow should be cleaned. I just can't see sound engineering logic behind disc brakes, there is only sound marketing logic.
Fascinated regarding those reserve wheels how they ended up with a 25mm internal width when these are supposedly road wheels? They say you can fit a 25mm tyre on their website but I can't imagine it would be to easy to get it seated and sealed? 🤔
Do you find the Cannondale frame the most aerodynamic of all aeroframes? Does a less sophisticated frame from few years ago (without disc brakes) wouldn’t be just as fast because of the disc loss?
Taiwan is its own country. Taiwan meets most of the requirements to qualify as a country. The only requirement it does not fully meet is “the capacity to enter into relations with other states“, and that is due to ongoing pressure from the authoritarian communist regime in China. Taiwan has its own passport. On the Taiwanese passport’s cover page, both “Taiwan” and “Republic of China” are written. Taiwan issues its own visas for travellers. A visa to Taiwan cannot let you enter China. A visa to China cannot let you enter Taiwan. Taiwan has its own military. Taiwan has its own national anthem. Taiwan has its own currency, called the New Taiwan Dollar, or NT$. Taiwan has its own government. Taiwanese people get to vote to elect their leaders. It is said that the island is one of the strongest and most vibrant multi-party democracy in the world. The nation is widely recognized as a beacon of freedom, democracy and human rights in the Asia-Pacific. It ranks 3rd in Asia, and 32nd globally in the Democracy Index of 2018. Taiwan has its own postal service, and its own stamps. Taiwan has its own police force, which is officially called the National Police Agency, or NPA. According to World Atlas: “Taiwan is a self-governing republic which is recognized by a few countries and international bodies. Nonetheless, Taiwan has its own fully functional government. The seat of the government is in Taipei, Taiwan.” more… More than 70 percent of the Taiwanese public agree that Taiwan is an independent, sovereign country. Multiple opinion polls conducted regularly in Taiwan have indicated that there is very little support for immediate unification with China. As China flexes its muscles more aggressively in the region, and after seeing what is happening in Hong-Kong, fewer and fewer Taiwanese are ready to consider the idea of re-unification with China.
Disc brakes, ha. Heavier. Less aerodynamic. Was waiting for more comments on the BB. Oh, the wattage for 45kph is too high; however, point made and well taken. 44 watts is not a believable number, especially with disc brakes.
@@The86rick tested in laminar flow no doubt. And wind tunnel tests do not include drag from rotors; it's not insignificant. Logically, adding something that is not aerodynamic to a bike will not improve overall aerodynamics. Just ain't going to happen. Think of it this way: take the calipers and disc off and run the aero test again. Which is faster? With calipers and disc or without?
I would say Cervelo's claim is higher, as what they were quoting was from the previous year so it's a compound figure. Unless they specifically said x better than the 2013 model as a datum, either way ,fantasy land.
I have found that the most effective, cheapest and healthy way of getting faster and more effecient is actually losing weight. Just 5kg has made me way faster on the same bike and I'm still not done. Another 5-7kg are definitely doable. Only then would I even consider the bike.
@Hambini Question I have been thinking about as far as aerodynamics. With the modern aero frames with disc brakes vs skinny tubing and rim brakes of older steel bike frames, would one still be faster than the other in terms of wattage? Or would the aero bike still be ahead?
Airfoil sections have about 90% less drag than a cylinders of the same width as a general rule of thumb. However, the frame is not all of the bike drag, but I’d say it’s easier to make the frame more streamline than reduce steel tubing diameters. So aero frames would easily beat skinny steel tube frames
@@longbowsnyper I agree. However most tubes are placed at an angle making the cylinder at least a bit oval shaped. Horizontal top tubes also make sense aerodynamically. The only good thing is a steel bike is never truly out of fashion.
Everything else being equal (rider, position, components, wheels, etc), I think the aero frame will be ahead. As an older steel frame rider, I also question how much faster an aero frame is. I don't believe I'm an extraordinary rider, but I don't seem to have too much of a problem keeping up with the "super bikes" on my old LeMond especially since we aren't consistently rolling at 45kph. Net-net, if I had to guess an aero from shows an increase in speed, but more of a marginal improvement than advertised.
@@bradstoppenhagen2267 I appreciate the response. You can take my testing as you will, but I had my Colnago C40 setup exactly the same as my Dogma F10, same wheels and PM pedals. I did a local 7 minute climb and I seemed to gain 1 second per minute on the F10. And on my Basso Diamanté(non-aero, bigger tubing) vs my F10 with same power and position compared to my F10, the F10 had .75-1 mph faster on the F10. Couldn’t believe it.
@@tommyfreckmann6857 I assume you maintained the same power during all your trials? Am I reading that the Basso was faster than the F10? Unless your climb was a low or moderate grade where you could maintain a high speed, I would expect factors like weight coming more into play. A flatter route in lower wind conditions would probably give a more telling indicator of the differences between frames. Of course, rolling speed and wind speed and direction would add another variable. All that said, everything I have seen or heard that has some credibility (no GCN) points to fairly small real world gains from an aero bike like you experienced. It would make a difference at an all out effort such as a race, or maybe chasing a Strava segment.
I own my 2023 Cervelo S5 for a month now. And it is fast and insanely compliance on rough road. It slides through the wind, and cross wind is no problem, a very stable super bike. Loving it. Check it out on my video.
They don't have the strange non round steerer , but they also had some issue with the stops destroying the head tube ... on the super six , i think the system six is designed the same no ? @Leutschner Techniek had to 3D print a fix for it; now they have some kind of fix but not as good . Or it is what I heard
Cervelo 2024 Features : Aero Disc brakes, Wireless Disc brakes, Cannards on bike tubes, Aero Saddle integrated with the seat post, Aero Skeleton bike frame, Aero shell cover for rider Watts saving "1 million". Can't wait to see it.
I am not a mathematician so perhaps it isn't surprising but I don't understand the 'wankateering dissected' slide. Is 500w for 45kmh just a figure plucked out of the air for the purposes of an example? Presumably it depends on all sorts of things like rider's size, shape, mass, gradient on the road etc but 500w seems very high to achieve 45kmh.
Completely agree the rider clearly makes the biggest drag. Surely aero advances for bikes peaked some time ago? Wankateers (Marketeers) not engineers probably have always run the show and probably always will. 95% of us won’t sustain speeds over 40kph for long while in front of the group, let alone 45kph so what’s the point of any watt savings anymore? Advances in materials for improved strength plus weight savings maybe?
Your math is flawed. 8+5+7+9+7+8+8 watt is 52w not 44w. This does of course not make the numbers less crazy. One question though. Did they include the rider? Bikes do matter for the cw of the rider, and the aero position of the rider on the bike has in fact improved sinse 2013. The main reason a TT bike is faster than a road bikes it that it puts the rider into a more aero position. The gains from the bike itself is neglible if you compare a modern aero race bike and a modern aero TT bike in a windtunnel without rider.
THE FACT IS A FRAME CAN PROVIDE ABSOLUELTY NO AERO ADVANTAGE ON THE ROAD. ALL AERO CLAIMS FOR FRAMES ARE BALONEY. There are 4 main reasons. 1. The frame is a small part of the aero "package" (rider, wheels, bike). The frame is less than 3% of the aero package. 2. Wind speed, at the low speeds in cycling any tiny advantage the frame might provide are negated. Notice that all aero claims for frames that are made are made at 45kmh plus. 3. Wind direction, in cycling there are almost always 2 wind directions. The head wind created by moving the bike forward and another direction from the natural wind. Because of the low speeds in cycling this makes a difference as compared to cars or airplanes. No wind tunnel can replicate this. 4. Dirty air, because the rider is pedaling and moving the bike side to side (imagine a sprinter) makes any measurement of a frame irrelevant. If all other factors are held constant, the frame will make NO difference in real world road riding. Even in a perfect environment like the velodrome, frames make almost no difference.
Any very very marginal aero advantage from a frame is only applicable on the flat anyway and as you say, with the rider in an idealised position, that not many amateurs could realistically sustain.
