How Much Faster Is A Modern Road Bike & Kit? | Retro Vs Modern Wind Tunnel Tested 

My bike is from 2017 (Tarmac) and some parts of my kit are more than 12 months (!) old. Thanks for confirming that I need to blame this retro setup for me constantly getting dropped.

You guys listened to feedback from previous videos and included 25 kph, I appreciate that a lot. Great video.

Bottom line. Pinarello, is for speed & miles. Eddy Merckx, is for smiles 😊

I would be curious to know how the retro frame would perform with modern wheels. Having ridden a retro bike with retro wheels and then switching to modern wheels, the wheels alone make a HUGE difference.

This reminds me of a terrible nightmare I had.... A strange man approaches me from a tunnel, "I've brought my dressing up box" he smirks at me... and no matter how fast I tried to pedal away I got nowhere. Sheer terror.

Basically when you factor in that airflow is just not as smooth outside, modern well fitted clothing is really worth it, but a modern bike is well into marginal gain territory and most of the aero savings come from replacing box section 32 spoke wheels.

"Have you ever ridden any thing as old as this".......but of a personal question !

"This is, specifically, quantum physics" was such a glorious retort. Unless you're going _really_ fast this is all pretty firmly newtonian mechanics...

That was very informative. Thanks guys. By the way, Both of those bikes were “Super Nice” !

Goddamn beautiful Eddy Merckx there Jon!

great show! i bet you could calculate Merckx' hour record had he simply worn aero kit. any thoughts?

Everybody talks about modern training methods being so wonderful, this test just proves to me that if you put a 25 year old Eddy Merchx in skin suit he would be a force on the modern tour. I am not even sure he would need a modern bike to be competitive. Maybe just modern wheels.

With my retro bike, I gonna burn 10% more fat keeping the same speed. I will stick to retro!

Got it! So my takeaway from this is that if I want the same workout in a shorter space of time, I am better off riding my 40 year old Carlton Cyclone. Thanks! :)

Still can't get over the Assos G-string skinsuit 🙈

I was hoping they were going to actually report the CdA values.

The deeper lesson in here is that the bike itself is dramatically less significant than the rider. Bike alone had MUCH larger difference at higher speeds, but with rider it dropped massively. So, conclusion: If you really want more speed than your friends, just get off the bike and stare at it in the coffee shop!

Fantastic video guys! The difference in modern vs retro clothing is shocking. Well done!

When you are going fast on a vintage (not retro) bicycle you use the drops. It would have been nice to see a comparison of the riding positions on the Eddy Merckx, interesting vid though, thanks

This was your chance to do "legs shaved vs unshaved" testing. You missed it!

Got my first skinsuit this year. Also got my first race win this year.

Another great, useful informative one guys ! Thank you very much - keep it up ;)

Has anyone EVER seen Jon on a bike?? just asking

I save 3 "watts" when cycling by saying "pardon" instead.... Ahh thank you and goodnight 👋

Thanks. From the data in that video, the retro bike costs about .025 m^2 in drag area compared to the Pinarello F12, but the retro clothing costs about .07 m^2. A rough rule of thumb is that a difference of .01 in drag area is worth around 1 sec/km at racing speed, so a difference of .025 is roughly 2.5 secs/km, retro clothing is about 7 secs/km, and a retro bike/kit costs about 10 sec/km compared to tight clothing on a modern bike. If you're not racing, the differences are a bit larger than that, not smaller. Over the course of ten miles, the difference between a modern bike/kit vs. retro bike/kit is about 2-1/2 minutes at the same power.

I like the Eddy Merckx bike. Great job with the beautiful modern silver Dura Ace crank, too.

Actually Cd is the drag coefficient, CdA is the drag area. (A is the area of the bike plus rider.)

Would have liked to see what wearing a modern helmet vs. tight retro bike cap would be. I feel that when I wear the latter I actually feel faster, even if I do look slower, hmmm? Please respond, if anyone has conducted this experiment. Thanks, man, great episode!

I took a picture of the results with my phone for future references as far as buying modern clothing. My De Bernardi Road Bike has a teardrop design on the front fork, top tube, bottom tube and seat stays. I think my bike is a modern retro aero bike 🚲. I did put the photo on the GCN APP so everyone could see it. Happy to see that 92% of the audience sees it as a nice bike for a custom made bike 🏍. With these numbers, it should be a super nice 👍 bike.

Jon & Ollie, remember who hosted the world championships this year! In the men's elite race, who wore only the skin suit and who wore the rain gear? Something that just proved your point! #GetOlliebellsfortheholidays LOL!

I was waiting to see Ollie's power number in a pink tutu.

That Pinarello is one sweet ride.

I've done non scientific testing between my Dogma F10 disk vs my 1981 Gios Torino Super Record. I roll away without pedaling on each bike down the same hill. I tuck in to the same position (as close as possible) and then take note of the speed as told by my Garmin. Consistently the F10 is over 10 MPH faster at the bottom of the hill. I love that this video explains the science behind that.

As a bike commuter I'm interested in the difference between wearing bike kit vs regular work cloths. Loose pants and shirt ect

Love that the old helmets bands resemble the Union Jack

Id love to see an 80s aero bike with an aero frame and Dura-Ace AX or 600ax groupset to see how aero bikes developed in 30-some years.

I've been considering getting a metal frame and have been looking for comparison data but it's actually difficult to find since most recent tests are comparing similar carbon frames. The data is reassuring - especially considering that I'd use aero wheels so the bike difference would be even smaller.

Ollie was a great sport in that video, you must admit. Cheers from the States. Thanks for the eye opener in that content!

Wonderful video. One of the most interesting videos from GCN.

Great show.. I hope you'll find this an interesting question. With this data can you calculate if Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Miguel Indurain and Felice Gimondi if they were riding today with modern clothing and bike what would be the comparison to Froome, Contador and Nibali on the Legendary climbs of the Tour de France Alpe d'Huez, Le Mont Ventoux, Giro d'Italia Passo Stelvio, Passo Mortirolo Vuelta Espana Xorret del Cati, Cumbre del Sol… Would they be faster and producing more power? In in reverse would modern riders be slower and more power…??

Really interesting segment, guys. As always, thanks so much for sharing. Steve

Really interesting and informative . Great stuff.

Great video, thanks for sharing video of beautiful Vancouver and the Whistler Gran Fondo.

Love the technical approach! Now I can justify the new GCN kit on my Christmas list-- cheaper than a new bike!! :) :)

Interesting to the difference between the two bikes so small, if you swap modern aero wheels on the old frame it would melt closer again. i guess the very low cross sections (and thus lower frontal area) of the old frame makes up for some part of the more areo (but fatter) tubing on the modern bike.

Dear GCN, would you consider doing a modern version of this, comparing Pantani to Pogacar? I did the maths quickly, and incl rolling resistance a conservative suggestion would be just above 40w of difference at 25kph, with tire choice being the single most important difference

Nice vid! Good to see the comparisons. Some simple things such as clothing and position really will effect. Then if you have a good modern aero bike that will just improve on that as well.. one day you guys need to get a wind tunnel and test out different modern aero bikes to test again manufacture claims as “the more aero”.

I was just watching the video to see some retro tech. Thanks!

my old leather strip helmet did the job back in the day.

How much of that aerodynamic advantage is the wheels? How aerodynamic would the Merckx be with deep aero wheels?

CdA is Cd (drag coefficient) multiplied by A (frontal area)

Thanks for this! Where's the test/results of 'retro (floppy) clothing on a modern bike'? I'd love to know if that would be worse then 'modern clothing on a retro bike'! So budget wise it would be smart to invest like this?: bikefit > modern clothing > aero helmet > shoe covers > aero wheels > TT clip on bars > aero/TT bike......

I want that Eddy Merckx so hard it hurts. I don't care whether it's hi-tech or not. What a beautiful bike!

Great video and especially liked the footage from Vancouver! The modern kit stats are neat too.

For the clothing, it's mainly the helmet right ? The Mercx bike is so graceful... Watching This for just me I'd keep the bike and upgrade the helmet...

What, no wool jersey with front pocket and short shorts!? Shenanigans! Seriously, tho, good video. I've noticed more difference with clothing and helmets too, than between my carbon fiber and classic steel bikes. Even a cheap $20 aero helmet helped compared with my Poc helmet - although the Poc is more comfortable and probably safer.

The real joy is retro bike + modern kit & wheels.

Great video! Sidenote: Spaceships do not care about aerodynamics, as there is no air in space. And when they are in the athmosphere, they use the air to lose speed, so the last thing they want to be is aero.

Mild nitpick, we do see cylindrical shaped space ships. Look at the nose of the space shuttle. This has to do with the complicated physics at hyper sonic speeds, which result in a totally different approach than something that is doing subsonic or super sonic speeds. Scott Manley has a great video on it. Check out the nose of the SR71 vs the nose of the Space Shuttle for a visual exmaple.

Very Interesting! The result.

I’m new to the channel. I think wind tunnel testing of an aero bike and different wheel widths would be interesting. Thanks.

Belgian national team shirt with great brittain helmet *sure*

Bicycle Quarterly published years ago a very interesting wind tunnel test comparing the positions on the bike with or without fenders, racks, bags, capes etc. and a rear life tyres test. The latter showed that the “small tyres-high pressure equals faster speed “ rule we’ve been always taught is not true

Very interesting study - well done! So much of the drag is due to the rider, putting a huge premium on position on the bike. Recumbents have a real edge here...

You need to use the old wool jerseys and shorts to be authentic! Also the brake cables housing would be hanging out for true retro!

I like the comparisons at the 25 kph speed. It's easy to forget that we're not all racers. The difference between aero bikes and retro bikes isn't extreme at 25-35 kph (15-21 mph if you prefer). If you don't need to get a racing advantage, you don't need to pay the high price for a top end aero bike unless that's what you really want to ride. It means the weight and aero penalties of my retro Wilier aren't enough to overcome the benefit of comfort that it gives me in local group rides.

The wheels would have made up most of the aero inefficiency on the retro bike. Retro bike is so much more interesting than the space age bike.

Headwind vs tailwind: I now see how much more effort is it to keep riding at 25kph with a headwind of 20kph. This is an area that could make another video...

I would love to see a wind tunnel test with the basic three body types I see out there the thin, the normal, and the " well padded" could make a few of us " well padded " slim down a bit !

Can I find the results in print? I'm trying to write down some things but I have to keep watching the video. I always wondered what something like an OCLV from 2000 with aero bars would have done if I'd substituted a modern aero road bike with clip-ons. I wonder if integrated stem/handlebars and all the sculpting would've improve my 40km time much? I'm must too old to repeat my rides of the early 2000's, but it would be nice to be able to compare them with modern bikes and speeds.

I wonder what Hambini would say about the value of areodynamic data generated in that highly controlled wind tunnel? 🤔 (HELLO HAMBINI FANS!!!)

Where are the actual CdA values? BTW, it's not the drag coefficient, Cd is, CdA is drag area, that is drag coefficient times frontal area.

I find the information you give us rewarding too

Please try something like 45 degree front wind angle or more and let's see if that thick "aero" design performs better than the classic thin tubes! Lateral components may play a huge role in global aero performance, specially in windy days and curvy roads..

I would love to see a wind tunnel test with a cycling jacket.

Dear RU-vid advertising algorithm. After watching a video comparing the aero drag attributes of retro and modern bikes and equipment, I am indeed interested in buying a little girl's doll called Deluxe Bestie. Everyone in my cycling club already has one and I've been feeling left out.

Please more of this ... like slim vs. fat guy, short vs. long bibs, short vs. long sleeves, with vs. without jacket, aero helmet vs. conventional helmet, ...

It would be cool to see Graeme Obree’s bike with that riding position, and compare it to that Pinarello to see which is faster.

Great comparison! My real question would be how much difference do the wheels make? In the 90's they switched to 130mm rear width which allows for a modern wheelset. I run a deep carbon wheelset on my Corsa Extra. It really makes a difference compared to my other steel racing frame with box rims. Even a narrower frame could have a modern wheelset built for it, if performance is your goal.

Two water bottles versus one... so potential deviation in testing method straight off the bat.... not to mention the eddy has a race number... you have already shown number position and bottle position/number can have an effect on CDa

YOU SHOULD RIDE THE DROPS TOO to see the aero gains there as well

Aero dynamic clothing for sub zero temperatures Or at least for 3-5 Celsius. You can make a whole video about that

That Merckx is ridiculously beautiful.

Shaved in the studio and unshaved in the WT? Vortex generators?

Suggestion GCN : Please tell us if it was a simple laminar flow study or if it was way more realistic than that with a decently turbulent flow. Also, would've loved to see the same study at different yaw angles.

Best gcn tech video I've ever watched

We actually do see cylindrical shaped space ships (sort of). Shuttle had a blunt nose in order to protect its wings upon reentry

It would be interesting to see a round bar vs a compact bar compared. I'm of course biased because I've ridden round bars all my life and compact just feels like a drop bar for someone how hates drop bars but I can also see that it's easier to slam the stem with a compact bar, and you don't have to get lower when going from the tops, to the hoods, and to the drops.

In some degress of yaw which you have to test with cause of turbulence and real conditions, the results would be different and the differences less. Also the biggest part should be the weels

Watching this a little bruised and nursing hands with bad road rash after I fell off my bike when I hit a wet manhole cover on my way home from college on Friday. I am studying to be a bicycle mechanic. Good news my bike Jenny is just fine.

Retro clothing should be wool pants and wool shirt. Your video explains why I was so slow racing in late 60"s to mid 70's.

How much does the water bottle factor in? Seems like you have 2 in the modern and 1 in the retro

Bottom line is there's bugger all difference between the bikes. Stick the aero wheels on the Eddy and the gap would be very small. Stick an aero bar on and the gap would be in the noise - probably 5-10W @ 45 kph. Whichever bike rides the best (cornering and pedalling) would be the fastest.

Top ten vid from GCN. Kudos.

My old box section tubular rims are oh-so-much more comfortable on rough roads than deep section carbon wheels, or even aluminum box wire-on rims, for that matter. I think a long day on those super vertically non-compliant carbon wheels would actually be more tiring, especially if there was much of a crosswind.

You are a bit off on describing CdA. CdA is the area of an object with Cd equal to 1 that has the same drag as the item tested. A body with area 3.0m^2 and Cd=0.5 has the same CdA of a 2m^2 body with Cd=0.75. (both have Drag Area=CdA=1.5m^2)

PLEASE DO AN EPISODE ON HIGH PSI (130-ish) WITH A FLEXIBLE (possibly steel) FRAME VS. LOWER PSI (85-ish) WITH A SUPER STIFF CARBON FRAME ON AVERAGE TEXTURE ASPHALT

Retro bike.... with DA 7900 cranks... I love that actually... and I have done it to my old Colnago once.

This, coupled with their other videos and many studies, etc. does seem to prove that aerodynamics doesn't mean much unless you are (a) going really fast; (b) going extremely long distances; and/or (c) being timed. The biggest differences you can make for all speeds and so on would be your positioning on the bike (total body), followed by the correct (1) tyres; (2) helmet; and (3) clothing, which really only requires a light-ish bike and rider, some money, and a road bike of some form. For most riders, anyway. Of course, if you are really heavy/fat, then the best thing to do would be to become skinny, but I'm assuming a baseline of around 150 pounds for most riders to begin with. The other major improvement would be the tri-bars (again, for further aero-positioning, which is by far the biggest factor of cycling in terms of watts/drag -- with the 'egg position' being proven to be the best possible position, but it's unrealistic for most bikes and riders and very difficult to actually maintain). The problem with tri-bars is they are not normalised within the context of most forms of riding and are very costly on the body, with limited usage, as well. Everything else, such as the wheels and frame, don't mean much unless you are at high speeds/racing, or going really long distances, though real-world conditions massively impact, either positively or negatively, the aforementioned. Highly costly wheels and frame are not worth it for 99% of cyclists, therefore, but some other items could be worth it for a lot of people considering their relatively low costs to/over watts saved. Naturally, the reason pros care a lot about their fames and wheels is they have already maximised everything else, which only leaves the frames and wheels for extra gains. But, this only applies to pros. A rough understanding of aero additions/elements (this changes slightly depending on the speeds, terrain, and otherwise factors) from best to worst in terms of watts/drag: (1) Low body weight/slim figure. (2) Ultra-lightweight bike (5-8kg). (3) Aero body positioning (say, with drops). (4) Aero/correct tyres (outer-rubber, tread, inner-tube, size, and PSI) -- unclear how high on the list this is, in reality. (5) Tri-bars (with some standard bars, as well -- not TT bike). (6) Full-aero helmet. (7) Skin-tight, aero clothing. (8) TT bike (limited usage, however). (9) Extremely aero frame (non-TT bike). (10) Extremely aero wheels (say, 88mm deeps with specialised materials and profiling, but they also have disadvantages in some conditions). (11) Clipped pedals of some kind -- unclear how high on the list this one is, as well. But, we do know some watts are saved by being stuck to the pedals, and they are fairly cheap. (12) Shaved body (from head to toe), and otherwise tiny adjustments to both bike and rider. (13) Further weight reductions, such as with removal of water bottles and food, etc. (naturally, you are forced to carry a certain amount of fuel unless you are only riding a really short distance).

So what size tires you run for speed? or can you have booth speed and comfort what tires what you recommend