Love the interview! As a German, this guy just epitomizes the German engineer.😂 you ask a question, I answer your precise question. Nothing more, nothing less, no speculations. If you want me to expand on it, you need to specifically say so.
+1 for being MORE than willing to subscribe or pay to see a website listing all Tour's testing data for all of this! At minimum make an English version of your site. Thanks guys for bringing him on!
Thanks for this interview! 👏🏼 The Tour Magazin data is amazing, I think they have stiffness tested over 1500 different frames now. When you combine it all into one spreadsheet, you can clearly see how frame stiffness has changed over time. Some manufacturers are slowly increasing stiffness and others decreasing it. There are differences between carbon, aluminium and steel frames, and between categories of bike (endurance, race etc). Their data is also an easy way to see which seatposts offer the most compliance, which IMO is one of the best upgrades you can do to any bike. Keep up the great work. ⚡
Read the renneherse article where they custom made 4 bikes from soft to stiff. The noodle frame won every hillclimb/heart rate/knee pain test. You can ride longer with less strain.
@@janeblogs324 it's a German cycling magazine that also has a website. And yes, you could translate the website, but AFAIK they don't upload all articles and tests.
The last six bikes I bought were tested great at the tour magazine ( I am a subsciber of tour.) So to me these tests have a big impact. Thanks for this video.
Kudos to Tour, the only proper magazine with proper data and reference on the WW forum. All the rest on the Web/printed press are just paying ads. Kudos to you guys also for bringing him to the show. Only suggestion for Tour maybe is to be clearer as to zipp and standard setup testing and giving values across yaw angles would also be cool.
Really? I always thought that others doing similar measurements to get an objective opinion about a bike. The tour magazin is doing this stuff for a long time. I think they defined the STW nearly 30 years ago. Greetings from Germany
Why have I only just found out about this great man and his work! This is what we have all been asking for! Independent testing of various frames. This is mind blowing. So good I feel like I need to watch this a few times. What tyres did he mention where fast and cheap? Did he say lazer?
This was brilliant. Chris and Jesse continue to put out the best cycling content on the internet. It would be great to hear more from Robert about the impact of the upper body dummy on the aero testing. My thought is that when you include the totality of the rider/bike system, riding in real world conditions, any aero benefits of the frame are negligible. Wheels and tires make the difference.
Excellent Episode. Its great to see the Tour testing spread to a wider audience. They really deserve the recognition and they helped me in my buying choices nearly every time. Would also love a second episode maybe about wheels or tires.
Excellent choice guys with this guest! Based on the TOUR Magazine testings, I have splashed my cash twice already. Super happy in both cases (although not fancy/insta bikes). Keep up the great work, your show is truly awesome!
Specialized says that the SL8 is faster than the Venge. Acoording to Tour Magazin, it's not. SL8 is still very impressive, but no way it's more aero than the Venge
I don't know if he ever doubted that they were actually good, it's probably more the insane amounts of money to get your hands on one. When maybe the average spesh punter could pay 50% as much and get 98% as much bike.
@@BevandEdMusic nah - Jesse is taking swipes at Specialized constantly. Rewatch when the SL8 was introduced as a pertinent example, he dissected the marketing language and was quite snide about the whole thing. Lot of other examples where he take pot shots for no reason. I’ve learned to really like Jesse, but that bias against certain brands was a turnoff for me on this show when I started watching earlier on.
As someone working in the industry, I love the objective testing of Tour magazine, and at the same time see the negatives to it. I would love to see more of the data they have (drag on specific yaw, and with reference wheels) being published, and maybe even have the simulation tool on their website so people can see what really is the best product for them specifically. The negative side to their testing being the only objective testing in the industry gives huge power to it. There is a race to get the best number in Tour magazine, but it does not necessarily mean it is the best product for you. For example, every time they change their testing method (for example when they added comfort or drag measurements), it completely changed the rating of bikes, meaning bikes all of a sudden became better or worse, and it actually changed how bikes look.
What a great episode, thanks for bringing these guys to light I will definitely check out their magazine. Also, how long till Chris throws his S5 into a ditch and comes onto the show with a brand new SL8?
This was an amazingly good interview! My biggest hope is that Tour Magazine sees the potential in the English speaking market and puts out an English option for an online subscription, I would definitely support them. My two biggest take-aways were 1) in the aero-bike market, the differences between the top performing bikes is not a lot. As we all likely know, the performance level of the top-tier bikes is generally excellent and you are paying (potentially a lot) for not a lot of difference/return. 2) the observation that beyond about a 40mm or 50mm depth wheel does not make much sense in most cases, certainly as a general-purpose wheel. Again, I would have likely assumed that, however, it was great to hear the confirmation on this.
Amazing episode as always!! Came here to comment that Alex from GCN might be doing some crit racing in Australia early in the year. If you guys could get him on the show, that crossover would be epic. Maybe another video of you all racing together?
He mentioned at the very end of "The Ultimate Crit Bike Build | Part 2" on the GCN Tech channel that he was planning on bringing the bike he was building up "down under." Obviously Australia is a massive country so he might not even be close to you but I figured it would be worth a shot to comment
Great show. I'm finding these podcasts better and better. I was a bit confused on the top bike for 2023. He seems to point at the Scott Foil. I own this bike and love it, but maybe he understood the question as , what's the 5th rated bike?
I had a paid subscription to Tour during the brief period where they offered fully English translations. Worth every penny of its price - wish they'd bring it back.
I think Tour magazine does good testing - from a technical point of view. However, the big problem (in statistical terms) is, that with a sample size of 1, you never know whether differences between bikes are significant or not. What I mean by that is that most of their comparison tests are done (or at least have been done the last time I checked) with one frame in only one size per bike model. Therefore, their results only allow for limited conclusions to draw for people actually wanting to buy a bike. The aerodynamic properties of a certain model may change with frame size (slightly different tube angels and distances between front wheel and down tube) but also with changing air flow interactions with different body types of riders (a frame that works aerodynamically well with a slim rider with slim legs may not work so well in interaction with a more muscular rider...). In measurements of stiffness and weight, there may be even some differences on frames of the same model and in the same size but of a different production runs (= manufacturing tolerance). Don't get me wrong, Tour nontheless is doing a very good job in testing bikes and testing more frames of the same model may simply not possibel, because they won't get them from the manufacturers. But keep in mind, that the "best" bike testet in the Tour magazine is not necessarily the "best" bike you can buy.
For me it is simple, if the bike is supposed to be used outside then I want a simple classical frame and shallow rims, because it is almost always windy in western sweden. I dont want any wind push me to the side, a while ago I tested a canyon something with deep rims and it was hell. No thanks, a classical non aero bike for me.
Same here, my local area is windy with steep100-200 metre hills. An aero bike would be pointless and annoying. I'd be blown all over the road and I'd be spending loads extra money for no gain. Add to that routing internal cable rounding though the bars. Horrendous. Classic bike with 1300-1800g alloy rims, alloy frame minimal internal cable routing save money and have a more practical bike. If I lived in Florida I might think differently..
The #1 problem of this otherwise AMAZING test is interpretability of results because it completely negates rider position (primarily stack/reach). E.g. how to interpret a super aerodynamic test result with upright geometry versus a non-aerodynamic result with aggressive geometry? Love the no-nonse German attitude of Robert.
Why does rider position matter? This is purely on the bike performance. What matters is that you just have the fastest bike, since for us non TDF riders, the bike is just a statement piece rather than something that we need to work with for our paycheck.
@@87togabito because bikes don't propel themselves. A rider is required and therefore you also have to account for the rider's position when talking about "bike performance".
Finally the English speaking world of RU-vid has found the best testing in the world for bikes… the foremost place to re-educate on aerodynamics, some reality testing & overall package! It’s all about overall rim-tire-interaction! I feel like I have been saying it to our club without it being understood or heard. Foil RC is no.1, of 2023. The SL8 is an overall great package, 20% stiffer, vs S5. Plenty of bikes few know, like Simplon. @gcn wake up now. Smell the coffee, drink up Your Tea 🍵!!!
What a spectacular interview!!! I agree with the sentiment that we need this resource, but I laugh at his apparent disinterest in providing this outside of the current market 😂.
Great episode. Thanks guys. Could you confirm the name/spelling of the Wheelset he mentions around the 48 minute mark. I cannot find any info and the transcript doesn’t contain the spelling just references L as the brand. Many thanks and good luck for 2024.
Its all very 'Vorsprung durch teknik' y'know. I like how they use a constant and beneficial component au h as the wheels, tyres and bidon by the looks too. Thats important to optimise the tested bikes with a constant standard to show potential improvements.
Well done guys. Maybe the pinnacle of your episodes to date as your questions relative to speed difference between top bikes were on point. As a mechanical engineer, conversations like this...what is important to measure, is always a fascination. A bit confusing about the 20% greater stiffness of the Tarmac SL8 considering the forgiving ride quality of the SL8 aka it's vertical compliance so more could have been discussed to address true stiffness difference as the metric considered important for speed is sometimes referred to as torsional stiffness which is actually a combination of vertical and horizontal stiffness. No doubt Robert understands this relationship and could have explained it in greater detail, i.e. how the SL8 is considered to have a very compliant ride and yet its magic sauce for speed is its stiffness. Seems on its face contradictory unless stiffness is considered/measured in the lateral or torsional plane, and the stiffness 'for speed' is other than in the vertical plane.
39:40 did I just hear that they sometimes adjust the ride impression portion of the review to agree with the numbers? Why bother riding, then? And that they give numbers to a reviewer before a test ride at times? Confirmation bias, anyone? Theres definitely some lost in translation moments so far, but did he just say the quiet part outloud? One thing id love to hear some smart science people grapple with: does a less stiff BB actually reduce power output in a sprint? In seated riding? You always hear the theory that the frame will rebound, returning most of that "lost energy", but its always some facelwss forum user saying it. As always, i think stiffness conversations tend to converge on talking about the ideal crit bike, which is basically a race day special, rather than talking about what is the ideal bike that will be comfortable enough for training and also stiff enough for racing. At what point does it all just come down to tire pressure and size making a bigger difference than frame vertical compliance?
All of that, but these are just objective comparative numbers for you to then make your own choice based on what is important to you. The numbers aren't an instruction as to what you should buy next.
I was searching for the same from all that conversation and with caption i could not catch the name…super show the website is pretty complicated to find anything
Like Jesse, I would happily pay for a data subscription. I think I’ll try to purchase an online sub, and hope google translate can get me close enough. Another great episode! Banger after banger this holiday season!
I think there are some interesting grey areas aero test wise. I always go back to the saying all models are wrong but some are useful and this definitely fits aero testing. The differences say in a bike setup for a 10 or 25m TT against against a 2hr plus road event where you have 2 bottles on the bike. I think Giants aero data for the TCR vs Tour magazines data shows these differences. If you ignore the TCR's data because of bias and look at the 2 rival brands they tested the SL7 & R5 the R5 comes out marginally faster when in the Tour magazine data the SL7 is significantly faster. I expect this might be the two bottle testing of Giant and the R5's (&TCR's) wider downtube compared to the SL7. I expect with no or one bottle the SL7 performs better but with two the large down tube evens out the differences.
I think there is an amount of onus on the individual to consider all of these extra variables, rather than test for them all. For any given person or setup the results will be different. Don't choose a bike because it is 2 watts faster in Tour magazine - but do pick a bike because it is ballpark up there in the same bracket.
I am back to 23mm front tyre on quality alu rimbrake setup for aero reasons. They measure 25mm and are comfortable enough. A lot cheaper too because they dont sell much anymore because there is still some overstock.
@@matkrek Happy Newyear ! I dont know why my frames are relevant but I use a Cube Attain GTC for climbing, an older Spesh Allez for short wet roads and I ride 28mm on a Trek Domane for longer rides with clip-on aerobars. I use light gravel short aerobars on the Cube.
The stevens probably gains a bit cause the geometry is super fucking aggressive. Has 2-4 cm less hsadtube length than most bikes at the sizes they test
