Aero aside, there will still be aero and climbing builds of same all-round model with different wheels and gear ratios. And if reduction in models will equate to less number of frames per rider, it will become an extra challenge to the mechanics, when and how exactly to service these.
I think for an almost entirely flat stage/race or an almost entirely mountainous one, then the all-rounder would probably be a disadvantage for pro riders when compared to a dedicated aero or lightweight bike (respectively). But for a route that mixes flat and hilly sections, then I think the difference would be hard to call. And, as you point out, I think an all-rounder probably makes more sense for most recreational riders.
I have a new Tarmac SL8 with a few lighter components and it weighs 6.2kg... With pedals and bottle cage it is still under the UCI limit. Then why should you have to get a "real" climbing bike?
I build bikes as a hobby but have run out of curiosity. I have a BMC SLO and Campy. But I find my last steel Basso Loto with 10 speed Dura Ace a preferable bike. My Ridley with Di2 is not a particularly good bike because it is difficult to tell the up lever from the down. My steel Tommasini Fire and Fondriest Status don't seem very fast and the Trek Alpha 1.5 is a nice bike but a little stiff. If I were to have just a winter and summer bike it would be the BMC for winter and Basso Loto for summer.
If you are talking about Tarmac SL8 specifically, Tour Magazine testing indicated that it is up there with the fastest aero bikes, and weight wise, it is already very close to the UCI limit.
Forget the bars for $1300, how about GCN "bundle kit" costing $440? Why is it so expansive? Just went to the GCN web site and the bundle kit is gone, however, the question still applies. On GCN web GCN x AGU Aero Jersey cost $180, on AGU web they range from 40 euro to 100 euro which is around $108. So, is GCN logo cost $80? Same trend can also be found on bib shorts. Just want to know how GCN came to this pricing.... Any comments from GCN will be apricated.
I agree with all your math at a high level, but if you consider cervelo and a stage that is mostly flat with a big climb at the end, the cervelo team will start on a s5 and need to switch to a R5, a really good bike switch time is ~15 seconds. That eats up the gains made from the aero benefits, so if they could just ride one good all around bike, it would be pretty much the same outcome. Also, aero advantages disappear when riding in a group because there is much less air resistance when drafting so aero bikes really only make sense on a flat stage in a break away when you're leading the train which is 1) not a large % of a group ride/race in time and 2) is not something most riders are doing even in a race. The aero bike doesn't even make sense for most consumers because they don't go fast enough to get the 16 seconds of gains in 40 km at 45kph avg. IMO, go lightweight, go used and have fun working on your fitness.
I 100% agree with all of this. But now lightweight bikes have a decent about of aero which as someone who rides 95% solo, I’m in the wind and appreciate. But for the pros, i don’t really see that an SL8 is a disadvantage to the Cervelos, Scotts or Canyons
Good vid. When I want to roll around town catching stringfoot pigeons for rescue I ride my sl8 sworks. When I want every second to matter I ride one of my old rim brake race bikes.
I wish they would just require that teams are allowed 2 bikes only - a tt and a regular bike. This would force the bike manufacturers to produce one flagship bike and there would be economies of scale there that, in theory, would improve prices...
It would be great if Bike Vault submissions could be shared/linked. These are submissions this week that would totally merit zooming and/or longer looks.
"a lot of bikes are starting to look the same" Hi, I'm here from 1987 when I started racing bikes. If you removed the jewel toned paint, all lugged steel frames of the 70s-80s era looked pretty much identical. It wasn't until things like tig welding, aero hoods, aero designs (mainly reserved for TT bikes) dual control, clipless pedals and shaped tubing started coming onto the market that bikes started really differentiating. Colnago has always been known for their crazy paint schemes because for decades underneath the paint, they were just more rounded tube double diamond frames same as the last six decades.
This is a very good point about how many lugged steel frames looked similar in the 70s and 80s, we thankfully have a way greater variety of choice in bikes today but I still love my vintage steel frames 👍
I've raced, maintained (for myself and others) and ridden lugged / vintage bikes and old / obsolete systems for enough years and miles that when the options for lightweight well tuned carbon disc road frames with hydro brakes and AXS wireless shifting became available, I adopted immediately and never looked back. I never want to deal with inner tubes, cable stretch, brake fade on long steep descents (I live in Colorado) or narrow high pressure tires again. I put 30mm Strada tubeless on my Aethos and never looked back. To be fair I also was one of the first in my peer group to adopt clipless pedals (after going OTB on toeclips and almost permanently destroying a knee), dual control shifters, road disc, road tubeless, 1x for cyclocross and criterium racing (there is no better system than AXS 1x for CX/gravel racing and flat road racing and you will never convince me otherwise). I've been a coach, shop wrench, rider and racer for too long and seen too much that I don't want to compromise. It's way cool that other people love their Eroica bikes but having ridden that tech enough I am good with never using it again :)
Why do you keep promoting all of this expensive BS, just ignore it. Also what’s the point of comparing aero bikes against an all rounder when pros are riding in the peloton most of the day where it makes no difference what bike they are riding. The majority of GCN viewers most probably struggle to average 32kph so what is the point of trying to market all of this expensive stuff.
But how much difference does the aero bike make when the rider spends 90% or more of the stage in the peloton anyway? And I would also agree with other comments here around bike geometry and being more comfortable with a certain setup can make a huge difference also.
There are still some benefit to aero even in group. It is greatly reduced, but it is still there. In a race, that little saving can help save a little for later. Plus, if they are going to win, they are going to spend time in the wind. Even the domestiques when they do their pulls.
@@DaveCM Thought: If a sprinter only spends 20-30 seconds in the wind in the final meters of the stage, are they better off with a lighter bike that has saved them energy over the climbs through the whole stage than having a slightly faster bike that they’ve lugged up all the hills?
I just think that someone like Specialized saying "1-bike to rule them all" is such a bad marketing move. I worked at some nice high-end shops and my well-off riders wanted an all out Aero bike and a secondary bike (endurance or super light). Having more categories can seem confusing to beginners but for the hardcore dorks, they want to be able to FEEL the difference and pick a bike based on how they feel or what they're up to on the road that day. So many of my customer gave me the same feedback, "bring back the venge". They've been asking for it since it went away. I think the SL8 is probably one of the best bikes I've ever ridden. I still picked the Aethos because I don't race, and wanted something light and simple to work on/service from home. I am no pro, but I'd love to have options. I can't imagine being a pro and having 1 tool to tackle every challenge during race season.
The new GCN kit is a bit expensive, but I don't think it is exceptionally expensive compared to a lot of premium kit. It is more than I'm willing to pay, but it doesn't seem too out of line.
Geometries of aero bikes and lightweight or "all-rounder" bikes are often different. For me the most impactful saving you can make to be faster, is to optimise your position, both from an aero perspective (head, shoulders, arms) and comfort. No point in being aero if you can't sustain it.
I have an all out aero race bike, and its super fun, but honestly, most of the time i reach for my gravel bike with slick*ish tires on it. Because its comfortable
The other thing to consider is how a usually stiffer aero bike can be less comfortable and potentially make the rider feel more fatigue. I'm not sure if this has been empirically tested, but it's certainly a claim that I think Specialized have made about the SL8. Compliance = freshness?
Wouldn't those wattages only apply when you're in the wind? Since most pros spend the race in someone's wheel, the difference for most riders will be really small.
If you go rim brake, you can have aero frame, deep dish wheels, at 6.8kg no problem, but the bike manufacturers don’t allow this anymore. Pros have no choice.
Manufacturers didn’t stop allowing rim brakes to spite you. They gave people a choice and for 10 years sales declined so they made a business decision to stop selling them. That’s how business works. It’s not a conspiracy, please stop implying it’s anything other than just another out of date product
They no longer make rim, brake bikes, so we have no choice, they make more money selling disc brake bikes that’s only reason they switched. More components, different wheels, etc
Fun fact, thanks to the wording of the CTT Road bike classifications rules, the POC and Kask new helmets are not going to be allowed in Road Bike TTs. The rules dictate ears must be uncovered and visors are not allowed.
Is it an ear covered though? I am interested, because in draft legal triathlon the rule is no ears covered. The kask certainly doesn’t impair your hearing. You could wear a giro aero head without the visor, and that meets draft legal tri and your road bike TT rules.
@@jonathanzappala The CTT rule is as follows: (29b) Helmets used in Road Bike category events must not cover the ears or have a tear drop/pointy style "tail", any helmet vents must not be covered or blocked. The helmet must not have been altered or had any element added or removed in terms of design or form but may be used as the manufacturer intended (e.g., sliding vents). It is prohibited to add a detachable cover to a helmet. The composition of the helmet material and its surface condition are not subject to any regulations. However, additions to the helmet are not allowed (cover, tape etc.). The CTT are not a UCI or British Cycling affilliated organisation and therefore can adapt and implement its own rules. You can't even use an aero road helmet with a detachable cover (which some did come with one) even if it is UCI legal so because at least part of the ear is covered, they will not be permitted. However I suspect, because there are no current helmets of this design on the market, the rules will be looked into issuing either a ruling fore 2025 or a clarification should they be released early.
@@matt_acton-varian and I would say the kask is not covering the ear. Every definition of covering includes the world concealment, and that most definitely does not conceal the ear. So your rule is different to tails as well, as triathlon has no mention of tails.
Tour teams should be limited to two bikes, one for TT and one for all other stages. Wheel changes for flat and lumpy stages, sure but this aero+lightweight+TT stuff, not a fan. If riders are tested over changing roads and conditions, then so should their bike. Bike manufacturers in collaboration with their teams should define their performance priorities in the design of the one bike.
Ollie can not criticise anyone about the state of their fence or path on the bike vault when he didn't brush his hair for the Tech Show. GCN need to sell a comb alongside their shadow stand
The discussion about lightweight and aero bikes has solidified my decision to purchase a lightweight all-around bike for my next purchase. The 6 seconds saved over 10 miles isn't a factor to my endurance riding and the events I participate in. Thanks for the great information.
The way I see it is that you can compare the numbers of weight verses aero and time saved at a given power output etc, but that assumes all things are equal with no variables. What difference does aero actually make when you are not on the front?
Heavier riders who prefer to big gear grind at low cadences should probably opt for an aero bike, cook at top speeds, whereas lighter riders with a spinner high cadence ride style should go light weight bike or all arounder and shine on accelerations
Just bought an SL8 Pro. Paired with the corresponding one piece cockpit and CLX wheels, it is like 30% faster than the 2020 SWorks Venge. I’m able to hold speed way easier with the right wheels/bars compared to the external cable bars and regular wheels. All those pieces help make the bike+body more aero then just bike alone.
@@durianriders rough numbers. Just lightly giving an example of based on the statistics that Specialized gives. Obviously, we don’t see the details that they do but in theory… much faster
Re bikes looking similar, once aerodynamics takes a hold you get convergent evolution as there are only so many (or one) answers to the question. Take a look at F1 cars, remove the paint and logos and they're highly comparable.
It’s fair to say top brands have already achieved that optimum of all rounder at low weight (7kg ish), tarmac sl8, Supersix evo, even the Ultimate is more of an all rounder these days. Plenty of tyre clearance in all these as well
I’m curious about the selle Italia ID match and the ‘any bike’ claim. Would it work on my 90’s Dawes Competition Giro300? I.e. does it work on bikes no longer in production? Or is it on a database of current production bikes? Looking forward to your video Ollie, and I just wanted to say I love the tech show! You and Ulysses are a great duo
"How comfortable would a 6.8 kg full-aero bike be"... comfort is improving. Trek Madone and Canyon Aeroad are remarkably comfortable, due to design innovation, each very different from the other.
The savings of a few watts isn't just about seconds, it's about effort. Winning by the width of a tire isn't about how fast the rider moves at a given power. That doesn't account for real world race craft. It's relevant to a TT, but not a road race. Where the watts matter is in how much energy the rider has spent to get to that finish and how fresh they at that point.
I went back and forth on this for quite a while. Told myself I didn't "need" a designated climbing bike. Insisted a less expensive all around bike, which is what I had, would be fine. Eventually, listened to my gut, got the lightweight hill climbing beast that is the R5 and have never been happier. Oh I'm not winning le Tour on it, but descending is pure joy
all of this just REALLY says once again; if you're a normal guy and you're not racing, the best bike is the most comfortable one that you like the look of.
I think the main issue with this theory is based on 45kph which is good for racing but when most club cyclist ride at 30kph the advantages are less, i would like to see you do a video for the average cyclist. My theory is an average cyclist would gain more from a light sportive bike and less from the "aero is everything" fashion. Take some 3-5k bikes and ride them at 30kph. This was more significant 5 years ago but now the lines are blured so i would be interested to see if the latest bikes have bridged the gaps of pros and cons.
We tested the aero bike vs climbing bike a while ago 👉 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5hViY4O2gYQ.html - We're far from pro these days so this might help shed some light on the topic, we would love to do more content around this subject so watch this space 👀
That 45 kph is freestream speed. Most club cyclists ride in the real world with wind, right? Weight has FAR less impact for the average club rider than aero. I still can't decipher statistically significantly in my Strava the actual saving between my 15 pound bike and my 18 pound bike on rolling terrain
seems to me that aero is important when you are on a solo break, or at the front of the peleton. But presumably much less important when you are out of the wind in the middle of the peleton, in the draft.
What about doubling up on the aero savings hiding in the peloton with an aero bike? More Watts saved are gains. Less Watts is less Watts it is not like you do not need to pedal in a peloton.
This is true, but the winning moves happen when riders are out in the wind or on a climb where aero/weight matters. Also if a team is trying to control a race in the flat and is burning through domestiques on the front, those aero savings add up.
ENVE bars are that expensive because they don't want to sell them, but they had to start selling them within 1 year of UAE Team Emirates starting to use them.
To change the calculus and mix things up, the UCI should lower the minimum weight limit. This will definitely change things. This would give engineering a chance to challenge marketing at least for a few years. Maybe we would even get things like tubs glued on with modern adhesives! Wouldn't that be a triumph of intelligence and value over profit for a change!
I think there is more modeling for Ollie to do. He already asked the right questions that are „How much faster can the Alpecin leadout train go on the pure aero bike“ and „is it really worth for them to take the Ultimate with them for the mountain in terms of saved kJ“.
You are assuming the “aero” package is being used 100% of the time during a race, which it isn’t because you’ve got drafting where aero makes almost no difference. So you are benefiting from the aero on your bike only when being in the front of the peloton and you are pulling.
Does aero really matter to riders who are sat in a bunch all day? The climbers/GC riders don't put their noses in the wind on the flat. When it heads uphill, the ability to accelerate on a climb is what wins races, and that's much easier on a lighter bike
I'm sure there are many many dentists and lawyers that are lining up to pay $1300 for a one piece bar that they can't rotate in the stem to adjust position. Well played Enve, take their money because they don't deserve it!
I think every race should have its own bike sponsor, a different brand per race, that way every team is riding on the same ground and it would be a test of skill and not the fanciest bike. It might give some of the great riders on the lesser teams a fighting chance. And in the end, the bikes are sold off for charity and a huge tax deduction.
Interesting! Sounds like you would love Keirin racing 🙌 We did a great video a while bike over in Japan👉ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pVK0iwScTvs.html - There is something to be said about levelling the playing field that makes for fun racing!
In the 1980's, from the side of the road all those lugged steel bikes looked the same. It was only the paint jobs (I refuse to say "colorways") that differentiated them. Sure, the lugs on a Colnago Arabesque differentiated it from a Yoshi Konno 3Rensho (from a meter away), But is it really a "better bike"? At least the era of "murder bikes" (everything, and I mean everything, was flat black including the kits on the well-off Sunday riders in Southern California), finally appears to be over.
In 2011 everyone pointed and laughed when the GB team turned up to the road world champs in skin suits. Cav wins and the following year, everyone is zipping themselves into party suits. On the track, it has become completely normal to wear a full on TT style aero helmet in bunch races. Even at your local track league! I'm surprised that one of the sprint teams hasn't said "sod it, let's go chips all in full aero w@nk€r" and make all of the lead out guys and the sprinter ride the full TT lids, looks be damned. Because nothing looks worse than crossing the line in 2nd place banging your handlebars.
“An” all rounder bike, :may: be a compromise. I’m not an SL8 owner, but as others have said, [of good standing, with no sponsorship bias], regards weight, aero…the SL8 is empirically, demonstrably A* in both these regards. Quite a weird thesis to posit if using the SL8 as the basis.
Let the pros switch the bikes as long it's legal. When it's becoming too expensive for small teams the UCI will need to do the same as the FIA did 2 decades ago in Formula 1. They forbid 3 cars for each driver. They even used a car for qualification only. It had an extra setup. Let's see what the future of pro bicycle riding will be. 😉
Sacrificing aero for light weight... yeah, strange to think this still happens in 2024. However, it means structural integrity is not sacrificed, mostly. I saw the video where some Chinese bikes are soft enough to push a finger through... but reputable brand bikes are quite strong (i.e. non-Chinese).
Undoubtably, Aero bikes are faster. However, I'm not sure the calculation is entirely correct. It would be if the riders raced one on one for 150k, but mostly they're in the peloton or small groups and when you sit on the wheel, the aero advantage of having an aerobike is reduced due to do the drag of the riders in front of you. Therefore it would be interesting to see the wattages of someone riding a climbing bike and another riding a aerobike in a peloton. I recon the amount of power will be quite close. Wouldn't it be necessary to take that into account? In addition to that, most races are decided uphill, whether it's small punchy steep climbs or long ones, on which weight, under a certain speed (more or less 20k/h), always makes the difference. I'm not saying the outcome would be different and I do believe aero bikes will have most benefit in general. Though, exclaiming a certain bike is 6 seconds faster over a certain course doesn't really say that much because it neglects too many crucial factors of racing. I don't think the differences will be so big in a race situation.
Not to sound cynical, but is time trialling a test of how cyclists rank against each other as last week's commenter says, or is it just a test of their sponsor's gear and how much wind tunnel time their team have arranged for them? When margins are so small and everything is being adjusted to the peak of performance and efficiency and you have something like Rohan Dennis leave his team mid-tour over their seemingly lackluster Merida TT setup then ace the world championship on an S-Works Shiv, is the race still showing mano a mano individual talent?
There should be at least one tour where each team can only have one model of bike and fixed kit (including gears)for all stages including a time trial. What would they choose?
Which bike to buy for us “self sponsored” cyclist is one thing….but what about wheels? Does one go for super aero or super light on an “all around” bike? I know the easy answer is based on the main terrain ridden in, but what if it’s varied terrain? And which type of wheel has the best overall rider comfort?
We will eventually see aero bikes getting far lighter. We are already seeing their weight come down. Eventually there will be full aero bikes that are bumping into the UCI limit. At that point, either the dedicated climbing bike disappears, or UCI drops the weight limit.
Here's a controversial thought: a 10 watt saving is likely to have no bigger impact whatsoever in road racing, as for instance in Milan-San Remo, where the race is sooo long that the riders will ride «leasurely» for big parts of the race a change in position or a wrong line into a turn will have way greater impact on the result. Where it actually might make a difference, would be in a sprint finish and definitely in track racing where entire races are under full load and the winning margins are within 1/100 of a second.
I've noticed that all comments featured in the "Comments of the week" don't have a RU-vid profile image (just the letter). Is it a requirement to not have a profile picture to be able to get your comment featured in a GCN show?
Since when are all the conditions for a best pro time, apart from the small difference an aero bike makes over a semi aero bike, since when are all those other conditions the same? How well did the pro rider sleep? Are they fighting off a virus? Any blisters? How are they feeling, mentally? The SL8 is so close, that one of those other factors could just as easily or even more easily affect the outcome.
It seems to me you overemphasized the advantage of a dedicated aero bike over an all-around bike. In one day or stage races riders competing for a win would be, for the most part, riding in a protected postion which would negate much of the aerobike advantage. When the race comes to the finish, a rider usually has a lead-out for a sprint finish or will be launched by others for the final climb. The only advantage I see is for an individual breakaway on a relatively flat course.
I'm a normal average rider, I can afford one nice bike, I bought the one I like the look of most because the marginal gains don't make a difference to me. Helmets with visors might provide the pro racers a marginal gain but they don't look great in my opinion and in the summer when you stop at the coffee shop and take your helmet off and put your sun glasses back on you can't with a helmet with a built in visor, not practical.
On hot summer days. Would tyres filled with dry air be better than tyres filler with bicycle pump? Some motor sports have found they can control the tyre pressure better because the tyres inflated with normal air pump expands greater than dry air inflated tyres…. I hope I’ve explained this correctly
#askgcntech. Hello bike tech royalty! Please help answer this question. Does repeatedly mounting and remove a tire from the wheel stretch or damage the tire such that it would no longer seat to the wheel? I have one wheel set and two sets of tires for my gravel bike that I change depending on how technical or rough the gravel surface is. Does it hurt tire tires or is there a general limit to how many times a tire should be mounted & removed? Thanks for your help, FOG Rider
