Originally Posted by zigmeister

We've been having this same discussion over at WW.

You bring up a bunch of variables, which are consistent variables. Oxymoron? No. You are going to likely wrap your bars the same way with the same handlebars on each bike right? Of course. Certain things are very consistent. Are you going to change to a different brand of pedals because you changed your frame? No. Why would you do that?

The comparison is between the aero frame, and a fat tube, like the regular CDale Supersix. It is proven, the Foil is around 18-20w more aero than the CDale. The Venge/S5 are about 6-7w more aero.

I keep making this point, it is the aerodynamics of a frame that is the factor. Fork/Frame/Seatpost. It is why some testing decided to use no cables/bar tape etc..and some did, plus using a dummy on the bike. Depends on which one you read. Either way, the aero frames had proven savings in drag denoted by weight in grams. Which translated also to savings in wattage.

If aerodynamics were all just a farce, then I suggest all guys using time trial/aero frames for competition just throw them in the bin and just ride whatever, since it makes no difference according to people who don't understand basic physics/drag.

Oh wait, we know it makes you faster. It has been proven time and time again, rider position and bike aerodynamics are the key to reducing drag, making you faster due to less drag in watts.

Trust me, no pro/track riders would be on an aero frame, and millions spent in R&D developing the frames to make them more aero, if there was nothing to it like you state.

The aero road bike trend, with newer carbon technology, is a combination and goal to do a few things very well: 1) give some aero advantage 2) still be able to make a very light frame and 3) a stiff frame (previously, round tubes were the strongest, not anymore). Frames can be made as stiff as people like them, in different shapes which are conducive to aero savings in wattage, and keep it very light at the same time.