Originally Posted by
pgjackson
Here's an example from earlier:
"In a 200m all out sprint (say the end of a crit) an aero frame could get me to the line 8 feet ahead of a non-aero frame (at ~37mph).
In a 40k TT I would finish 1.5 minutes a head on the aero frame.
In a bike leg of an IM I would save around 9.5 minutes."
If you don't have an aero frame you will be 9 minutes behind.
You are quoting one post, which @
canam73 immediately said afterward how he got those numbers: taking the highest end aero claims applied to his known numbers in a wattage speed estimator. He did not say they were real, he did not say they applied to the OP, he did not say the OP should buy an aero bike, he did not say the OP would be non-competitive without an aero bike. He even said he didn't believe the numbers.
The only reason that I asked is because this is the second thread in the last week or so that you have stepped in and condemned "the 41" for bad advice, even though no one said what you are accusing "the 41" of saying. The other was the thread on rake, where everyone said "you might notice a difference for a minute, but after that no", and you stepped in and said we are all saying "huge difference, don't do it." Makes me think someone's preconceived notions are filtering their reading comprehension. I mean that as respectful feedback, and not to start a pissing contest.