View Single Post
Old 02-16-24, 08:56 PM
  #116  
Kontact
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,349
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4585 Post(s)
Liked 1,738 Times in 1,138 Posts
Originally Posted by phrantic09
Wider tires with less rolling resistance, aero frame and 52/63 wheels that measure 35/34 externally allowing 28s to be pretty aero.

Aerodynamic frame stem and bar setup. I’d venture 10-15 watts less effort to maintain “fast ride” speed vs an 8 year old frame, even if it were designed with aerodynamics in mind.

Edit- referring specifically to the S5 here
Wider tires do not have lower rolling resistance unless they are over-inflated. Set tire pressures appropriately for weight load and 23-25c tires still have the lowest rolling resistance.

The difference between an old S5 and the most aero bike made today is less than the difference between a tight and loose helmet strap. However, that difference in aerodynamics isn't due to disc brakes, so old tech hanging on a new aero frame wouldn't give up anything.

And all this is ignoring weight - which might be limited by the UCI, but most cyclists aren't governed by the UCI. So if your closed course is hilly, I think you're misjudging the aerodynamic advantage and false rolling resistance claims of new bikes with big tires.
Kontact is offline