Any Clydes getting on board with the new Aero trend?
 

It seems like the latest marketing push is that heavier aero bikes are better than lighter non-aero bikes. I assume that means for racing.

Is anyone switching to an aero bike for recreational use? Are you finding any difference from doing so?

I am not into racing. When it came to update my now vintage bike, I decided to do so without regard to bike weight. That is not to say I wanted a heavy bike; rather, I was not going to pay extra for the lightest bike possible. I placed a premium on versatility. I ended up with a Surly Troll - love that bike.

When I am aero...then I'll think about an aero bike. Until then (never), I'll ride what I have.

Yeah, that's I'm wondering as well. If you're... let's face, wide on the bike. Does it make a difference how narrow/aero your bike is in the grand scheme of things?

Some scientific research basically says it makes some difference, though that assumes that you're a pro racer.

But -- if an aero bike gains, oh, 2% in terms of wattage need of the system at 40km/h (so 25 mph)...then presumably it would gain something close to that if the "system" also included a somewhat more portly engine. So maybe 1%. So at the same effort, you'd be going 20.2 mph, instead of 20. Maybe. So, practically, no.

Now the old addage is true -- the bike you want to ride is the right bike for you. So if it floats your boat, then why the heck not.

Does not float mine. I like metal. And round tubes and personality. I would also be driven nuts by all that proprietary stuff. Saw a Venge and a Cippolini in the LBS the other day. I don't even think you can change brake pads on those things without ordering special everything. G#d forbid you want to move your saddle.

Considering I look like the Michelin Woman on my bike...aero is a tad difficult. I do get in drops but I don't see me buying an aero bike anytime soon. Are we talking time trial style?

I feel like if you buy an aero bike, you gotta go all in; ride low profile, stop buying club fit jerseys and only wearing skin suits, shaving my arms and legs (which would result in my girlfriend not wanting to sleep with me), so basically no, not really what I'm after...but the bikes look really cool!

I would like to see some data indicating that the aero shaping is not merely compensating for the size disadvantage of carbon and fat tubes. Give me a good rider position and good tires, and the rest is sharply deminishing returns from there.

The shaving of the legs is not for aero, its to make treating road rash less painful...

Surprisingly, it's also beneficial for aero.

Most of those aero bikes tend to be stiffer and since I"m not racing, I'm not interested in getting beat up on the bike so I'll stick with whatever I've got. JMHO. It wouldn't stop me from riding one but I'm not actively shopping for one either.

I just ride on the best bike I can find for the money I am willing to spend. This usually means riding a bike for 15-20 years that I bought on sale and repaired or upgraded over time.

I just test rode a Fuji Transonic yesterday. I'll admit I just like how it LOOKS :-), and the Ultegra direct mount brakes are sweet :-).

That said a 500m gain in a 10 mile time trial is not a significant thing to me.

But all of THAT said I came to a revelation awhile back, Bicycles are NOT made to be ridden or raced, Bicycle are made to be SOLD, they make bikes that will sell better than other bikes. A great many bicycles are not ridden very much after they fulfill their true purpose, being sold.

Bill

All bikes are meant to be sold or there would be no need for manufacturers or stores...however I think that the hope is that they get ridden as often that leads to more bikes sold.

One of my bikes is a 2010 model and its tube shapes and geometry are very aerodynamic. Manufactured long before the current marketing fad. The thing is really a rabbit and all I have to do is think about going fast, and it seems to do so on its own. That said, purchasing a bike for that specific characteristic is silly, especially for those of us who would not really benefit from the technology. While I enjoy riding that aero bike, it is not my favorite and I don't use it as often as some of my other bikes. I didn't purchase it because of its aero characteristics, (who even knew about that stuff back then), but because it was a very good price point for the component group it had. (I've since moved the groupset to another bike, which is my favorite and most comfortable ride.)

Nope.

Ride whatever you like the look of so that you're happy to get out and actually ride. Never buy a bike that doesn't float your boat!

I remember, way back when I was interested in them, I was looking at the Cervelo S2 and R3. I remember reading somewhere that despite the non-aero tube profiles of the R3, it had very similar aero figures to the S2.

An aero frame will save you literally a few seconds over a 40km TT when compared to a old school round tubed frame. It's one of the least economical ways to gain time.

I race, and for me, having a frame that has a good solid BB so that when I get up out of the saddle and climb or sprint, I'm not flexing it all over the place. I ride in bunches, never solo off the front and punch for a sprint if I can maintain the pace to be there at the end, so the aero benefits of an aero frame would be wasted on my riding style. An aero frame looks king of cool, but they're traditionally flexy around the BB. Some of the more modern and very expensive frames are way better in that respect apparently, but they're out of my price range, and so not even on the radar.

Weight and cost are pretty similar between aero and non-aero frames these days. Not sure why you couldn't consider the aero option if you were looking for a new carbon fiber frame...

If you've directed that at me, then it's because I'm primarily concerned about frame stiffness/flex. At the low-mid end of the market, the stiffness just isn't comparable to what I can get out of other non-aero frames. I'm a peculiar case though, because I'm 6'5" and I don't have a lot of choice that lies within my geometry parameters. When you start looking at the Venge and Propel, you get the stiffness, but both bikes cost more for the frame than my whole bike costs! The Felt has the AR series, and while coming ahead in leaps and bounds since their last revision, they're still not where I want them to be.

The thought had crossed my mind when I was bike shopping earlier this year. The Fuji Transonic was definitely on my list of bicycles that piqued my interest, but ultimately decided on the lighter bike over an aero bike. I don't regret it!

If my comments had been directed at you, I would have quoted your post (like I've done here). That said, my biggest complaint with the aero frames I've ridden is that they're too darn stiff! Thankfully, it looks like that's changing with some of the latest models...

Not a problem.

I've just tried searching for it but turned up nothing. There was a blind test done with various frame styled bikes and interestingly the difference in ride feel from a road bike to a TT bike was merely 5psi in the tyres. It was an insightful and not too old, but google searching is not helping me.

At least frame makers are starting to see that we don't have to trade our kidneys for some aero benefit!

That was my take on the transonic, might not be stiff for folks that can dial it up to 1000 watts :-), and it was not terrible, but it left me wondering how it would feel on a century ride :-). I rode it about 6 miles in a subdivision. The D shaped seat post cuts out the freedom to use an aftermarket post too.

I wouldn't call it a fad, as aero has been a key word in road cycling since the late '80s, and the application of aero has been on an inexorable march forward ever since.

Everything, from wheels to handlebars to cable routing to seatposts, cranks, and pedals has undergone aero scrutiny...and it started waaaayyy before 2010!

And face it: I looks damn good. A buddy of mine has hirsute legs. Looks not so good with spandex.

You do? :)