His point is that an aero frame won't endow you with "savage speed". From the aero section: "The latest evolution of the (Cervelo S5) species is spectacular in terms of raw aggression and savage speed.". Even accounting for hyberbole and that it's a "review" quote, the marketing here is over the top and at the very least misrepresented.

That's just one sample and not an unusual one. If you generally consider that "slow" riders are often the most inexperienced ones, for them this marketing is a sham or outright lie. Very small advantages are useful for very specific purposes and situations, even when those advantages are mathematically proportionally the same in other situations. Such as riding to the store for a coke at 12 mph. You may get the benefit, but to the same practical purpose as instantly responding to a surge at 28 mph to hold a wheel? Savage speed for a couple of seconds on that cola quest? The utility is not as they present it.

I'll admit I don't know what Bob's point is either, unless it's simply that there's marketing BS everywhere (news flash?!). I don't see anything wrong about the cervelo link posted and they certainly don't claim aero 'benefits' slower riders more. They state some numbers, and leave it at that. It's a perfect illustration of the answer to the question that was proposed in the very first post of this thread, which was answered some 80 posts ago.

All I can say is WOW.

Here it is folks: I don't accept the claim that a slower rider benefits more from aero equipment because they spend more time on the course. Even though statistically true (as seen in the links to Cervolo, Flo and advanced by minions from the land of 20deg yaw angles) it also means that by going EVEN SLOWER the benefit would be EVEN GREATER.

How does this make any sense?

To summerize: If you want to maximize the benefits of aero equipment SLOW DOWN.

Why did this aero testing, when there are no variables such as a human, prove otherwise....https://www.giant-bicycles.com/_uploa...st_Results.pdf

I not sure which is worse being an elitist arsehole or a member of the flat earth society. In any case, at least you finally articulated your position which is that you don't believe the laws of physics apply to bikes.

Oh please. Every fluff "review" uses phrases like that. We constantly make fun of the ubiquitous "vertically compliant yet laterally stiff" talk around here. I get annoyed by the "my Tarmac begs me to ride it faster" usage. It goes on and on. Welcome to ad copy. The writing for aero toys is no different from that for stiff sprinter bikes or light climber bikes, neither of which makes a whit of difference to a rec rider either.

They don't claim slow people are benefiting more than fast people, they are saying they gain more time over their old slow self. As you said, that is true. If your idea of somebody benefiting more is strictly based on seconds, then sure, I guess that is how *you* could take it, but that's now how I read it at all. They are just showing example numbers (which are useful IMO, considering most people on Cervelos are not doing sub hour 40k's), and that's it.

Because it's all puffery. Giant is bragging about a 5 watt difference over the Cervelo at 25 mph, and hardly a "savage speed" increase in either case. At fred speed it would be about enough difference to turn a dynamo. It does makes a difference, but speaking personally too little difference for too great a price.

How could you be so completely off base so many times? I think the only way would be to completely ignore ANYTHING I've actually said and to just keep calling me an arsehole.

As a poster you are usually pretty good at cutting through the BS. I have to believe that you are being this obtuse on purpose.

Yes they are. The claim is " slower riders benefit more from aero equipment because they spend more time on the course". This is what I am calling BS on. This AND ONLY THIS.

Of course EVERY RIDER benefits from aero gear to some degree. I have probably said this 10 times in this thread alone. Claiming otherwise would be just silly.

I didn't bring up Cervelo. I didn't post the link to their site. I only mentioned it because it was given as an example to defend the slower riders benefit more position which they do, in fact, perpetuate.

As a 63 year old at "fred speed", I'll take whatever advantage my Giant gives me in the 56 miles of a 70.3 or the 112 miles in a full Ironman.

And that you should. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

Can't believe I missed this one. :-)

It's like an argument over whether a Yugo or an F1 race car gains more benefit from adding a turbo.