CN Best Team Bike 2011

[Polyarmour]

You put too much faith in the machine Polyarmour, sorry. The difference between a C59 and a TCR Advanced was not the reason Voeckler lost stage 9. No way, not a chance. Sanchez still wins stage 9 on a custom Baum Romano.

I was referring to the time gap that Voeckler pulled out that day that put him in the yellow jersey. More aero bike.. more time gap.

 

[elapid]

I was referring to the time gap that Voeckler pulled out that day that put him in the yellow jersey. More aero bike.. more time gap.

Not with cross/head winds and just being plain tired by the end of long breakaway. Big difference to the oft quoted 20W from a fresh rider in a wind tunnel.

 

[Polyarmour]

I disagree. One, in a RR, 99% of professional riders spend their time sheltered and hence aero is of no advantage. Two, 20W is for an elite professional cyclist in a wind tunnel. The wind tunnel does not equate to real life conditions with wind direction, hills, position on the bike (especially after a gruelling day in the saddle), etc. There was an MIT study a little while ago which showed some of the biggest advantages in watt saving on the bike was not wearing gloves and the type of helmet you wear. But I don't see amateurs or professionals adopting these changes to save a few watts, mainly because in the grand scheme of things these don't matter, especially in a RR.

Things are tested in wind tunnels so that all other interfering factors can be isolated. If a bike saves 20W at 40km/h in a wind tunnel, then what do think it's saving at the front of the peloton, bridging gaps to breaks, in a breakaway situation and in a 65km/h sprint?... Nothing?

I'm not familiar with the MIT study and would be grateful if you could provide the link. But I do notice that manufacturers are stating to design and make aero RR helmets. You no doubt saw what Cav wore in the Worlds.

My point ( to bring this back on thread also) is that it's not surprising that the aero bikes are getting the attention from the cycling community and this is reflected in the results of the CN best team bike survey.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

I was referring to the time gap that Voeckler pulled out that day that put him in the yellow jersey. More aero bike.. more time gap.

In the end he ended up 3 min off, now you're still going to tell us that it's his frame that's the problem?

 

[Polyarmour]

Not with cross/head winds and just being plain tired by the end of long breakaway. Big difference to the oft quoted 20W from a fresh rider in a wind tunnel.

If you are travelling at 40km/h... you will save 20W.. fresh or tired, doesn't matter.
If you have headwinds... you will save more.

If you were riding right on your limit in a break and the great Cycling God in the sky suddenly gifted you 20W it would be like getting an adrenalin injection... it's a significant saving.

 

[Polyarmour]

In the end he ended up 3 min off, now you're still going to tell us that it's his frame that's the problem?

No I'm just trying to say... don't tell us the frame makes no difference.

 

[Parera]

Things are tested in wind tunnels so that all other interfering factors can be isolated. If a bike saves 20W at 40km/h in a wind tunnel, then what do think it's saving at the front of the peloton, bridging gaps to breaks, in a breakaway situation and in a 65km/h sprint?... Nothing?.

Bikes are being violently tossed from side to side in a full out sprint and the rider's body is contorted in a way that does exactly scream "ironman tri-dork." The actual time period a rider kicks out for a sprint is diminutive as well. As I like to point out, Cav was a dominant sprinter on a Scott Addict just as he was on a tridork's wet dream aka Specialized Venge.

It's about the legs, yo.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

No I'm just trying to say... don't tell us the frame makes no difference.

It does to a certain degree, but not enough to pick a winner of a RR.

 

[Parera]

It does to a certain degree, but not enough to pick a winner of a RR.

Yep. I mean, really nothing more needs to be said...

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Yep. I mean, really nothing more needs to be said...

Just one more thing. If it was determined that Cadel won the TDF because his BMC teammachine SLR01 was aerodynamically superior to the Schleck brother's Madones and basically won the race for him the UCI would have to create a manufacturers competition as the FIA does in motorsports, tomorrow.

 

[BroDeal]

Just one more thing. If it was determined that Cadel won the TDF because his BMC teammachine SLR01 was aerodynamically superior to the Schleck brother's Madones and basically won the race for him the UCI would have to create a manufacturers competition as the FIA does in motorsports, tomorrow.

Th bike biz would love that. They want the equipment to be more important than the rider. They want minor gear differences to be the central focus of the sport. It is why they keep pushing for the elimination of the minimum bike weight and other technical rules.

 

[karlboss]

LOL, you haven't ridden a Colnago, have you karlboss? Now got back to the Clinic like a good boy where expressing opinions without direct experience is de rigeur

Just the one titanium colnago in my riding history.

For those arguing aero vs conventional remember aero is almost a direct sacrifice for stiffness, for which there is a greater loss in energy than just hysterisis suggests, hence those aero frames save nowhere near the time they report (if any).
As this forum is based on anecdotal evidence, this means 2 things, first they already knew that, second they don't know why.

EDIT: though I will grant the sample space is quite large so there is definitely something to it.

 

[oldborn]

Oldbuddy I don't mean to berate you about this anymore, but the in-house production numbers from the article are for 2 models only, C59 mentioned, and the EPQ which wasn't, both lugged carbon. Of course back in the days of steel when Colnago usually had half the pro peloton sponsored the production numbers where much higher, and steel frames are far more efficient to produce than carbon. Apples and oranges.

No, no WD40 I got your point, Colnagos are Patek Philippe watches
As far aero vs traditional frame, my thoughts are somehow divided.
At PR or RDV I think that old steel frame has still to offer something and it is quite 100% possible to win those one day races on steel bike.
On hill/stage races (where seconds decide) every gram count IMO, aero more light frames are somehow advantage, so why should anyone ride 1-1,5 kg heavier bike if there is no need for that.
On TT I think that everyone should agree that TT aero bike is superior than old ones, not just because tubes but overall feeling.
But I am riding dead horse now
This is only me and very often I just can not get wrong

 

[elapid]

I'm not familiar with the MIT study and would be grateful if you could provide the link. But I do notice that manufacturers are stating to design and make aero RR helmets. You no doubt saw what Cav wore in the Worlds.

It was reported in Bicycling Magazine a few years back. One thing the cynical me now gets out of this article is that watt savings that fairly simple measures (ie, no gloves) bought you have not been perpetuated through the amateur and professional ranks because 1. they make no difference in the real world, and/or 2. they are not marketable.

If you are travelling at 40km/h... you will save 20W.. fresh or tired, doesn't matter.
If you have headwinds... you will save more.

If you were riding right on your limit in a break and the great Cycling God in the sky suddenly gifted you 20W it would be like getting an adrenalin injection... it's a significant saving.

You are using 20W as an absolute regardless of conditions and fatigue. Hop on an Cervelo S5 and you are not going to save an additional 20W (unless you are a fresh professional cyclist in a wind tunnel in a perfect position). 20W is just marketing hype.

 

[ultimobici]

lol, I should have explained, but i was pushed for time.
Find any tech tests, these bikes are relatively heavy and flexible, and expensive. Colnago started well with the c40, and equally time with their lugged frame, but then they seemed to stagnate. The geometry is tested over time and can't be questioned, but they've fallen behind in my opinion.
In fact if you want to point me to the victories then it's specialized, giant, trek and cannondale for 2011.
So this is where you all tell me that it's the man not the bike, it's not just about weight and stiffness and you are right, but in my opinion time, and colnago haven't kept up. Having said, that really only means they aren't using monocoques and have kept their tube diameters smaller, which appeals to all the traditionalists.
For reference, I'll take the SL3 of the venge, the r series over the s series cervelos, and f over ar for felt. Given an unlimited budget there's a good chance I'd buy a storck.

Time haven't kept up? With who?

Specialized & Trek are so big they can out bid the likes of Colnago, Time & De Rosa without even blinking. In the same way Shimano (& SRAM with IPO Money) can out bid Campagnolo. That means that they can afford to buy the best riders who can deliver the victories they need to endorse their product as "being the best".

2006 must have been a fluke season for Quickstep as they couldn't have beaten Cervelo equipped riders any other way. And Cav only won because he was on a Venge or an SL3, not because he is the fastest sprinter. No, they won because, to quote Armstrong (which I hate doing, but he's right in this case!) It's not about the bike!

 

[Polyarmour]

You are using 20W as an absolute regardless of conditions and fatigue. Hop on an Cervelo S5 and you are not going to save an additional 20W (unless you are a fresh professional cyclist in a wind tunnel in a perfect position). 20W is just marketing hype.

The 20W is for the frame alone, not the rider.

 

[Polyarmour]

It is well documented that Cav's power output in the sprint is quite low for a sprinter. He achieves his victories by being more aero in his body shape and position than his competitors. If you see a head on shot of Cav in sprint it's obvious he has a lower CdA. So being aero enables Cav to win Road Races. Yet 1/3 of the drag comes from the bike. Making the bike more aero therefore must also help riders win races. If you have two riders equal in all respects, the one with the aero frame will win.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

It is well documented that Cav's power output in the sprint is quite low for a sprinter. He achieves his victories by being more aero in his body shape and position than his competitors. If you see a head on shot of Cav in sprint it's obvious he has a lower CdA. So being aero enables Cav to win Road Races. Yet 1/3 of the drag comes from the bike. Making the bike more aero therefore must also help riders win races. If you have two riders equal in all respects, the one with the aero frame will win.

This is the very problem with your argument that you keep perpetuating. No two riders are alike in all respects, if everybody was a clone and equal in everything from a physical and mental standpoint, then yes, you would be absolutely correct. In the meantime we need you to come back to reality, where no two people are alike and slight differences in aerodynamics from frame to frame aren't grabbing glorious victory for the person who sits atop one that looks a hair better in a wind tunnel over 2nd place. Perfect conditions don't exist on planet earth.

 

[BroDeal]

It is well documented that Cav's power output in the sprint is quite low for a sprinter. He achieves his victories by being more aero in his body shape and position than his competitors. If you see a head on shot of Cav in sprint it's obvious he has a lower CdA. So being aero enables Cav to win Road Races. Yet 1/3 of the drag comes from the bike. Making the bike more aero therefore must also help riders win races. If you have two riders equal in all respects, the one with the aero frame will win.

Cav is a midget. I bet you would find that at the height of his career Robbie McEwen had a low power output as well.

 

[Parera]

Cav is a midget. I bet you would find that at the height of his career Robbie McEwen had a low power output as well.

Peak power is also not an indicator of sprinting prowess.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Cavendoosh should ride for Liquigas so Cannondale could make a road version of the Lefty fork. Could you imagine that, no more right fork blade to slow him down. He'd be even more unstoppable!!!

 

[BroDeal]

Peak power is also not an indicator of sprinting prowess.

Just sayin' that comparing Cav's power to others without accounting for his size and weight is invalid. An eighteen wheeler may have more power than my Elise but I know which one I would bet on in a 300 meter sprint.

 

[Polyarmour]

This is the very problem with your argument that you keep perpetuating. No two riders are alike in all respects, if everybody was a clone and equal in everything from a physical and mental standpoint, then yes, you would be absolutely correct. In the meantime we need you to come back to reality, where no two people are alike and slight differences in aerodynamics from frame to frame aren't grabbing glorious victory for the person who sits atop one that looks a hair better in a wind tunnel over 2nd place. Perfect conditions don't exist on planet earth.

Yes two riders can be alike.
One rider on a standard road bike.
Same rider on an aero road bike.

Aero bike wins.

If we followed your logic there would be no point in doing anything to improve the performance of your bike.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Yes two riders can be alike.
One rider on a standard road bike.
Same rider on an aero road bike.

Aero bike wins.

If we followed your logic there would be no point in doing anything to improve the performance of your bike.

And this is logical? Jesus H. Christ Poly, you're way more off your rocker than I thought. Can't remember last time I saw a race where there was only one rider switching between bikes. Must be boring as hell living in your aerodynamically correct world.

 

[42x16ss]

Yes two riders can be alike.
One rider on a standard road bike.
Same rider on an aero road bike.

Aero bike wins.

If we followed your logic there would be no point in doing anything to improve the performance of your bike.

Not necessarily, there can be quite a few downsides to aero bikes:

How well engineered are the two bikes?

How much power transfer (aero bikes are often far less stiff) is compromised by the aero tube design?

How much comfort (a HUGE factor in GT's and often in stage races) is lost due to the aero design?

How much is handling compromised by the aero design?

How much extra weight (due to irregular tube shape) is in the aero bike?

This isn't as black and white as you make it sound. Look back over the years, a LOT of riders have taken conventional frames over aero frames even when aero frames are available. Ever wondered why?