As a lithe climber and a younger rider who cannot provide extream amount of watt's like sprinters, would an aero frame like the soloist team or carbon be an advantage with the aero tubing and still not heavy and having a very stiff bb area. Or would a giant tcr with somewhat lighter frame and specs be more usefull. And this is not including the perspective of fitting.

I highly doubt aero tubing will give much advantage. Buy the bike with the best fit and you will ride your fastest.

FWIW, the aero frame would be more useful since most of your riding will be with winds, unless you live in Colorado and ride just plain ol hills all the time.

But, of course, fit, fit and fit is most important. Oh comfort too but that comes with fit.

are you fast enough for it to make a difference?

Aero trumps weight every single time except on gradients over 8%.

Good explanation on this url.

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/aero.htm

Cervelo has a nice tech document on their website contrasting the R3 and Soloist carbon in terms of weight/aero tradeoff. Of course there's the soloist SL-SC so you can get light and aero. Personally, I don't know why that frame isn't more regarded as really the ultimate frame-it's pricey but still less than Time/Colnago for their high-end framesets.

To me the SL Soloist is a bit of an exercise in vanity. The SL version costs $1200. more and weighs a whopping 200 gms less. It's not like the regular carbon Soloist or aluminium version for that matter couldn't meet the UCI 15 lb weight limit.

If you've got more money than you know what to do with then by all means purchase the SL version, but don't delude yourself in thinking that your extra $1200 is going to buy a performance advantage.

There are a lot of wind tunnel tests that have suggested only minor gains from aero frames. Body position is the most critical factor, in which case a time trial bike would be the only thing you would ride - no make that a recumbent. Aero Helmets, trump wheels in terms of improving aerodynamics and bike bottles are more aero on the seat tube rather than the down tube. This according to some MIT dude as told by Bicycling Magazine.
The truth is out there, but really does it matter? As Fat Tire Fred so wisely said, "Are you fast enough to make a difference?" Aerodynamic forces are really manifest on fast moving objects. On us slow moving objects, not so much.

There are a lot of wind tunnel tests that have suggested only minor gains from aero frames. Body position is the most critical factor, in which case a time trial bike would be the only thing you would ride - no make that a recumbent. Aero Helmets, trump wheels in terms of improving aerodynamics and bike bottles are more aero on the seat tube rather than the down tube. This according to some MIT dude as told by Bicycling Magazine.
The truth is out there, but really does it matter? As Fat Tire Fred so wisely said, "Are you fast enough to make a difference?" Aerodynamic forces are really manifest on fast moving objects. On us slow moving objects, not so much.


The Discovery channel says that 85% of the resistance on a bike is from breaking the wind. [For the punks who say "reference" it is on the "Science of Lance Armstrong". For all the privileged who have HD, watch it. It has great scenes of some mountain passes] We all know that even going 17mph, drafting helps a lot. So yes, I would think that any biker, even a weekend warrior, would be helped by the aero dynamics.

I tend to agree that aero tubing is not as significant in road racing as it is in TTing, but I also don't see how it could hurt. Interesting to note how in the last couple of years the top road race teams have all switched over to deeper dish aero wheels however.

The Discovery channel says that 85% of the resistance on a bike is from breaking the wind. [For the punks who say "reference" it is on the "Science of Lance Armstrong". For all the privileged who have HD, watch it. It has great scenes of some mountain passes] We all know that even going 17mph, drafting helps a lot. So yes, I would think that any biker, even a weekend warrior, would be helped by the aero dynamics.

What fraction of the total power is to overcome aerodynamic forces depends very heavily on the speed. It's 85% at 25 mph, but 67% at 15 mph. Besides, the argument is not whether aerodynamics are important, because of course they are. The question is how much help do you get from an aero frame. The answer is, not much, especially if you are not travelling at world class time trial speeds.

Pros have to stay above the 6.8 kg limit so they have been using heavier stuff all the time to stay legal.

The original research that came up with the aero wins until >8% was based on full aero equipment and bike, plus some impressive wattage numbers. If all you are talking about is the frame I think most people would be better off not reading those sorts of studies and just buying whatever they feel like.

However, weight counts no matter what your speed up a hill so the lower your wattage the more you should drop some weight instead. If you can only do 2 watts then dropping a few grams could get you to the top in 0.75 lifetimes instead of 2.5 (which would be a DNF).