Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 176 to 180 of 180
  1. #176
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by woodys737 View Post
    I think taodemon is spot on. Carbon frames are faster more due to being able to tube shaping v. straight round tube bikes we rode in the 80's and prior. Whether it is noticeable or not is another story. I agree 10 lbs off the body is noticeable. Been there. Not the point however. As much as people don't want to admit it, engineers have been able to make bikes measurably more aero and lighter. Both equal more speed. Not much but, again measurable.
    Exactly. Also, dropping 10lbs might not be feasible for everyone depending on what weight they are at to start with. Cycling has already brought me back down to my high school weight. While another 10lbs might be possible, it would require a lot more time than my current 5k miles/year of riding takes while also drastically reducing my calorie intake, and part of my reason for cycling is that it allows me to keep eating a lot of those foods that otherwise had added 15-20lbs or more before I was cycling.

    I just dropped 200 grams going from one carbon frame to another carbon frame. I did it for the aero improvements, the weight just happened to be an added bonus. Aluminum frames have gotten pretty good though with some even adding some aero elements but still fall behind carbon in both aspects. But again, it all depends on what features or aspects you personally care about and are willing to pay for.

    None of this will keep a much stronger rider from dropping me on a long climb, but it does make me faster than if I was riding a non aero 20lb bike.

    There is no shame in riding a non carbon frame if it makes you happy or if you feel they aren't worth it.

  2. #177
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    Iím pretty sure engine being the most important factor has been mentioned at least once already. That said the same rider on a lighter and/or more aerodynamic frame will typically be faster than if he was riding a heavier round tube bike. Are the difference enough to warrant buying a carbon frame? That part depends on the priorities of the individual cyclist.

    5 lbs Lighter is only seven seconds faster only for very light riders up a a fairly steep one mile hill and is slower downhill. Turns out my friend with the carbon bike only weighs ten pounds less than me and his bike a further 3 or so pounds less than my steel bike. Sitting in the same positions on downhills on our last ride I rocketed past him coasting on every downhill no matter the slope and he would have to pedal away to keep up with me. To me he used a lot more energy to keep up with me on downhills than I use to get up hills faster than him. I think you said you get downhill faster than heavier riders...I donít think you are talking about coasting faster than them...I think you must be using your riding skills...say like not using your brakes etc.

    Ps....I would like to see a test showing how a 2018 carbon pinarello with fat tubes and 25 mm tires is a lot more aero than say my 1978 Pinarello with its skinny steel tubes and 20 mm tires. When I look at carbon bikes they donít look more aero than an old steel bike. I could see how an aero carbon bike is more aero than a standard carbon bike, but how much more aero is it really than a thin-tubed steel bike?
    ps2...I have noticed that carbon bikes are noisy...lol....all kinds of creaks while going along and even the shifting is noisy...lol

  3. #178
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    695
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE_GKePa3CQ

    This is a video from the old generation venge vs a steel bike. The old venge was 50s faster than the steel bike using the same aero wheels on both.

    The new pinarello F10 is faster than the old venge (for reference new venge supposedly is around 50-60s faster than the old venge over 40km). I'm not an aerodynamics specialist but I believe it is more about what the tube shapes make the air do as it passes over the frame and leaves behind the frame then the width of the profile cutting through the air.

    As for skills descending this happens on straight descents where no braking or skill necessarily is required.
    Last edited by taodemon; 4 Days Ago at 06:01 AM.

  4. #179
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,425
    Interesting video.
    But, luddites and specialized.
    So, video will be given less weight than unsubstantiated subjective opinions.

  5. #180
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: taodemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    Interesting video.
    But, luddites and specialized.
    So, video will be given less weight than unsubstantiated subjective opinions.
    I'm sure the testing is very similar to what all the other brands do for their aero bikes but not all of them seem to make these videos or at least not videos as easily found through google.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.