Anyone gone from bog standard round tubes to an ‘aero’ type road frame with all the curvy whatsits?

Did you notice a difference? Really honestly truly?

My understanding is that the main difference is that they’re much more uncomfortable.

I noticed a difference moving from alu to carbon but I don’t have a specifically ‘aero’ bike.

I broke the hour many times on a steel bike and if you look at the old timer’s times for given distances, they were pretty damned fast, faster than many folk today on fancy kit.

I’d say it would make a difference though, but only if you are really good/fast to begin with.

I broke the hour many times on a steel bike and if you look at the old timer’s times for given distances, they were pretty damned fast, faster than many folk today on fancy kit.

Fast blokes are fast shocker. I’m not asking if it’s possible to go fast on a steel bike, of course, that would be daft.

I’m wondering if you personally actually noticed a difference when you switched. I’m only curious – my only road bike is carbon and fairly aero, and I’m not looking to switch.

No personal experience but GCN did a piece on this, the conclusion was somewhat inconclusive if memory serves.

I switch between aero Propel and non-aero Defy SL (not really “round” tubes and my first carbon bike), and CAAD8. I also lent the Propel to a colleague who rides a TCR and commented on how much faster it was. There are aero benefits; the Propel is faster (albeit normally with mid-section wheels and other aero accoutrements), and marginally less comfortable (but still fine for 100 miles). The times when I notice it is faster is when riding hard in a race on the drops head down, and coasting downhill compared with other riders.

I think the Propel saves me up to 30 watts compared with the Defy (when I can be bothered to switch power meter). This isn’t in itself a big deal, because I’m not riding to watts normally, but it is a deal for fatigue.

What’s “fairly aero”? I mean is it actually aerodynamic? or just mean’t to look the part?

second is how far up the priorities list is aero vs comfort, weight or general handling?

My own current plastic road bike is probably more “Profiled” I’d say, it’s intended to at least look more Aerodynamic but compared with the aluminium frame it replaced I can’t help noticing the Head tube and downtube are probably about 50% bigger in section, the top tube has a fluted variable section, it’s main profile is ~60% shallower in height but maybe ~30% wider, the seat stays and seat tube are probably no different so I reckon it probably presents more marginally more frontal area but with more blended joints, and TBH I don’t think I’m much faster on it, Aero benefits from body position will far out weigh some inexpertly NACA aerofoil derived tube profiles I reckon, most importantly it’s lighter and more comfortable so easier to ride distances and up hills IMO, a totally Aero frame might not give me that…

The point about older skinny steel frames is a good one actually, in simple terms those thinner tube profiles were probably marginally “more aero” than a lot of modern composite road bikes, hence we now get aero/semi-aero road bike frame designs intended to get back to about the same aerodynamic performance that a steel frame would have managed in the 1960s… Discuss…

Yes and yes. Both bikes are carbon, both have the same group set and I used the same set of wheels. Aero was noticeably faster and I didn’t noticed any difference comfort wise. Took two minutes out of my pb for a local hilly (but quite quick) route.

What’s “fairly aero”? I mean is it actually aerodynamic? or just mean’t to look the part?

Dunno. Somewhat ovalize downtube, seat stays are thin and contoured around the tyre. Bike is much narrower than traditional seat stays (with the consequence I can only use 23c tyres!) so it would appear to be more aero on that basis.

I’ve never really ridden any other bike much so I don’t really have much to compare against.

No personal experience but GCN did a piece on this, the conclusion was somewhat inconclusive if memory serves.

their conclusion was that the aero was marginally quicker, but its sufficiently minimal that it shouldnt be your deciding factor.

Loads of good “aero benefit?” articles out there on the web by road and tri mags/sites, quite an interesting cost vs performance table where frames are pretty much bottom of the list (aero bars at the top, but who’d been seen dead with aero bars on a road bike?!).

edit whilst other window googles

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2010/04/biggest-bang-for-your-buck-in-time-trial-equipment/

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/how-aero-is-aero-19273/

I think the Propel saves me up to 30 watts compared with the Defy (when I can be bothered to switch power meter). This isn’t in itself a big deal, because I’m not riding to watts normally, but it is a deal for fatigue.

30 watts is loads! I’d suspect a large chunk of that is wheels, position, maybe a bit of extra stiffness, over the Defy?

so it would appear to be more aero on that basis.

slim doesn’t always mean more aero though, some aero sections of tubing/structure are quite ‘blunt’ its all about whats happening behind (and over the surface)

a mavic open pro rim is tiny compared to a HED ardennes but it’s more aero