well if I was looking to get a new road bike, I’d want to know how aero it was (I know that’s not the only factor to think of). So, how could I tell if a Felt was more aero that a Cube or a Bianchi more than a Cannondale or Colagno? Do the manufacturers have data on this? Do they publish it?

it is published but one of the complaints i have heard is that there is no way of comparing data. What you have to think about is not just head on into a wind but how it performs in cross winds and this is where everything breaksdown.

To be honest, aero bikes really are diminishing returns. buy a skin suit and overshoes first.

However aero it is makes no difference.

You’ll go faster into a headwind, but slower BY THE SAME AMOUNT with a tailwind.
Obviously.
Plus you have the risk of unexpected take offs.

And round tubes look better.

You’ll go faster into a headwind, but slower BY THE SAME AMOUNT with a tailwind.

Does that apply to shuttlecocks too?

Of course.
Hence the failure of ‘Extreme Outdoor Pro Celebrity Badminton with Bella Emburg’ on the BT Sport channel.

A full on TT frame is something like 17 seconds quicker than round tubes over 40km at 50km/h! Bear in mind at slower speeds there’s less difference so at half that speed (i.e normal club run pace for mortals) the diferance is less than half that.

A skin suit is 134seconds quicker.

That’s why Cannondale’s only concession to ‘aero’ in the Super-Six Evo was to stick 1.1/4″ lower bearings in the headtube rather than 1.5″ to reduce the frontal area a smidgen.

Your body will have more of an impact than the shape of the bike. If you get in a TT tuck everywhere, you’ll be more aero than sitting on the hoods no matter how aero the bike.

Some publish but as has been said you can’t compare as they test at different yaw angles and some with and some without a dummy/person on the bike.
Aero for an amateur is just irrelevant, if a bike fits, rides well, is stiff, comfortable, light and looks good and just happens to be aero then go for it – I wouldn’t compromise any of those other things for aero though.

I totally agree that outside of TT bikes it is not even worth considering, and even in the world of TTs it is the least important consideration.

But in theory the best you can do is try to look at whether they have spent a lot of time in the tunnel when designing the bikes. Even which wheel you use can change which frame is best!

Cervelos do well even when other people do the testing, they are the ones I would have a bit of faith in.

ta for the replies, so perhaps I should look for a better position, helmet and shirt then. Makes choosing a (tiny) bit easier I guess. Arn’t the wheels important or are all those lovely looking deep carbons rims mostly fashion?

asterix
…….Arn’t the wheels important or are all those lovely looking deep carbons rims mostly fashion?

What size would Sir like his can of worms?

Deeper wheels are more efficient but you can very quickly get into some complicated maths / heated debates on gains versus cost/efficiency.

If we’re just talking road bikes as opposed to TT wagons, I’d question whether you’d notice any appreciable difference between brands / models, when out on the road.

I don’t doubt that aero road bikes will require less effort to push through the air but you’re going to be into some serious measurebating to justify any discernible time savings on a typical ride.

Of course if you want to spunk cash on something that looks bling and puts a smile on your face, then go for it.

TT RIDER. Rod and Bikefitter discuss the secret of speed

Buy a recumbent – anything else is a waste of time, you may as well put aero spokes on a penny farthing…