Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Looking to replace my road frame/groupset and once I’ve swapped parts/sold existing kit etc can get a Scott Addict and Ultegra groupset at a cost of around £850.
However, although Planet X aren’t releasing pricing for a few days yet I’d imaging I’ll be able to get the new Aero N2a and a Ultegra groupset for similar money.
So whilst the Addict isn’t a ‘new’ frame it will be best part of half a pound lighter than the N2a.
But will the aero features of the N2a compensate for the extra weight compared to the Addict?
The thing I don’t get about these aero frames is that presumably you only get the benefits when riding solo or at the front of the group. So if you are going to race crits/ride in groups will the benefit be lost?
Any views on this?
You'd think there'd be some data somewhere. 1/2lb makes **** all difference to speed so the aero might edge it.
I'd consider the ride qualities also - one may suit you way better than the other.
This is an interesting one and I think you suggested the problem already, horses for courses!! Within a group I doubt you are not going to be getting the full benifit of aero. If Circuit races are you're thing I would go for stiff over aero unless you are super strong and go for solo wins?
Also noting that I seem to remember reading some where that these aero road bikes function very weel are very high speeds (pro speeds) but below these speeds the advantage is questionable because even when a manufacturer pushes the UCI regs the aero gaining techniques are restricted when compared to true wind cheating TT/Tri bikes...
be interesting other than being done on a 'it looks right so it must be right' basis how much actual science/testing goes into the tube shapes on the P-X (and other) frames.
The general rule of thumb seems to be that aero trumps light weight til you hit 12%. Dunno how true it is, but I'd say go aero.
12% of... ❓
id focus on the point above about testing ....
was it designed by a man in a shed on an it looks right it must be right basis or was it designed by testing and wind tunnels and known aero profiles.
im sceptical of my PX stealths "aero" - the tyre being so close to the frame is not the most aero execution im sure ! but its 8lbs lighter than my road bike so it flys regardless of aeroness
12% gradient. Or approx 1 in 8 in old money 😉
Wrong 12% is 1 in 8.3 so much steeper 🙄
YOU CHANGED THAT YOU HAD 1 IN 12 JUST NOW
I'd have thought if you were Thor Hushovd doing 50mile breakaways then an aero frame would be an advantage! If your sitting in the bunch most of the time then I don't see the point!
May be worth it though if your are going to use it for TT's as well though!
The general rule of thumb seems to be that aero trumps light weight til you hit 12%
Depends how much aero and how much weight - clearly adding 10kg weight for 1% aero advantage is unlikely to be an advantage on any sort of climb. In the case of a frame, I'd suggest that for the average rider the advantage of an aero frame is tiny (far less than 1%).
At the end of the day, just buy the bike you like the look of best. Cav was kicking arse on an Addict a couple of years ago against Thor on an S3 so it doesn't really matter!
Ok, so sounds like theres no clear cut advantage either way then.
Will wait to se more info about the N2a and then make a decision - prob as above on what one I like the look of!
[i]Ok, so sounds like theres no clear cut advantage either way then.[/i]
would be relatively easy to test with a power meter and the two frames equiped the same.
you should see a need for less power to maintain the same speed on the same road in the same conditions. Doesn't need wind tunnels really, just real world testing in a variety of conditions.
Yeah for an amateur riding crits then stiffness and handling should be top of your list, aero might help occasionally but it would mostly come down to looks :p
would be relatively easy to test with a power meter and the two frames equiped the same.you should see a need for less power to maintain the same speed on the same road in the same conditions. Doesn't need wind tunnels really, just real world testing in a variety of conditions.
Except if the difference is so small it gets lost in the noise. For a start you'd need a totally wind free day, as a small change in wind would make a significant difference. You'd also have to ensure you were riding in the same position every time, as even a slight change is likely to make more difference to aero drag than a bike frame.
Repeat post - didn't think the forum software even let you post another message 4 seconds later (but who knows what hidden "features" it has).
great handling and fit are most desirable. aero would only be of interest to me if u was racing time trails then i'd get a full on tt bike.
[i]if the difference is so small it gets lost in the noise[/i]
Tbh, if the measurements are so similar that it's impossible to tell if it's some change in body position that's responsible then it's a distinction without any real difference?
Tbh, if the measurements are so similar that it's impossible to tell if it's some change in body position that's responsible then it's a distinction without any real difference?
Clearly, there is a difference (The difference could be measured in a wind tunnel). And it is strongly suggested the difference is small. But scientifically proving it in a real world test would be very difficult because you are introducing too many variables to the test.
If aero is the new thing, like any roadie trend - it probably is the way to go.
One small spanner is the fact that disc brakes will (probably) be in next year - so is it worth holding off for them ?
I am having the same dilemma at the moment, to wait or not ....
Cervelo make a very convincing argument about aero vs low weight, in favour of aero - they do plenty of testing and can go either way with better designs than most so I'm inclined to believe them. Basically above around average road speed of 17-18mph so much of your effort is in overcoming air resistance that you can save more energy by reducing drag (the bike is a large percentage of total frontal area /edit - total drag I should probably have said..) than you can by reducing weight (bike is a small part of total weight) - within the variations you'll find in common frame constructions. I think it's still on their site.
The TDF Alpe d'Huez mountain TT in 2007(?) saw riders adding mini aero bars - benefits felt to be worth the weight and they average something around 13mph up that?
All depends on how aero the bike actually is, some look very aero but may not have much less drag than a thin tubed steel frame, apparently. It's easy for me to weigh a bike, but to test it's drag? No chance. Handling and stiffness is more important to most of us and we can evaluate that by riding.
so is it worth holding off for them ?
No, wouldnt of thought so, unless you really feel the need for more powerful brakes at the moment? I know I dont.
Aero frame might make you go faster, but you'll need to be doing a fair speed to make any really difference. I've heard that deep section wheels only really help when you're doing circa 25mph. Just find the sexiest frame you can and make sure it fits.
All depends on how aero [s]the bike[/s] you actually [s]is[/s] are
As aracer said you're talking tiny advantages. Considering your average punter will stick 20mm of spacers under the stem and touch the drops twice a year when they can reach past their gut, you'll get a bigger difference by bending your elbows a bit and reducing your frontal area!
One small spanner is the fact that disc brakes will (probably) be in next year - so is it worth holding off for them ?
I am having the same dilemma at the moment, to wait or not ....
more like a stick in the spokes if some things are to be beleived
http://www.bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/road-bike-disc-brakes-are-coming-but-will-they-work/
proves you cant fix stupid
One thing I hadn't considered is the whole brake fade issues,
Take it all back, buy an aero frame .....
[i]the whole brake fade issues[/i]
The bloke in the article admits it was his own fault for choosing the equipement poorly and then compounding it by having no idea how to use it.
Wow. That bikerumor article really is stupid (plus some of the comments).
Intereesting to start hearing more about this N2A in the next few weeks - it looks nice and is priced well so thats 2 of the 3 points I need ticked. Performance in terms of stiffness is the other point.
njee - well yeah, a tuck will help more of course and the variables in a bike frame design aren't huge, but the OP was talking about bike weight vs drag and that's something that people have spent time working on.
Body position aero benefit's a whole other topic.. don't ask me )
Cervelo make a very convincing argument about aero vs low weight, in favour of aero
Nah, pro bikes are easily below the UCI weight limit so there is no point making them any lighter. So you may as well use a little bit of your spare weight you're going to have to put back onto the frame to make it aero - rims, etc.
Not influenced by the disc brake rumours as i'd imagine it will be a few years before they reach a level I can afford!
**** me that journo beggars belief, how on earth do these people find work.
If you can I'd try a test ride on then both and go with the one.you can get to fit best...
Whilst I agree the BR article is pretty daft, it highlights a good point - had he had rim brakes he'd have been fine. Nodders will buy discs en mass probably, and if that's as genuine a risk as it appears it could be pretty unpleasant.
It's all very well scoffing and saying "we know how to brake", but plenty of people (I know I've done it) will drag the brakes.
Intereesting to start hearing more about this N2A in the next few weeks - it looks nice and is priced well so thats 2 of the 3 points I need ticked. Performance in terms of stiffness is the other point.
Fingers have been pointed at the "not very skinny" down tube. Which is because we didn't want a wimpy flexy aero frame, but one that tracked and handle, darted, punched in and out of bunches, and corners...
So it's more a crossover pro road/aero frame, than complete aero model.
breatheeasy, it's true about the UCI weight limit makes adding aero sections sensible, the study was using bikes you can buy in shops and simply looked at % gains by saving a bit of drag vs saving a bit of weight, in terms of 'why would I buy a Soloist when the R3 is lighter and I'm not a time-trialler'.
I can't answer your question, but I would be very wary of claims made by manufacturers which are supposedly scientific. It's like the whole "our new component is 20% stiffer than our old component" rubbish. I saw an ad from speedplay claiming their pedals were 33 seconds an hour faster than anyone else's due to their aerodynamics. Really? I mean REALLY???
My feeling is a bike which is comfortable and feels good will be faster just because you like riding it more, unless you are in the pro peloton in which case you ride what you are told to!
create a new genre or Hype sells pick one
All things being equal a more aerodynamic bike is better.Unfortunately there are compromises to be made to achieve this.Namely weight,stiffness and ride quality.The venge,foil,S3 etc all give up some of these compared to their conventional siblings.At the giant launch we were told the design criteria for the Tcr sl was stiffness,handling,weight, ride quality and lastly aerodynamics......in that order.I can confirm that mine is the stiffest bike I have ever ridden.....it makes the soles of my feet hurt and I never noticed how much my bars flexed before.Would I swap that to save 5 watts of power?Not bloody likely!
Totally unconvinced by some Aero road frames. Aero efficiency is a combination of riding position and frame aero, yet many aero frames seem to have a taller headtube, meaning the rider (as long as they are quite supple) is not going to be able to achieve such a good position, and as 80% of air resistance is from the rider, getting the right riding position is much more important than the aerodynamics of the frame itself.
My missus does a lot of Time trialing, year before last she had a very fancy full carbon frame, super aero. Last year she had a basic Alu framed Bianchi, which she was able to get a much better position on. She went much faster last year (some of this may be to do with training, but some was definitely position)
I should correct the gist of my earlier post, apologies.. The Cervelo study says that although aero has more % gain potential than weight in a bike, over a long, alpine ride with some drafting, under the power of a normal rider, it'll even out - no real suprise.
I remember listening to that presentation and the general chat after was that the average UK road rider is better served by an aero bike than a light one, plus thinking an aero bike would be more of a (small) advantage than a light one for the riding I do. And then carrying on riding a steel road bike that's heavy and not aero )
If it helps in any way, I have an addict Sl frame from 2010 and very recently had a foil on an extended test period. I gave the foil back pretty damn quickly, didn't like the ride at all, too harsh and odd handling. Not for me thanks I'll stick with the addict. Like some people are saying, a properly fitting bike is the primary focus for me with handling and stiffness (not harshness) next in line, then weight then aero.