The problem is that you can measure weight easily but not aerodynamics. What looks good might work well. And what looks strange like that hole might as well. But when I think about all the other non optimal aeras when I'm cycling (more upright position, helmet, clothes, bags, cables, tire surface) I think I shouldn't care too much.
To be fair it’s not out, and “the little guy”testing hasn’t commenced yet. Why anyone cares is beyond me. Buying these new bikes just continues the absolute ridiculous price hike on these “state of the art” bikes that pay for r&d. They cost as much as a brand new lower end car. I don’t see where $20,000 a bike is justified. $4,000 groupsets $5,000 wheels and $9,000 frames? No thanks I love cycling but it can be done on a $4,000 bike. Or a $2,000 one. It truly makes me want to boycott the system.
@@jinnij.caiman Yeah, some people in my area love to hear themselves say..I paid $4k for these wheels. I just shake my head and think to myself "A fool and his money shall soon part."
I want to know how strong is that spring cantilever seatpost and is structural worth it to have a hole. Learned a lot from Jamie's aero feedback. Thank you
Trek seem to be very adept at coming out with innovative solutions which don't stand the test of time. Brake caliper under the bottom bracket, IsoSpeed decoupler etc, etc. I wonder how long this one will last before frames start cracking? For the pros it's not an issue but it's always the ordinary consumer who ends up carrying out the long-term testing and suffering the consequences.
@@kelvinmulder Yes, some other bikes also had that e.g. Rose. How well did this work? When I first saw it my concern was that it might be more exposed to dirt and water than higher up.
@@jochenkraus7016 Yes and Giant and Sensa. It doesn’t matter for braking power. They probably think it looked cleaner. But as a bike mechanic I can tell you that yes, it gets dirty. I think it’s a bad idea because of that. Also heavy construction.
I think I heard in one video that the time saving in seconds (e.g. 10s over 40km with 40km/h) stays about the same at different speeds. That hole below the saddle might reduce the turbulences behind the saddle (the blue area they show) but that's where I put a seatpost bag for put in additional clothes etc. on longer rides and I can tell myself that there's not much aero loss. But now there is :-D
I love seeing majority of people in comments with no buy-in to the madness of cycling industry marketing machine. Current cycling industry need to economically crash so we can have real bikes again with normal pricing just like we did pre pandemic before this insanity really picked up with the instant demand increase for bikes.
Some other "experts" said that the hole could be useless because there's too much turbulent air around your legs for it to work efficiently, I think it even was Hambini - even though he's no aero expert, or is he? Also, you should have covered the impact on structural rigidity of the frame in that part - I guess seattubes were straight tubes for a reason, now that area at least needs to be seriously reinforced - and doesn't it limit you with seat positions unless you get various length seatposts with the bike? For me, it creates more problems than it solves, even though the bike looks cool.
GCN did a video with measurements long ago. As far as I remember the checked the difference of lower position, really tight clothes and deep section wheels. And (also as far as I remember) the wheels had the least effect for - obviously - the highest amount of money.
Yes you are you only need to win a race by a foot or less so it matters to racers. Joe Public not so much. Thing for me is it's not adjustable like current ISO SPEED. So I'm 240 and another guy is 160 what happens?
This one guy I've ridden with loves to "brag" about his buddy's bikes..I recall him saying he has the fastest bike (i.e. based on the company's aero test). I replied. The fastest bike is the one that crosses the finish line first. Such ignorance.
@road.cc You guys should do a video on how the UCI regulations are ruining your bike and costing you serious watts. You should look at the current UCI regulations placed on the frame, the wheels, the forks, ect.
This guy talks BS saying mass-weight has something to do with aero performance, it is the volume-frontal area that has everything to do with aero. It is like rim brakes vs disc brakes, just simple frontal area evaluation.
@@jochenkraus7016 boy he said “weight”, that’s BS that’s my point, normally the aero bikes are heavier, then his comment on weight drag is pure BS and yes some shapes are more aero even having a larger area but the optimization is done vs the air flow around the shape and the additional weight is added because the larger form or shape but weight in reality has nothing to do with aerodynamics unless the drag is drastically augmented by the weight increase.
Remember this bike will be a FAR different experience for a pro riding a long flat-ish 100 miles at 26mph and 300 watts than you or me doing 19mph for 20 miles at 190
"Will any of it work? We are not sure. But it did look really cool" - sums up cycling "journalism."
The problem is that you can measure weight easily but not aerodynamics. What looks good might work well. And what looks strange like that hole might as well. But when I think about all the other non optimal aeras when I'm cycling (more upright position, helmet, clothes, bags, cables, tire surface) I think I shouldn't care too much.
@@jochenkraus7016 I sure don't care. Not interested in any aero bike. I'll the pro riders worry about that.
To be fair it’s not out, and “the little guy”testing hasn’t commenced yet. Why anyone cares is beyond me. Buying these new bikes just continues the absolute ridiculous price hike on these “state of the art” bikes that pay for r&d. They cost as much as a brand new lower end car. I don’t see where $20,000 a bike is justified. $4,000 groupsets $5,000 wheels and $9,000 frames? No thanks I love cycling but it can be done on a $4,000 bike. Or a $2,000 one. It truly makes me want to boycott the system.
@@jinnij.caiman Yeah, some people in my area love to hear themselves say..I paid $4k for these wheels. I just shake my head and think to myself "A fool and his money shall soon part."
I want to know how strong is that spring cantilever seatpost and is structural worth it to have a hole. Learned a lot from Jamie's aero feedback. Thank you
2:06 Correction: drag is *quadratic* in speed (and not "exponential", as stated in the video)
Quadratic is not linear and it’s common in mech to call anything not linear expo, since it has an exponent. But yeah, it’s not exponential strictly
@@ppusern it's common but false and I would expect a channel with such a level to know the difference
Trek seem to be very adept at coming out with innovative solutions which don't stand the test of time. Brake caliper under the bottom bracket, IsoSpeed decoupler etc, etc. I wonder how long this one will last before frames start cracking? For the pros it's not an issue but it's always the ordinary consumer who ends up carrying out the long-term testing and suffering the consequences.
Loads of different brands used a brake under the bb. Anyway, all I have to say about this Trek: Hambini
Isospeed has been a big success. It’s on a lot of their bikes.
@@kelvinmulder Yes, some other bikes also had that e.g. Rose. How well did this work? When I first saw it my concern was that it might be more exposed to dirt and water than higher up.
@@jochenkraus7016 Yes and Giant and Sensa. It doesn’t matter for braking power. They probably think it looked cleaner. But as a bike mechanic I can tell you that yes, it gets dirty. I think it’s a bad idea because of that. Also heavy construction.
Nobody ever kept buy the same computer of phone. Latest and greatest sells products.
That bike would look very good in a museum.
It's art that's all. They taken a slim area made it wider then put a hole in the middle.
Very interesting. I'm not sure how will function all this for the ordinary rider.... Greetings from Greece.
I think I heard in one video that the time saving in seconds (e.g. 10s over 40km with 40km/h) stays about the same at different speeds.
That hole below the saddle might reduce the turbulences behind the saddle (the blue area they show) but that's where I put a seatpost bag for put in additional clothes etc. on longer rides and I can tell myself that there's not much aero loss. But now there is :-D
I love seeing majority of people in comments with no buy-in to the madness of cycling industry marketing machine. Current cycling industry need to economically crash so we can have real bikes again with normal pricing just like we did pre pandemic before this insanity really picked up with the instant demand increase for bikes.
Some other "experts" said that the hole could be useless because there's too much turbulent air around your legs for it to work efficiently, I think it even was Hambini - even though he's no aero expert, or is he? Also, you should have covered the impact on structural rigidity of the frame in that part - I guess seattubes were straight tubes for a reason, now that area at least needs to be seriously reinforced - and doesn't it limit you with seat positions unless you get various length seatposts with the bike?
For me, it creates more problems than it solves, even though the bike looks cool.
He is qualified in aviation engineering. Peak Torque also an engineer.
Another marketing BS. Im really interested in reading the user manual about cutting to length the seapost and max. Min. Insertion of the seatpost
If you don't thing you can't build a seat projecting like that with CF without cracking or failing you are sorely mistaken.
Is there a weight limit for that bike?
Thursday is D-Day.
how much of this drag is caused by the rider?
answer's in the vid there 😁
GCN did a video with measurements long ago. As far as I remember the checked the difference of lower position, really tight clothes and deep section wheels. And (also as far as I remember) the wheels had the least effect for - obviously - the highest amount of money.
I buy none of this aero caper. Maybe I’m too old to believe. 45 years of yarn being spun
Yes you are you only need to win a race by a foot or less so it matters to racers. Joe Public not so much. Thing for me is it's not adjustable like current ISO SPEED. So I'm 240 and another guy is 160 what happens?
This one guy I've ridden with loves to "brag" about his buddy's bikes..I recall him saying he has the fastest bike (i.e. based on the company's aero test). I replied. The fastest bike is the one that crosses the finish line first. Such ignorance.
does aerodynamics real count in the middle of the pack
Not much. People forget that pro riders ride long races everyday in a grand tour because of the pelaton.
Nope, you literally do ~150 watts and go with 25mph/40kph in the middle of the pack
@road.cc You guys should do a video on how the UCI regulations are ruining your bike and costing you serious watts. You should look at the current UCI regulations placed on the frame, the wheels, the forks, ect.
That would be an interesting video.
Its just a marketing gimmick
Whether it works or not is kind of moot - you can’t buy or preorder this bike and lead time is 450 days. It’s all marketing at this point.
it enhances only 9 watt ..
I'm not sold
special bike
gimmick. disappointing Trek is slowly tanking the Madone into a silly, overweight aero porker.
The PORKER weight is?
look at ku cycle !
marketing. Worth a look at Hambinis talk about it
My bet, that will brake, by who time will tell...
Not interested in any aero bike. Just not a big believer in it. I'll the pro riders worry about that.
Can't wait to see Hambini review this.
Ive seen it. He's not a fan
This guy talks BS saying mass-weight has something to do with aero performance, it is the volume-frontal area that has everything to do with aero. It is like rim brakes vs disc brakes, just simple frontal area evaluation.
@@juliooswaldobellotorres3636 It's frontal area and shape (drag coefficient). A larger but more areodynamic shape can have less drag.
@@VinayNair08 Yes but it was based on pictures of the "Mad One" and not on measurements or aero claims by Trek.
@@jochenkraus7016 boy he said “weight”, that’s BS that’s my point, normally the aero bikes are heavier, then his comment on weight drag is pure BS and yes some shapes are more aero even having a larger area but the optimization is done vs the air flow around the shape and the additional weight is added because the larger form or shape but weight in reality has nothing to do with aerodynamics unless the drag is drastically augmented by the weight increase.
F1 cars are not all porpoising. Only when they run them low.
Yep, there was a lot of cringe in the acting in this lol
TREK BIKES ARE JUST LIKE ZARA CLOTHES. THEY ARE ONLY FASHION DESING AND NOTHING MORE.
Remember this bike will be a FAR different experience for a pro riding a long flat-ish 100 miles at 26mph and 300 watts than you or me doing 19mph for 20 miles at 190
It will quietly disappear by next year.