Wind tunnel test: 80s & 90s bikes vs a current aero machine
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- How much faster is a present-day aero bike that a race bike from 1982 or 1992? We took a Gitane Profile and a LeMond TVT into the ARC wind tunnel and measured them against a 2022 Cervélo S5.
Related wind tunnel video:
Bars vs Rims, the gravel bike test • Which is faster for gr...
-
The Ride is supported in 2024 by:
Castelli clothing: tinyurl.com/43k...
Giro helmets: tinyurl.com/72s...
Silca maintenance: bit.ly/47xxvzj (save 10% with code 'theride')
First Endurance nutrition: bit.ly/41SDgqq (save 20% with code 'THERIDE')
Shimano shoes & glasses: tinyurl.com/ye2...
Feedback Sports stands & tools: bit.ly/3S9Dq8r
Lemons bars contribute extra drag compared to the other bikes! Also, they can put the rider in a more aerodynamic position! Lower drag with a rider aboard?
It's a shame that lemon bars never caught on. Would make mid-ride refuelling a lot easier for sure.
You should do a drag test of 80s and 90s hair styles as well.
past a certain age it cancels out 😅
Lemonds bike is iconic. Sad to admit my bike collection doesn’t have those campagnolo brakes
I average 47=50kph most training rides so this data definitely applied to me. Ive found the rim brake bikes under 7kg are fastest over all in road race situations.
still there is bike i would like more than one of those TvT lemonds, just perfection. and i bet if you got rid of the scott drop ins and put some 16 spoke wheels on it there would no difference compared to the cervelo
This test is so interesting, thanks for sharing it Ben. It shows that the aero gains from bike frame improvements (in non-competitive riding) has been small over the past 40 years, most of the improvements are likely related to wheels and bars. The improvements must have been negligible over the past 10 years and the difference between contemporary "aero" and "climbing" frames is likely almost non-existent. No wonder the bike industry has stopped quantifying aero gains in watts or % and moved to less transparent statements such as "16,6 seconds faster over 40 km at some unspecified speed".
Instead, they gave us internal-routed cables/hoses so we can be charged/spend hours of labor for routine maintenance. And the difference was quantified at 30 mph; I don't know about you, but I don't usually see 30 mph. Finally, I wonder if the differences can be observed with any consistency and/or with the same magnitude when you put a rider with spinning legs on the bikes. I suspect the whole is lesser than the sum of its parts, so to speak.
Interesting comparison. I enjoy anything comparing modern bikes to vintage. For 40+ years of aero bike development, the Cervelo isn't all that impressive compared to the '82 Gitane. Only 20 watts? Looking back ... damn, that bike was FAST! If this was a comparison based solely on aesthetics (i know it's not), I'll take the LeMond all day long.
Add aero profile rims and a lower spoke count to the LeMond, and replace the Scott handlebar with a more conventional shape, and add aero profile wheels to the Gitane, then most or all of that twenty watt difference will vanish.
EXACTLY ! Over a 5 hour race these bikes would 5 minutes faster on drag and another 5 minutes faster on rolling resistance. Add another 5 minutes for skin suits, helmets etc. That is only 15 minutes but the current riders are more than an hour faster than riders who were doped to the eyeballs on EPO, steroids and growth hormone. As someone who abused these substances as a young athlete I can guarantee you our modern riders are dirty as dirty can be because the aforementioned drugs make you literally twice as fast as opposed to the same you without them. Yet they want us to believe all the modern crop are clean but still faster than the doped riders of the past because of a few minutes gained through technical upgrades. We are all being lied to and we are way too eager to believe the lies.
I saw your Channel on latest Rhett Shull video and I got curious so I had to check 😆😅
Thanks for taking a peek. I just saw Rhett at The Mid South.
Did you purposefully measure the Gitane with the pedals to make the Cervelo look better? Once you changed out the Gitane wheels, the gap between the two would be much closer. The Lemond has a few inches of extra bars exposed. Thanks for the testing.
The Cervelo has way higher saddle height and the whole design is based around having a rider on
@@Shadowboost@Shadowboost, if you pause the video @ 4 seconds, you can see that it is not significantly higher. I think it appears that way because the top tube slopes down, whereas the traditional geometry does not. It's hard to tell, but the Gitane & Lemond look like they are at more of an angle away from the vehicle, while the Cervelo looks almost parallel. In any case, the aero post, even if it was slightly higher, is also much narrower.
@@rohcycling5646 no shit it is narrower, that's the design. Not to mention all the other things that take away S5 advantages. The whole stem design is to direct flow under the rider torso
@@Shadowboost@Shadowboost Tour magazine does a stand-up job with aero testing, but to your point, they only use a half model. Care to share your source so I can see the full picture? Also, I'm not the one taking these bikes to the wind tunnel with no dummy onboard. Take it up with the content creators if they are fudging the data.
@@rohcycling5646 S5 white paper is available with googling. They even show the CFD flow streamlines how it goes through the stem and along the toptube
This isn't a knock on you, Ben, I think it's an interesting comparison. But for the vast majority of riders (most of whom don't compete), 13k for a Cervelo S5 that might only save them 1 minute & 30 watts over their old classic steel bike on an hour long ride seems kind of absurd (to each their own, though). And that's at 30mph. Most people, even elites, aren't riding at 30mph when not competing other than on downhills or short periods while training. At slower average speeds, that savings would diminish if not completely vanish.
No offense taken! And for the record, I am not trying to sell you a Cervelo or any other bike. I just think it’s interesting to investigate differences - or whether any tangible difference exists at all.
@@TheRidewithBenDelaney My bad in using this medium. 😊 Didn’t mean to suggest u we’re trying to push a cervelo. It is interesting comparison. Just meant to share my interpretation of what the findings meant to me.
Afaik aerodynamics is actually more important in slightly slower riders (because of being on the course longer)
@@utube7930 Only if you're in a hurry to save 30 secs on your Sunday ride.
@@gregmorrison73201 minute per hour saved according to this
My bike is faster without me. Less drag, much less weight too.
💯👌
Rad!
So, not even close when testing just bikes, as a rider will make the differences by atleast half.
And if the Gitane had aero wheels, that's at minimum 15 watts at that test speed, and with an aero handlebar thay is another 7-8 watts. So the Gitane would test faster as far as aerodynamics go.
As a track racer from the 80's, nothing new. Roadies took quite a while to 'innovate ' .
Terrific
here's something I don't get, why do we talk about savings in terms of minutes per hour? An hour is an hour. You can gain distance over the same time, or less time over the same distance, or less power to go the same speed, but you can not gain a minute over an hour. It's as if the space-time continuum doesn't exist.
If you’re smart enough you can calculate distance off that time…
@@dgo14true, but completely misses the point.
Campy’s delta brakes were probably the worst product they ever made , including their ill fated attempt at a mountain bike group
Looked like the right-hand block didn't even reach the rim at 03:32 🤣 !
The bicycle is only 20% of the total aero drag but 100% of the marketing-maven mojo since that's what they're selling.
Same s__t, different day. Nothing better to do, Ben?
It's more Silca's marketing and Ben just did the reporting but yeah, what a scam of a test.
@@SurpriseMeJT But what is SILCA marketing that relates to this? But the thought of my formerly 60 minute ride taking me only 59 minutes IS tempting....not.
Sorry, but this must be completly wrong. The difference is way bigger.
I upgraded recently from a Trek Alpha alu bike (round tube profiles) to a Giant Propel aero bike and I'm averaging 3 to 4km/h more.
The Trek already had decent tyres and Tiagra. The new bike has Rival so it's not that that's making the difference. Position is the same between the two bikes.
No rider on the bike during the test? Bikes totally different sizes? That Cervelo saddle is flying off to the moon compared to the Gitane. Was Reynolds 531 not "aerospace tubing"? (Introduced in 1935) Hinault wasn't daft enough to ride tour mountain stages on that block. etc. What a garbage "test".
Damn, I was excited, but after reading your comment I clicked through the video and yes, it was just about the bike, not bike + rider 😐🤦♂️
I feel like this test is totally bodged, which is strange for Silca
That is how you isolate the bike frame. Cyclist on top is more drag, aero clothes and shaved legs matters more.
@@shimona500 cyclist has interactions with the frame. Frame only aero is meaningless. The S5 was designed with the rider torso, arms, back, and legs in mind
I ride a Fizik Aliante. Curvy saddle. Similar to what’s on the Cervelo. Just saying, it may look like it’s flying off to the moon but that’s the rightly set that way.
Tilt the nose further up and you can’t rotate your pelvis anymore, tilt it wayyyy nose down and you’ll get hand numbness.
Curvy saddles like Fizik Aliante and the one one the Cervelo S5 is not set and fitted the same way flat saddles and semi curved saddles do.
Gee, modern bikes are more aero. No $h!t Sherlock.
What he said about rolling resistance is nonsense. When tyres are inflated to the same amount of deflection for a given load (the same hardness), they have nominally the same rolling resistance. Also, there were many bikes from that era that weighed 15lbs or less.
No, they don't have the same resistance. Older tire construction is significantly slower, and narrow tires pumped to high pressure in the real world even with same tire construction are slower. "Nominally" is a trick word to avoid noting that tire construction has changed.
Thanks - interesting comparison. Based on that I’m guessing that my 2013 Specialized Roubaix running 32mm (just) and rim brakes wouldn’t be too far behind the Cervelo. No need for a new bike. For a 64yo who doesn’t race it’s marginal. And my 1998 Lemond steel may not be as slow as I thought.
Only about 30+ Watts slower with rider on
Now i really want to see the modernized components with retro frame and how close you can get. Funny because 20 watts could be an aero handlebar vs a round one
A loose jersey vs a skin suit
Aero bar to round is 12 watts. The thing is, the aero bike performs far greater with any yaw than these bikes
@@Shadowboost I'd assume they tested with yaw and the final figures are some sort of blended average...
@@proffate the yaw difference increases with rider on
20w sounds like a lot at 48km/h, but 1 minute over an hour is nothing. Nothing. Next to zero. Less than 2%? Not really substantial compared to a cost of gain of 500-1000%
Add aero profile wheels to the Gitane and the LeMond, swap the Scott handlebar for a conventional drop bar, and most of that twenty watt difference will vanish. What you’re paying for on a modern bike is more usable gears, faster grippier tires, and faster bearings in the hubs.
Wondering how much difference there would be if it was done with a rider on each one? Assuming you could replicate positions on them.
The difference would be even smaller.
lol damn, those differences are quantifiable, but just ain't all that much are they.
this stuff only really applies to high level racers.
Basically 21 watts difference between 1980’s to today. In my opinion not too much. I guess the difference would be greater if a canyon aeroad rim break would be tested compared to the 80’s
Tbf, that blue bike is quite unusual with it's hidden brakes, slightly aero tubes and cable going through the frame. But still, only 46w at 30mph to the Lemond is not what I was expecting!
@@BevandEdMusic The bars on the Lemond put the rider in an assumed lower drag position, but they wouldn't know since they didn't test the drag with a rider on the bike.
Put a mannequin on there, bikes don't ride themselves. Yes the "bike" is more aero, but what about the Total system?
Wow cool!! Yeah but hell of a lot more expensive too 🤪
If you wanna get a crazy number of views and new subs you need to get a madone slr gen 7 with the stem slammed and good fit for the rider then transfer same fit to the gen 8 madone and lets see the test. im willing to get the gen 7 is FASTER than the new one. not to mention much stiffer....
The Gen 7 *is* faster when you use the same bottles on both bikes.
Too bad the Gitane didn’t have the full Dura Ace AX group.
Stick a set of 10 year old 404s on there and tidy up the cockpit, cables and brakes -and you've got maybe 5W difference at 40 kph. Not very much. Give credit to the narrow steel tubing and some basic aero shaping.
Yeah, at 0 degree yaw with no rider, different fit positions, etc. what a shit test
Can you test at a normal human speed? Like 20mph?
I did my gravel gear test at 20mph. This was Silca's test so I was just an observer.
Wind tunnel tests are air speed, not ground speed i.e. 20mph could including a 10mph headwind= 30mph airspeed