Aero Frame Or Aero Wheels | Which Makes You Faster?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- Lightweight vs Aero is a question the cycling industry can't seem to agree on when it comes to bike tech. Wheels and frames are two of the most important factors when it comes to these two specialisations, but which combination is best? We do some GCN Tech science, swapping aero and lightweight wheels between aero and lightweight frames, to see which combination is fastest and the results may surprise you.
Vote in the poll on the GCN app: app.globalcyclingnetwork.com/...
Subscribe to GCN+ for cycling as you have never seen it before! Live racing, shows & cycling adventure films: gcn.eu/plus
Subscribe: gcntech.co/subscribetogcntech
The GCN Shop: gcn.eu/58t
#Cycling #GCN #GCNTech #RoadBike
Which combination did you think would be fastest?
If you enjoyed this video, make sure to give it a thumbs up and share it with your friends. 👍
Watch more on GCN Tech...
📹 Time Trial Super Bike VS Budget TT Bike | GCN Tech's Aero Showdown - gcn.eu/AeroShowdown
Music - licensed by Epidemic Sound:
ES_Spinning the Wheels - Dusty Decks
ES_Streetlight Jam - The New Fools
ES_This 808 Kills Fascists - Bonkers Beat Club.mp3
ES_Leaving No One Behind - Christian Andersen.mp3
ES_Outbreak - Fasion.mp3
Photos: © Velo Collection (TDW) / Getty Images & © Bettiniphoto / www.bettiniphoto.net/
Brought to you by the world’s biggest cycling channel, the Global Cycling Network (GCN), GCN Tech is the only channel you need for all things bike tech - past, present and future.
Simply put, we’re obsessed with tech: we seek out and showcase the best in bikes, components, tech, accessories, upgrades and more from races and events, tech shows and product launches across the globe to bring you the best in road bike technology.
We’ve also got great maintenance videos to help you get the most from your bike; pro-bike tours from all the biggest races; special features and the weekly GCN Tech Show. We also take a deeper look into the future of cycling, apps, smart tech and virtual riding.
Join us on the channel and the GCN App to submit your content, vote on the latest tech and keep abreast of exciting new trends.
GCN Japan: gcn.eu/subscribe-gcn-japan
GCN Italia: gcn.eu/GCN-Italia
Suscribirse a GCN en Español: gcn.eu/Suscribirse
Facebook - gcntech.co/gcntechfb
Instagram - gcntech.co/gcntechinsta
Twitter - gcntech.co/gcntechtweet - Sport
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
Which combination did you think would be fastest?
40mm deep wheels are not "light weight" regardless of their weight. They're still a deep section wheel. I think l speak for everyone when l say you should've used 25mm wheels for the "light weight" wheels.
So effectively it came down too four season tires on a aero 808 negate all aero gains of this wheelset.... and therefore swapping 808s was always a negative...
Which ever combination Ollie isn't riding. ;)
WWCFS?
Wheels
"Even the best wheels in the world may only be as good as the tyres you fit onto them"
Well now I would really like to see a test of expensive wheels with cheap tyres versus cheap wheels and expensive tyres.
Good idea!
@@gcntech yes! And use the 105% rule on the shallow rims. Go a couple of mm over on the deep section wheels. In real world conditions i feel tire interface plays a bigger role than ppl think. Especially when it come to speed and stability.
kenda standard tyres against the Conti GP5000
yea and make the spectrum of the wheel range as wide as possible, as in, the cheap wheel is the one with 32 spokes front and back(those that came standard with entry level bikes and claris groupset), vs the unicorn level of aftermarket wheels.
But make it proper cheap.... not some $1,000 "cheap" wheelset... a proper sub-$250 shallow section OEM wheelset
Those "shallow" rims are deeper than any I've ever owned 😂
me too haha, i run 14s
I know right 😂😂😂 They've totally lost touch with average Joe cyclists honestly
@@ap5194 they should have had three wheel. The two they have and some proper shallow wheels
Cash matters
@@supernoodles908 exactly 😂 shallow wheels to me are halfords carrera 30 quid steel wheels. To them shallow wheels are 1500 quid tubular mavic cosmic 45mm carbon fibre aero wheels
The lightweight frame with the aero wheels looks the coolest. And that’s by far the most important thing.
303s are still aero wheels... More aero than any of my wheels.
No more aero and only a little lighter than my Campy Sirocco wheels that rim brakes almost as well as disks.
How about some open pros...
Yeah 303FCs are incredibly aero. They match or outperform most generic 50mm wheels and are only fractionally slower than the 404FC. TT or tri, sure, get the 404 or 808 (or the Reynolds counterparts). But if you wanted just a single set of wheels to do literally everything, the 303FC is a strong contender for the most well rounded wheelset on the market.
Concur!
Recommend an additional person to act as a “control” with constant setup to quantify environmental changes. You can then bias you numbers by percentage difference of the control. Just a thought.
And do the loop at least 3 times to get average values. And have GCN Spain/Italy do the same test in nice weather to exclude some rain/wind effects.
Guys. Very few people have “shallow” rims that deep. It would be nice if you didn’t try to please your sponsors by advertising expensive wheels and instead did a test that mattered. Shimano C24 would be a great lightweight wheel set.
I think this is the best of both worlds. Supporting GCN with sponsor but not creating bias because their comparing from the same brand. Good job gcn
In this instance we used the shallowest wheels we had. Procurement of things isnt always as easy as you might think, especially when we are trying to turn the video around in a limited time frame. hope you understand. We are sponsored by shimano too.
Shimano RS100 would be even better.
The fact that people complain about free content still amazes me. 😂
"not please the sponsors" That's how they make money mate!! 😂
I'd have to call this test a a Bodge Let's see it again
definite bodge
Agree, pointless, why even publish it?
Be kind rewind
Need a not so sponsored one
So basically the results are completely invalid?
I love the channel but I have to say the methodology used in their testing is almost always flawed, insufficient in terms of sample size, or biased in one way or another. I love watching the videos and find it very entertaining, but I very rarely have any confidence in any of the conclusions given.
They are as valid as any other of the 'scientific' tests that GCN has ever done. Which is odd, considering at least a couple of the presenters have been actual scientists, including Ollie! It's entertainment, not research. You can hear the hesitancy in his voice when he talks about testing protocols... clearly he knows that none of this is scientific.
Yes
@@JordanNeenan Its for entertainment purposes mostly. The manufacturers know the answers, but they will never tell us. So this is all we have.
@@semarks GCN has big budget. If they put extra money into the production for the sake of scientific, I believe it will get more views. This is GCN tech anyway.
They lacking the scientific stuff lately, I know it's for entertainment but average joe like me simply couldn't do my own experiment to get the answers.
The plot of this video is exactly like your average scientific paper. First, a lot of introductory blabla, then some methods and quickly over to the results. Subsequently in the discussion it is admitted that, although the results are interesting, the authors have no idea how to explain them, that the experiment was flawed and that more research is needed. Classic!
Exactly. Just a show to make more vids and buzz, instead of providing clear results which are clear even before the test.
How's the seatpost on the new Aeroad 😂😂
hambini told us about how bad it is
See what you did there chief.
Hush hush 🤫
#GCNTech AERO, AERO, AERO! Subsequently tubeless is also blazing fast! I'm on an Aeroad, with deep wheels and tubeless tires. Perhaps Ollie needs the Aeroad to chase Si?
@@zzhughesd 😂
A lightweight bike with aero wheels just looks so cool. Kinda reminds me of a Cannondale caad.
yeah right
Can't say the oposit though
Yup. The Caad 10
It's the one I'd pick from the 2 if I could choose. But if I could have any of the presenters bikes I'd go for Jeremys off road Pinerello, love the colour and the entire build.
Disagree. Just looks weird. Aero wheels need a thick frame.
40mm wheels aren't "lightweight" wheels, maybe relatively compared to the 80mm. A real lightweight set would be for example, DA 9000/9100 C24. All you've proven in this test is that super deep rims aren't practical all rounder wheels, and would probably only be better in flat/descent with calm weather. 40mm wheels are all rounder wheels, both aero and relatively light.
The 303 Firecrest are extremely lightweight. Well under 1400 grams IIRC.
I wouldn't call 40mm rims aero, although yes they are deeper than box section rims, the aero effect is tiny. I go by 50mm+ being somewhat aero with good heavy crosswind stability, and 60mm being the perfect aero/all rounder and 80 being the full on aero.
@@freebird61885 irrelevant, the test is supposed to be "aero or lightweight" comparing two aero rims, one of which is a little lighter is not good enough. The fact they used different tyres, tubular/tubeless in different sizes too just goes to show the clownery that takes the place of actual testing at GCN. The results are irrelevant if you don't test properly.
@Treez 93 40mm don't really have any aero benefit whatsoever, a 40mm (ENVE 3.4) is about 25 watts slower than a 50mm wheel, 29 watts slower than 60mm, and a huge 38 watts slower than an 80mm wheel at 50km/h.
At 40mm and shallower all of the wheels perform very badly, but the watt saving increases massively once you get to 50mm and then the difference gets smaller between 50-60-80. This is because where the tyre meets the rim there is a lip which trips the wind and it disconnects from the rim, after about 30-40mm the wind re-attaches to the rim. If you use a 30 or 40mm rim, the wind will not re-attach and the aero saving is negligible. With a 50mm+ the wind will re-attach. A 40mm rim is not an aero wheel and is only really useful for weight reduction, even LIGHTWEIGHT Milensteins are 47.5mm deep. Perhaps the specific brand of wheel they used in the video is not the lightest rim but it is not because of the 40mm depth.
Rim brakes when they were an option on the Canyon Aerode save a lot of weight. The ultegra mechanical version with rim brakes was lighter than the Dura-ace mechanical version with disc brakes that cost over $2k less.
Very interesting results, wasn't expecting that (as you say), but at least you were honest with the different tyre choices. Looking forward to the revised test on same tyres.
Olly says: "On the descent the aero bike is significantly quicker..." That statement seems to contradict the results though. Did you display the data correctly in the graphic? Both of Alex's times on the light bike (1:31, 1:37) were faster than on the aero bike (1:40, 1:42) for the descent, and one of those light bike times even matched Olly's fastest aero bike/aero wheels time (1:31).
I noticed this, too. Sus.
GCN aka the marketing channel
Alex liked the way the light bike felt when climbing and accidentally went harder. Basically his results are invalid because the power was inconsistent.
That’s what I thought...
Thanks for reaffirming my theory. I did the same test where I modified my TT bike for climbing and test it against multiple road bikes that I 've own on the same hill and on the 1st go I shaved 1min off from 6.6km at 6% avg gradient when using my TT bike with lightweight wheels.
You said the aero bike is ‘significantly quicker’ on the descent, but both all-Aero times were 3s slower than light/aero and Alex’s aero/light time was 11s slower than all-light. And, with aero wheels on, Oli’s descent times were the same with both bikes.
Looks to me like in the majority of cases, the light bike was faster down the descent than the aero bike.
Yes, they can't even read their own numbers correctly. A bit of a waste of time watching this video.
Yeah imho i don't get real differences out of the numbers so for my sake I'd say if weather conditions are't perfect and you ride a bit of a flat/hilly mix it's really mainly up to your personal performance instead of how perfect the set up is
I'm confused too. Thanks!
Yeah, I was thinking to myself, "Am I reading the same numbers they are?"
Interesting test! I'm a fan of lightweight because I live in NYC and have to carry my bike up and down stairs 🤣
Salute to you
How's your BMI? 👀😁
I recently test rode a Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL-7 and an S-Works Aethos on different courses, but ones I’ve done numerous times. I got prs with the SL-7 riding uphill, and prs with the Aethos going downhill, with no prs on the flats, the opposite of what I expected. I plan to do another test in the spring. I spoke with a few Specialized people, and the trick setup (which they have on their own bikes) is the Tarmac with the shallower Aethos wheels (33/33 vs 51/60mm depths), similar to what you found.
Note: I rode 15 miles on each bike, at a much lower power (my ftp is maybe 210 watts), averaging about 15mph.
Well done on informing us of the entire test and the differences discovered later. There were some interesting findings wrt the tyre spec., width, compound etc. Which, when combined with the variables (road surface, weather, etc) helped me to appreciate the importance of the stuff that's in contact with the road. Great video. 👍
So I’ve watched this to the end to find out you need to do it all again with the same tyres😢
First ever thumbs down from me. And some of the 'conclusions' they DO manage to draw from flawed testing aren't correct anyway. Ollie was basically the same speed on 3 of the descents. How that proves the 82mm faster is beyond me. Even though we kinda know it is, so again, test flawed.
The light weight wheels you used are still deeper than typical wheels and are fairly aerodynamic. Better to have used a lighter alloy rimmed wheels for comparison.
Man ... you guys really are the "Global" cycling network. I coming back from an 80 km spin along the Arakawa this morning (a popular training spot for serious cyclists in Tokyo, Japan) and saw a guy wearing full GCN kit coming the other way. He was going at a fair clip, too.
Loved it! I was sort of wondering about tire pressure as you performed the 'experiment'. I also like that you are using real world conditions also. Every time I see those deep deep wheels on a road bike I think of wind currents and crosswinds. So glad you mentioned it when riding. The HIVE considers this a fun vid.
Love this techie stuff. Would be real interested to see the results using one type of tire. Well done guys.
Regardless of the results, a lightweight bike with deep wheels always looks the best. 😎🤙
I like the way this was done.
First, you tried to eliminate variables by swapping out the wheels and the riders between the two bikes. Second, you aimed to maintain a constant output power throughout the test.
The best bit, though, was when you recognised that there were shortcomings in the way you were comparing the two wheel types. You shared these shortcomings and committed to repeating the test more rigorously.
On this basis, you're doing real science.
great job guys! Oliie, I've been enjoying your experiment videos since your CW days~
I no longer care about the comparisons, I just love watching the GCN presenters do stuff and ride!
How's that AEROAD seatpost holding up?
Hi GCN, would you able to conduct this test again. I think this test needs another try. Hope you could have this soon.
I think rolling resistance added a significant variable in the test. I've been riding on the new 2021 Zipp 303 firecrest and it goes over the rough surface like butter.
I still ride with inner tubes. And when are you guys going to do 4 vs 1 the rematch?
So conclusion, non of it really matters, just go out and ride?!
Your legs and lungs is that what really matters.
@@michadebicki6534 the heart is more important than the lungs
Very interesting GCN this was a cracking project to demonstrate so many unanswered questions. I can'r wait for the part two.
This is excellent, so much better when things go wrong... Keep it up fellas
That Ultimate/Zipp 808 combo looks incredible!
More I watch GCN, the more I realize how bad the testing is on these videos
I would disagree. If you make tests too clinical you loose the context and how much the different setups affect the actual ride. For instance one question unanswered is did they feel the suppleness of the wider tire on the rougher tarmac?
@@sssxxxttt Is using the same tyresystem and identical pressure too clinical?
There wont be good testing till Boston Dynamics teaches spot to ride
Exactly :)))
@@guidospanoghe8896 No, I agree, but they did mention this themselves and promised to do a rerun. I'm happy not having to ride up these hills in the rain to satisfy somebody else than myself.
Love these types of content. Great work guys!
Oh.... GCN.... you nailed it, again. I had wanted this comparison for a long time. My ball park guess was.... in the order of aerodynamic importance; 1. body position (aero bars) 2. aero wheels (the deeper the better) 3. aero helmet 4. aero tubings (frame)
The exposed cables on the front of the "lightweight" Ultimate CFR must add some aerodynamic drag, I should think.
2:00 in and already seen a massive problem! The deep wheels are the winter tyres and the shallow ones have the tubeless sl tyre! What do you think is going to happen 🤣🙄🤣
Interesting video. In addition to getting the tires right on the next run would love to see you mix in a zipp 454 and a 303 front 808 rear combo. I would guess that in a windtunnel you would only see 2-4w difference between the 303 and 808 anyway at the speeds they are ridden in the video (i am predicting that you come out with fairly inconclusive results as the 303 is allegedly pretty aero already) but would love to hear more about how they handle vs the speed differences.
Thanks for testing this, very interesting. Next time you test it, could you elaborate on the "feel" also?
Like Alex said, the CFR seemed to feel a lot better when standing up. From my limited experience, I had the first generation scott foil and it felt like riding a 2x4 when standing up. I gained 45 seconds on a climb overnight and I could push a lot easier above 6-7% just by changing to a BMC SLR02
Thanks for the transparency with the flaws/oversight in your testing and for the determination to do it right on the next go. However, consider making a few more changes than simply being consistent with your tires in the 2nd round of testing:
Your "shallow" 40mm Zipps are more aero than a significant portion of your viewers have ever had. Yes, yes, they are objectively shallower than the 80+mm Zipps, but those are ridiculous. Apart from TT nerds(love), no one with more sense than money would buy those at ANY price. I get you are simply using the kit your sponsors have provided, and you've "gotta pay the bills." Want to relate to more cyclists though? Balance your obligations to your sponsors with how you would spend your own money, and use kit that's relevant to your audience.
Limiting shallow wheel to no more than 30mm.
Limit aero wheel depth to ~60mm.
Keep one rider's power at average Joe levels (kudos to Alex for doing this on the first go).
Use a longer loop course in a lower traffic area for more clarity in your results.
Let's say I have 1K GBP/Euros/Dollars to spend and I'm looking to upgrade. I can get either an entry aero frameset and swap my current components over or I can get a set of aero wheels if I shop smart. The same argument holds up at higher costs. I love epic days in the saddle...what's going to leave me with the most in my tank when I'm nearing the end of the ride and suddenly face a cross-headwind? The frame or the wheels? Help me decide.
GCN always films outside my house but how do I never see them? Crazy
Because they were fast
Glad to hear your going to redo the test.
Another variable to consider is the difference between the two power meters. It would be good to compare them both to a common source, like a smart trainer or power pedals.
The difference was a couple of seconds after all that. The moral of the story: just ride what you have and stop wonder "if".
But... your advice doesn't promote buying more stuff. What sponsor is going to pay for that?
Schoolboy error on the tyres lads. But a great and intriguing video! I’ve had the very dilemma on my recent bike purchase.... I went light bike with aero wheels! That ultimate CFR looks the dogs dangalies!!
Definitely hanging on for the follow up
Please do more of these kind of videos!
Regardless of being faster/slower, I just looove the look of that lightweight frame with aero wheels.
Takeaway: Buy the best tubeless tyres you can afford, in 28c, pumped up to a moderate PSI.
Here is the trick, I have the 28c tubeless tires on a 55 rims. The feeling is so slushy that it takes my motivation out making me in the end to be slower. Motivation is strong key and sometimes (not in a race but in training) makes someone fast. Cheers
25c
@@kalamarusffm I thought the faster low profile wheels (303) wore 28 c tires...
@@phoebetan7519 I stopped watching the video when they showed the results. But the only thing you could say is that the tire always has to be smaller in diameter than the rim. As tires are normally a lot wider in reality than claimed by manufactures, the 25c tires will pop up to 26-27mm on a 19-21cm rim. Outside of the rim needs to be 28mm then to be perfectly aero. Apart from that Zipps aren't that aero anyways; especially that cuntish dimple versions that do literally nothing...
@@kalamarusffm Yeah, that's why I'm curious whether these results are largely a result of this -- if I Googled things correctly it would appear the 303 has a 30mm external and 808 a 26mm external width. So with 28mm and 25mm tires respectively maybe the 808 violated this rule and thus was slower.
Loving the banter between these two mates
Good stuff. Glad you noticed the tyres but still an interesting test of aero vs light frame
Norcal cycling did this experiment as well
And better
@@hoshszn4736 what did he say
@@theinstigatorr he made a video on it
You should just test the wheels on an e-bike in a velodrome and be done with it.
Need to do this in the summer and try deep rear and shallow front wheel! Also correcting your errors 🤦🏻♂️great vid
Def makes sense, let's do it again boys... Seen this when you guys first put it out, really want to see the follow up...
This is the only video where Ollie drops another GCN Presenter. (And only because Alex had to maintain his watts).
Before watching my prediction
Fastest: bike w/ Alex on it
Slowest: bike with Ollie on it
YES I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS COMPARISON!!!!!!!
Control or compensate for all known variables, gentlemen. Your honesty is appreciated and I'm looking forward to the rerun.
This experiment is heaven on earth for Ollie.
way to go guys, even botched experiments become full feature video's... don't think I can get away with that at work.
Most science works this way. This experiement still worked, in that it gave us results and information.
@@oliverbridgewood3929 - Hi Oliver, As a UX designer, I know all about failure and repeated tests to figure out the exact configurations of features, but until there is a working product, there is no way you can launch software. (You can change and improve indefinitely)
Look at it from the consumers point of view:
I now need to watch two video’s with the same test to know the conclusions. Except for the entertainment value that’s one wasted effort.
I understand the predicament of having to fill a schedule, but science does not care about schedules.
Next to that, if one publishes a paper to Nature or something with invalid methods it won’t be accepted, because the effort of picking the results apart for the science community would be fruitless.
(No hard feelings dude, I love your work and you and your team are performing on a very high level - just couldn’t let it slide in this case)
(on a side note, it’s getting harder to distinguish sponsored content these days...)
#amn, harsh. Even though these guys were at "work".
... videos* (plural, no apostrophe)
I have a challenge/question review suggestion. Which is “faster”, a shaved face or slightly stubbled? And, if the stubbled face, then what’s the optimal stubble length? This question comes by way of considering the latest concepts in aero of creating an air pillow on the leading faces, ala Zipp’s dimpled rim concept and the use of matte paint vs gloss finish on the frontal surfaces to “glue” an air cushion to the forward faces. Finally, given that the rider is the biggest aero wall, when a rider’s in full aero position, what percentage of “wall” is the face to the rest of the body. And finally, why aren’t kits designed more/better with these surface considerations in mind. I’m reminded of all the development Nike et al put into runners and swimmers wear, or are the gains so negligible it’s really all mute and instead these are much more about creating fashion trends? Go! Grazi mille!
Looking forward to the retest. Although, in my opinion 40mm deep wheels are hardly shallow. It would be useful to add a third set of even shallower wheels to the test.
06:40 Froome was right
Groomer just stated everything that was already known. He's the first pro to not butter up his sponsors which was nice to hear.
Froome doesnt have to race with traffic around him. And these guys had rain and cold weather. We’ll see how froome performs in 2021.
To be noted that SRAM indicates on their site that the wheels 303 Firecrest should not be setup with 28mm wide tires (for most tire brands)
This was one of the most interesting videos I've seen on GCN. When do we get to se the second attempt on this?
So basically if I ride a normal bike with normal wheels I’ll land somewhere in the middle 👍
Pretty inconclusive. Why don’t you just use a light and deep wheel, that are about equally wide (in and out) and both use the same construction (both hookless or both hooked). Then you can use the same tires, tubes and pump them up to the same pressure. Also, during the runs it would make sense to not be talking, moving around etc. but try to minimize movement on the bike to make the tests as comparable as possible.
also the traffic will mess with marginal results actually there is too much variable that this video shows only flawed testing by GCN 😀
Looking forward to the follow up.
Great stuff GCN!
The outcome of the experiment is that these differences are too small to care about.
good excuse for a ride though, in the name of working
AERO AERO AERO looks cool though
The outcome of this experiment is that the bike sponsor got a shitload of screentime.
so the results are inconclusive?
Or you could say: if I'm not competing it doesn't matter much (unless we speak esthetics, said without disaproval). I would even say, don't go for deep section wheels unless it's a time trial, especially not on the front
Following up on the retest for this GCNTech
I had a sneaking suspicion the lightweight wheel was going to be the winner, it seems that the tire to rim interface is more important from an aero perspective than deep vs shallow cross section. would be interesting to compare some of the quiver killer frames out there like the Pinarello F12 that do lightweight and aero in the same frame. Though Canyon says the new Aeroad is supposed to be a lightweight aero frame, then you get the new Giant TCR which is supposed to be a aero-ish lightweight frame.
It doesn’t matter to me how cheap the wheels are, I’ll always be rolling in the best possible rubber.
yep, regardless of the bike I never skimp on the tire :)
Short answer, doesn't matter if you are gonna get dropped..
That editing though! Vid is mint 👌🏽
#AskGCNTech Appreciate the callout to aero vs. rolling resistance! But how much does the tire vs. external rim width (i.e., the "Rule of 105") play into this?
I recently got a mid-depth wheelset with the same 30mm external width as the Zipp 303, so I'm curious how 28mm tires get on with it, or if 25mm tires (expanding to 28mm) would be better optimized. Makes me wonder: if the 25mm tires on the Zipp 808 expanded beyond the 26mm external width, might the aero gains have been negated, especially at the higher yaw angles brought on by the windy conditions?
Still, after seeing you tease this video for weeks, glad to see at least Round 1 of the results!
this test was kinda uselesss, you tell us in the end that you used two different tyres and sizes and one system was tubeless. I was really interested in the results but that's kind of lame. I'd like to see a refresh of this video with only tubeless tyres, the same size and the same tyre model, weather conditions should be a bit better.
PS: 40mm is not a shallow rim depth, my DT Swiss are around 20mm deep, that's more of a shallow wheelset and depth most riders are using with a standard road bike.
Good thing about the Aeroad: It gets lighter every single ride, several grams shaved off the seatpost :)
Dr. B., for a “Scientific” experiment, you kinda forgot to remove as many variables as possible. But I love the video! Best part is Alex lifting the lightweight bike with the expression of “Are you for real with this!” Can’t wait for the follow up. But, get some pure climbing wheels next time. 🤣🤣🤣
I wonder how much the massive weight difference in wheels made as well? Around 500 grams is a lot. I just got some new 303S “aero” wheels (and 28c TL tires), and lost around 600 grams from the shallow heavyweights... perhaps there is a happy medium? A truly shallow (non aero) wheel (I think the Firecrest is still considered aero) vs a deep aero wheel with similar weights to more pronounce the “aero ness” difference? Good call on the tires as well, very keen to see same tire/size test as well!
”They have no jurisdiction here"
"Near , far... Whatever you are..."
But seriously, great work. It highlights the importance of knowing your course over what bike you have.
these are always fun, but yeah in terms of results, controlling variables and "the winner" I think we all know this is mainly for entertainment. but it does make me want to try some tubeless pirelli P-zero this summer.
In this case, any winner would come from the very same bike company that sponsored this video.
Has anyone any information as to whether tubeless are noticeably better against punctures on the road? I’m thinking thorns and the like. It has been a real pain for me this year.
So what tubeless combo would you suggest for my Caad 12/105 rim. I was just gifted a pair of the Reynolds AR 41 wheels and am running Vittoria Rubino Pro 2 clinchers with tubes. I live in Miami and like the grip and puncture resistance of my current set up but have been looking into Tubeless. Mack Cycle, my local bike shop carries the Conti 5000, the Pirelli line and the Vittorias in tubeless. I rode 6800 mostly flat miles last year and am going for 7500. What tire width, tire,sealant etc would you suggest. I’m a 6 foot 100 kilo, 62 year old.
Aero-plane faster than all
I pride myself on being able to count, but do have off days, so I'll wait to be corrected. "Significantly quicker speeds for aero" on the descent? The only major time difference was Alex going faster completely non-aero, and you being consistently the same apart from non-aero.
Remember: Weight x Speed = Momentum...
Momentum = Carry through dead spots...
Finding that right balance of speed & weight
of any design changes should be measured
in OVERALL momentum. Imho.....
Thoroughly appreciate the GCN Tech's
perspective & value in their programming
efforts/directions. Thanks....
As I see it the lightweight rim has high profile. 40 mm already start be quite aero. I self use 50 mm aero wheel set and only notice big difference downhill or when I ride in high sprint effort. The difference I feel then is that is easier keep the higher speed a longer time. In climb or long distance speed I not feel the difference but I hear it :).
Just imagine how fast a rim brake bike would have been
Not enough to bother
Your „shallow“ wheels are actually deeper than everything I used before. Why not use a classic wheel set fot the test?
Nice video! Although that thing about the flat section being a rougher surface is nonsense. I happen to live near bannerdown hill and it was resurfaced about a year ago so is really nice.
great ending to this vid. discussing lot of relevant variables.