I like it, No Saddle Bag and Increased Aero

[HLaB]

Was just about to say, it looks like an e-bike!

Iam glad its not just me, that bike screams e'bike and not even a very pretty one

 

[Twilkes]

I've seen some folk put a water bottle in that position, e.g. those who need to carry extra water bottles or have a frame too small to fit two bottles within the main triangle. It's a neat place to store something, but I'd be even less tempted by a water bottle than this storage box due to the muck flinging off the front wheel!

 

[tyred]

What a hideous looking bike

 

[cougie uk]

It's a nice idea but not one for me and if this became widespread I'd hope it would be an option rather than a standard.

My two objections are aesthetics and positioning. It's plain ugly. The Orbea clearly can't take mudguards so if one needs to access the box it's quite likely to be covered in crap. Not really the best start to fixing a flat.

Your tyres would also be covered in crap too. This isn't going to be a winter bike anyway.

 

[marzjennings]

I haven't needed a saddle bag in years as Specialized provide space for cargo in the downtube.

Room for tools, almost a full size pump, and tube, and it seems eggs.

 

[Ian H]

Well. if I'm time-trialling I won't want any luggage. If I'm on a leisure ride then I'll want any luggage at a convenient height and away from road-dirt. And if I'm riding a long way then I'll want more capacity than something like that offers.
Also, if the saddle-bag is no wider than me, it's as likely to aid as hinder aerodynamic efficiency.

 

[freiston]

I don't like it. Firstly, it's fugly.

On a more personal note, it's a bike designed for a purpose that is completely irrelevent to me and is not suitable for me at all - no proper luggage carrying ability, no mudguards, it looks bloody uncomfortable and no where near low-geared enough for me. Any aerodynamic benefit would be lost on me too, I reckon.

Plus, I really like the look of a Carradice Longflap on the back of a bike - to me, that is a thing of beauty

 

[PaulSB]

Your tyres would also be covered in crap too. This isn't going to be a winter bike anyway.

Tyres are constantly cleaned through contact with the road.
Clearly not a winter bike but up here one would have to be 100% dedicated fairweather cyclist to avoid road crap.

I've seen guys ride home in tears on £10k Pinarellos when we got caught out by a muck spreader.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

All these aero bikes are starting to look the same.

A bit like boring modern cars then....

 

[Sittingduck]

Doesn't look great

 

[dodgy]

You only start to save watts when holding a speed that most on here can’t hold for very long.
I’m sure some of the over weight super taxed will love it still.

You’d think that, wouldn’t you. But the counterintuitive truth is that aero features give an even greater benefit for slower riders and there is convincing data to back it up. Basically it boils down to slower riders being out on the course for longer so have more time for the gains to accumulate.
Of course in absolute terms faster is better for aero gains.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I've seen guys ride home in tears on £10k Pinarellos when we got caught out by a muck spreader.

I'd be in tears as well, if I witnessed that happen. Laughter ones of course.

 

[matticus]

You’d think that, wouldn’t you. But the counterintuitive truth is that aero features give an even greater benefit for slower riders and there is convincing data to back it up. Basically it boils down to slower riders being out on the course for longer so have more time for the gains to accumulate.
Of course in absolute terms faster is better for aero gains.

So if you're doing a 1h, 12h or 24h (just for examples), this doesn't apply. Right?

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Less drag is less drag, no matter how large or small or fast or slow the rider is. If the drag reduction is greater than any bike weight penalty then the rider will be slightly quicker or be able to maintain the same speed with less effort input. Whether this stuff actually matter enough to worry about in the real world is the question.
I think aero road bikes are pig ugly eyesores so I wouldn't ride one anyway for that reason.

 

[Dogtrousers]

You’d think that, wouldn’t you. But the counterintuitive truth is that aero features give an even greater benefit for slower riders and there is convincing data to back it up. Basically it boils down to slower riders being out on the course for longer so have more time for the gains to accumulate.
Of course in absolute terms faster is better for aero gains.

Hmmm. Using stupid made up figures to make the maths easy...

So a pro is out on the course for, say 30 min on an un-aero bike. They're going really fast so they get a 10% benefit on the aero bike. So the pro gets a 3 minute saving
I'm out on the course for 60min. I'm going slower so I don't get so much benefit. I only get (say) 6%. So I get a 3.6 minute saving. More than the pro! Go me!

So I'd be getting a healthy absolute benefit in terms of minutes saved. But it's still a dwindling percentage. Those 3.6 min would be enough to give me a win if I was in a competition with a bunch of other similar old unfit duffers. But as it's a small percentage, if one of my competitor duffers decided to be unsportsmanlike and did a bit of training to get fitter than me they could quite easily negate my advantage.

Or am I missing the point completely?