What's it like to ride an aero bike compared to a normal road bike?

[SkipdiverJohn]

.........it is not simply about money. I think change is being driven by technology not disposable income.

Without the disposable income, there would be no money available to buy the latest technology. There's a lot of older club cyclists around these days, you only have to look at any group of weekend riders to see this. In one sense it's a good thing because it keeps people fit, but the only reason a lot of these riders can participate in the way they do is they are semi/fully retired, have investment or occupational pension income, have sold businesses etc. The MAMIL phenomenon is largely the manifestation of the post-war baby boomers with their own paid-for houses and generous work pensions giving them the freedom and financial clout to spend and consume in a way their own parent's generation couldn't, nor will their children's generation be likely to do - certainly not to the same degree. Enjoy it while it lasts - it's likely to be a one-off. The 35 year period from the end of WW2 until about 1980, when labour had it's highest ever share of GDP, is an aberration in the timeline of post industrial revolution capitalism, and unlikely to be repeated. It only ever happened because governments and capitalists both reached a consensus after the war that neither wanted either fascism of communism, so workers would have to be granted a bigger slice of the wealth pie to defuse radical politics. The post WW2 economic prosperity years were the result. and many of today's older still spending and consuming generation are the beneficiaries of those decades in their retirement..

 

[bladesman73]

Without the disposable income, there would be no money available to buy the latest technology. There's a lot of older club cyclists around these days, you only have to look at any group of weekend riders to see this. In one sense it's a good thing because it keeps people fit, but the only reason a lot of these riders can participate in the way they do is they are semi/fully retired, have investment or occupational pension income, have sold businesses etc. The MAMIL phenomenon is largely the manifestation of the post-war baby boomers with their own paid-for houses and generous work pensions giving them the freedom and financial clout to spend and consume in a way their own parent's generation couldn't, nor will their children's generation be likely to do - certainly not to the same degree. Enjoy it while it lasts - it's likely to be a one-off. The 35 year period from the end of WW2 until about 1980, when labour had it's highest ever share of GDP, is an aberration in the timeline of post industrial revolution capitalism, and unlikely to be repeated. It only ever happened because governments and capitalists both reached a consensus after the war that neither wanted either fascism of communism, so workers would have to be granted a bigger slice of the wealth pie to defuse radical politics. The post WW2 economic prosperity years were the result. and many of today's older still spending and consuming generation are the beneficiaries of those decades in their retirement..

Absolutely spot on. Disposable income at the levels 'the common man' saw during those post war years will not be seen again for a long time. The so called elite doesnt like giving significant economic power to the plebs, that's why it's been redacted over the past 30 odd years.

 

[Rocky]

Without the disposable income, there would be no money available to buy the latest technology. There's a lot of older club cyclists around these days, you only have to look at any group of weekend riders to see this. In one sense it's a good thing because it keeps people fit, but the only reason a lot of these riders can participate in the way they do is they are semi/fully retired, have investment or occupational pension income, have sold businesses etc. The MAMIL phenomenon is largely the manifestation of the post-war baby boomers with their own paid-for houses and generous work pensions giving them the freedom and financial clout to spend and consume in a way their own parent's generation couldn't, nor will their children's generation be likely to do - certainly not to the same degree. Enjoy it while it lasts - it's likely to be a one-off. The 35 year period from the end of WW2 until about 1980, when labour had it's highest ever share of GDP, is an aberration in the timeline of post industrial revolution capitalism, and unlikely to be repeated. It only ever happened because governments and capitalists both reached a consensus after the war that neither wanted either fascism of communism, so workers would have to be granted a bigger slice of the wealth pie to defuse radical politics. The post WW2 economic prosperity years were the result. and many of today's older still spending and consuming generation are the beneficiaries of those decades in their retirement..

I haven't a clue what you are on about here...........there has never been a time when people didn't have a disposable income. Just to remind you £50 in 1960 is worth approx £1,000 now. People in 1960 paid £50 for bikes. People in 2020 are happy to pay £1000 for a bike.

The thing that has driven change and choice is (i) innovation (ii) globalisation. People would have bought carbon framed TT bikes had they been available in 1960......it's just that they weren't. It is not all about politics.

 

[Rocky]

Absolutely spot on. Disposable income at the levels 'the common man' saw during those post war years will not be seen again for a long time. The so called elite doesnt like giving significant economic power to the plebs, that's why it's been redacted over the past 30 odd years.

But actually he's arguing the opposite to what you've said. He's saying that people were poor 50 years ago and couldn't afford expensive bikes...... so probably not spot on.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

People would have bought carbon framed TT bikes had they been available in 1960......it's just that they weren't. It is not all about politics.

Everything boils down to politics. The political environment influences the economic environment and vice-versa.
How much you are able and willing to spend depends on what you've got in your pocket, how secure and well rewarded your job is etc. Money was sometimes tight in the period you're talking about, but jobs were plentiful and unemployment low. The population that entered the workplace in those good years, and held down a steady pensionable job, could walk away 30 or 40 years later with half their salary to live on, plus their old age pension and any investments. You really can't over estimate the economic effect this has had in terms of the "grey pound".
Quite a few people I know from work who have since retired tell me they are actually better off in retirement than they ever were when of working age, because they've cleared their mortgage, they are no longer spending money on commuting, and they've got spare cash and plenty of free time to enjoy it.

 

[classic33]

Equally you could do a TT on a unicycle...........

Like this one from Wales?
View attachment 434736

 

[classic33]

Without the disposable income, there would be no money available to buy the latest technology. There's a lot of older club cyclists around these days, you only have to look at any group of weekend riders to see this. In one sense it's a good thing because it keeps people fit, but the only reason a lot of these riders can participate in the way they do is they are semi/fully retired, have investment or occupational pension income, have sold businesses etc. The MAMIL phenomenon is largely the manifestation of the post-war baby boomers with their own paid-for houses and generous work pensions giving them the freedom and financial clout to spend and consume in a way their own parent's generation couldn't, nor will their children's generation be likely to do - certainly not to the same degree. Enjoy it while it lasts - it's likely to be a one-off. The 35 year period from the end of WW2 until about 1980, when labour had it's highest ever share of GDP, is an aberration in the timeline of post industrial revolution capitalism, and unlikely to be repeated. It only ever happened because governments and capitalists both reached a consensus after the war that neither wanted either fascism of communism, so workers would have to be granted a bigger slice of the wealth pie to defuse radical politics. The post WW2 economic prosperity years were the result. and many of today's older still spending and consuming generation are the beneficiaries of those decades in their retirement..

The reasons for cycling has been the biggest change over the same period. Then cycling was an active means of travel, now it's viewed as a second class means of transport. Seldom would they have used the same bike for going to work as they would for racing at the weekend.

£30(approx) during the 40's wasn't to be laughed at when spent on a bike.

 

[Solocle]

As a poor student, I did my first TT... on a mountain bike. Slick 28mm tyres, but still a mountain bike.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Riding a recumbent is super comfy and great

 

[rivers]

My aero road bike isn't much different than a standard road bike. It might be slightly heavier than a similar sized carbon frame, but not by much. So it might climb a bit quicker, but I don't really enter hill climbs so I'm not worried. It's comfortable, stiff where it needs to be, and quite spritely. I've done everything from local club TTs to 200+ mile cross country in a day rides, to a bit of bikepacking. My TT bike on the other hand, is a completely different beast. It is made to go fast, plain and simple. I would not want to use it for anything besides a time trial (the exception being some road rides to tweak and get used to positioning).
With regards to the debate about the generation of people currently cycling- I'm an older milennial. I have 3 not low end bikes and a house (that will not be paid off anytime soon :-/). Most of the people I cycle with are older milennials and gen x. It is the main demographic of my sizeable club (obviously there are members older and younger, but mainly milennial and gen x).

 

[DSK]

If you are referring to a normal road bike then I can comment but, not if you are referring to a time trail/track bike.

I have owned normal bikes and have had an aero bike for 1 year, so the current stable is a 2017 Giant Propel (aero) and a 2013 Giant TCR.

I'm certainly not the most flexible out there but, the Giant Propel is the only bike I ride, its the only bike that's giving me an itch to get out and ride. Its as tangibly comfortable and smooth as you like but, stiff when you are on it. Its easy and a joy to ride sat up on the hoods and it just goes like a stabbed rat, head down, arms horizontal and power on. Its so good, I am now looking for another Propel to buy and use as a wet/do it all bike! In like for like riding against other bikes I've ridden, its comfortable and tangibly quicker.

On a side note, I understand that some of the later 'normal' bikes have improved aerodynamics but, ideally you need to start off by being able to make yourself as aero as possible as that is always the first and dare I say the biggest key to the aero gains. Also look at your current handle bars, you may be able to adjust them to make riding on the drops more comfortable and that's free! After that I see the rest of the things like aero bikes, wheels, bars etc as marginal gains in my eyes.

Try one and see what you think.

 

[Ajax Bay]

What is riding an aero bike like compared to a standard light weight road bike? What's the posture like and is it comfortable?

No difference at all, ceteris paribus (same quality of frame, wheels, tyres, fork). Your contact points are the same: seat, hands and feet with the same geometry.
The frame tubes are differently profiled, the handlebar may be 'aero' on the tops, the seatpost maybe have an aero appearance, but that's about it. At the top end some models place the brakes behind the fork and underneath the chainstay bridge to get them out of the wind: they're a b****d to fettle.
As I said on (one of) your (many) other threads, unless you can average 30+kph on a 'normal' drop-barred road bike, you won't actually go perceptibly faster for the same effort (power) - well maybe one mph faster (from 20mph to 21mph). But riding the bike feels no different.
I said: "Aerobike. Minimal actual difference unless you plan to be averaging at least 30kph and riding one will feel no different. Look for many other aero bangs for your buck (this link just the first I found: there will be others better) not in order: deep section wheels with correct width tyres, aero handlebars, tight (ie non-flapping) clothing and shoe covers, choice of helmet. "
I have assumed that when you say aero bike you mean what you say. If you mean a TT bike than there's a world of pain and functional strength demands open to you.

Try that for 180km (sub-5) - NB Felt's moved on: BMC Time Machine 01 disc is current weapon, with DT Swiss 80s and disc, Uvex helmet/visor.

 

[Hacienda71]

My aero road bike was a bit sketchy in some of the crosswinds on The Cat and Fiddle this afternoon. Winds were gusting to about 40 to 50 kmh though.

 

[HLaB]

My aero road bike isn't much different than a standard road bike. It might be slightly heavier than a similar sized carbon frame, but not by much. So it might climb a bit quicker, but I don't really enter hill climbs so I'm not worried. It's comfortable, stiff where it needs to be, and quite spritely. I've done everything from local club TTs to 200+ mile cross country in a day rides, to a bit of bikepacking. My TT bike on the other hand, is a completely different beast. It is made to go fast, plain and simple. I would not want to use it for anything besides a time trial (the exception being some road rides to tweak and get used to positioning).
With regards to the debate about the generation of people currently cycling- I'm an older milennial. I have 3 not low end bikes and a house (that will not be paid off anytime soon :-/). Most of the people I cycle with are older milennials and gen x. It is the main demographic of my sizeable club (obviously there are members older and younger, but mainly milennial and gen x).

Not much in it but despite being heavier in this test the aero bike was still marginally faster over hills

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhkarL9UX5k

 

[Ajax Bay]

My aero road bike was a bit sketchy in some of the crosswinds on The Cat and Fiddle this afternoon

What depth rims? Different tube profiles will have made zero difference to crosswind handling.