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

[Ajax Bay]

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

In this test the Felt FR Advanced had 41mm rims and Rubino Pros (who puts Rubino Pros on a £4+k bike?).
The Spec Venge Pro had Roval 50s and S-Works Turbo tyres.
Those two differences would perfectly account for the difference in speed. And he sought to keep at 310W: rather more than 'normal' riders could manage for an hour (the time difference would be even less (%) at 200W as any aero effect would be less).
The Felt is £4.4k; the Venge is £6.6k.

 

[Algarvecycling]

I would even go as far as to argue that my aero Trek Madone SLR is more comfortable than my 'normal' but lighter, climbing bike. Perhaps it is the Isospeed but whatever it is, I feel the bumps in the road less. Position is similar but the Madone does flatten my back very slightly more into the wind than my non-aero bike. Both bikes professionally bike-fitted to me.

 

[bladesman73]

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.

No he isnt. He is saying that the boomer generation had such good working conditions (pay, pensions etc) plus benefitted from cheaper housing etc that they were able to both save enough money for later in life and benefit from gold plated FS pensions. The next gen had it taken away from them. So he is spot on. Your take on what he said is bizarre.

 

[Smokin Joe]

No he isnt. He is saying that the boomer generation had such good working conditions (pay, pensions etc) plus benefitted from cheaper housing etc that they were able to both save enough money for later in life and benefit from gold plated FS pensions. The next gen had it taken away from them. So he is spot on. Your take on what he said is bizarre.

It is important to remember that no one "Had anything taken away from them", anymore than baby boomers were handed things on a plate. The economic position is what it is at any given time, it is impossible to control in any meaningful way otherwise we'd have sorted it centuries ago. Each generation reacts to the situation as they find it, and without any knowledge of how it will effect future generations.

 

[Zipp2001]

I've done well over 200 TT's, years of Brevets of different distances, and ultra-cycling events (12/24 hours), along with using my aero bike as a daily ride for many years. There is an advantage over a normal bike as long as it's set-up to fit you. That's the biggest issue right there (Set-up for you), angle of aero bars, how far forward is the seat, and so on. For me it's hard to explain when I throw my leg over the beam how my mindset changes. Even thro I've been done racing for years and the bike is 27 years old there is still something about getting on that bike that makes you want to push harder. Over the years I've added spacers to be less aggressive because I ain't no spring chicken anymore. I can still remember showing up at the local club TT fully decked out and warming up and knowing I was getting into a few guys heads just because of the bike. Shoot the mind games before the TT was just as important when it comes down to seconds.

 

[wafter]

Each generation reacts to the situation as they find it, and without any knowledge of how it will effect future generations.

Fair to a point, but anyone can see that an economic model based on the ridiculous assumption of consistant exponential growth in a world of finate space and resources has to fail at some point down the line; it's just a question of when. Sadly for anyone under 40 it appears that the answer to that question is "now"


Back on topic and assuming the Aero bike is actually just that and not being mistaken for a TT-bike or anything else, the answer to the OP's question is "it'll be a bit faster", possibly a bit more of a handful in cross-winds if it has deep-section wheels. Just as with mass, aero losses are predominetly associated with the rider rather than the bike - so while tweaks to the equipment can certainly bring tangible gains they'll be marginal and often of highly questionable value relative to their cost.

Along these lines it's probably also worth noting that since the rider generates most of the drag I'd expect to get more gains from adopting a more aggressive position on a traditional bike than retaining the same position on an aero bike.. think tri-bars or "superman position" on a standard bike versus hoods on an aero bike. Again this mirrors the weight issue; you can spend hundreds or thousands on kit to shave 1-2% off your climbing times, but can yield gains orders of magnitude higher by improving your strength and technique.

Again this comes down to the marketing chimps in the industry controlling the narrative and potentially setting false goals to lead consumers towards parting with their cash. If you're competitive (in both senses - actually racing or just like to be faster than others) you may wish to buy into this. For everyone else, is dropping a considerable sum of money on upgraded kit to arbitrairly make you faster actually going to enhance the benefits you get from cycling?

My all-road bike is maybe 15% slower than my road bike under comparable conditions, however it yields no less enjoyment and I never get back from a ride thinking "bugger, if I'd have ridden that on the road bike I'd have been home 15 minutes earlier and the ride would have been so much better"..