My bike is from 2017 (Tarmac) and some parts of my kit are more than 12 months (!) old. Thanks for confirming that I need to blame this retro setup for me constantly getting dropped.
I would be curious to know how the retro frame would perform with modern wheels. Having ridden a retro bike with retro wheels and then switching to modern wheels, the wheels alone make a HUGE difference.
Search 'Hambini aero wheels' for a relevant analysis, at least. He reported data at 30 km/h and 50 km/h. I remember reading that some wheels advertised as the fastest were not the best performers at the more human speed of 30.
@@markeetea Not even aero wheels specifically. Even modern training wheels make a HUGE difference in my experience. It's surprising how much of a difference just reducing the spoke count will make for aerodynamics and weight versus old 36-spoke wheels.
I've got a 1959 Carlton 531, I ran it with 10 speed cassette + 38mm carbon tubs, the frame at some point before I got it some 15 years ago had been cold set to accept a modern/130mm OLN wheel. It looks weird with the black wheels as it's a BRG frame and white bars/saddle but just rides a bit differently to the wheels I normally have on there. The tubs are 22mm conti 4ks so on the smooth local bypass you can nudge 30mph for short spurts even with this old codgers legs and the bike is fine, I kept it as a mix of parts that matched rather than all period correct especially wanting to have some dual pivots though some of the older brakes were pretty decent if you set them up okay so they do work on carbon rims so long as you pop the right pads in if you're going to be braking a lot. The main differences with a particularly retro bike and modern wheels I found is the handling at speed in sweeping bends and even compared to a 1990 Vitus Triple butted the Carlton feels less stiff all round so you're feeling your way a bit more around bends so not as fast or as tight though it doesn't feel too bad in terms of comfort or if hitting a bump through a fast bend. There's obviously an element of not having ridden the bike much in that set up (pretty much once with the carbon wheels) so as with most things it's about getting used to how the bike goes on certain terrain and how you might need to adapt a bit to get more assurance. All that said she's a bike to show off, have a pootle without putting too much effort in and chatting about old bikes rather than gunning her, I can easily fit 32mm tyres, probably 35s so you could ride her off road if you wanted to but I normally ride her with some older tan walled Vredstein Ricorso's in 32 which are a lovely tyre, I use slightly wider latex tubes so the ride is cushy as f.
@@christopherdolan7330 I've got a pair of 36 spoke racing wheels, they are a smidge under 1700g and that's with traditional round spokes, not very aero but as older wheelsets go for a 36x36 they're pretty light for clinchers.
WELL l ride retro steel with modern kit just fine at 30 -48km hr and the new groupo on old bike rides awesome thanks l wish it was lighter but it sure is comfortable compared to my carbon TREK !!
Another bottom line : Steel still safe to ride after thirty odd years - carbon after thirty years - not sure ? If you bought that steel frame back then you could be passing it on for many more generations yet !!! I don't know if you could trust Carbon to last that long - It might be OK though
That is not a HUGE difference considering a 10k£ bike versus a 30-40 yo bike you could almot get for free. I think Ollie made a gross exaggeration which surpised me a bit. The pro's wouldn't be able to compete on the Merckx, but you and me could take our sub 300 FTP's and stretch to get more Aero instead of spending 10k £ on a bike. Check out their video on bike position, clothing etc and you'll se that by just getting more uncomfortable positions to work you could save way more. I'm not saying "go get a retro bike" but you could as well buy the 1 k£ shimano 105 alu bike instead of the top of the range if you're not a pro. You will put out seriously less watts at the same speed as your mate on the F12 if you can get aero and he catn sustain the same low position.
Basically when you factor in that airflow is just not as smooth outside, modern well fitted clothing is really worth it, but a modern bike is well into marginal gain territory and most of the aero savings come from replacing box section 32 spoke wheels.
Shhhh, don't say that, how will this Wiggle channel (errmmm, sorry Gee Cee Ennn) continue to churn out spin for all the carbon framed crap to the 'cognescenti' out there???
This reminds me of a terrible nightmare I had.... A strange man approaches me from a tunnel, "I've brought my dressing up box" he smirks at me... and no matter how fast I tried to pedal away I got nowhere. Sheer terror.
its a super small difference in lost watts between the 2 bikes, its minimal, they just wanna sell bikes, typical gcn, infomercial. just keep your old bike, no difference really. not worth forking 6000$ for 20 watts, give me a break also, he wore a skin suit, who wears that
i was thinking this earlier today, stick with a retro bike and baggy clothes, burn more fat and be more fitter, plus you don't look like a woofter with all that stupid outfit on, also if you ever do ride a fancy bike with all the outfit it will be easy.
@@nmop3pisdn554 if that's the case then ride a fixie: heavy steel frame, single gear, no brakes. All the workout without spending a lot on parts compared to a road bike. Don't forget to bring weights for extra weight.
Everybody talks about modern training methods being so wonderful, this test just proves to me that if you put a 25 year old Eddy Merchx in skin suit he would be a force on the modern tour. I am not even sure he would need a modern bike to be competitive. Maybe just modern wheels.
When you are going fast on a vintage (not retro) bicycle you use the drops. It would have been nice to see a comparison of the riding positions on the Eddy Merckx, interesting vid though, thanks
Thanks. From the data in that video, the retro bike costs about .025 m^2 in drag area compared to the Pinarello F12, but the retro clothing costs about .07 m^2. A rough rule of thumb is that a difference of .01 in drag area is worth around 1 sec/km at racing speed, so a difference of .025 is roughly 2.5 secs/km, retro clothing is about 7 secs/km, and a retro bike/kit costs about 10 sec/km compared to tight clothing on a modern bike. If you're not racing, the differences are a bit larger than that, not smaller. Over the course of ten miles, the difference between a modern bike/kit vs. retro bike/kit is about 2-1/2 minutes at the same power.
"This is, specifically, quantum physics" was such a glorious retort. Unless you're going _really_ fast this is all pretty firmly newtonian mechanics...
Got it! So my takeaway from this is that if I want the same workout in a shorter space of time, I am better off riding my 40 year old Carlton Cyclone. Thanks! :)
The deeper lesson in here is that the bike itself is dramatically less significant than the rider. Bike alone had MUCH larger difference at higher speeds, but with rider it dropped massively. So, conclusion: If you really want more speed than your friends, just get off the bike and stare at it in the coffee shop!
There's not *quite* enough info given (they needed to provide the air density) but assuming a ballpark value of 1.18 g/cm^3 for air density and the wattage values given, CdA(bare merckx) = 0.1285; CdA(bare F12) = 0.1006; CdA(merckx/modern kit) = 0.3814; CdA(F12/modern kit) = 0.3562; CdA(merckx/retro kit) = 0.4270.
The specialized 'win tunnel' has already done a great video on this. I believe it's called "The Win Tunnel: Shaved and Dangerous?". It makes a much larger difference than I had thought.
Would have liked to see what wearing a modern helmet vs. tight retro bike cap would be. I feel that when I wear the latter I actually feel faster, even if I do look slower, hmmm? Please respond, if anyone has conducted this experiment. Thanks, man, great episode!
I've done non scientific testing between my Dogma F10 disk vs my 1981 Gios Torino Super Record. I roll away without pedaling on each bike down the same hill. I tuck in to the same position (as close as possible) and then take note of the speed as told by my Garmin. Consistently the F10 is over 10 MPH faster at the bottom of the hill. I love that this video explains the science behind that.
Interesting to the difference between the two bikes so small, if you swap modern aero wheels on the old frame it would melt closer again. i guess the very low cross sections (and thus lower frontal area) of the old frame makes up for some part of the more areo (but fatter) tubing on the modern bike.
I took a picture of the results with my phone for future references as far as buying modern clothing. My De Bernardi Road Bike has a teardrop design on the front fork, top tube, bottom tube and seat stays. I think my bike is a modern retro aero bike 🚲. I did put the photo on the GCN APP so everyone could see it. Happy to see that 92% of the audience sees it as a nice bike for a custom made bike 🏍. With these numbers, it should be a super nice 👍 bike.
Yeah interesting point!! I like neo-retro bikes, steel frames with modern components, some people build them with deep section carbon wheels so be interesting to know. Maybe Hambini has the answers!
Great show.. I hope you'll find this an interesting question. With this data can you calculate if Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Miguel Indurain and Felice Gimondi if they were riding today with modern clothing and bike what would be the comparison to Froome, Contador and Nibali on the Legendary climbs of the Tour de France Alpe d'Huez, Le Mont Ventoux, Giro d'Italia Passo Stelvio, Passo Mortirolo Vuelta Espana Xorret del Cati, Cumbre del Sol… Would they be faster and producing more power? In in reverse would modern riders be slower and more power…??
Jon & Ollie, remember who hosted the world championships this year! In the men's elite race, who wore only the skin suit and who wore the rain gear? Something that just proved your point! #GetOlliebellsfortheholidays LOL!
I've been considering getting a metal frame and have been looking for comparison data but it's actually difficult to find since most recent tests are comparing similar carbon frames. The data is reassuring - especially considering that I'd use aero wheels so the bike difference would be even smaller.
Thanks for this! Where's the test/results of 'retro (floppy) clothing on a modern bike'? I'd love to know if that would be worse then 'modern clothing on a retro bike'! So budget wise it would be smart to invest like this?: bikefit > modern clothing > aero helmet > shoe covers > aero wheels > TT clip on bars > aero/TT bike......
Great video! Sidenote: Spaceships do not care about aerodynamics, as there is no air in space. And when they are in the athmosphere, they use the air to lose speed, so the last thing they want to be is aero.
Well, the "retro kit" they were wearing didnt seem all that baggy or flappy.... and yet it was clearly the biggest difference... So we can safely assume "normal" clothes will be considerably worse....
I like the comparisons at the 25 kph speed. It's easy to forget that we're not all racers. The difference between aero bikes and retro bikes isn't extreme at 25-35 kph (15-21 mph if you prefer). If you don't need to get a racing advantage, you don't need to pay the high price for a top end aero bike unless that's what you really want to ride. It means the weight and aero penalties of my retro Wilier aren't enough to overcome the benefit of comfort that it gives me in local group rides.
Nice vid! Good to see the comparisons. Some simple things such as clothing and position really will effect. Then if you have a good modern aero bike that will just improve on that as well.. one day you guys need to get a wind tunnel and test out different modern aero bikes to test again manufacture claims as “the more aero”.
What, no wool jersey with front pocket and short shorts!? Shenanigans! Seriously, tho, good video. I've noticed more difference with clothing and helmets too, than between my carbon fiber and classic steel bikes. Even a cheap $20 aero helmet helped compared with my Poc helmet - although the Poc is more comfortable and probably safer.
Dear GCN, would you consider doing a modern version of this, comparing Pantani to Pogacar? I did the maths quickly, and incl rolling resistance a conservative suggestion would be just above 40w of difference at 25kph, with tire choice being the single most important difference
I suspect that aero wise, most manufacturers must be very close to reaching the point where no additional 'real life' aero gains to be made? i.e. gains that a 'normal' rider would feel the benefit from? I wonder how much faster aero bikes will be in say 5 years time when compared to the current crop of bikes? Not much I suspect!
@@erikcrins similar to the people who spend thousands to drop a few hundred grams on the bike, but don't bother to lose a few kilos around their middle
Very interesting study - well done! So much of the drag is due to the rider, putting a huge premium on position on the bike. Recumbents have a real edge here...
Great comparison! My real question would be how much difference do the wheels make? In the 90's they switched to 130mm rear width which allows for a modern wheelset. I run a deep carbon wheelset on my Corsa Extra. It really makes a difference compared to my other steel racing frame with box rims. Even a narrower frame could have a modern wheelset built for it, if performance is your goal.
Agreed. And 45kph is low speed in regard to aerodynamics. @hambini has an excellent video in which he addresses the issues with the way bicycles are tested in wind tunnels. The air in the outside world is turbulent even on a still day. These wind tunnels are using hex grid alloy walls to “comb” the air into perfectly straight lines that do not exist in nature. Placing the subject on a turntable to measure at “yaw angles” does nothing to replicate the outside world either.
It would be interesting to see a round bar vs a compact bar compared. I'm of course biased because I've ridden round bars all my life and compact just feels like a drop bar for someone how hates drop bars but I can also see that it's easier to slam the stem with a compact bar, and you don't have to get lower when going from the tops, to the hoods, and to the drops.
Can I find the results in print? I'm trying to write down some things but I have to keep watching the video. I always wondered what something like an OCLV from 2000 with aero bars would have done if I'd substituted a modern aero road bike with clip-ons. I wonder if integrated stem/handlebars and all the sculpting would've improve my 40km time much? I'm must too old to repeat my rides of the early 2000's, but it would be nice to be able to compare them with modern bikes and speeds.
This, coupled with their other videos and many studies, etc. does seem to prove that aerodynamics doesn't mean much unless you are (a) going really fast; (b) going extremely long distances; and/or (c) being timed. The biggest differences you can make for all speeds and so on would be your positioning on the bike (total body), followed by the correct (1) tyres; (2) helmet; and (3) clothing, which really only requires a light-ish bike and rider, some money, and a road bike of some form. For most riders, anyway. Of course, if you are really heavy/fat, then the best thing to do would be to become skinny, but I'm assuming a baseline of around 150 pounds for most riders to begin with. The other major improvement would be the tri-bars (again, for further aero-positioning, which is by far the biggest factor of cycling in terms of watts/drag -- with the 'egg position' being proven to be the best possible position, but it's unrealistic for most bikes and riders and very difficult to actually maintain). The problem with tri-bars is they are not normalised within the context of most forms of riding and are very costly on the body, with limited usage, as well. Everything else, such as the wheels and frame, don't mean much unless you are at high speeds/racing, or going really long distances, though real-world conditions massively impact, either positively or negatively, the aforementioned. Highly costly wheels and frame are not worth it for 99% of cyclists, therefore, but some other items could be worth it for a lot of people considering their relatively low costs to/over watts saved. Naturally, the reason pros care a lot about their fames and wheels is they have already maximised everything else, which only leaves the frames and wheels for extra gains. But, this only applies to pros. A rough understanding of aero additions/elements (this changes slightly depending on the speeds, terrain, and otherwise factors) from best to worst in terms of watts/drag: (1) Low body weight/slim figure. (2) Ultra-lightweight bike (5-8kg). (3) Aero body positioning (say, with drops). (4) Aero/correct tyres (outer-rubber, tread, inner-tube, size, and PSI) -- unclear how high on the list this is, in reality. (5) Tri-bars (with some standard bars, as well -- not TT bike). (6) Full-aero helmet. (7) Skin-tight, aero clothing. (8) TT bike (limited usage, however). (9) Extremely aero frame (non-TT bike). (10) Extremely aero wheels (say, 88mm deeps with specialised materials and profiling, but they also have disadvantages in some conditions). (11) Clipped pedals of some kind -- unclear how high on the list this one is, as well. But, we do know some watts are saved by being stuck to the pedals, and they are fairly cheap. (12) Shaved body (from head to toe), and otherwise tiny adjustments to both bike and rider. (13) Further weight reductions, such as with removal of water bottles and food, etc. (naturally, you are forced to carry a certain amount of fuel unless you are only riding a really short distance).
Please try something like 45 degree front wind angle or more and let's see if that thick "aero" design performs better than the classic thin tubes! Lateral components may play a huge role in global aero performance, specially in windy days and curvy roads..
Mild nitpick, we do see cylindrical shaped space ships. Look at the nose of the space shuttle. This has to do with the complicated physics at hyper sonic speeds, which result in a totally different approach than something that is doing subsonic or super sonic speeds. Scott Manley has a great video on it. Check out the nose of the SR71 vs the nose of the Space Shuttle for a visual exmaple.
Bicycle Quarterly published years ago a very interesting wind tunnel test comparing the positions on the bike with or without fenders, racks, bags, capes etc. and a rear life tyres test. The latter showed that the “small tyres-high pressure equals faster speed “ rule we’ve been always taught is not true
How much of that drag is the wheels? Because I know how many watts the modern frames save and it's really not that much. You guys mentioned the tyres but that's not really the problem, it's the depth of the rims and matching the rim with the tyres.
For the clothing, it's mainly the helmet right ? The Mercx bike is so graceful... Watching This for just me I'd keep the bike and upgrade the helmet...
In some degress of yaw which you have to test with cause of turbulence and real conditions, the results would be different and the differences less. Also the biggest part should be the weels
I would love to see a wind tunnel test with the basic three body types I see out there the thin, the normal, and the " well padded" could make a few of us " well padded " slim down a bit !
I am a bit confused when I do the following numbers to isolate the body/position drag: (Retro bike + modern kit 435W) - (pure bike drag 146.7W) = 288.3W (Modern bike + modern kit 410W) - (pure bike drag 115W) = 295W Can we conclude that a modern position is worse than the old one in term of drag?
Suggestion GCN : Please tell us if it was a simple laminar flow study or if it was way more realistic than that with a decently turbulent flow. Also, would've loved to see the same study at different yaw angles.
Did have a chuckle. Modern clothing does not make you go faster, just easier to go faster. 25kph in retro clothing is the same speed as 25kph in a skin suit. Also most sensible bit of advice... don't drop £000's on a bike (as much I love to) spend the cash on better kit. Great video. Shame I just dropped £000's on a new bike. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 not really, I neeeded number 4, reasons for the wife please as I doubt she will understand. Excellent video, thanks again guys.👍
Please more of this ... like slim vs. fat guy, short vs. long bibs, short vs. long sleeves, with vs. without jacket, aero helmet vs. conventional helmet, ...
You are a bit off on describing CdA. CdA is the area of an object with Cd equal to 1 that has the same drag as the item tested. A body with area 3.0m^2 and Cd=0.5 has the same CdA of a 2m^2 body with Cd=0.75. (both have Drag Area=CdA=1.5m^2)
Guys, this video just opened the door for another one. A follow up one: aero clothing. What to look for? Fabric type, fit type, brands, helmets, rain jackets, etc. Thank you.
8w between modern bike and retro bike at 25kph isn't a massive difference IMO. And when it comes to style those old bikes with their down-shifters and cool lug-work win out every-time.
Well, bikes have a potential for re-selling in the used market, Im pretty sure there is not a huge demand for used bib shorts on Ebay. Also Bikes tend to be more durable than clothing and they will still fit after the Holidays which I can't say the same about tight aero clothing :) Anywyas watt saving its always good (and not cheap)
great video, never would have thought that clothes make such a difference! but would have been interesting to compare the different positions on the two bikes. by trying to keep the same position on both bikes you were basically trying to eliminate the influence of the rider, but you already tested the bikes without the rider...
Bottom line is there's bugger all difference between the bikes. Stick the aero wheels on the Eddy and the gap would be very small. Stick an aero bar on and the gap would be in the noise - probably 5-10W @ 45 kph. Whichever bike rides the best (cornering and pedalling) would be the fastest.
My bike is from 2017 (Tarmac) and some parts of my kit are more than 12 months (!) old. Thanks for confirming that I need to blame this retro setup for me constantly getting dropped.
No it's just you.
jussa101 he was joking
@@chanito_nyc Whoosh!
@@chanito_nyc I know
jussa101 you must be fun at parties.
You guys listened to feedback from previous videos and included 25 kph, I appreciate that a lot. Great video.
I would be curious to know how the retro frame would perform with modern wheels. Having ridden a retro bike with retro wheels and then switching to modern wheels, the wheels alone make a HUGE difference.
Search 'Hambini aero wheels' for a relevant analysis, at least. He reported data at 30 km/h and 50 km/h. I remember reading that some wheels advertised as the fastest were not the best performers at the more human speed of 30.
@@markeetea Not even aero wheels specifically. Even modern training wheels make a HUGE difference in my experience. It's surprising how much of a difference just reducing the spoke count will make for aerodynamics and weight versus old 36-spoke wheels.
I've got a 1959 Carlton 531, I ran it with 10 speed cassette + 38mm carbon tubs, the frame at some point before I got it some 15 years ago had been cold set to accept a modern/130mm OLN wheel. It looks weird with the black wheels as it's a BRG frame and white bars/saddle but just rides a bit differently to the wheels I normally have on there. The tubs are 22mm conti 4ks so on the smooth local bypass you can nudge 30mph for short spurts even with this old codgers legs and the bike is fine, I kept it as a mix of parts that matched rather than all period correct especially wanting to have some dual pivots though some of the older brakes were pretty decent if you set them up okay so they do work on carbon rims so long as you pop the right pads in if you're going to be braking a lot.
The main differences with a particularly retro bike and modern wheels I found is the handling at speed in sweeping bends and even compared to a 1990 Vitus Triple butted the Carlton feels less stiff all round so you're feeling your way a bit more around bends so not as fast or as tight though it doesn't feel too bad in terms of comfort or if hitting a bump through a fast bend.
There's obviously an element of not having ridden the bike much in that set up (pretty much once with the carbon wheels) so as with most things it's about getting used to how the bike goes on certain terrain and how you might need to adapt a bit to get more assurance.
All that said she's a bike to show off, have a pootle without putting too much effort in and chatting about old bikes rather than gunning her, I can easily fit 32mm tyres, probably 35s so you could ride her off road if you wanted to but I normally ride her with some older tan walled Vredstein Ricorso's in 32 which are a lovely tyre, I use slightly wider latex tubes so the ride is cushy as f.
@@christopherdolan7330 I've got a pair of 36 spoke racing wheels, they are a smidge under 1700g and that's with traditional round spokes, not very aero but as older wheelsets go for a 36x36 they're pretty light for clinchers.
WELL l ride retro steel with modern kit just fine at 30 -48km hr and the new groupo on old bike rides awesome thanks l wish it was lighter but it sure is comfortable compared to my carbon TREK !!
Bottom line. Pinarello, is for speed & miles. Eddy Merckx, is for smiles 😊
@daAnder71 I read nukes instead of pukes lmao
Another bottom line : Steel still safe to ride after thirty odd years - carbon after thirty years - not sure ? If you bought that steel frame back then you could be passing it on for many more generations yet !!! I don't know if you could trust Carbon to last that long - It might be OK though
@@jemma_19988 I ride a '71 Sekai 4000 and it works fine.
Honestly, I don't think most people here (certainly including me) are good enough to really experience the difference. I'm certainly not fast enough
That is not a HUGE difference considering a 10k£ bike versus a 30-40 yo bike you could almot get for free. I think Ollie made a gross exaggeration which surpised me a bit. The pro's wouldn't be able to compete on the Merckx, but you and me could take our sub 300 FTP's and stretch to get more Aero instead of spending 10k £ on a bike. Check out their video on bike position, clothing etc and you'll se that by just getting more uncomfortable positions to work you could save way more. I'm not saying "go get a retro bike" but you could as well buy the 1 k£ shimano 105 alu bike instead of the top of the range if you're not a pro. You will put out seriously less watts at the same speed as your mate on the F12 if you can get aero and he catn sustain the same low position.
Basically when you factor in that airflow is just not as smooth outside, modern well fitted clothing is really worth it, but a modern bike is well into marginal gain territory and most of the aero savings come from replacing box section 32 spoke wheels.
Shhhh, don't say that, how will this Wiggle channel (errmmm, sorry Gee Cee Ennn) continue to churn out spin for all the carbon framed crap to the 'cognescenti' out there???
This reminds me of a terrible nightmare I had....
A strange man approaches me from a tunnel, "I've brought my dressing up box" he smirks at me... and no matter how fast I tried to pedal away I got nowhere. Sheer terror.
Lol true story your brain was running at half speed which was why you couldnt get away
@@benson4u215 nah he was riding the steel bike
With my retro bike, I gonna burn 10% more fat keeping the same speed. I will stick to retro!
its a super small difference in lost watts between the 2 bikes, its minimal, they just wanna sell bikes, typical gcn, infomercial. just keep your old bike, no difference really. not worth forking 6000$ for 20 watts, give me a break
also, he wore a skin suit, who wears that
i was thinking this earlier today, stick with a retro bike and baggy clothes, burn more fat and be more fitter, plus you don't look like a woofter with all that stupid outfit on, also if you ever do ride a fancy bike with all the outfit it will be easy.
Hmm well, if you’re riding by yourself, doesn’t make you work harder. It just makes you slower. Lol
@@nmop3pisdn554 if that's the case then ride a fixie: heavy steel frame, single gear, no brakes. All the workout without spending a lot on parts compared to a road bike.
Don't forget to bring weights for extra weight.
@@sepg5084 Bonus : free motivation when a fat guy passes by you on his carbon bike
"Have you ever ridden any thing as old as this".......but of a personal question !
great show! i bet you could calculate Merckx' hour record had he simply worn aero kit. any thoughts?
Everybody talks about modern training methods being so wonderful, this test just proves to me that if you put a 25 year old Eddy Merchx in skin suit he would be a force on the modern tour. I am not even sure he would need a modern bike to be competitive. Maybe just modern wheels.
That would be awesome to see whatever the outcome!
Still can't get over the Assos G-string skinsuit 🙈
Yup it's like an arrow pointing at his butt.
MrTurbohampster 🙃 So awful! I would push an extra 100 watts all day long before wearing a ridiculous thong costume
When you are going fast on a vintage (not retro) bicycle you use the drops. It would have been nice to see a comparison of the riding positions on the Eddy Merckx, interesting vid though, thanks
Thanks. From the data in that video, the retro bike costs about .025 m^2 in drag area compared to the Pinarello F12, but the retro clothing costs about .07 m^2. A rough rule of thumb is that a difference of .01 in drag area is worth around 1 sec/km at racing speed, so a difference of .025 is roughly 2.5 secs/km, retro clothing is about 7 secs/km, and a retro bike/kit costs about 10 sec/km compared to tight clothing on a modern bike. If you're not racing, the differences are a bit larger than that, not smaller. Over the course of ten miles, the difference between a modern bike/kit vs. retro bike/kit is about 2-1/2 minutes at the same power.
"This is, specifically, quantum physics" was such a glorious retort. Unless you're going _really_ fast this is all pretty firmly newtonian mechanics...
It's relativity that deals with very high speeds. Quantum mechanics deals with tiny things.
Got it! So my takeaway from this is that if I want the same workout in a shorter space of time, I am better off riding my 40 year old Carlton Cyclone. Thanks! :)
The deeper lesson in here is that the bike itself is dramatically less significant than the rider. Bike alone had MUCH larger difference at higher speeds, but with rider it dropped massively. So, conclusion: If you really want more speed than your friends, just get off the bike and stare at it in the coffee shop!
Got my first skinsuit this year. Also got my first race win this year.
Coincidence? I think not!
I was hoping they were going to actually report the CdA values.
There's not *quite* enough info given (they needed to provide the air density) but assuming a ballpark value of 1.18 g/cm^3 for air density and the wattage values given, CdA(bare merckx) = 0.1285; CdA(bare F12) = 0.1006; CdA(merckx/modern kit) = 0.3814; CdA(F12/modern kit) = 0.3562; CdA(merckx/retro kit) = 0.4270.
Thanks. I was being lazy.
That was very informative. Thanks guys. By the way, Both of those bikes were “Super Nice” !
Fantastic video guys! The difference in modern vs retro clothing is shocking. Well done!
I like the Eddy Merckx bike. Great job with the beautiful modern silver Dura Ace crank, too.
Has anyone EVER seen Jon on a bike?? just asking
Yes, in the historic Lotus bike episode.
Yes, in a power meter video.
And in one where he changes tires or chain.
And a Holiday video in which he is seen riding in a group with all of the other presenters.
There one in which he was riding next to Jimmy Hoffa... after he disappeared!!!
This was your chance to do "legs shaved vs unshaved" testing. You missed it!
The specialized 'win tunnel' has already done a great video on this. I believe it's called "The Win Tunnel: Shaved and Dangerous?". It makes a much larger difference than I had thought.
@@khaki.shorts Sleeves for the win!
unshaved will be faster according to aerodynamic laws
@@reznikvolodymyr8145 afaik they tested it and i give like 40 sek. on a 100km ride.
Aerodynamics says shave the front of the legs and arms and leave the rear unshaven.
Would have liked to see what wearing a modern helmet vs. tight retro bike cap would be. I feel that when I wear the latter I actually feel faster, even if I do look slower, hmmm? Please respond, if anyone has conducted this experiment. Thanks, man, great episode!
Cheers for watching! We haven't actually done this experiment so can't comment sadly!
Ollie was a great sport in that video, you must admit. Cheers from the States. Thanks for the eye opener in that content!
Actually Cd is the drag coefficient, CdA is the drag area. (A is the area of the bike plus rider.)
I've done non scientific testing between my Dogma F10 disk vs my 1981 Gios Torino Super Record. I roll away without pedaling on each bike down the same hill. I tuck in to the same position (as close as possible) and then take note of the speed as told by my Garmin. Consistently the F10 is over 10 MPH faster at the bottom of the hill. I love that this video explains the science behind that.
Interesting to the difference between the two bikes so small, if you swap modern aero wheels on the old frame it would melt closer again. i guess the very low cross sections (and thus lower frontal area) of the old frame makes up for some part of the more areo (but fatter) tubing on the modern bike.
I was waiting to see Ollie's power number in a pink tutu.
I took a picture of the results with my phone for future references as far as buying modern clothing. My De Bernardi Road Bike has a teardrop design on the front fork, top tube, bottom tube and seat stays. I think my bike is a modern retro aero bike 🚲. I did put the photo on the GCN APP so everyone could see it. Happy to see that 92% of the audience sees it as a nice bike for a custom made bike 🏍. With these numbers, it should be a super nice 👍 bike.
How much of that aerodynamic advantage is the wheels?
How aerodynamic would the Merckx be with deep aero wheels?
Yeah interesting point!! I like neo-retro bikes, steel frames with modern components, some people build them with deep section carbon wheels so be interesting to know. Maybe Hambini has the answers!
Great show.. I hope you'll find this an interesting question. With this data can you calculate if Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Miguel Indurain and Felice Gimondi if they were riding today with modern clothing and bike what would be the comparison to Froome, Contador and Nibali on the Legendary climbs of the Tour de France Alpe d'Huez, Le Mont Ventoux, Giro d'Italia Passo Stelvio, Passo Mortirolo Vuelta Espana Xorret del Cati, Cumbre del Sol… Would they be faster and producing more power? In in reverse would modern riders be slower and more power…??
Peter Knight is that with or without cocaine?
Jon & Ollie, remember who hosted the world championships this year! In the men's elite race, who wore only the skin suit and who wore the rain gear? Something that just proved your point!
#GetOlliebellsfortheholidays LOL!
I save 3 "watts" when cycling by saying "pardon" instead.... Ahh thank you and goodnight 👋
Only three watts? That's not very bright. :)
I've been considering getting a metal frame and have been looking for comparison data but it's actually difficult to find since most recent tests are comparing similar carbon frames.
The data is reassuring - especially considering that I'd use aero wheels so the bike difference would be even smaller.
Thanks for this!
Where's the test/results of 'retro (floppy) clothing on a modern bike'?
I'd love to know if that would be worse then 'modern clothing on a retro bike'!
So budget wise it would be smart to invest like this?: bikefit > modern clothing > aero helmet > shoe covers > aero wheels > TT clip on bars > aero/TT bike......
Id love to see an 80s aero bike with an aero frame and Dura-Ace AX or 600ax groupset to see how aero bikes developed in 30-some years.
Great video!
Sidenote: Spaceships do not care about aerodynamics, as there is no air in space. And when they are in the athmosphere, they use the air to lose speed, so the last thing they want to be is aero.
As a bike commuter I'm interested in the difference between wearing bike kit vs regular work cloths. Loose pants and shirt ect
Well, the "retro kit" they were wearing didnt seem all that baggy or flappy.... and yet it was clearly the biggest difference... So we can safely assume "normal" clothes will be considerably worse....
That Pinarello is one sweet ride.
Another great, useful informative one guys !
Thank you very much - keep it up ;)
Great video, thanks for sharing video of beautiful Vancouver and the Whistler Gran Fondo.
I like the comparisons at the 25 kph speed. It's easy to forget that we're not all racers. The difference between aero bikes and retro bikes isn't extreme at 25-35 kph (15-21 mph if you prefer). If you don't need to get a racing advantage, you don't need to pay the high price for a top end aero bike unless that's what you really want to ride. It means the weight and aero penalties of my retro Wilier aren't enough to overcome the benefit of comfort that it gives me in local group rides.
I was just watching the video to see some retro tech. Thanks!
Wonderful video. One of the most interesting videos from GCN.
Love the technical approach! Now I can justify the new GCN kit on my Christmas list-- cheaper than a new bike!! :) :)
Great stuff Lee! Hope Santa brings you the kit so you can get super aero 😉
Nice vid! Good to see the comparisons. Some simple things such as clothing and position really will effect. Then if you have a good modern aero bike that will just improve on that as well.. one day you guys need to get a wind tunnel and test out different modern aero bikes to test again manufacture claims as “the more aero”.
CdA is Cd (drag coefficient) multiplied by A (frontal area)
What, no wool jersey with front pocket and short shorts!? Shenanigans! Seriously, tho, good video. I've noticed more difference with clothing and helmets too, than between my carbon fiber and classic steel bikes. Even a cheap $20 aero helmet helped compared with my Poc helmet - although the Poc is more comfortable and probably safer.
Really interesting segment, guys. As always, thanks so much for sharing.
Steve
Thank you for watching Steve!
Dear GCN, would you consider doing a modern version of this, comparing Pantani to Pogacar? I did the maths quickly, and incl rolling resistance a conservative suggestion would be just above 40w of difference at 25kph, with tire choice being the single most important difference
I want that Eddy Merckx so hard it hurts. I don't care whether it's hi-tech or not. What a beautiful bike!
I suspect that aero wise, most manufacturers must be very close to reaching the point where no additional 'real life' aero gains to be made? i.e. gains that a 'normal' rider would feel the benefit from?
I wonder how much faster aero bikes will be in say 5 years time when compared to the current crop of bikes? Not much I suspect!
There's not much left to do keeping in UCI road race specs. There's plenty that can be done but it's all outside regulation
And this is gains in the windtunnel...I don't ride there (or on hte track) often... I'll stick to a bike fit, speedsuit, aero helmet and deep rims....
@@erikcrins similar to the people who spend thousands to drop a few hundred grams on the bike, but don't bother to lose a few kilos around their middle
Love that the old helmets bands resemble the Union Jack
So what size tires you run for speed? or can you have booth speed and comfort what tires what you recommend
Very interesting study - well done! So much of the drag is due to the rider, putting a huge premium on position on the bike. Recumbents have a real edge here...
Except I never see a recumbent going fast. Never.
not enough leverage for climbs, sadly
Great comparison! My real question would be how much difference do the wheels make? In the 90's they switched to 130mm rear width which allows for a modern wheelset. I run a deep carbon wheelset on my Corsa Extra. It really makes a difference compared to my other steel racing frame with box rims. Even a narrower frame could have a modern wheelset built for it, if performance is your goal.
Or, reset the old steel frame fo modern dropout width.
You need to use the old wool jerseys and shorts to be authentic! Also the brake cables housing would be hanging out for true retro!
The vintage bike is mid-1980s I think, too recent for woolly shorts.
low speed aero can't be estimated in a steady state wind tunnel. Local vectors cause lots of variance.
Agreed. And 45kph is low speed in regard to aerodynamics. @hambini has an excellent video in which he addresses the issues with the way bicycles are tested in wind tunnels. The air in the outside world is turbulent even on a still day. These wind tunnels are using hex grid alloy walls to “comb” the air into perfectly straight lines that do not exist in nature. Placing the subject on a turntable to measure at “yaw angles” does nothing to replicate the outside world either.
Hambini is a tool
Yes thats accurate.
It would be interesting to see a round bar vs a compact bar compared. I'm of course biased because I've ridden round bars all my life and compact just feels like a drop bar for someone how hates drop bars but I can also see that it's easier to slam the stem with a compact bar, and you don't have to get lower when going from the tops, to the hoods, and to the drops.
How much does the water bottle factor in? Seems like you have 2 in the modern and 1 in the retro
Best gcn tech video I've ever watched
Can I find the results in print? I'm trying to write down some things but I have to keep watching the video.
I always wondered what something like an OCLV from 2000 with aero bars would have done if I'd substituted a modern aero road bike with clip-ons. I wonder if integrated stem/handlebars and all the sculpting would've improve my 40km time much? I'm must too old to repeat my rides of the early 2000's, but it would be nice to be able to compare them with modern bikes and speeds.
The real joy is retro bike + modern kit & wheels.
I’m new to the channel. I think wind tunnel testing of an aero bike and different wheel widths would be interesting. Thanks.
This, coupled with their other videos and many studies, etc. does seem to prove that aerodynamics doesn't mean much unless you are (a) going really fast; (b) going extremely long distances; and/or (c) being timed. The biggest differences you can make for all speeds and so on would be your positioning on the bike (total body), followed by the correct (1) tyres; (2) helmet; and (3) clothing, which really only requires a light-ish bike and rider, some money, and a road bike of some form. For most riders, anyway. Of course, if you are really heavy/fat, then the best thing to do would be to become skinny, but I'm assuming a baseline of around 150 pounds for most riders to begin with. The other major improvement would be the tri-bars (again, for further aero-positioning, which is by far the biggest factor of cycling in terms of watts/drag -- with the 'egg position' being proven to be the best possible position, but it's unrealistic for most bikes and riders and very difficult to actually maintain). The problem with tri-bars is they are not normalised within the context of most forms of riding and are very costly on the body, with limited usage, as well. Everything else, such as the wheels and frame, don't mean much unless you are at high speeds/racing, or going really long distances, though real-world conditions massively impact, either positively or negatively, the aforementioned. Highly costly wheels and frame are not worth it for 99% of cyclists, therefore, but some other items could be worth it for a lot of people considering their relatively low costs to/over watts saved. Naturally, the reason pros care a lot about their fames and wheels is they have already maximised everything else, which only leaves the frames and wheels for extra gains. But, this only applies to pros.
A rough understanding of aero additions/elements (this changes slightly depending on the speeds, terrain, and otherwise factors) from best to worst in terms of watts/drag:
(1) Low body weight/slim figure.
(2) Ultra-lightweight bike (5-8kg).
(3) Aero body positioning (say, with drops).
(4) Aero/correct tyres (outer-rubber, tread, inner-tube, size, and PSI) -- unclear how high on the list this is, in reality.
(5) Tri-bars (with some standard bars, as well -- not TT bike).
(6) Full-aero helmet.
(7) Skin-tight, aero clothing.
(8) TT bike (limited usage, however).
(9) Extremely aero frame (non-TT bike).
(10) Extremely aero wheels (say, 88mm deeps with specialised materials and profiling, but they also have disadvantages in some conditions).
(11) Clipped pedals of some kind -- unclear how high on the list this one is, as well. But, we do know some watts are saved by being stuck to the pedals, and they are fairly cheap.
(12) Shaved body (from head to toe), and otherwise tiny adjustments to both bike and rider.
(13) Further weight reductions, such as with removal of water bottles and food, etc. (naturally, you are forced to carry a certain amount of fuel unless you are only riding a really short distance).
Please try something like 45 degree front wind angle or more and let's see if that thick "aero" design performs better than the classic thin tubes!
Lateral components may play a huge role in global aero performance, specially in windy days and curvy roads..
Mild nitpick, we do see cylindrical shaped space ships.
Look at the nose of the space shuttle.
This has to do with the complicated physics at hyper sonic speeds, which result in a totally different approach than something that is doing subsonic or super sonic speeds.
Scott Manley has a great video on it. Check out the nose of the SR71 vs the nose of the Space Shuttle for a visual exmaple.
Where are the actual CdA values? BTW, it's not the drag coefficient, Cd is, CdA is drag area, that is drag coefficient times frontal area.
my old leather strip helmet did the job back in the day.
Bicycle Quarterly published years ago a very interesting wind tunnel test comparing the positions on the bike with or without fenders, racks, bags, capes etc. and a rear life tyres test.
The latter showed that the “small tyres-high pressure equals faster speed “ rule we’ve been always taught is not true
How much of that drag is the wheels? Because I know how many watts the modern frames save and it's really not that much. You guys mentioned the tyres but that's not really the problem, it's the depth of the rims and matching the rim with the tyres.
For the clothing, it's mainly the helmet right ? The Mercx bike is so graceful... Watching This for just me I'd keep the bike and upgrade the helmet...
I find the information you give us rewarding too
In some degress of yaw which you have to test with cause of turbulence and real conditions, the results would be different and the differences less. Also the biggest part should be the weels
Great video and especially liked the footage from Vancouver! The modern kit stats are neat too.
Thanks for your comment, we hope you continue to enjoy our content!
I would love to see a wind tunnel test with the basic three body types I see out there the thin, the normal, and the " well padded" could make a few of us " well padded " slim down a bit !
I appreciate my mass when freewheeling past other riders in the descents, or leaving them in a headwind. Just don't ask me to climb fast.
I would love to see a wind tunnel test with a cycling jacket.
Any suggestions as to just commuting to work?
That Merckx is ridiculously beautiful.
I am a bit confused when I do the following numbers to isolate the body/position drag:
(Retro bike + modern kit 435W) - (pure bike drag 146.7W) = 288.3W
(Modern bike + modern kit 410W) - (pure bike drag 115W) = 295W
Can we conclude that a modern position is worse than the old one in term of drag?
Suggestion GCN : Please tell us if it was a simple laminar flow study or if it was way more realistic than that with a decently turbulent flow.
Also, would've loved to see the same study at different yaw angles.
Aero dynamic clothing for sub zero temperatures
Or at least for 3-5 Celsius.
You can make a whole video about that
Really interesting and informative . Great stuff.
YOU SHOULD RIDE THE DROPS TOO to see the aero gains there as well
Did have a chuckle. Modern clothing does not make you go faster, just easier to go faster. 25kph in retro clothing is the same speed as 25kph in a skin suit.
Also most sensible bit of advice... don't drop £000's on a bike (as much I love to) spend the cash on better kit. Great video. Shame I just dropped £000's on a new bike. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 not really, I neeeded number 4, reasons for the wife please as I doubt she will understand.
Excellent video, thanks again guys.👍
It would be cool to see Graeme Obree’s bike with that riding position, and compare it to that Pinarello to see which is faster.
th-cam.com/video/oJ9H0INZ2_s/w-d-xo.html
Not interesting, everyone know position has a biger effect, and Graeme Obree’s position was very extreme.
Please more of this ... like slim vs. fat guy, short vs. long bibs, short vs. long sleeves, with vs. without jacket, aero helmet vs. conventional helmet, ...
Retro bike.... with DA 7900 cranks... I love that actually... and I have done it to my old Colnago once.
Awesome! We'd love to see that - send us a picture for the bike vault if you'd like!
Top ten vid from GCN. Kudos.
Cheers for the support!
You are a bit off on describing CdA. CdA is the area of an object with Cd equal to 1 that has the same drag as the item tested. A body with area 3.0m^2 and Cd=0.5 has the same CdA of a 2m^2 body with Cd=0.75. (both have Drag Area=CdA=1.5m^2)
I wonder what Hambini would say about the value of areodynamic data generated in that highly controlled wind tunnel? 🤔 (HELLO HAMBINI FANS!!!)
Louder
Guys, this video just opened the door for another one. A follow up one: aero clothing. What to look for? Fabric type, fit type, brands, helmets, rain jackets, etc. Thank you.
Great suggestions Marius, thanks!
8w between modern bike and retro bike at 25kph isn't a massive difference IMO. And when it comes to style those old bikes with their down-shifters and cool lug-work win out every-time.
Well, bikes have a potential for re-selling in the used market, Im pretty sure there is not a huge demand for used bib shorts on Ebay.
Also Bikes tend to be more durable than clothing and they will still fit after the Holidays which I can't say the same about tight aero clothing :)
Anywyas watt saving its always good (and not cheap)
The retro bike's crank is factory stock?
great video, never would have thought that clothes make such a difference!
but would have been interesting to compare the different positions on the two bikes. by trying to keep the same position on both bikes you were basically trying to eliminate the influence of the rider, but you already tested the bikes without the rider...
Bottom line is there's bugger all difference between the bikes. Stick the aero wheels on the Eddy and the gap would be very small. Stick an aero bar on and the gap would be in the noise - probably 5-10W @ 45 kph. Whichever bike rides the best (cornering and pedalling) would be the fastest.
Very retro crankset on the retrobike 😝
Retro clothing should be wool pants and wool shirt. Your video explains why I was so slow racing in late 60"s to mid 70's.