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/asrr28K9r89DZwiz6
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
Which combination did you think would be fastest?
Assuming 80 kg for bike and rider, an additional kilogram is just a 1,25% power penalty. No reason there to bet on light weight.
@P FunkLife Not significantly - rather, the wheels with the 4 season tyres (slower compound) and heavy butyl tubes were slowest.
@Luuk Rutten Which means the wheels are really not that important???? I do think we need a true lightweight wheel. 40mm is still a deep section wheel....
Neither the bike nor the wheels are aero. Disc brakes are terrible for aero- such a joke they've been foisted on the public
No disrespect Ollie, Alex look so much smoother on the bike, it seemed to effortless... holding back @250watts 🤯
Don’t forget to factor how awesome deep section aero wheels sound on the road :)
Great test idea, but need to run again, gents...
What a bullshit test not to mention the results...
Regardless, the bike looks better with deep section wheels. Especially sexy if it's a steel bike with skinny tubes! My aero wheels that are 46mm tall but also 28mm wide pair up to my Conti-5000 TL's perfectly. Not as sexy as the 303s but I love them!
'On the descent, the aero bike is significantly quicker' - on the graphic, Alex's are shown as quicker on the lightweight bike?
neither - losing weight and becoming stronger and more flexible and slamming stem is what makes you faster ;)
Hey guys love your vids and love the bikes would love to ride one myself in the near future i hope.
Even at the start Ollie is a minute behind #dropped 😉
For me, all road bikes do look cool with deep section wheels
Test a mid depth wheel of around 50mm vs a 23mm vs the 80mm
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. 👍
I'm looking at getting aero wheels, and thinking about what depth to get. Would it be worth getting the dt swiss arc 1400 with 62mm rear wheel and a 50mm front wheel? I want something that can be used in the vast majority of situations, stable in typical wind levels but also want to have something aero. My bike is a BMC team machine 02 and I weight 75kg ish
Was this test a hack or a bodge? 😜
When you take overall weight (body weight plus bike) there can't have been a very big percentage difference between frames, like 1.25% or summat. (My bike weighs more than both together and cost less than one of your wheels 🚲😐) Does having supension on the seat post save watts on rough roads, like softer tyres do, because most of the overall weight doesn't get moved as much?
👨🔬🤔🤭
Thank you for the transparency in what you felt could have been better for the testing. Still entertaining.
Why not factor in power meter data for a much more complete picture? Sorta half-baked without considering relative power outputs.
So basically, what you found out was, that the largest effect is in right selection of tires, and in the knowledge of the user :) => it’s better to learn to use tools one has before upgrading.
Rim brakes, 23mm tyres, 36cm bars, aero position as you can comfortably hold. Boom. Saved you 10k.
So real world outdoor testing isn’t as accurate as indoor testing? And as for the tyres, the narrower tyre will always be more aerodynamic. Ask Hambini, he’s 5!
Here is what your tests proved to me...even the most modest of equipment exceeds my skillset to a point that I needn't spend the money. 😂😂😂
Aero position trumps all is what i gather from these test results. The marginal gains from equipment don't beat the Position created by said equipment.
So aero wheels are a scam for real world conditions 😉👍
You missed one variable, time. On a hilly course (assuming you finish at or above the MSL altitude from where you started) you will always be climbing more time than descending. So, you are spending more time taking advantage of the lightweight bike attributes climbing, than the aero bike is taking advantage of the aerodynamics during descending.
Why bother putting this out once you'd realised the error.
Why not both? Everything aero is the way to go :D
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
I still ride mostly tubulars.
My recent purchase of a lightweight bike with 40mm wheels seems justified now, thanks guys. Not sure I'd consider 40mm to be shallow though!
Your experiment shows aero wheel marketing is bullshit fed to the masses. Lol
God damn- you have some good looking bikes!
When you guys will make a video about the fabulousness canyon seat post ?
When I saw the results I knew something wasn’t right! The good news is that you can usually learn more in the long run from mistakes. Had you not messed anything up, people would have just accepted the macro result. Now we all get to think about the smaller variables involved. So here’s a series for you. Do this test again properly to find out the overall result. Then, follow it up with 4 other videos, with each video only focusing on one of these bike combinations at a time. But within that video have a handful of other things to try such as different tires, tire widths to rims, etc. In effect, like another 4 “options” per setup. Then compare all 16 results and I bet you’ll be able to make some decent conclusions about each setup and other small variables
Just combine the both! Aero wheels in an aero frame. Problem solve!
Biggest aero difference in wheels is when you go from box section to 30mm deep section so basically your test only proved what was already known.
I think Felt's repeated championships are proof enough that aero trumps lightweight.
With the goop you slather inside the tire, tubeless is messy, isn't it?
sorry but we need Project Farm to do this test.
I'm staring at the road bike next to me with... Tubulars. Most people don't??? I do.
lightweight bike with aero wheels just look better, and we all know if the bike looks best it means it is the fastest.
I think you guys are great but this test should have been retitled “A ride with a couple different bike and wheelsets”. You guys had motos in front of you, waving your arms, not holding a consistent position etc. It was entertaining but useless from a data perspective :)
How can you even bother to make this video if the tires are different?
I still own tubulars...
They should stick you two planks in charge of data interpretation at Imperial college. You're just the kind of visionaries they have been searching for.
Try to test again and properly. Real light wheels and same tyres...come on you can do it right
I hope you kept the geometry of both bikes to be as similar as it can be. Otherwise, if the aero bike was set up to make the rider slightly more aero, then it kinda makes the test redundant. Since it is not a like for like comparison. Most aero gains are from the human rider than frame shapes etc. Can you redo the test but show that you measured the Stack, reach, setback, stem length and height etc .... all to be the same ?
What was the weight difference of the set ups too? Very minor I suspect. The gap also would be bigger with increase of power?
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.
So these 808 are slower, heavier and more expensive... but at at least they look good!
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!
Really interesting stuff - can’t wait to see the experiment done properly 😂
Is Ollie trying to find a build that will beat si' TT bike? If so that's commitment.
A simple 'drop test' might be a way to test aero efficiency? Namely At the top of the same hill, with the same rider adopting the same position, taking the same line, each bike is released from a standing start. Certainly seems to cut the variables to a minimum for 'real world' testing?
entertaining but with n=2 statistically nonsensical. as the results clearly show.
Performing these kinds auf tests consistantly in the outdoors is definitely difficult. As you seem to use power meters, I suggest that you also measure and publish the average wattage of each ride/section and rider. I am interested to see, how wattage differences correlate to time i.e. speed differences and might thus give a hint to reconsider the obvious time based ranking.
Let's take the test as it is, there won't be any tests that cannot be criticized. If one looks more carefully, a lot of the knows facts about cycling are proven again. I made 4 classifications. Olie is O, Alex is A, Lightweight with mid section wheels is Lm, Lightweight with aero wheels is La, Aero with midsection wheels is Am, Aero with aero wheels is Aa. 1, 2, 3, 4 is first place, second etc. etc. On flats: O 1 AM 2 Lm 3 Aa 4 La A 1 Aa 2 Am 3 Lm 4 La On climbs: O 1 Am 2 Lm 3 Aa 4 La A 1 Am 2 Lm 3 Aa 4 La On descents O 1 Am 2 Aa 3 La 4 Lm A 1 Lm 2 La 3 Aa 4 Am TOTAL TIME O 1 Lm 2 Am 3 Aa 4 La A 1 Aa 2 Am 3 Lm 4 La Conclusions: 1. The same order for both cyclists on climbs, this is the only one where they achieve same classification, contrary to what they say in the video. Known fact confirmed again. Midsection and not deep section wheels for climbing. 2. On climbs is better to have an aero bike than an lightweight bike. But if one choses a lightweight bike, that should never be with deep section wheels. 3 On flats lightweight bikes with aero wheels are not recommended, both had the worst time on them. 4 Aero bikes are best for flat terrain. For some cyclists and in certain conditions it will be better to combine aero with midsection than with deep section. Known fact already, in winter you do not go with deep section wheels, that's why there are training and winter wheels. 5 Descents are tricky since they rely more on skill than other things. That's why you can see such disparities between the two. It is the exact reverse order, the best for Ollie is last for Alex and vice versa. 1,2,3,4 for Ollie is 4,3,2,1 for Alex. That simply means that one of them is more comfortable on lightweight and the other on aero bike. 6 For descents midsection is better than deep section. This is something new and needs to be checked again in summer. 7 The lightweight with aero, so fashionable comes last in 6 of the 8 classifications. So not recommended. Again something rather known, you do not ride lightweight in winter. 8 The midsection wins in 6 of the 8 classifications, the same conclusion as above. 9 Aero bike wins 6 of the 8 classifications. We already know they are faster generally, so nothing new here again. The test should be repeated in summer to see if there are different results. Also a 1 minute descent is to small to be of full relevance. Why not go to a real mountain, in Scotland is they do not have the funds for Alpe D'Huez, Turmalet or other.
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!
The deeper wheels will demonstrate their superiority at higher speeds as the aero advantage becomes appreciably greater as you exceed 40kph. Testing it at 35kph will tend to level the aerodynamic efficiency in the favor of the shallower wheels. Include a run at 50 kph and you'll see a clear difference.
The only part that transfer power to the road is your tyre: so yeah standardise the test will help. If you do a separate test: 28mm v 25mm and pump to max (120 psi v 90 psi) you will find far less road vibrations with 28mm and better handling compared to 25mm, but with minimal drag & speed loss.
Olly’s pelvis is all over the place, saddle looks too high
Even with all other discrepancies, this begs the question, are aero wheels faster in variable windy conditions? I’m starting to think, no.
The same rider must be the common denominator. And please, also use tubular at 200 psi, come on guys, live a little. Don't just slug-heavy 28mm clinchers. Conversely, however, it does make sense that slinging a fatter, heavier, clincher around the wheel at higher speeds would necessarily mean that the momentum of that weight would help the rider sling them even faster (once you get that momentum up to speed). So, lightweight wins on take-off, heavier wins once momentum is achieved -- yeah baby.
Question: Which thing makes you faster? Aero frame or aero wheels? Answer: Tubeless tyres
So basically...Given that tyres and tyre pressures seemed to have mattered more than anything else...just goes to show...don’t bother spending loads of money on aero frames/wheels in an effort to be faster (do it because you have the money and want to look good!!). Those that want to go faster - get good tyres...but mainly train harder!!!
Ok, without checking the results, and using the knowledge from Hambini, my bet is: aero wheels make all the difference, frame makes almost no difference.
Guess I was completely wrong.
the difference in rolling resistence between the tires is definitely bigger than the very minor difference between the 303 and the 808 wheels in everyday conditions and speeds. there is a big advantage when going from a box section, 32 spoke alumunium entry level trekking wheel thingy, to a mid depth 40-50mm aero wheel for everyday riding. both in wheight, feel and aerodynamics. but from that 40-50mm rim to an even deeper one, the aero gains are marginal. a different tire or just a small change in position on the bike can neglect that.
The climbing time difference would be very minimal, for example if Ollie and light bike is 80kg (probably more) and with aero bike is 81kg then only a 1.25% increase (more likely 1%) in power needed which would be in the margin of error.
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 was just a few months back that you released a video in which a rep from a wheel company made the argument that heavier deep section wheels are faster than lightweight shallow section wheels. Back then I called BS and questioned some of the logic as weak sauce. Looks like you just found out what I and many others already know. Lighter, shallow section wheels are faster.
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.
And to think we probably would have learned less from this video if everything went as planned. Ain't science great?
Using the exact same tire (including size) between the two wheelsets may not actually be fair either. The 303 was designed around 28s. Use the tire size that the 808 was design with too.
I am saying aero wheels and aero bike. Now I'll watch 😀
I was wrong.....oh but it was the tyres! What were they thinking 🤦🏻
A very embarrassing error by GCN to not control for the tyres used in the test.
GCN please consider buying electric motorcycle for shooting, really hate the noise of gas engine instead of presenter’s voice.
lesson: science is hard
Just imagine how fast a rim brake bike would have been
Very interesting GCN this was a cracking project to demonstrate so many unanswered questions. I can'r wait for the part two.
does this mean that the gains from going 40mm deep to 82mm are quite marginal?
The lightweight wheels weren’t shallow enough. 40mm is classed as aero. Try some 23mm deep ones instead. I feel all this has proved is that lighter, 40mm wheels are better all round than heavier, super deep 80mm. Not really a shock when you think about it.
Looking forward to the follow up.
Olie should get his PhD revoked for this much bad science packed into one video
These comparison videos make me feel like I have obsessive/compulsive disorder.
aero
1:50 got a heart attack when i saw the long valves destroying the aero gains :(
Yeah, he probably lost 0,00001 second dor thar
Good stuff. Glad you noticed the tyres but still an interesting test of aero vs light frame
Interesting how the bike behind you guys changed from the Canyon at 13:xx to the Orbea at 15:XX. I like the Orbea better. =)
It scares me every time that you are always riding on the wrong side of the road. Fortunately everybody else there is doing it too!
Another episode of GCN botches science.
Make an advert of why you shouldn’t buy zipp 808 and then backtrack.
well ... error! Just do it again!
Aero bike with aero wheels
Maybe I am a cynic, but doesn't this show that the bike doesn't matter that much, it's 95% rider? These are both great bikes, but...
I'm going to take this as vindication for my Giant Propel with shallow wheels underperforming in the Bike Vault. "You might not like it, mate, but it's the fastest combo."
Basically the differences are so small that they are within margin of error for the experiment. There are 2 major rules. 1. Lightweight bike helps a little bit on climbs so long as the rider can't possibly stand to lose any weight from their body. 2. Aero gains are all to be found in body position. Streamlining various bits and pieces of your bike which are subject to all kinds of turbulence in the real world is a waste of time
So, we aren’t any wiser than at the start of the video. Come on lads get yourself back out side and do it properly this time 😂
after all that, different tyres on different pressures. waste of time
Guys, guys, guys, I am a massive fan, however, the above video is like presenting an engineering project built and tested without the use of calibrated tools and test equipment. If you worked for me, I would ask you to try harder. I hope that the discovery channel has the same view.
@askgcntech please could you do something on replacing / rewrapping bar tape? After many months of being on the turbo I think a freshen up might be nice and there’s some cool looking stuff out there but my ocd is worried if I take it off I won’t get it back on again perfectly! Also no idea which type to choose. X