Peter-D. Munoz says:I like your companies boldness to say right out that you weigh your frames with the paint on. So yes Cerverlo I want to concur with your honest weight test idea.I believe Cervelo by these two facters just indicated, is among the most honest in their evaluation of both true weight, and aero.After all guys, I have been doing a lot of aero searching, and every other company so far (Trek has not come out yet-August?-with their aero road bike; so I have to exclude them), but every other company is comparing their best with Cervelo. This is a big compliment to them. So yes, their is a lot more truth in what Cervelo is saying about the two part test-at: at least it is true for them, and that is why I am leaning heavily to buy my next bike from them. This would be my first aero bike, and I believe the s5 will be the next standard by which all other companies will try to catch up with, and compare.

Sergio says:In regards to the comment that manufacturers “lie” about their bike weights and aero advantages, I think the word lie is a little strong. I rather believe that each manufacturer promotes their “best case scenario.”

I would like to see publication(s) run unbiased comparisons similar to what “Consumers Report” does: first purchase products randomly in different stores, make comparisons based on hard data and collected during repeatable & rigid test protocols.

This allows comparisons to be run in different dates, in different years and even allow to compare new products against discontinued models. Most bike magazines articles express “opinions” [of experienced riders]. No hard data!

It is time consuming and costly to follow protocols and collect hard data.

High-end bikes are a niche segment and tests cost money … little chances publications will be interested in doing that... but I will keep my fingers crossed.

Until then, we will continue to be “vulnerable” to claims made by manufacturer “best case scenarios” and biased “opinions” published by magazines … that depend on manufacturers advertising money.

Reuben D. says:I partially agree, but manufacturers know that weight is easily verifiable, and that aerodynamics is not. I think it is a safe assumption that they play this to their advantage, leading one to believe that if the claimed weight is accurate, then the claimed aerodynamic profile probably is as well. I like to follow the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" for this, though it's frequently impossible due to conflicting claims from seemingly every manufacturer regarding the others product, usually their own being superior. As you say, you just have to use your sense, pay close attention to test data and company ethics to make what you feel is the most reasonable choice. Unless you're sitting on a large sum of money and time, there are never any dead guarantees in the aero department.

Sayba2th says:If aero is not adventageous then why are time trial bikes, aero bars, deep section rims or discs & tear drop helmets used over road bikes and standard equipment on the bulk of time trials by every single team on all pro levels? Why does motor sport have sleek lines on chasis' and airfoil designs on wings? Why are aeroplanes wings shaped into airfioils? Why because it's more aerodynamic and you cut thru the air alot easier and cleaner. Basic test:- next time you're out driving put your hand up in to the wind with an open palm hold for a minute & now turn it to the side - feel the difference? Case Closed.

JimmyDee says:I agree with Wilson.Simply knowing that the weight can be verified by anyone means that any and every company out there will be likely to at least come close.By the same token, knowing that basically nobody can verify anything to do with aero claims means that any and every company out there has absolutely no compelling reason to be accurate.I therefore think that the opposite is true. If a company is accurate with their weight claims, this by no means indicates that they will be truthful about their aero claims because they know they have no accountability.Take Cervelo's own claim of 'splitting the air once'. Look at the profile of a bike and ask yourself if this is a realistic claim at any speed. The only way to split the air only once is to use a monocoque shell. Without having a shell, there are all kinds of places where turbulence is generated on the bicycle. And far more than that on the body of the rider. An engineer can tell you that without even looking. That huge triangle between your knees is a veritable maelstrom of turbulence and drag.To be realistic, the only way you can get noticeable differences in aero testing is to use very high wind speeds, so I believe that there is actually very little functional difference between most 'fairly aerodynamic' builds. If a bike is not aerodynamic at all, you could find a significant difference in aerodynamic performance, but if you are comparing one aero bike to another, the differences are likely minimal. *Especially* at speeds lower than 100km/h.

Tony says:To a point, I agree.....BUT manufacturers sure do like to make there products look better by not including or including some factors. For example with weight.....a lot of times paint or naked carbon can differ more than 100g. When comparing with other module system, one can add a heavier Dura-Ace 7900 compared to a SRAM Red crankset. I don't believe manufacture's lie, but I do believe they "tweek" the scenario to make their products look better.

sausskross says:Thinking about what I have written down here, it is better to ride complette bikes to compare them :-) Is a cervelo in the range it will have all chances.

sausskross says:Since the wheelset is told to have the bigger aerodynamic influences the comparison of frames ist even harder, because they won't roll without.Riding different frames with the same wheelset you will feel the difference in speed and power need, if not, take the one you like more.

stodr says:yes companies make claims about their frame weight but what most don't tell you is if it is with the paint on, what size the bike is and whether or not it includes the seat tube. So it is still hard to tell what the actual weight is.

Wilson Tran says:Well, I can't think of a single bike manufacturer that makes numerical claims with regards to aerodynamics. When it comes down to aero bikes, they all tell you that they make the most aerodynamic bike in the world. So if their claimed weights are 10% lighter than actual weights, what is "10% more aero" than actual?