These in-depth scientific studies always seem to neglect the weight and aerodynamics of the RIDER. That is surely the biggest factor when it comes to speed and efficiency.
It's always funny with people having paid $10k extra to save a kilogram on their bike, and then show up on the Sunday group ride with a beer belly. But I think these articles and study are mostly written for / paid by professionals, and they don't have that much more weight to lose.
But reading "The secret race" by Hamilton (one of Armstrong's team mates), they do focus obsessively on it. They would often ride for hours, then take sleeping medication and go to bed without eating.
> It's always funny with people having paid $10k extra to save a kilogram on their bike, and then show up on the Sunday group ride with a beer belly.
Ah, the smell of fresh gatekeeping in the morning. You don't know what road these people are on, just their current state. For all you know, they've already dropped dozens of pounds and are happy with their own improvements. Never look down on a fat person on a bike.
I didn't gatekeep or look down on anyone, those I'm talking about is me and my friends. It's just a funny jab at ourselves, spending way too much money and effort on things that ultimately wont matter. At least we have fun doing it :)
I'm a cycle advocate and spend hours a week fighting for infrastructure etc where I live, that I hope helps all kinds of cyclists.
They are climbing mountains though. In a flat area this advantage nearly disappears. I have that typical cyclist underweight build and it barely helps me on gravel rides, really only when there's a direct headwind. And it's balanced by how much more I get pushed around by crosswinds.
It's definitely very significant for european-style touring races, but people overstate it for even high-level amateur rides especially in flatter areas. Which is most gravel riding.
When framed that way, it seems odd, but is it so strange that someone with means spends $10k on their hobby? That's really what it comes down to, more so than the weight-savings. If you like riding bikes, and have the money to spend on it, why not spend $10k on a fancy bike?
The rider is a much bigger factor, of course. But that’s not the problem being addressed here. You’re not suggesting the bike should not be optimized are you?
It makes no sense to optimize the bike in isolation. There is complex airflow interaction between the bike and rider. There are changes that aerodynamicists could do to reduce bike drag that would actually increase drag on the complete bike plus rider system.
The problem is that there are so many variables with riders. For example, just a slight change in head position can increase drag more than any improvement in frame tube shape could save.
A skinsuit or roadsuit will definitely make you faster on the bike. It's pretty easy to measure the effect with a power meter.
Weirdly "aero socks" are both a thing and make a big difference to the point that they are heavily regulated by the UCI.
Any cylindrical part of the bike or rider is going to perform badly so if you can encourage the airflow to stay attached around it you reduce the amount of effort required to move you forward, hence aero clothing being a big deal.
If you're a serious cyclist then it's pretty easy to spend money on good quality clothing.
Always made me wonder if taking the swimmers route instead would provide all the same benefits without the cost and look. Shave your whole upper body and go shirtless and you would be pretty damn aero no? Would a skinsuit really improve upon that?
In addition after switching to a Brooks saddle (I tried literally 10s of saddles using the "saddle swap" forum feature on some forums) I now no longer ever want to use padded bike shorts again. Of all the short types the simple padded chamois was my favorite (simple foam - no gel or any other BS) and now I just prefer wearing a pair of synthetic lightweight boxer briefs (no fly) that were designed for hiking originally. There is no padding at all and from day one the brooks was extremely comfortable. It only got more comfortable with time and applies all pressure directly to my sit bones. Every other saddle + padded short (even ones that mostly were on my sit bones) ended up forcing padding into the areas between my sit bones and outside them as my weight compressed the padding. I havent tried their new non leather seats but they seem to operate by a similar tension (a tensioned pliable surface vs a hard plastic shape with padding on top) which results in your weight creating additional space below the sit bones vs filling it with padding.
It's actually been tested and modern fabrics are better than bare skin for drag.
In Michael Huchinson's Faster[1] it mentions that they tested a rider naked in a wind tunnel to find out!
If you look at a modern TT skinsuit you can see that they try to cover as much of the arms and legs as possible. They usually stop above the elbows and knees because it's hard to cover the joints without wrinkles.
Likewise, socks are now as long as permissible (without breaking the UCI sock rules!), which I think is about halfway up the calf. It would be faster to cover all the way up to the knee joint.
It all sounds silly if you don't race but if you've put some effort into getting fit then after awhile it's hard to gain even 5 or 10 more watts. If you can reduce your drag by more than that just by wearing a better pair of socks... well why would you?
BTW I have a Brookes on my commuter Brompton too. :D
But reading "The secret race" by Hamilton (one of Armstrong's team mates), they do focus obsessively on it. They would often ride for hours, then take sleeping medication and go to bed without eating.