Watching the webinar I don’t recall a watt figure. However in the Gen 7 presentation they did also say they optimized the downtube to assist with airflow around bottles.
The town tube is now basically square and supposed to act as a windbreaker, until they reshape the speed concept to look like this I’m not convinced this aero theory is better
I remember reading people quoting 3W up to 8W or something crazy. The Trek guy I talked to said gen 8 with the aero bottles was 1-2W slower than gen 7 with normal bottles in the internal testing. So with normal bottles that means anywhere from 5-10W slower. I hope Tour magazine will test with and without aero bottles to sus out the difference but I doubt they would.
Yea, I feel like if you want normal bottles, and my guess is that most people will, the gen 7 is undoubtably the answer. For the pros that can get an endless supply of the aero bottles, the gen 8 makes sense.
Awesome! Thank you @Junk_Miles and @Picklerickle.
From my conversation, the new gen 8 sounded like it was 100% designed around the pros. They have unlimited handups and access to the aero bottles, so it’s not really a change at all in logistics and they get the aero gain. Meanwhile, for the majority of consumers the aero bottles will just be a hassle. The gen 8 is slower aero-wise, but most pros sit in the peloton so 1-2W is nothing. The big difference is weight, which I was told is what the pros want, especially when they’re climbing up long climbs for 3 weeks. The gen 8 should be able to push up against the UCI weight limit now.
For me, the biggest question is how it’s going to ride. I’m curious if it’s going to feel massively different to the gen 7.
Tour Magazine test with a round bottle on the downtube so I think that’s the only result we will be seeing. I’m basing this on the Nero podcast where they had the guy from Tour on for an episode and seeing footage from their testing.
Who’s putting water bottles on the downtube of a speed concept?
The difference is not 1-2w, but much more. (How much depends on what you’re comparing to.) And if you’re talking about a rider going 400w, it’s more, because their speed is higher. Meanwhile 300g of frame weight is worth less than half a percent (to a rider of any ability level) even on the Angliru. The top riders go up it at 18km/h meaning the gen 7 madone is likely marginally faster even at a slightly higher weight.
However your post is a great example of the fallacies that many customers probably base their purchasing decisions on.
Good point.
I am trying to buy a gen 7 slr right now and the isoflow is the biggest misgiving I have. Maybe it contributes to ride quality, but aside from that, Ronan McLaughlin’s review mentioned that it allows road spray to hit one’s water bottles, which I can see being a pita. So if they carry that on just as a stylistic element, that will be annoying.
I actually don’t know how the gen 7 could have been a commercial failure. It’s sold out in most configs and most sizes (unlike Gen 6 was when gen 7 rolled out). The sku reduction is hitting me twice because they also got rid of my size (62cm) and the replacement size is marginally less great for me (requires an additional 1cm of spacers, and tall bikes are already hard enough to make look decent as it is).
Since when does Tour put a bottle on the DT? Maybe I’m wrong, but the lack of a bottle is my beef with their test.
I hadn’t seen the deep red color yet. That looks amazing in that rich color. Also big props to the smaller logo - way more tasteful. This bike with the right paint is much more to my taste than the over the top aero Madone or boring/poorly detailed Emonda.
I think they’d releasing two bottles- the full aero ones and some more normal flat side round ones like Cannondale has. I can buy into the flat sided bottles.
Edit: looks like I’m wrong. Now I just want to know how they determine frame size and exposed seat post for the seat post stiffness test.
Where do you put your water for a UCI 40k tt?
TBC I was referencing what other posters in this thread have been reporting. I had a hard time getting what I wanted too but, I’m a 56 so I’d imagine that’s the most or 2nd most popular size…
Hole or not, bottles get absolutely douched in the rain especially with these new drop seatstay bikes that have a 5mm wide seat tube. This is someone just looking for some way to criticize the design, remember all the talk about how the seatpost would be breaking at the wedge?
Isn’t “douche” a cleaning product?
Puddles are a bigger problem than rain for me. Every ride has at least one puddle for 8 months a year. If it rains I’m going to stay inside.
I already have this issue to some extent with gravel and there I use bottles with nozzle covers, but they are a bit more faff to deal with.
If it saves 5w I’m running the bottles
Here its slang for getting wet. It’s going to be an issue on any bike, even my old very non aero emonda would get the bottles wet. Slightly more of an issue with the hole, but not to the point of me wanting to throw the bike in the trash.
You use the questionably legal triangle shaped water bottle that trek makes for it. You aren’t swapping out bottles so there isn’t much of an issue. Most speed concept users are also not limited to the UCI rules.
What was stopping you from running aero bottles before with any other bike? They’ve been available for a while. I bought a pair for my TT bike and they both ejected on bumps. Even before they ejected they sucked as bottles, with small capacity, fiddly nozzles, hard to squeeze, can’t stand upright on table or in cup holder.
I would run them for crits only
Still don’t see how you couldn’t have done that 10+ years ago… Or how that addresses any of the problems with the bottles.
The only conceivable way they could help is if you ran them empty and put your actual drinking bottle in your middle jersey pocket.
