Canyon Aeroad - Read if you planning on purchasing one

[CAAD4]

Yay BMC!! Love my bike even more now.

I don't sit on my TT but at least I know I can if I want to.

 

To be sure, you might want to go for colonic irrigation first....

[Pure Savage]

or they're not fatty 86kg riders...

 

 

 

 

(sorry OP)

????????????

[dirtypot]

I sense a 21 page BMC warranty thread in our near futures.

Seems unlikely. 

[FrankG]

.

[button]

Given that I am one of the jerks on this thread a more even reply is probably in order...

 

I would probably also be a little hot under the collar if I broke 3 frames (oddly enough I have - in the mid 80s I and the team broke a bunch of Columbus SLX frames - yeah I'm that old).

 

The top tube sitting thing still irks me though - if in doubt add some maths I always say:

 

A frame weighs around 1kg - let's break (ha ha) that into 4 equal sections - rear triangle and 3 main tubes - let's say each one weighs a quarter of the total so a top tube weighs 250g.

 

Button weighs 86kg but only partially sits on the top tube - maybe 2/3 of his weight - ~60kg.

 

Roads are not flat so point loading happens when we hit dips/speed bumps/potholes - let's say 1g (running gets up to 3g) so the load is now 120kg. On a 250g tube. That is only a few mm thick (check the pic that Button posted).

 

So we're expecting a 250g tube to support 480 times its weight in it's weak direction that it was not designed or intended to support? That is mad.

 

Given that the max rider weight is 120kg on this frame (if this thread is to be believed) - if we use the model above we're expecting a 250g tube to carry 2/3 of 120kg and doubled = 160kg. 640 times its weight.

 

Personally I'd say you'd be mad to sit on your top tube. The "standing on your top tube" analogy sounds silly but you're doing exactly that when you top tube ride. If "hanging 120kg off your top tube" works better for you then think about that before you super tuck.

 

Practically it has worked and many people do it but from an engineering point of view I'd say it's a bit silly. And kinda pointless from an energy saving point of view.

 

This thread has performed its duty - to warn heavier riders that perhaps the Aeroad frame is not for them if they like to sit on the top tube a lot.

 

100%... and when you write it out it seems so logical. This is, however, the problem then - "Practically it has worked and many people do it"

 

When you get to the other side of a climb and you bleeding from your eyeballs and other riders around are aero-tucking, doing a simple engineering analysis and math problem is not an option and its so easy to follow suite. What makes it even easier to get into this position is that you have seen it before - without issues. And people cant use the monkey see monkey do argument because inherently that is how humans learn EVERYTHING! Bad and good... If every time a pro sat on a TT and went straight through the bicycle you would not even attempt the position. It seems logical the way you explained it but its frequency leads to it being less common a logic as some may think.

 

And never mind my weight. By your calculations a 60kg rider is still expecting the top tube to support over 150x its weight...

 

And surely by this example bike manufacturers need to make consumers more aware of this issue? Or as some alluded, add 100-200g of carbon to the top tube and stop compromising your frames to make outrageous marketing statements.

 

Is it Friday yet?

[button]

or they're not fatty 86kg riders...

 

 

 

 

(sorry OP)

 

 

Shots fired! Although I could probably cut out a croissant or two 

[CAAD4]

At least it's becoming light hearted now and less heavy... Good.

[button]

When I was a kid, I would have my GF sit on the handle bars and give her a lift home, never had one of those brake.

 

Buttons have u tried the GF test on this canyon?

 

Don't be ridiculous... thats not 'normal bike use' 

[DieselnDust]

100%... and when you write it out it seems so logical. This is, however, the problem then - "Practically it has worked and many people do it"

 

When you get to the other side of a climb and you bleeding from your eyeballs and other riders around are aero-tucking, doing a simple engineering analysis and math problem is not an option and its so easy to follow suite. What makes it even easier to get into this position is that you have seen it before - without issues. And people cant use the monkey see monkey do argument because inherently that is how humans learn EVERYTHING! Bad and good... If every time a pro sat on a TT and went straight through the bicycle you would not even attempt the position. It seems logical the way you explained it but its frequency leads to it being less common a logic as some may think.

 

And never mind my weight. By your calculations a 60kg rider is still expecting the top tube to support over 150x its weight...

 

And surely by this example bike manufacturers need to make consumers more aware of this issue? Or as some alluded, add 100-200g of carbon to the top tube and stop compromising your frames to make outrageous marketing statements.

 

Is it Friday yet?

Ok I admit it, I tried an aerotuck this one time. Hit a bump and nearly got bucked off the bike.

“That was pretty stupid” was the first thing that went through my head.

Not only that but my quads felt right after so I figured I can probably go faster if I feel more confident. Never bothered with it again. No monkey see monkey do. Just a quick assessment of the risks.

I also think pro cyclists have far fewer working brain cells so I tend not to follow their example. If I did I’d be doping long time

[eddy]

 

add 100-200g of carbon to the top tube and stop compromising your frames to make outrageous marketing statements.

 

Is it Friday yet?

I don't think it is as simple as adding 200g of carbon to the TT.

 

Each tube is engineered to do a specific job, and it is the function of the seat tube to support the rider's seated weight.

 

Ensuring that the TT can also be used as a saddle and must be designed and tested as such, will have far reaching consequences to the entire science of frame design (and not only for Canyon and Spez)

[Slowbee]

Don't be ridiculous... thats not 'normal bike use' 

you have never given your GF a lift on your bike ?

[button]

you have never given your GF a lift on your bike ?

 

Maybe she knows something I don't? 

[Eldron]

100%... and when you write it out it seems so logical. This is, however, the problem then - "Practically it has worked and many people do it"

 

When you get to the other side of a climb and you bleeding from your eyeballs and other riders around are aero-tucking, doing a simple engineering analysis and math problem is not an option and its so easy to follow suite. What makes it even easier to get into this position is that you have seen it before - without issues. And people cant use the monkey see monkey do argument because inherently that is how humans learn EVERYTHING! Bad and good... If every time a pro sat on a TT and went straight through the bicycle you would not even attempt the position. It seems logical the way you explained it but its frequency leads to it being less common a logic as some may think.

 

And never mind my weight. By your calculations a 60kg rider is still expecting the top tube to support over 150x its weight...

 

And surely by this example bike manufacturers need to make consumers more aware of this issue? Or as some alluded, add 100-200g of carbon to the top tube and stop compromising your frames to make outrageous marketing statements.

 

Is it Friday yet?

 

I suspect most bike manufacturers already do this - mid range bikes tend to be heavier because they're not designed too be the lightest/fastest bike available.

 

You bought in the "top line" range which is (generally) designed to be closer to the edge with weight and carbon being saved in as many places as possible (like the top tube).

 

This issue will be polarised into two groups I'd guess:

1) People that have studied/are interested in engineering and think that the design is perfect as is and people should not "misuse" the product.

2) People that get on and ride and expect the bike to handle whatever they throw at it.

 

For you I'd recommend a more mid range frame that hasn't had bits trimmed and shaved to make the frame a "super light super racing frame". 

[RocknRolla]

Must remember to add “can areotuck all day long” to the list of benefits of riding bikes with steel frames

[SwissVan]

Sitting or not sitting those okes get a new frame when they crack the current one. Maybe the data goes into improved product maybe not. So many compromises in such a simple structure.

Solution is simple; don't super tuck. It's got that "don't try this at home or on your local club ride" feeling

Essentially things like bicycles have a life limit, the more you use it AND deviate from the manufacturers intended usage the shorter that life limit becomes.

[Eldron]

When you get to the other side of a climb and you bleeding from your eyeballs and other riders around are aero-tucking, 

 

Time for some more science - thanks to wind resistance you don't have to super tuck if the guy in front of you is super tucking. You can happily stay seated doing a semi tuck and you'll catch up to super tucker. That way he takes the risk of cracking his frame while you gain all the advantage.

 

There is zero need whatsoever to risk for your frame by super tucking during training.

 

I get that we all want to be cool and pro and sh!t but risking your frame to be cool is a little silly.