Q&A: Aero Bike vs. Climbing Bike—Ryan Weighs In
Aero bike, or climbing bike?
For road cyclists the world over, that is the question of the moment. And while the answer is simple enough — there is no silver bullet, as the right bike truly depends on terrain, along with the ambition and capabilities of each rider — it’s a debate that is on the minds of many, and for good reason.
Coming out of this year’s Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes, the men’s and women’s pelotons sent very different signals on this very topic. Once reserved for the flattest of stages only, top GC contenders in the men's race opted for aero bikes on the steepest of climbs this year, from yellow jersey winner Tadej Pogačar on his Colnago Y1Rs, to second place finisher Jonas Vingegaard on his Cervelo S5, among others. The traditional climbing bike, with its lower weight and more forgiving ride, took a backseat in favor of watts saved, as top riders took stock of the toll of 3+ weeks of high-intensity racing.
Contrast that with the Tour de France Femmes, where many of the top women opted for lighter, more classic climbing setups — bikes like the Canyon Ultimate, the Specialized Tarmac SL8 in its lighter build, or Trek Émonda. Given the industry’s firmly entrenched “do as the pros do” trickle-down effect, the divergence raised some interesting questions. Are climbing bikes still relevant, or even… dead? What are the advantages of aero anyway? And for the average rider, what is the better option?
As a former racer, and with nearly three decades as a bike shop owner, helping riders make these same choices every day, few people are better equipped to weigh in on this topic than Contender’s very own Ryan Littlefield.
To help make sense of what’s happening at the pro level — and what it means for everyday riders — we sat down with Ryan to capture his perspective.
Here’s what he had to say.
Q: This year’s Tour de France saw a strong preference for aero bikes, and not just for flat stages. But at the Tour de France Femmes, top riders mostly stayed the course with climbing bikes. What do you make of that contrast? Why are the men going aero, and the women sticking with climbing bikes?
A: First, not every WorldTour team has both types of bikes at their disposal. The Specialized Tarmac SL8 is more of a “tweener” of these two genres, and the bike had some great success early in this race. For the pro teams with the right bike sponsor and the proper budget to have both types of bikes in the quiver, the more climbing-focused bikes definitely were well represented on the podium of the last four and decisive stages of the Tour de France. Yes, the men are racing faster and they are climbing faster — and that may warrant the use of aero bikes. The women are also going fast enough where aerodynamics are a consideration of the gear selection. Just look at the wheels they’re riding, for example. I think the biggest factor leading the best women to select the climbing bike was that the race was likely to be decided on a couple of climbs that both came late in each day’s stage. For most of the stage, they ride in the group with teammates trying to save everything for the final push. In the men’s race, a small group might crest a climb with 60 miles to go, and have to cross the valley floor with only three or four riders before starting the next climb. Situations like this would definitely favor the aero bikes. One other factor is that with the women riders being much lighter, the weight savings play a bigger role, as it represents a larger percentage of the total weight of the rider and bike.
(Above: the Specialized SL8 Tarmac, ridden by Team SD Worx-Protime at this year's Tour de France Femmes, is an example of a "tweener" road bike, offering a blend of both aero and climbing capabilities)
Q: Assuming that the women’s teams most likely had access to the same aero platforms as the men, what else might have driven their decision making? In your mind, do factors like total race length (days and mileage), stage-by-stage terrain, or physiology factor in? If so, how?
A: Most of these riders would likely agree that their climbing bike is more comfortable. It is more likely that they do the majority of their training on their climbing bikes and just feel more “at-home” on it. Historically, the aero bikes have a little harsher ride, which might be a bigger consideration for these really light cyclists. With a more forgiving ride, the lighter frame might help the rider conserve some energy and stay fresh for the finish. Wider tires and lower pressures — which would be used on either type of bike — have narrowed this gap. As mentioned above, this year’s course in Tour de France Femmes definitely encouraged the riders with overall ambitions to hide out, stay out of the wind, and focus on slaying the final climb. A rider whose job was to keep the group together and to keep the breakaway in check would be better riding the aero bike. It’s also worth noting that a lighter weight rider who encounters super windy conditions is more likely to be blown around on an aero bike.
(Above: Cervelo S5 aero road bike, ridden by Team Visma | Lease a Bike and 2nd place finisher Jonas Vingegaard, left, at this year's Tour de France)
Q: Do you think the bias towards aero bikes for the men was a one-off trend, as teams seek any competitive advantage they can find, or could we be seeing a broader rebalancing between aero and climbing platforms?
A: I definitely think the aero bikes are here to stay. With the UCI loosening the restrictions a bit on bikes like this, the bike manufacturers have really retooled and developed some amazing bikes. The event that might swing the needle back towards the lightweight bike would be if the UCI loosened up on their 15 lb. minimum weight requirement. If the bike manufacturers could push for lower bike weights, it’s likely the weight difference between the two categories could be more significant. A 13 lb. bike — which is very feasible — would certainly get the call for the stages finishing on big climbs and might even be worth a bike change at the bottom of the climb. Since no one really knows what the UCI is going to do, it seems like the bike brands will work to incorporate as much aerodynamics as possible into bikes that are “light enough.”
(Above: the Colnago Y1Rs aero road bike, ridden by UAE Team Emirates XRG and yellow jersey winner Tadej Pogačar at this year's Tour de France)
Q: Let’s dive a little deeper into the tech. How are today’s aero bikes different from a traditional climbing setup? How do they differ in categories such as weight, comfort, handling, aerodynamics, or versatility across terrain types?
A: First, it’s important to remember that aerodynamics has to be considered as a “package.” It isn’t the frame that is aero — it’s the combination of the frame, the wheels, the helmet, the clothing, and the rider. Tadej won the Tour on an aero frame, but he also had an extremely aggressive position and super fast wheels. The aero bikes used in this year’s Tour are on average right at a pound heavier than the climbing-focused counterpart. Tube shapes that make frames aero also tend to make them stiffer. As mentioned before, wider tires have really helped improve the ride here. I also think that an aero frame designed to “marry” with tires in the 30mm range offers the engineer more capability to fine tune the ride than a bike designed around the older 23mm wide tires. While an aero frame might have more potential to struggle in strong crosswinds, I think the depth of the wheelset is the only place where a professional rider might have reservations about going with the fastest equipment.
(Above: ENVE SES 4.5 Pro wheelset, ridden by UAE Team Emirates XRG, are the kind of upgrade that would significantly help most riders, decreasing weight while increasing aerodynamics)
Q: If someone walks into Contender today looking for a “single-quiver,” high-performance road bike — whether for high-intensity racing, more casual gran fondos, or fast group rides — what do you recommend and why?
A: For those of us who aren’t race-centric, I’d still argue that the best fit is still the most important consideration. There’s not a single bike that is the best ride for everyone or for every use. Around Salt Lake City, so many of the go-to rides are the local canyon climbs that would suggest the lighter, more climbing-focused bikes. If you really wanted to race back down, then the aero bike might come into play. For a rider who might line up for a competitive fondo like Lotoja, then a fast pair of carbon wheels on the climbing bike would really up the bike’s performance. Even though this new wave of aero bikes combined with the wider tires has definitely taken a step to being the “one bike in the quiver” road bike, they often miss on the ability to offer a more comfortable, endurance-oriented position and might have poor handling for those riding in a more upright position. For those who are trying to squeeze an extra 1–2 mph out on every ride, an aero bike is a great tool. For those who just want to have fun and rip up the local climbs, the climbing bike is a perfect fit — and the better option. For the rest of us who are in between, we’re lucky to have bikes and wheelsets that allow us to be somewhere in the middle.
(Above: the BMC Teammachine SLR 01, ridden by the Tudor Pro Cycling team at this year's Tour de France, is a classic example of a a light-weight climbing bike that would admirably serve as a single, do-it-all road bike for most riders--especially for cyclists in the Salt Lake City and Park City areas, where out-and-back canyon climbs are more common)
Q: As a road rider yourself, what kind of setup are you reaching for these days? And has that changed based on what you’ve seen in the pro peloton?
A: This year, I’ve ridden a fair amount on a Cervelo R5 (climbing bike), a Cervelo S5 (aero bike), and a Pinarello F (mix of climbing/aero). They’re all great bikes. What I haven’t really done is ride a mix of terrain. Most of my rides are up Emigration Canyon, which is a shallower climb, and occasionally on to the climb of Big Mountain, where it gets steeper. Early on the ride in the flatter sections, the speed of the S5 and its deeper-section wheelset can still be felt. When I slow down on the steeper pitches, it does feel slightly less spry than the R5. I really like a bike that has a lively, snappy ride quality, and the R5 definitely takes the cake there. On the descent back down, the Pinarello definitely rules the roost when the road is twisty and where precision and confidence are critical. At the same time, when the downhill levels out a bit and it feels like I’m just riding with a strong tailwind, the S5 definitely slices through the air — and it’s obvious that it’s working in my favor. I really like all three bikes, and there is no wrong or right choice — only what’s best for each rider. If I were still racing, I could really see the advantage of the S5. In the end, if I had to pick one, it would probably be more of an emotional appeal — based on aesthetics, or the brand’s history, or which bike my favorite rider is riding. Any of those factors might tip me in one direction or another.
(Above: recent Instagram post from Cervelo on the forthcoming R5, which Pauline Ferrand-Prévot rode to victory at this year's Tour de France Femmes)
