u/PleasureCircuit

Hello,

It has been interesting to read all the comparisons of the w/kg (calculated) between the pros, especially when there is a projection that one rider is in « peak form » and « superior » to their rivals.

However with all the recent hype of Vingegaard's performance at the Giro and hearing conjecture from pundits both here and elsewhere that he is dominant, I started asking questions. Personally I think it is interesting and the only real comparison is when two (or more) are on the same route at the same time. But since we have analytics, let's analyse, no?

My primary question is: how does an aero bike compare to a non-aero bike in the performance of the rider? Are we taking that into account or ignoring it?

For this example we will take two riders:
The ever supported Vingegaard, a generational talent* and Del Toro, a potential generational talent* to be determined as his career is relatively fresh.

Two climbs, very similar.
Cari (Faldo) - 11.42 km, 8.15 %, 1634 m summit.
Vingegaard holds 6.61 w/kg (2026) VAM of 1812
Vingegaard rides a Cervelo S5 (saves 6-10 watts vs a non-aero bike at 35 km/h)

Plateau de Solaison (Thuet) - 11.42 km, 9.04 %, 1502 m summit.
Del Toro holds 6.62 w/kg (2026) VAM of 1860
Del Toro rides a Colnago V5rs (approx 3 watts saved vs a non-aero bike at 35 km/h)

Vingegaard likely has a lower CdA himself compared to Del Toro. Vingegaard, like Remco, is more aero by default. Pogacar, who is not in this comparison, likely has a defauly CdA lower than Del Toro but higher than Vingegaard and Remco.

Now, is the 6.62 w/kg on a less-aero set up deceive the true power of Del Toro?

The non-aero cyclist is likely performing a higher relative physiological feat to match that speed, but the w/kg number itself isn't « wrong » it is just an incomplete metric for real-world speed.

Here is how the equipment difference affects the math and what it says about the riders.

1. What w/kg actually measures

Power-to-weight ratio is a pure measure of physiological engine output relative to mass.

• The Aero Cyclist (6.61 w/kg): Generating slightly less power per kilo, but overcoming less air resistance.
• The Non-Aero Cyclist (6.62 w/kg): Generating slightly more power per kilo, but wasting more of it pushing through the air.

If both cyclists are riding side-by-side at the exact same speed on this climb, the non-aero cyclist is technically the « stronger » athlete in terms of raw physiological output at that moment. They are overcoming a mechanical and aerodynamic disadvantage through sheer metabolic work.

2. The physics of the climb (gravity vs. aero)

Whether the non-aero rider is « better than the numbers calculated » depends on the gradient and speed of the climb.

As a climb gets steeper, the dominant force resisting forward motion shifts from aerodynamic drag to gravity. Because aerodynamic drag scales with the cube of velocity, speed dictates how much the aero bike matters.

Shallow Climb (e.g., 4–6%)
High speeds (~25–35 km/h). Aero drag is still a massive factor. The aero bike saves significant wattage. Assume that the S5 is brought close to the UCI limit.

Steep Climb (e.g., 10–12%+)
Low speeds (~12–18 km/h). Gravity dominates; aero drag becomes negligible.
Bike weight matters far more than tube shapes. Our limit is the UCI limit here.

Aero bikes are usually heavier than dedicated lightweight climbing bikes, but we will assume that the Cervelo S5 is close to 6.8kg to be generous. Given the V5Rs and how much that team likes tech, let us assume the V5Rs was at 6.8kg.

• Because w/kg includes the rider's body weight but not the bike's weight, a lighter bike gives a hidden advantage. A rider on a lighter bike needs fewer absolute watts to move the total system mass (rider + bike) up a steep hill.

If it's a steep climb and the non-aero bike is significantly lighter, the non-aero rider might actually be riding easier than the aero rider to hit that 6.62 w/kg, because their total system weight is lower.

However let's look at these climbs again: they are very similar, not very steep. Aero is a factor at this gradient and speed.

Was Del Toro actually climbing faster and better than the 6.62 w/kg would suggest since he was not on an aero bike?

I'm quite open to my blindspots in this analysis, I think it would be a good discussion.

Hi all, I don't know if this will break the rules, so hopefully it doesn't. If it does, go ahead and delete, my apologies.

I do have an older model car that is in dire need of repairs. The thing is that it's value is less than what it would cost me if I went to my normal shop and had it repaired with all the parts needed because the shop would only order genuine parts from the car brand. Even things such as brakes - replacing rotors & pads would cost $800 in parts alone, but I'm able to source the parts for $200 total (for the rotors and pads).

Can anyone recommend a local volvo-friendly shop that would be willing to do some of the repairs if I supply the parts? Basically, this would reduce my total out of pocket by 60% (estimated).