Cinelli's Bold Claim: Is the Aeroscoop Really Faster Than the Tarmac SL8?
Cinelli has made a bold statement with its new Aeroscoop, claiming it surpasses the Specialized Tarmac SL8 in speed. But does it live up to the hype? We took it to the Silverstone wind tunnel to find out, and the results might surprise you. And this is the part most people miss...
The Aeroscoop, named after its unique frame design, features a split seat stay that creates a gap called the 'Aeroscoop.' This design, somewhat reminiscent of the Trek Madone, aims to reduce pressure drag by allowing air to flow through. However, unlike the Madone, the Aeroscoop's cutout opens onto the rear wheel, raising questions about its effectiveness. The bike also boasts a one-piece bar and stem combo with internal routing, a tapered headtube, and a fork crown that flows into the downtube, all designed to minimize frontal area and enhance aerodynamics.
But here's where it gets controversial... Despite these innovative features, the Aeroscoop lacks integrated bottles or cages, opting instead for a flared downtube to shield the bottle. This design choice sets it apart from competitors like the Trek Madone and Wilier Filante SLR, which have fully integrated systems. While the Aeroscoop's frame may appear relatively 'normal' by aero bike standards, its performance claims demand scrutiny.
To test these claims, we followed a rigorous protocol, comparing the Aeroscoop to our baseline bike, a 2015 Trek Emonda ALR, and other top aero bikes like the S-Works Tarmac SL8 and Factor ONE. We tested each bike in three ways: bike-only, with-rider, and bike-only with standardized wheels, across various yaw angles and at 40km/h. This comprehensive approach ensured accuracy and allowed for fair comparisons.
The results? They're not what Cinelli hoped for. In bike-only tests, the Aeroscoop performed moderately, falling between the Emonda and Factor ONE. However, with a rider, it dropped to last place, significantly behind the Cervélo S5 2025. Even with the best-case scenario, it remained in the bottom quarter of tested bikes. The supplied Mavic Cosmic S 42 wheels appeared to hinder performance, but switching to ENVE 4.5 wheels improved results, though not enough to elevate the Aeroscoop to the top tier.
So, is the Aeroscoop a game-changer? While it shows innovation, particularly with its Aeroscoop design, our wind tunnel tests suggest it falls short of its speed claims. The bike's wider front end and shallow fork blades may contribute to its underperformance compared to sleeker competitors. However, it's worth noting that the Aeroscoop's lighter build could appeal to riders prioritizing weight over pure aerodynamics.
Thought-provoking question: Does innovation always translate to performance? The Aeroscoop's unique design is a step forward, but our tests indicate that it may not deliver the aerodynamic gains promised. Could this be a case of form over function, or is there more to the story? We invite you to share your thoughts and experiences with the Cinelli Aeroscoop in the comments below. Let’s spark a discussion!
