Probably not. Great CdA, though.

Categorically no. The most aero setup is unambiguously one of the full fairing HPV rigs.

The most aero UCI setup is almost surely Dan Bigham, maybe Ashton Lambie. Broke the hour record at like 350w. The ability to won WC pursuits without world tour legs.

Lastly , theres an argument that a very short cyclist could be the most aero.

That's an insane CdA! But on the flipside his built is almost like Anne Haug or Mirinda Carfrae, so it's not exactly apples to apple to compare him to male pr cyclists and triathletes between 5'8" to 6'+ and weights from the 130s to 180lbs. I don't think I've been 5' and sub 120lbs since I was literally in 4th grade! No crap someone with this body type and a good setup is more aero than someone like even Ganna.

That said, even though aero has a huge impact on speed on flat courses I think I'd rather have more raw power than aero. Particularly since drag increases exponentially, once you get over 25mph the power needs to start traveling faster really increase quickly. Doing some quick math:
- Let's be very generous and say he holds 3.8w/kg for a 70.3: that's equivalent to 201, which approximately translates to 41kph using some online calculators
- I would estimate a lot of top end age groupers can hold 275-300W for a 70.3 with a CdA in the low-mid .2s. A CdA of .24 at 275W is a little faster at 41.2kph. Bump that up to 300W and the speed goes up to 42.5kph.
- For him to average over 42kph, he'd have to push north of 215W, or over 4w/kg, pretty close to his FTP. Meanwhile someone holding 275-300 probably weighs 75kg and is pushing high 3 w/kg, and likely has an FTP in the 320-350 range (so more room to push harder if needed).

I think you see this played out in the pro field- some of the smaller riders who are still solid to strong cyclists like Bradley Weiss, Leon Chevalier, Clement Mignon, etc. are good on hilly courses, but on flat courses get outridden by Magnus, Sam, Mathis, etc. pushing massive power.

Not impressive. He is a tiny man. Of course he will have a low cda. And could that video be more drawn out. Painful to watch.

Is what you are suggesting Watts/CDA? I am not sure just trying to draw a conclusion. CDA and power is interesting to me, but I lack a lot of the basic understanding of it to understand a lot of the conversations on ST. I know people talk about W/Kg, but that seems only relevant on a trainer or on Zwift, where W/Cda is more real world riding?

Nah I kinda rambled as well. My points were:

1. He's smaller than most pro female cyclists and especially triathletes, so NSS his CdA is going to be lower than almost everyone even without the best aero equipment.

2. I'd personally rather have more raw watts with a "good" CdA than a world class CdA but only be able to push low 200s watts. That smaller frame and CdA is great for going uphill and at slower speeds, but because drag increases exponentially, you need a large increase in power to go faster especially over 40kph, even with a world class CdA. At the speeds of the pros and top end of the AGs, someone who's larger but with a fairly "normal" CdA will outride him on most courses.

It's interesting, but not sure it's worth the longish video because there's not much we can take away from and learn. This guy is a great cyclist for his frame, kudos to him, but his genetics make him much smaller than the average triathlete and able to get into a better position. Jim even says he's not doing anything exceptional aerodynamically or equipment wise.

Of course Slowtwitch isn't impressed.

On a flat TT or most triathlons it's absolutely W/Cda.

At 5'3" I normally test in the high .180's on my track bike and threw out data that was in the high .160's

Even in the drops I'm normally .225 so if I could get into the .170's I'd be pretty happy.

No, it’s not even close, it’s YouTube.

I'm impressed. But I'm also taller and wider than him. I have the aerodynamics of a brick sinking in a bowl of Jello.

Sooo much youtube and Facebook group junk these days.

I also see a lot of Facebook group "fits" and look at the person wobbling on the trainer or outdoor video on the bike and think "yeah, they won't be able to hold that on the road for more than 5 minutes, let alone in a strong cross wind".

Lots of tryers and think they doers, not as many "we actually do this shit a lot and ride like this a lot". In other words, folks like Lambie and Bigham are in the minority. But everyone online thinks they're awesome for the clicks.

I'm really not sure the direction you guys are taking, my comments were made as a small person showing I don't have a lot of drag because I'm so small. I don't think a .160-.170 is out of the ordinary for a small person.

Along with that, I don't produce a lot of power because --- I'm so small.

I think Jim's video explains things well.

A standard business card has a CdA of a bit over .005 m^2 (it's close to .0057). Two business cards is a bit over .01 m^2. That may not sound like a lot, but it's always there during your entire race.

BTW, yesterday was the 21st anniversary of when I first posted on the old Topica Wattage List about using a power meter to estimate CdA.

That adds some interesting perspective. Everyone has had access to “home” aero testing for 2 decades, though people who do it well like Tom Anhalt are/were pretty rare. Now there seem to be some pretty decent aero sensors coming onto the market, but it still takes some expertise to get really useful data. Maybe it will take another 5 -10 years for riders and the industry to figure out how translate that knowledge to the average-ish competitive cyclist.

I guess that is a lot like power meters. A lot of people, myself included, like to look at the numbers, but it takes some knowledge to use the information. It has taken coaches and training apps like Trainer Road to make the hardware useful to a more general audience.