Here's a bold statement: Cinelli's new Aeroscoop claims to be faster than the Specialized Tarmac SL8, but does it live up to the hype? We put it to the test in a wind tunnel, and the results might surprise you. But first, let's dive into what makes the Aeroscoop unique.
Cinelli's latest aero bike, the Aeroscoop, has generated buzz not only for being the brand's first aero bike in years but also for its bold claim of outperforming the Specialized Tarmac SL8. To verify this, we took the Aeroscoop to the Silverstone wind tunnel, subjecting it to our rigorous test protocol. The Aeroscoop's standout feature is its 'Aeroscoop' design, where the seat stays split at the junction with the seat tube, creating a gap intended to reduce pressure drag. This design resembles the Trek Madone's cutout but differs in that it opens onto the rear wheel.
And this is the part most people miss: The Aeroscoop's frame incorporates a one-piece bar and stem combo with internal routing, a tapered headtube, and a fork crown that flows into the downtube. The seat tube hugs the rear wheel, similar to the Cervélo S5 and 3T Strada designs. Unlike some competitors, it lacks integrated bottles or cages but features a flared downtube to shield the bottle, akin to the Pinarello Dogma F.
But here's where it gets controversial: Despite its innovative design, the Aeroscoop's frame appears relatively conventional by aero bike standards—except for the Aeroscoop cutout. So, how does it stack up against the Tarmac SL8 and other competitors? We tested it using the same protocol as our previous wind tunnel tests, including the 2024 and 2025 cohorts, against a baseline 2015 Trek Emonda ALR. The test included bike-only, with-rider, and bike-only with standardized wheels setups, each tested at seven yaw angles and 40km/h.
The results? The Aeroscoop landed in the middle between the Emonda and the Factor ONE in bike-only tests but performed closer to the Emonda with a rider. Interestingly, its performance curve at different yaw angles suggests the Aeroscoop cutout might assist airflow reattachment, but it still lagged behind competitors. In fact, it was the third-worst performer, saving only 24.56w over the Emonda—15.72w behind the Factor ONE. With a rider, it dropped to last, 13.97w behind the Cervélo S5 2025.
Here's the kicker: Swapping the stock Mavic Cosmic S 42 wheels for ENVE 4.5 wheels improved performance by 3.65w, the largest wheel-related gain we've seen. Yet, even with this upgrade, the Aeroscoop remained in the bottom quarter of tested bikes. While innovation is commendable, the Aeroscoop falls short in aero performance compared to most aero bikes and all-rounders we've tested.
So, is the Aeroscoop a game-changer? Not quite. But it does spark a thought-provoking question: How much do wheel choices and frame design truly impact a bike's performance? Share your thoughts in the comments—do you think the Aeroscoop's design has untapped potential, or is it a missed opportunity?
