COMMON QUESTIONS
Fit and Installation, Answered
The Aero BTA system clamps onto standard pad bridges and tri-bar systems, in three width fits: Medium (52–148mm pad-bridge width), Wide (148–198mm), and Extra Wide (above 198mm). Measure your pad-bridge width before ordering — see the sizing schematic above.
Yes, as long as your clip-on aero bars have a pad bridge to clamp onto, the same width and angle fits apply. It's not designed for road bikes without clip-ons.
Yes, the mount supports single or dual-bottle setups on the same frame.
The system ships with angle-matched spacers at 0°, 10°, 15°, 20°, 25°, and 30°, so you pick the spacer that matches your extension angle and the bottle sits perfectly horizontal regardless of your position.
No. It installs with standard allen keys in a few minutes — no special tools required.
AeroGain's own velodrome testing at Ballerup Super Arena, Denmark, at 45 km/h, 0° yaw, across 32 athletes — not a single-rider tunnel run or a CFD simulation. Median saving was 6W, with a range up to 12W depending on rider position and setup.
TEST DATA
The Numbers
The real aerodynamic drag data behind the BTA system's savings claim — measured across a realistic race speed range, not modeled. Every figure below is a wind-tunnel and velodrome observation, presented as-is.
6–10W
Drag cost of two 750ml bottles mounted on the frame, versus running no bottles at all.
15W
Most extreme frame-bottle penalty observed in testing — recorded at 45 km/h.
5–12W
Additional savings from relocating those same two bottles to a between-the-arms (BTA) mount.
20W+
Total potential savings when moving two bottles from the frame to BTA — the combined, real-world upside.
All figures observed across a realistic race speed range. Individual results vary with rider position, bottle size, and yaw.
Test Conditions & Methodology
Aerodynamic claims are based on AeroGain in-house testing conducted at Ballerup Super Arena velodrome, Denmark. Conditions: 45 km/h, 0° yaw, n=32 athletes across a range of riding positions and body types. Savings shown compare optimal front-bottle (Aero BTA) placement against a baseline of no BTA mount / conventional setup (no front bottle, or a frame-mounted bottle). Results ranged from neutral to approximately 12W, with a median saving of 6W across the test population. The >10W figure for frame-mounted bottles reflects two bottles mounted on the frame under the same test conditions. Individual results vary by rider position, equipment, and setup.