Really surprising wind tunnel results from the Evolve Cima, because it really doesn't look aero at all.
I think y'all need to stop trying to eyeball frames and see if they are aero. If you know what features you are looking for and understand how the air flows in three dimensions, it's one thing; however, generally prioritizing deep tubes is just a fool's errand.
On another board, a few people are surprised that the Scott Addict RC tested only about 5W slower in Tour's protocol than the Tarmac SL8, despite using 40mm deep wheels versus the Rapide. 5W at their test speed would barely measurable to most folks just riding along, and I don't think it's crazy to speculate that with deeper wheels, the Scott bike might close the gap to the point of insignificance.
This is a way of saying that if you need to know you are on an aero bike, buy a bike like the SL8 and the matching Roval wheels that were developed in the tunnel. If you want to feel you aren't losing something, a bike like the Evolve Cima, which, at least in one test, was validated to be aero, is probably a good idea. The deep-shaped "aero bikes" might work, but there is a chance they might make the bike less aero and result in a harsh ride. I personally would expect no measurable difference in aero between an open mold allrounder and one with deep aero shapes.
