Is it me, or the rider's position positively SUCKS?!...

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

It's you


edit: the softride looks okay, the other one is bad

From the two pictures with a rider, the riders position is inconsistent, and could be improved. Now where is that very large grain of salt to go with this?

It really looks like the P3 seat and bars are at the same height to me.

There is NO WAY my Blade is that much slower... I paid tooooo much for that to be true!!:)



JB

Results and data and charts and crap mean nothing to me when I'm riding my Powerwing..it may or may not be the fastest bike according to wind tunnel data..but for me it is as fast as it needs to be. I could remortgage the house and buy the new P3C and possibly gain a second advantage over X number of kilometers..but why? Since none of us on the forum (with the exception of a very select bunch) will ever make any money at this sport what's the point? You're buying speed (or at least hoping to)? Bah..screw it...muddle the minds of the people with numbers and figures half of them (us..I have no idea either) will never be able to understand..pretty will sort it all out in the end.

82 seconds over 40 kms seems quite significant. Will be interesting to watch Zack at Kona.

This "test", the manner in which the "results" are presented, and this post, is bullshit.

"bullshit."


Why would you say that? Do you own a P3, Blade or Trek?

Years ago I had a softride solo (not even that aero) and it blew away both my Kestrel 200 and Litespeed Tachyon on every ride down the same steep hill. Where the other bikes would top out at 64-66 kph depending on wind and barometric pressure, the Softride was consistently 66-69 kph. On my other bikes, I would be dropped by my 180 lbs training partner, but on the softride, I would usually be ahead. Granted, the Kestrel 200 and Litespeed Tachyon do not measure up to the P3 and Blade, but the bottom line is that losing the seat tube makes the bike faster.

Interesting that they did not use a Kestrel Airfoil in the study. I bet it would be closer to the TT7.

They are forgetting that you have to FIRST be strong enough to do a 30mph average for 40k.

The press release does not specify what speed was used in estimating the time differential over 40k, but it need not have been 30 mph.

Are you saying that the time differential would be the same no matter what the speed was? Doesn't matter if the rider is at 18 mph or 26 mph?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I once heard about Softride aerodynamics at a coaching seminar in Colorado Springs from a very smart scientist at the Olympic Training Center who was talking about project 96. He claimed that when they tested the Softride bike by itself, it was very fast, but with a rider, the air flow would do really strange things when the riders pedals were at 3 and 9 o' clock. Seemed that when the thighs are parallel to the beam that a "wall" is created that causes the air flow / smoke to go "poof" "poof" "poof" while the rider pedals. Probably not a coincidence that the smoke in the picture is running under the arms and past the lower leg.

I wonder if they would post a video of the air going between the riders arms and through the legs. Of course, with that position any air going through the arms is hitting him right in the gut anyway.

In practical terms, I think what C.P. is saying, is that the % difference at any given speed will always be the same, so actual time saved it will be more for the slower riders than the faster ones.

Hello,

The article stated that the results were for the same cadence, which should remove any problems associated with foot position (unless of course the cadence tested was zero ;).

I'm never sure why some posters results are taken as gospel and some are dismissed (general observation not directed specifically towards trischnitz). Cervelo, HED, Zipp, Softride, JCobb, etc. all have a vested interest in the tests showing that their products are best. Their are three ways that this can happen:

1) They lie about the test results - I doubt that many of the manufacturer do this.

2) They do a bunch of testing and only publish testing which shows their products in a favorable light. This happens a lot.

3) The testers have do decide on a certain testing protocol, everything frome frame size, to yaw angles, to clothing, to the fixture holding the bike. In the process of testing they opitmize their designs so naturally, a Cervelo comes out best with Cervelos protocol, and Softrides come out best with Softrides protocal.

Styrrell

I meant that the relative differences in drag ("axial force") would be the same - the calculated time differential would depend on the speed, but would be smaller at 30 mph than at a slower speed.

Gotcha, I agree.

Is anyone surprised by the results? By which I mean, does anyone out there think a P3 is actually more aero than a Softride?

Here's what I'd like to know: How much more of an impact does rear wheel choice have for the Softride. My guess is that a rear disc represents a bigger savings over 32-spokes on a Softride than on a P3. Can anyone confirm?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Read it and weep.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

"Is anyone surprised by the results? By which I mean, does anyone out there think a P3 is actually more aero than a Softride?"

Without getting into issues surrounding test protocol and potential bias, I'd say that I'm not at all suprised. I'd love to see some aero tests for non UCI legal production bikes. So Softride vs TitanFlex, Kestrel, Corima Fox, Trek Y-Foil, the old Zipp... would be interesting to me. This test is a comparison between bikes with totally different design restrictions in mind. I'm not bagging on Softride, but why not compare their bikes to ones who's design is also not the traditional double diamond?

In a week or so we will install some video on the Softride website. I'm not sure what it will look like exactly, but it should include a clip of the FasTT next to some footage of the three other competitors. This will be actual footage of the wind tunnel testing. Lars

"certainly by the magnitude. "

Same here. I remember Softride had a magazine ad a few years ago claiming their bike was the fastest. They provided no aero data, just a photo of Zack riding one. Now it appears that they have the proof.

Well, my only contribution here is that I have owned either two or three Softrides (I forgot). At least one Powerwing (blue, whenever that was) and a red Rocket TT.

I have to say, they did seem faster than most bikes I've ridden. I liked them. There are some additional maintenance duties to perform and be educated on with the beam and saddle mounting hardware. I'd like to see Softride raise their prices $100 and completely clean this area up.

I heard a mall story that Jurgen Zack had a beam mounting hardware failure that caused him to abandon a race- any information on this?

Overall, I hope they stick around. In my opinion, the concept actually has proven itself. Personally, if it weren;t for my worries over the beam and saddle hardware, I'd like to sell more.

Oh, I wasn't too into it on hilly courses. That said, on the flats and especially on bad pavement when used with a disk wheel it struck me as a being very fast. -Sure was comfortable. Now that I think about it, I ran quite well off of it then. I think that was early 1997......???????

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I heard a mall story that Jurgen Zack had a beam mounting hardware failure that caused him to abandon a race- any information on this?


Sarcasm on:

Nah, that wasn't a hardware "failure". A competitor or spectator "manipulated" his bike at IMRoth a couple of years back.

Sarcasm off.

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

Is anyone surprised by the results?[/reply]I am - not necessarily by the direction of the difference, but certainly by the magnitude.


I agree. The data I've see thoughout the years seemed to suggest that the Softride (non UCI legal) was more aero than most double diamond frames.

The big surprise to me is the Blade, a bike that I would not put in the same category of the P3 (although, I will say that litespeed has significantly improved the design of the Blade over the years).

However, I see a few things that may indicate a certain skew toward the sponsors of the study. As such, sensational headlines always lowers the credibility of such a study.

- drag data (6.8 to 7.6 lbs) are characteristic of a very average to borderline mediocre rider position. I would venture that bad rider positioning would favour the Softride (with its absence of down tube). This suggests that they may have optimized the rider position on the Softride and kept the same position on the other bikes, putting them at a disadvantage.

- the use of a rear disc, again I think would favour the Softride. It is reasonable to believe that the other bikes would comparatively do better with a spoked wheel because of the fairing afforded by the down tube.

- why the hell would they give us composite drag values ? Give us all the data and let us judge for ourselves.

I am not suggesting that Softride is not the fastest bike or that they lie. But when the only thing you see from tunnel testing is a marketing press communique, you can bet that the numbers shown are maximally skewed toward their own purpose.

Show all results, describe and justify the testing protocols. Then we can talk.

Francois

Ride one!
Besides they look like they wouldn't be stiff, but that's not so. Fairly stiff frame with not stiff seatpost (beam). Everyone is perseverating about carbon vs various metal seat posts to reduce vibration, etc.--a non-issue here.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

I'd like to see a Titan Flex, and other non-seat-tubed bikes in these tests...then, maybe it would become more apparent if it is the abscence of the seat-tube, or the shape of the other parts of the frame, that make more of a difference in the respective numbers.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

"However, I see a few things that may indicate a certain skew toward the sponsors of the study. As such, sensational headlines always lowers the credibility of such a study. "

I don't see where the press release says who the sponsor was.

Is it just me or does the P3 appear to have about 4 inches of spacers on the fork? On my P2K that many spacers would put me in just about as aerodynamic a position as I'm in on my mountain bike. Just a thought.

Chris

save the pic to your HD, open it and use the zoom button...

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

I don't see where the press release says who the sponsor was.

This was implicitely discussed (if I remember correctly) in a previous thread, by someone at Softride, that they were sponsoring this study.

Francois in Montreal

And people ask me why I don't get the studies done to "prove" the PC's work. simply because, if I fund the study, then the sarcasm begins that the study is skewed and flawed and biased and everything else. People want to believe their biases and will do so if there is a "good" reason to discount data.

While no study is perfect, each can be a basis for further study should one want to confirm the results (always a good idea, especially when the results are "surprising") or do further testing to try to elucidate the reason for the results like including other beam bikes in future studies.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Even if an softride bias is expected by critical consumers. I still found the differences between Cervelo, Litespeed and Trek interesting. 31 sek penalty for lance seems quite surprising.

Torsten

And people ask me why I don't get the studies done to "prove" the PC's work. simply because, if I fund the study, then the sarcasm begins that the study is skewed and flawed and biased and everything else. People want to believe their biases and will do so if there is a "good" reason to discount data.

That may not be entirely accurate. Although the absence of bias will always be hard to prove when someone with a financial interest funds a study, there are ways it can be done properly.

Have someone independent (who will not be doing the tests) design the testing protocol. By independant, I mean someone in academia that understands exercise physiology, and, ideally, someone skeptical about your product. Have another independant person review the protocol and suggest improvements. Have someone (with similar credential) perform the testing. Make it part of the contract that there will be no interaction between you and the person responsible for the testing during the entire duration of the study. ALL results will be made available to the public, in the same form and at the same time it will be made available to you. No restriction for scientific publication. It should also be specified in the contract that any publicity mentioning the study should also includes a link to the web site containing ALL results.

This would work for me.

Francois in Montreal

Hello,

That's one of the problems with studying something so complex. Lance's bike is tested with three things in mind A) Lances preferred position and B) Lances on the bike, and C) Lances preferred equipment.

It highly likely (or at least possible) that the trek would be best with those thing in mind.

Styrrell

I've owned various Softride bikes over the years and currently have 3 Softrides (one road, one TT and one MTB) and a Kestrel Talon SL. I've also owned and ridden many miles on a Specialized and Trek. They are superior bikes.



I cannot understand why so many people have it out for them. They fit a niche and if they work for you they are the BEST.

It might work for you but it won't work for many of the skeptics.

I myself could design a good, unbiased, study for whatever good it would do. The key to a good study is the study design, not who funds it.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

drag force = coefficient of drag x (velocity) squared x area x air density / (2 x gc)

you bet your bippy the velocity at which the tests are conducted makes a difference. its not linear at all....as you see above the drag increases as the square of the velocity, therefore at 30 mph its 2.25 greater than at 20...hence, the only person this makes a difference to is bjorn :) if they tested at 20 mph, the results would be a lot closer.

disclaimer : i have a softride and love it but it still weighs 25 lbs and going up hills is a pain.

speed makes a difference, but it wouldn't change the order of the results. Also the slower the speed the more the time differential would be for the same length course.

Styrrell

i agree, the order wouldnt change.

on your second point im not sure i understand completely. if the effect of drag from 30mph to 20mph decreases by a factor of 2.25, all else being equal (riders, power, bla, bla), the effect of drag is less which means the time gap should be closer....i think...gotta think this one out...

could you elaborate on that, im guessing im missing something...

Reason that 30mph is used so much is that is often the slowest speed that the "low speed" wind tunnels can go down to and still produce accurate data. (air being moved by a big propellor). Air moves pretty much the same at 25mph so the same data would still hold true.

This study has a lot of holes, assuming that the position of the rider is kept the same on all bikes, all you can assume is that for this rider, in this position that the softride works better in this windtunnel aerodynamically speaking.

I would want to see a lot of different data collection done on different riders before I would rush out and buy a softride. I actually switched from a slingshot tri to a power-V in the mid 90's, and didnt really notice my bike splits dropping at all. There are just too many other variables.

The reason that thier would be a greater time differential at lower speeds is because you are riding for a longer time. At 30 mph it takes an hour to go 30 miles, at 15 mph it takes 2 hours. So the time differential for the slower riders is greater.



Styrrell

Hey lars do you work for or voultnteer for softride any compnay doing any buisness with softride?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I thought that was a minimum for being on this forum? NO?

This post goes out to all of the skeptics out there regarding the wind tunnel test.

For the record, I was there. I was there for Softride as a photographer and I represented Triathlete Magazine as well. There were also other industry folks there. People from a wetsuit company (I'm not going to mention names here), a very well recognized wetsuit company, people from a company that produces bike components, and a company that produces sports nutrition. It was not only Softride. They made sure other industry (non biased) people were present when this test went down. Not only did they have those people on hand, but the test was conducted by the University of Washington Aeronautical Laboratory staff and students. What do they know about the "triathlon industry"? Uh, NOTHING. They are students and staff that don't know Trek from Huffy..... Biased? Doubt it.

I was there and I consider myself a very ethical person. There was no hanky panky going on. I wouldn't be a part of it.

I just wanted to throw that out there. I'm sure some of you out there will tear me up, but I couldn't care less.

Troy Morgan
Blue Designs Inc.
[web] http://www.bluedesignsinc.com
[web] http://www.triathletemag.com

How about 30kph?

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra

Damn Troy baby relax. We aren't going to tear you apart we are just going to act like a photo on a website is all you need to measure things companies pay big bucks to find out.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

25 lb. I'd better weight mine. I know it's heavier than alot of others, but that sounds high. Besides, how much difference does that really make. That would make it only 2.5-3% higher, including rider, than most lighter bikes. I'm told that LeMond's bikes were considerably heavier than most of the other bikes when he won his TDF's.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

Blueman,

Since you attended the wind tunnel test, you ought to be an expert on the Kirsten wind tunnel and its staff. That is the same tunnel, and staff that conducted testing for Lance Armstrong and the F1 research team this past winter. Oh yeah, and the rider who you claim knows about triathlon is the founder of the Husky Triathlon club at UW. I am not claiming that the test was rigged for commercial purposes - quite the contrary. However, you should get your facts straight before reporting this 'first-hand account' on the testing procedure and the UW students and staff.

- "the test was conducted by the University of Washington Aeronautical Laboratory staff and students. What do they know about the "triathlon industry"? Uh, NOTHING. They are students and staff that don't know Trek from Huffy..... Biased? Doubt it."

---

______________________________________________________
Are you being hearing the sound of thunder?

Sorry. Can't start lowering the standards. We will wind up with a bunch of Zealanders and other goat-lovers :)

hey Monk, kiwis are cool! :-)
(and they don't have goats but sheeps)

So when will this new Softride be available? and when wiil the Sofride website be updated with this new rig and alll the detailed info? Adam or someone at Softride?

How is this new softride different from my TT7?

By the way I love my bike. I have gone thru one beam after 3k miles but softride sent me a new one for free and it is like new again. I had a 700c powerwing first which was soft in the bottom bracket and a little heavy but the TT7 feels as stiff as my Look KX light and I can't tell which one climbs better.

---

Ken St. Pe'

Gotta warn you, Monk, that in these parts debating the merits of goats vs sheep is like talking about powercranks on slowtwitch...a very dangerous pastime.

BAHHHHH.....

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra

Well just be sure you keep the pretty ones for yourself!

Well that explains your jealousy!

Fear not, if you are ever down in these parts I will make sure you get the pick of the herd.

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra

Slingshot. Now THERE was a cool bike. Are they still being made? With a P3 seat tube they would be quite aero and even cooler

I once saw an ad for one that broke apart with a cool clamp, for shipping in a tiny box. Never saw or rode one however. I almost bought a used Slingshot, but got a QR SE from Dan instead. Thanks Slowman, that bike was great before it died in a crash.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Why don't we just share yours?

So i find this in my junk mail folder today:

"Hey Ben
Give me a call because I am calling you out on this one. If you really believe what you say to be true, call me, I would love to discuss this with you instead of you hiding on Slowtwitch making comments to things that you no nothing about. The hotmail account is a great way to remain anonymous on forums. Look forward to you call.

Chig Martin
Softride Bike|Sales and Marketing Manager
chig@softride.com | cell: 423.314.7992
888.258.7303| 360.647.7420 | f: 360.647.1884 "

First and foremost, chig, I have 3 email addresses. One is my student email, which you will not get and I do not post on the internet. The other is a different hotmail account that I use to sign up for free shit with and so do not check unless I am expecting something useful, like a free ipod offer, to be there. My name is also listed with my hotmail account, so I am not really anonymous. You can also pm as many do and find out all you could ever want to know about me and more. Additionally, many of the people who post here know me and know not to take me too seriously.

Well, chig, the test, and particularly the manner in which the results are presented, really does come across as bullshit. The P3 in the picture has about a half foot of round spacers. The softride has very few if any, it’s hard to tell from the crappy “press release” (as if this being a press release adds any validity to it’s content whatsoever) pictures. If anything the “test” tells us far more about the importance of fit than it does about frame aerodynamics.

· “Bikes were appropriate size for test rider 55cm, 700c wheel”

Apparently not, as that is the worst fitted p3 I have ever seen, I would worry about shearing the steering tube off if I braked too hard.

The “test” fitting was obviously based on what would be favorable to softride. Why not get the rider in an ideal position on the p3, and then mimic that position on the softride? This is even more important considering that even slight changes in pedaling style and knee positioning have measurable effects in the tunnel.

Why aren’t the pictures of the p3 and the trek bigger? Why aren’t there any big pictures that show the rider positions on the p3, the trek and the blade? Why does it seem like you are trying to hide something?

The chart that illustrates the “results” is an “Ave. drag listed above was calculated from the data collected at the following yaw angles 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 degrees.”

Why did you have to use an average? (this make the whole “press release” look even more bogus), Give us the data from each yaw angle.

Why limit the test to just those yaw angles? How can you make a general claim about a bike being x amount faster in a race if you used averages from 6 selected yaw angles

How do you respond to other bike companies claims, particularly Gerard and cervelo, who has made it clear that he thinks a p3 is just as aero, perhaps slightly less aero, as a softride?

It would also be interesting if you transfered the same fit and components over to a 1 inch lugged steal frame.

I have no problem believing that a softride might be the fastest bike you can get if you prefer to ride a bike like you sit on a sofa, or even the fastest frame period. Based on the “press release” however, I can’t find the grounds for softride to make sweeping claims that there frame is the most aerodynamic frame on the market with no catch, particularly by the margins that the "press release" is claiming.

Without buying into the "slings and arrows" going on here, I would second Ben's invitation to Softride to publish the full set-up data and drag data, and not just "results" which appears to have been selected solely for purposes of the marketing folks. Oh yeah, I ride a Softride, so I have no motivation to find fault in the protocols. But give me a look at them....and I can make up my own mind.

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra

Thanks for posting that for me Ben

Being a posting rookie,(but always out there in the shadows) I thought that it was lost. I was relieved to see my reply to you show up today.You college guys are smart about things like computers and such.I wish I could go back to those days of youth and supperior intelligence again.

As I said ,if you want all the answers call me on my cell @ 423-314-7992,any time. Im one of the funniest guys in the biz and lots of fun to talk to. That goes for any body that wants to ever ask me a question on Softride, life, women, places you shouldnt ride yor bike in a speedo or what really goes on up in them hills on cold nights with slowman. PT has filled me in on the last subject.

Thanks

Chig

Only .005% of the population will ever do a triathlon, let alone an IM

I actually really liked that Slingshot. They are still making them in Michigan, only ones I have seen recently were single speed mountain bikes. It was hard initially to get used to the lateral flex of the spring, but once you did I never have ridden a bike that turned better through bumpy corners.

I think people are arguing here over insufficient data, I would like to see the complete test. The handlebar position and seat position as well as all the other variables including aerobar type should be the same for all bikes. The main weakness is that it was only one rider. Even assuming that the other variables were kept the same, then you can still only confidently draw the conclusion that this was only effective for this rider in this position. I would like to see say 5 riders tested in different positions.

Having said that I would believe that the Softride (with a disc) is potentially more aero than the conventional frames. But come 2006 it wont matter as the USCF is adopting UCI bike rules so I couldnt use it anyway.

So, Chig when are they going to have the new Softride FasTT7 on the website to look at?

That photo of the P3 is a wide-angle photo from up close, so anything in the front looks much bigger and higher than the rear. You will a notice a similar but opposite effect in the bottom right picture, which is from the rear, but not as close.

PS While I own and love my TT7, I have no affiliation with SR.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

That may be, but ignoring the rear end of the p3, the distance from the head tube to the bars is very long. The blade has a long headtube, so it will have fewer spacers.

Either way, i am still waiting for softrides response. I am not going to waste my cell minutes to talk to chig, although i'm sure he is a great guy. Until someone from softride gives reasonable and logical explanations to my questions/points, i will assume that this is just a marketing gimmick to get people to call them.

Ben,

In response to your question about the validity of the aformentioned press release. I would just like to state that there are reputable experts willing to back up the fact that Softrides are the fastest most areodynamic bikes ever tested at WU's low speed wind tunnel. If you have any more questions, please feel free to post. In fact we will be posting their cell phone numbers shortly.

Dan Rather ;)

---

Las Vegas NV | IM KY 07

My point is that the height of the spacers will appear different from that angle.

Also, you would have to see the saddle to aerobar height differential on all of the bikes. Obviously different riders with different positions would necesitate different number of spacers to equalize these numbers.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

His seatpost is pretty tall. He may have long legs.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

Well,

very often I disagree with Ben (specially his views of France :-)) but on this one he is quite right.
I am not doubting the results of Softride. Heck if these types of bikes are banned by the UCI, there is a reason.
Pretty much anything which looks innovative ends up being banned by the UCI (still surprised that they haven't say anything about the P3 not being a double diamond because of the curved tube).
So, I am fairly sure it's more aero than most bikes (maybe the lotus is more aero). But then, posting the results on your site would clarify things for good.

As for things going on in the mountains of Slowman, I tell you: nothing! Slowman is in bed at 9pm! in fact he was in bed so early, I thought once I was back in where pretty much all the tri dudes go to bed really early.

sheesh , slings n'arrows is right. But i must add that i saw some of the photos from the tunnel while they were still warm in the camera, and there was LIKE an inch of space btw. the rear tire and the curve of the frame. In a true test you shouldn't even see light btw. the tire/ frame interface.

---

i think there, 4 am

All the data will be posted on our web site very soon. At the same time it will be published in Triahtlete magazine. This is the reason we are being a bit tight on the data. We do not want to take away from their article.

This test was designed by myself & the University of Washington testing personnel. The actual data acquisition tests were performed by them. I was involved with the flow visualizations testing i.e. smoke & tufts.

The cyclist was positioned the same on each bike. Positioning was checked using a goneometer to measure hip angle and knee angle and a tape measure to measure vertical distance from rider’s earlobe to the upper surface of the bike mount. Seat tube angle was also verified with digital inclinometer, measuring from BB center to Greater Trochanter. Aerobar angle was adjusted using a digital inclinometer. The test rider focused on a fixed point projected into the test section, keeping head position consistent. Stem length, spacer height, and saddle positions were determined beforehand based on the rider’s existing personal bike fit. Bike geometry was checked once the bike was installed to ensure consistency between runs. The test rider was pedaling at an average of 85 rpm. Power output averaged 225W. Approximately 4 hours of on wind time.

All components on each bike frame were identical. The following table lists the component spec for each bike frame:

Zipp 909 wheelset

HED Aerobar with Dura ace barend shifter

Profile BSC fork

FSA carbon crankset

Dura-Ace group

Look pedals

The windspeed which the testing was conducted at was 30 Mph. Both Drag and Cd were plotted along rider axis. The data from the Cd was applied to Jim Martin’s "Validation of a mathematical model for road-cycling power" A ground velocity was calculated for each and applied over 40K

Bike

Mph

M/s

Time (sec.)

Diff (sec)

FasTT7

20.60267655

9.210223348

4343

0

P3

20.22088683

9.039548023

4425

82

Blade

20.16619884

9.015100293

4437

94

Team TT

20.0802119

8.976660682

4456

113

I think Francois in Montreal said it best.


"Have someone independent (who will not be doing the tests) design the testing protocol. By independant, I mean someone in academia that understands exercise physiology, and, ideally, someone skeptical about your product. Have another independant person review the protocol and suggest improvements. Have someone (with similar credential) perform the testing. Make it part of the contract that there will be no interaction between you and the person responsible for the testing during the entire duration of the study. ALL results will be made available to the public, in the same form and at the same time it will be made available to you. No restriction for scientific publication. It should also be specified in the contract that any publicity mentioning the study should also includes a link to the web site containing ALL results. "

It would be great if some independent 3rd party would take on some comparative testing. Not just aerodynamics, but all the variables which effect performance.

We here at Softride Inc. Challenge the all other manufactures: Cervelo, Lightspeed, Trek, or any other manufacture to go back to the University of Washington tunnel for another test. I propose we have an unbiased 3rd party create the test procedures. All the manufactures interested need to provide a frame, and their share of test cost. A representative from each company to witness the test.

Any one interested?

---

Brady O'Hare
Softride Inc.
brady.ohare@softride.com