I would suggest repeating one of the previous setups as a "control".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You know what would be really interesting? If Dan would do an article about 5 average age groupers buying their first new tri bike. Maybe a budget of $3000 and follow each of them through the process of buying the bike/helmet/fit session. I have no interest in shaming any LBS, so the shopping could be done with complete anonymity, but after all is said and done, Dan could have a group of 3-5 "judges" and score the new purchases on things like fit/aero/groupset/nutrition/storage/hydration, etc. Would be a great way for newbies to spot possible shopping pitfalls and maximize the bang for their buck. Just a thought.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Looks like they'll have to fit in 6 bikes/day next time though.


The problem I see with that is that many can't get really get aero with their fit positions. Of course some can, but the majority that I see aren't in what I'd consider a fast position whatsoever.

Before anyone tells me I can't possibly spot how fast a position is without testing it in the tunnel I'll just preemptively say that I have a pretty good idea of what a fast professional position looks like compared to an average age grouper. If you really want to add aero into that equation you'll need FOP age groupers.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

We are already contemplating a follow up test. Some would like another crack at the test at a tunnel with different architecture and using a different protocol. If possible, I would like to also add the Canyon Speedmax, Dimond Marquise, Speed Concept, and TriRig Omni to the testing. TriRig volunteered to loan an Omni for the recent shootout, but that offer was issued three days before the test and it was simply too late. I can only do so much!

If we repeat this test with 10 bikes, it would take roughly 12 hours to complete. We would need to do it all in one day. You guys better start saving your shekels unless the manufacturers are willing to foot the whole bill for the tunnel time and the equipment needs of a much more ambitious test. I'm not spending any more money on this stuff. Not a dime. This data is sufficient for my financial investment, though as a hobby I would still contribute my time for further research, and as a rider I have proven that I can hold a position with +/- 2 watts or ~0.002 m^2 on average across yaw points, so I am willing to be the guy pedaling the bike.

Stay tuned.

They did 6 this time. You're forgetting about the Felt B2 "baseline". I'd say use that one again as a baseline, but I think kileyay is selling it now...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Pretty much a perfect list but I'd swap either the Dimond Marquis, Orbea Ordu, or the TriRig Omni for the new BMC. I don't see BMC selling a lot of those (though I've already seen three of them this year so maybe my perception is off).

Add a P5 as a "control"

I'd say P5 since it was included in Kiley's test, is fairly popular, and is frequently featured in other tests.

Not without the same slab of meat on top of the bike, at the same weight/size as last time.

I like your list, but I'd also like to see an Orbea Ordu Team.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

I'd like to see the P4 optimized with a Ventus and Tririg added to the list.

---

J. Tyler Pate

I will be shooting the P4 optimized vs. the P5-6 optimized later this spring or early this summer/

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

meet me at A2 in a month...

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

What about repeating the same 5 bikes on a velodrome for testing?

---

--Chris

That's awesome.


Don't blame you one bit for that. I think Triathlete Magazine or GCN needs to open up the checkbook for aero bike shootout 2.0!

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

Not sure if there needs to be another one. Sensing that their won't be much difference between the one's that were originally done.

---

Twitter@Forsey37

Just me I'm sure but...
TA frd
T4
Track elite
Electron
Tr01

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

dude I need another nap today before even thinking about this.

But it could be done. Yes we did Kiley's bike as a control rider on & rider off at the end, effectively 6 bikes.

I don't think you guys realize what a massive undertaking this is. If you saw all the behind the scenes work on any 1 of our ends much less all of our ends you'd never wish this upon your worst enemy.

But if you do wish it upon anyone, ring Heath and I up we're ready.

What would be really interesting is to do a fitting session (either on your bike or a brand new ride) then go from there into the wind tunnel to fine tune that. You'd optimize your helmet and clothing and/or storage then you could be #aerobullying people like I just did on twitter and IG.

But most people would rather replace their disc wheel with a new disc spending $2500 vs spending $1200 for aero testing. One will save you 3w....at most the other from 10-30 watts.

The wheel is something cool to show off to your friends where as the testing is something you use to beat the shit out of them at the races.

Flashy or be the flash.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Or buy the disc and aero testing. Then you really are the Flash

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

This:

https://www.bikerumor.com/...uma-track-prototype/

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Even if they did one or two of the bikes it would be very interesting. Do you think at 0 yaw there would be much difference? Would a comparison of the two protocols (tunnel vs. velodrome) determine which is more precise (at 0 yaw)? This may already be a known, I just don't know it.


Great point. Seems like a very worthy service.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

chriselam wrote:

What about repeating the same 5 bikes on a velodrome for testing?

Why? Field testing tells you about zero yaw only, and the error ranges are larger, aren't they? Help me understand how field testing is superior in any way except for contextualizing your real world CdA. And honestly, "real world CdA" is best calculated using a slew of assumptions for the variables in the equation -- which is HP =((Cd*A*1/2*rho*V^3)/550) + (mass*(Crr+Cbr)*V/550) -- or software such as Best Bike Split, from a few of your race results or a single race result, if you trust that model's (I think proprietary) histograms for a given course based on the weather API and the "open coast" or "desert planes" input, presumably. I don't frankly, because I just don't think it's that good -- but as a model for the real world, it does just fine. I also don't trust it because I can't see how that stuff is cranked behind the scenes. But it's possibly very good on average.

Besides all that, I'd rather test all these things in the tunnel again and then do a free shootout with the top three, say, using Chung tests/VE in Golden Cheetah. Because Chung testing is free and relatively easy if you have a place to do it.

All these approaches have strengths and weaknesses. If we're trying to tease out differences between these bikes -- which, per the Cervelo P5 white paper and the Trek Speed Concept White Paper, are somewhat minor -- then the wind tunnel is the best place to do that with the least range of error. I was once a skeptic, but now that I have seen how low the variability is and how tight the controls, I'm a believer.

1) SHIV

Effectively seven bikes, if you consider the second Felt run as the extra bike. Don't short shrift what a pain in the ass this was and how many bikes we tested. ;)

I think it would be interesting to see a (TriRig) optimized P2 as well. Nick had published test results that state an optimized P2 is as fast as a P5. If that's proven true by an unbiased 3rd party, it would save P2/P3 owners a lot of money and they can put the extra money to something else, such as aero testing.

We tested a TriRig optimized B series, effectively. I don't see the need to test another value frame that we would have to configure to meet spec for me.

Fair point.

My bad, bad math!
sigh....

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

1) Tririg Omega
2) Cervelo NP2 or NP3 (aren't these aerodynamically equal?)
3) Dimond
4) SHIV
5) FELT IA whatever

It gets easier the more often you do it, but yes...it's nice to have an independent voice or three noting what it's like to do comparative product testing in as fair a manner as possible, vs just one-person equipment or position optimization.

---

Carl Matson

Shiv TT
Shiv tri
Dimond
Plasma
Slice
SC

Darn it that's 6.

I'm particularly interested in how my bike compares (Shiv tri) because it is repeatedly criticized here for being old and in need of a refresh. Would be great to see how it compares to something made recently. Would be hilarious to see little or no difference at all.

I have six on my list:


Dimond Marquise
Felt IA FRD
TriRig Omni
Trek Speed Concept 9
Canyon Speedmax CF SLX
BMC TM01 (2017)

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

 
1). Cervelo P5

2). BMC Timemachine 17' TM01

3). Scott Plasma Team Issue

4). Felt IA

5). Canyon Speedmax

I'd like to see say a 2009 cannondale slice to see how far bikes have advanced; and a modern aero road bike with clip on bars to see the difference between road and tt

I would rather have an "era" bike shootout. Such as... take your TBA "winner" from this past aero test and compare that to something like the Cervelo P1, throw in an aero road bike with aerobars, and then a round tube road bike.

Honestly, I'd like to see what that spread is to compare the generational improvements that have come to our sport. It should be substantial, otherwise we should all start scoping out the classified and save our $$ over the new designs. :)

If the Felt is within 1-15w of the others I think you'll already have your answer at least with regards to modern tri frames. That's sort of the genius of the first test.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

QR PR 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1.) control bike from round 1 (doesn't matter which one)
2.) Felt IA
3.) shiv nosecone
4.) Dimond
5.) tri rig Omni
6.). P2/3

QR PR6
Louis Garneau Gennix Tri Elite
Trinity Advanced Pro
Cube Kona
Cannondale Super Slice

1) Tri rig omni
2) Dimon marquise
3) Scott plasma rc
4) trek speed concept 9.9
5) Argon 119/giant trinity pro

I have six on my list:


Dimond Marquise
P2/P3
TriRig Omni
Trek Speed Concept 9
Canyon Speedmax CF SLX
Control from test 1

Rather than choose specific bikes, I'd like to see one of them be the 'winner' of the first test. Re-testing that bike will help calibrate the results and go some way to arguing that point at least (ie arguing about temperature, humidity, pollen differences between test one and test 2.

The other thing I'd like to see is bikes other than just high end bikes at the pointy end of the spectrum. I'd like to see the 4 most common bikes from the Kona bike count, that weren't already tested in the first test (assuming the winner bike from test 1 isn't one of the bikes in the first test)

Alternatively, (maybe for a future test) a test of the progression of tri bikes over the ages. Say a QR Kilo from the early 90's, a Cervelo P2K, an ali P3. a P3C, then a current P3. The reason I'd like to see this range of bikes is due to my old coach Walter Throburn here in New Zealand. He held the race record for the long running Port of Tauranga half ironman, for about 12 years I think it was. He set that riding a round tube frame bike, budgie smugglers and a flapping running singlet, and a bobble head helmet! When his record was finally broken, it was in modern (but a few years old now) whizz bang go fast bike and all the gear (plus much improved training techniques, hydration and nutrition). Given that it's taken so long to beat those records set back in the day (not just here in NZ) and that the squillion dollars of R&D doesn't really add up to much, it would be nice to see in the repeatability of the tunnel, just how much difference it makes to ride a $15,000 go fast wunder-bike, vs a round tubed steel bike with square section wheels.

I know the number crunchers among us (including the companies selling us the latest go fast gear) will tell us how much time we save with modern gear, but it would be nice to quantify that in the tunnel. Then I could bring my P2K out of retirement maybe, or even my Kilo :-)

---

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"

I actually had this same thought. Now this would be cool. But I think you'd run into logistical issues with equipment by going that far back in time. Can you imagine trying to get all those built up the same way component wise? What a nightmare.

YES!!!

Don't make it a bigger problem than it actually is :-) If you can manage your first test, testing old bikes would be relatively easy.

As long as the old bike is the right size, and the rider position is identical, then it is what it is. We rode the bikes the way they were back in the day. For my old QR Special Edition for example, it came with 650C wheels, Syntace C2 aerobars and Gripshift 8 speed. Set that bike up with your position, and see how it compares. No need to worry about putting 808's on it or a power meter, just test what it was to see how much we've advanced, or how little :-)
As long as it's the same rider, same position, in the same tunnel on the same day, you'd get interesting and very useful information. It's not just testing frame against frame, but complete bike against complete bike.

FWIW, I'd like to see one of the Cheetah bikes tested against both bikes from that era, as well as modern bikes at some point but I suspect that could be a bridge too far.

I'd offer my old bikes (assuming the sizes are right) but shipping would put it out of my ability to cover the cost. You can probably find same or similar bikes closer to where you are.

---

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"

Yes, I would like to see some 'normal' bikes thrown in the mix.

It's OK (and very interesting !) to compare superbike A to superbike B and quantify the difference, but how big is the gap to a 'normal' bike ?

Having that information would be really interesting when looking at the true cost per watt based on bike selection.

My guess is that it would make the gains quoted above for a bit of tunnel time seem like an absolute bargain / no brainier ... ?

'Make the very best out of what you have got' v 'get the very best'

WD :-)

If people really want to do this, I'll offer my Canyon up. I offered it to Kylieyay, but he rides a tiny bike... err, doesn't fit a Large. If people want to do another shootout, I'm local to A2 and will happily take a PTO day to do a new test.

Still no love for the Giant Trinity. Solid bike at a solid price, but the white paper on it from Giant is exaggerated.

This!!! Of all the bikes the have been unveiled in the past year or two I think the Cube Kona is by far my favorite from an aesthetics standpoint.

They tested a Felt B-series in the tunnel this week. I see a 2013 in my size, for sale in a facebook group with Ultegra for $850. So IMO that's the normal bike.

I think at some point testing older frames becomes redundant. A lot of advances are made every few years and it's a bit like having an iPhone 7s vs. iPhone 4 shootout.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

I have noticed that wheel companies have finally, more or less eliminated aero comparison to 32-hole box rims.
...but it would be fun to see the comparison to an optimized rider on good, old, round steel tubes.


...and get off my lawn!

Maybe have one of them be a more traditional frame/disc-brake combo? Canondale or Parlee? I see All3 in Atlanta sent up the P5 - they (well, Podium) seem to have been building up a number of the Parlees lately. Maybe they could volunteer one for round 2.

^^^This^^^
But I don't think anyone cares about such an antiquated bike with all the high dollar super bikes out now.

I'd like to see an aero road bike with aero bars such as a S5. See if one bike can do it all, or how close it actually comes.

---

--Chris

This tested an aero Venge ViAS vs. a Tarmac and found a 5 minute difference over 40k. That's a huge number but I'm really not surprised. I think after a bike is aero optimized is when we start to see diminishing returns.
https://www.outsideonline.com/...found-will-shock-you

Edit: 2 minutes over 40k with frame to frame comparison. The other 3 minutes seems based on wheels, shoes, helmet, skinsuit. They also say the Venge ViAS is as aero as the SHIV TT. So I think can a lot can be extrapolated from that.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

There it is again.

Why is it antiquated? Just because the frame design is 5-6 years old? Or is it because it is notably slower than frames released in 2017?

One of those claims, if true, has merit. The other one does not.

The Shiv has upright dentist geometry. I would have to make miracles happen to fit on that bike.

Because there have already been tests that compare the Shiv Tri to the P5 and others and it was nothing to write home about.

Why?

Somebody really, really, really needs to test a Fuji Norcom Straight (with fast handlebars).

I'd be up for that.
I'd also like to test the Orbea Ordu
diamondback Serios which I've heard good rumors about but haven't seen hard data

the problem with Fuji and Orbea is their dealer networks suck and that makes them non relevant to the triathlon world.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Where are we with Scott's Plasma?

IIRC, you had some pretty good results on that bike back in the day.

Now, the Brownlees join SK to fly the flag.

Seems we need to know the truth about the modern Plasma.

Scott

I was wondering the same thing. It looks to be a good set up with everything one would need at a great price point.

For me, I'd like to see:

Giant Trinity
Canyon Speedmax - Ultegra Di2 version
Scott Plasma - new Tri version a la Brownlee
SC
QR6

Felt IA (interesting take on the double diamond)
New BMC (it's new and probably performs similarly to the Canyon et al.)
TR Omni (novel design from small company)
SC 7/Giant ("Budget bike")
P4 (how much progress has been made since 2010)

Argon 18 E-119
Canyon Speedmax
Giant Trinity
Scott plasma 5
Cannondale Slice

---

res, non verba

Rude. My dentist rides a P4!

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

What I'd like (but it's probably a few years away at very best) is a CFD program that takes information from a camera or LIDAR suite and then does the work for you.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

iirc the new plasma's are 7-9w faster than the old plasma 3. With some equipment mods from stock you can cut that gap in half...if not more.

I think Scott suffers from the same problem as Fuji & Orbea. Great bikes crappy consumer education program and crappy dealer network. I wouldn't even know who to reach out to get my hands on a new Plasma here in the US. I probably have a better network for this sort of thing than the avg triathlete

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

If some, like Dan's, predictions are correct, and all the frames in the first test are within say 10 watts of each other, which would possibly be within a margin of error too? Is it really worth taking a bunch more frames in? Seems like you'll have simply proven that there just isn't much difference between all the top frames, and folks should concentrate on other things (position....).

I'd much rather see the same sort of unbiased test done on wheels. Guessing you'd see larger differences.

Been there, done that...it does ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I wouldn't think that +- 10 watts would be the margin of error. If this were the case WT testing would be pointless. My guess is that we are reaching the point of minimum drag for a bike, though something like the Vias Venge demonstrates that some crazy design work and singular focus (I.e., good low-yaw performance) can still save 5-10 watts.

Jim at ERO made the point that the next step in aero is to determine the best rider/bike combo. Nice idea but I don't see this as practical. It is hard enough to find a few aero helmets, in the correct size, to test. Imagine the $ needed to provide a range of bikes.

After my DA was stolen I did this with an AR using a Tririg alpha x and reversed seat post. Damn thst was good looking and light - probably 16.5-17 pound range. Ultimately I got tired of the swapping back and forth to go for Saturday morning group ride and ended up building an IA 10 with the alphaX front end. I picked that frame based on this advice from Desert Dude in this thread:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...IA_14%3F_P6044198-2/

This is a question I've been thinking about a lot. What is the difference between a "source of error" I need to just explain and one I should quantify. In other words, what is industry best practice for error bars here?

I can calculate SEM a number of different ways.

Watts?

With a pedaling cyclist on board, CdA is generally reproducible to within +/- about 0.004 m^2, or +/- 2%. Differences smaller than that could still be real, but you'd need multiple measurements to be sure. (OTOH, differences larger than may still not be real, but odds of that go down the bigger the difference found.)

Was the drag of the fixture measured separately?

If so, I would recommend the approach that I used when testing brakes.

If not, it's a bit of a moot point.

I don't know if they ran it with only the fixtures. I asked that same question and didn't get a clear answer. Will try to find out. I really hope they did, but it's not obvious to me from the data I have that they did.

In terms of the "moot point", I don't know about that. I had thought of using the control vs. the baseline to establish variability from those runs. This assesses "variability from human rider moving" error, which people were way concerned about in one of the other threads.



Maybe this doesn't make any sense -- I don't know. Anyways, now that I've tidied up the data and removed all the hard coded figures in the calcs, I'm ready to hand it off to an adult for review.

This is something that has bothered me about most error bars I see on bike measurements, in the couple places that actually do it (I forget if this applies to the tririg testing), but when they just apply a round number percentage to all the results. First I doubt that actually uncertainty in a measurement would be a nice round number like 3%, because there are so many measurements that go into calculating drag, not just the scale, but also wind speed, temperature, pressure, etc. No way they sum up to a round number. Second the uncertainty is likely not the same percentage for every value. If you have scale that is +/-1% full scale accuracy, the uncertainty percentage of the measurement is going to be different for when measuring 500 grams versus 1000 grams. Simply if bike A has 10% more drag as measured in your test than bike B, the error bars on each should probably not be the same size. They may be similar size if something like the repeat ability of you position is much a bigger factor than the rest of the measurements, but I suspect it is not. I assume you guys have all the specs for the measurements you guys recorded and need to calculate drag?

All I know is testing where I have had to include uncertainty in the data, that has taken more time calculating than the rest of the results. Which makes sense when you start getting into it.

I am very excited to get to read about your results, but boy have you guys picked a very tricky thing to do. The majority of the work and time in this project is in front of you and the fun part is probably behind you, so I do not envy you guys.

I haven't really paid much attention to what you did, but it seems as if the only data you have that would lend insight into the precision of the measurements is n=2 values at each yaw angles, for one bike only? That's not a lot to go by, but why not just calculate the CVs and then average them? Unless you have data for the fixture drag, and/or reason to think precision varied with yaw angle, that seems as good an approach as any.

(BTW, the data look as tight as any I have seen, and if I understand correctly, reflect removing and replacing the bike, which is ideal, so good job.)

Right -- that was what I was thinking. But I also had another thought. Each run we hit zero yaw three times. So I also calculated an average based on those three data points (for each run) then checked what the relative (%) deviance from the mean was for the max and min value. It's tight. Really tight. I think both these approaches inform on the variability caused by movement from a live rider.



Average deviance from the control to the baseline across the board is +/- 0.4%. The alternative approach from the chart above suggests an average deviance of +/- ~0.7%.

From Tour Magazin, CdA of bike + pedalling legs


Shows that with huge resources and crazy designs you can make a bike that is significantly heavier but fractionally more aerodynamic for a limited scenario, while also worsening the braking performance and increasing service time.

Haha! That is great. I've not checked out Tour in a while are they still using the full dummy with floppy clothes or just using the legs now?

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

I think the visible minority at the top end change bikes regularly, but there is also a large number of us riding tri bikes that are quite old. My P2K was 10 years old when my P2 replaced it. I still have the P2K and only replaced it to get a more comfortable fit (it was slightly small for me.

I think that testing something like a P2K would be a great calibration tool. Afterall, Cervelo still use a P2K, with the DZ mannequin as their calibrator for their bikes in the wind tunnel. I know that modern bikes are more aero than a P2K, but it would be good to see how much better. Is if 50W? is it 5W? Are the advances with modern bikes (vs say bikes from 15 years ago) actually worth shelling out for a new bike or is it really just marketing and has limited real world value. If you can afford a new $10k bike each year, lucky you. If you have to make sensible long term bike choices, there really needs to be a valid reason for the upgrade. If I can save 50W over my P2k, then it's probably worth selling the kids, but if it's 5W, the kids can get a new pair of shoes instead of daddy getting a new bike.

I'm not saying we should sell our P5X's and get P2K's, but unless we do the comparative test, we never get to fin out how much $/W we're paying.

---

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"

I would like a comparison of Tom A.'s Cervelo S5 turned into a TT machine versus the TT superbikes.

Diabolo wrote:

I would like a comparison of Tom A.'s Cervelo S5 turned into a TT machine versus the TT superbikes.

That has been partially done
http://mobileservices.texterity.com/lavamagazine/201204?pg=20#pg20

Ditto!