That thing looks cool! Cue the whining on how 50t is too small for them though.

I've seen it done, can't remember where. I'll add it to my list of things to make when I get a moment I think.

---

Developing aero, fit and other fun stuff at Red is Faster

how close were your intra-test results on those?

Here's the CdA data. Its 0 yaw with hanger, -10 yaw with hanger, 0 yaw without, -10 without.

you can see the data for the averages below those numbers.

This was my first wind tunnel trip, point out if I should be skeptical of these results in any way. The operator did comment that I had very little body movement in my runs and thus very tight variance.

IMO, if the values are off more than 0.001 intra run, then I would not take the results as conclusive for equipment tests not affected by positional changes, ie pedals and FD. more than that is too much movement within run, again IMO

the without at -10 is ~5w as reported by the tunnel(A2) between the two readings. one was either extra good or one was extra bad and now you have to look at you various pics from the runs to see if you can tell if anything changed, which you likely can't tell.

those are not bad for movement for a rider at all, but equipment does not move if you get what I am trying to convey.

I think that for things that are not affected by position, it might be better to test without rider. a rider moves around and depending on how much you end up with numbers that might not mean what you think they mean.

I wouldn't argue with that. Consider this another data point for everyone then. It was my last run because we had time, I wasn't really looking to switch.

The one argument I would have against that is the leg movement could affect the results as its fairly close to FD. The best solution would probably be to have the rider pedaling and doing enough runs to get a better sense of rider variance.

Your .001 rule of thumb is interesting. I'll look over the results on my other runs - I did do some equipment only runs (no rider).

I ripped my hanger off a 2008 soloist, via a dumb cross shift. Somehow the chain got caught up and created more leverage.

After inspection by a few seasoned vets it was deemed OK and I just sanded, re-epoxied and re- drilled with three larger rivets. Rock solid after a year.

For removal I would recommend drilling out rivets and perhaps gently pry and work with razor knife and a bit of leverage.

Ie even in my case after a violent unintended removal carbon was fine.

YMMV

+1. this is exactly what I did with my Shiv and the removal was very clean. FYI I needed to use a razor blade with a little wedge and some light hammer taps to get the glue to come loose.

What model of Shiv do you have? I am thinking of trying to remove mine from a 2010 nose one Shiv and I was wondering if it would be epoxied as well as riveted to the point of damaging the frame if I tried removing it.

Was a Shiv Tri

Which BB was this? The record track square taper BB with cartridge bearings? Or was it an older cup and cone style, or maybe a road BB? Did you test other square taper BB's? I'd be interested in what you found. Thanks.

Track square taper with cartridge bearings. Old Shimano BBs weren't so bad either UN91, etc.

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

 I believe that both BBs you mention, Campy track and Shimano UN91, have only two outer seals (inner seals removed in the case of the Campy track BB ). Interesting, thanks.

anyone have an opinion on just how unaero the sram sync 1x ring might be? all those big open holes look less badass and we know how intimidation matters ;)

I can't image a low-yaw situation where you would want the holes, so I use a carbon tape, shrink skin, or carbon fiber to fill everything in.

was hoping not to have to mcgyver something for the 1x sync ring, you know, 5 spokes is better than the previous 39(teeth vs arms) ;)