robgray wrote:
When I tested a compression top @ ERO it was actually SLOWER than a tank. the texture such as that on the PI and others makes a big difference
I think what this comment is directly pointing out is that I never claimed x top was the same thing as the Castelli top. Especially my comment about the Adidas compression top above in the thread. Shit, I was actually joking about the Adidas top; I simply grabbed the first top that looked very similar to the Castelli top.
I'm not naive to think that all compression tops are going to perform.... if at all. My argument has always been, "what makes something textured (as Jim@ERO noted to make something a fast top) to actually perform?". Once we know that, then I/we can look for cheaper versions.
As for wsroberts comments about my "precious UA top"... I even created a thread specifically about the UA top a couple days ago trying to find a legitimate, written in stone reason, as to why the top was a bad choice and no one really had any good input (in that thread). Personally (literally, this is all about me now), I need a new top for an Ironman race in hot and humid conditions, to replace my current tri tank. I've never liked tri tanks (even my waffled speedsuit version from Squadra) because it chaffs on the run and seems restrictive. I'm now looking at something like an UA compression top bc its comfortable, NOT because I think it's faster on the bike. I'd rather wear something comfortable for both the bike/run than something that "might" save me 3 or 6 or 6:36 minutes on the bike. Because, personally, I think I'll be much faster simply comfortable (to an extent) over 10ish hours.
Now as for real data, what compression top was tested with ERO that performed worse than a Tri tank? That's good information to know. And how bad did it perform?