Is the 8W compared to a traditional bta setup or nothing ?

probably compared to the "baseline"

Any way to make this work with a '14 Speed Concept?

Interested to know what is baseline, what frames tested, any corporate support of study.
Also interesting to see that FC35 mentioned but not FC25 suggesting that the lower the carriage of the unit is acting as a better airfoil than the frame itself.

Don't read too much into these numbers. It's one athlete, with one setup, though repeated tests with consistent results. When we publish our complete BTA "shootout" we'll have multiple athletes and aero bar configurations. I thought these numbers were interesting because setup was so crucial to getting the aero savings.

To answer some other questions. The FC25 wasn't included because we haven't tested it yet. The 8.3 watts was compared to Baseline with no BTA. Standard mounting of the FC resulted in a loss of 1.7 watts, which was sort of the point of the article. Setup matters.

One of the issues you might run into getting this in the correct position is the width between your extensions. If you have a narrow setup, the FC won't fit between them. 3T bars, for instance, are too narrow for the FC to fit low.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Thanks for the info and the article. I see this testing was on a Felt DA. I imagine that frame choice is going to make the results of the shootout interesting. Hopefully the results will include a comparison to a standard bta setup. Thanks for sharing the info.

Agreed, would like to see what a standard, i.e. just zip tied cage between the arms with a bottle as a point of data as well :). Also similiar gains can be had with the Torhans 30, I hope it's also apart of the test.

Any chance you would include an Aerodrink in your BTA "shootout"? At $22 bucks it seems like it should be a such a great deal for people looking for a straw-based refillable solution.

I know its not supposed to test as fast as a horizontal bottle, but I seem to remember seeing numbers indicating that its worse than a bottle on the downtube. I've always wondered if it tests so badly because of the extra-long stock straw and if it would test much closer to a Torhans with a reasonable length one - or maybe with the mounting bracket upside-down...

Jim,

Great article and I look forward to the readout on the hydration comparisons.

I have recently switched to the FC35 after having to relook my BTA setup due to Specialized aerobar recall. I saw some initial posts from you stating that the FC setup 'appeared fast' without committing to stating it 'is fast' and that was good enough for me to make the switch. It is great to see that now.

It appears that the data for testing so far shows only with the aerobar mount option. Selfishly, I would be interested to see if there is any change is the numbers utilizing the basebar bracket ,as this is what I am using (aerobars will not allow me to mount the FC setup far enough back). I would think that this could also 'standardize' the position that the bottle mounts and alleviate some concerns that I have read about people with the FC shifting/ tilting between the aerobars.

When viewed from the side my bottle sits like the bottle in your first picture. However, I do not have any of the straps wrapped around the aerobars.

Again, Thanks for your thoroughness with all that you do

Interesting.

I've gone and flipped the bracket on my FC35 now, it also serves to bring my garmin behind my hands which is helpful I'm sure.

A quick question - I tilt my aerobars up slightly, and therefore my FC35 is also tilted up slightly.

Is there a drag penalty for doing this?

Pursuant to this:
Has anybody found a way to keep the FC25/35 level whilst having uptilted extensions?
Tilting the reservoir reduces the effective capacity quite a lot.

Can someone help me out in determine what would be considered having extensions that are "too narrow" to make mounting the FC35 upside down a possibility? Mine seem to be as I can get the bottle in. But I definitely didn't think my extensions were particularly narrow. Maybe it's because they're titled up? I did a sprint this weekend and during the run saw a guy on the side of the course with his Felt IA and very very low setup FC35 and was immediately jealous. As I think now it's gotta be the upward tilt causing it to not fit.

Can anyone help me out with this? I just spent a half hour fiddling with the FC35 and couldn't figure it out. Moved the extensions around and nothing. I'm thinking it's maybe the T2 bend that's the problem. does anyone have this bottle and have it set up nice and low? Maybe it's the angle of my stem as well?

Hi,
I have the same bars other than the extensions (profile t1)as your setup. I have mounted the fc35 as per the ERO article and while it does mount it a little lower it does make it a little more difficult to get the bottle in and out of the mount. Not sure if you are running your extensions super narrow but I did widen my set up to make it fit.

Would you mind putting up some pics? I've put the bars as wide as they can go and it still won't work. Tried narrowing them. Tried pushing the extensions out further so that the "uptick" in the extensions was out of the way

Here is a pic from an event, haven't got any others so hope it helps. From memory the widest part of the bottle rests on the insides of the extensions.


http://oi64.tinypic.com/qx0005.jpg

Thanks for making this public. Do you have a rough idea about minimum extension width required?