I'm probably going to be sorry I jumped in on this....but here it goes....

How do you, or your brother, or your #3 ranked physicist partner (I'm still not sure what that actually means and what organization ranks physicists) counter the argument that a lot of wind tunnel tests and corresponding outdoor tests using the Virtual Elevation method seem to line up well if wind tunnel tests are bogus?

I am not saying wind tunnel tests, of any kind, are perfect. But I would argue that they are a completely usable tool to determine the aerodynamic drag on most objects at relevant speeds.

p.s. please tell me more about this "high current liquid cooling".

Under certain circumstances, yes. But, have found through years of testing for my own purposes that a semi-aero rim such as a Velocity Aerohead is a very good compromise between no aero and some aero, esp with a low spoke count wheel. At the same time, I still ride ultra light tubular rims such as the Fiamme Ergal with silk casing tires and the sew up tires are faster, and there is no aero about them. For racing I do not use wired on tires, prefer strictly silk, or fine Egyptian cotton casing sew-ups on old style Fiamme Ergals and another brand named Champion Competition Medaille d'Or (sp?). Both are extremely light wheel sets. The Champion rims weigh about 260 grams more or less and the Ergals weigh around 280 grams and are stronger. The sew up tires weigh anything from 220 grams to 315 grams depending upon the road surface, or if somebody insists on weighing my bike (have been getting away with murder for some time, so it's time to move). I can get the bike down to the mid 13 lbs region if needed. Heh, heh, heh....

Nope, can't do it. But you can read about it on the Internet. Start with spray cooling of electronic components.

Aero wheels have evolved pretty substantially over the past few years. I wonder if the current designs and philosophies are consistent with the testing and observations you conducted years ago.

I absolutely agree that tubulars perform better than clinchers. I raced on tubulars decades ago when I was a road racer. I got back on the bike after about twenty years away, and this time around I will only do clinchers. I am just not interested in the mess and hassles of tubulars. I am debating tubeless, but I will probably stick with latex tubes and not go all in for the tubeless.

Yup, aero is still aero, it's still the same old arguments back and forth. At the right time, a good aero wheel set is very fast..no question about it. The big one that used to be hurled at me all the time was that at exactly 12 mph, climbing a hill, the aero rim will generate less aero drag and make up for its increased weight. After that, I presume, the wheel would simply pull itself up the hill. If anything, aero style rims, at least the really expensive ones are a whole lot lighter, they used to be very heavy. However, when it comes to weight, a good tubular rim will always win and the aero style wheel advantage, which can be statistically measured, will still come out to be surprisingly minor, esp. when weight is considered. But the aero advantage of a wheel can be calculated and advertised as a selling point, which is why it is done. My lightest tubular front wheel, without a tire, is 454 grams, exactly one pound. Which would you rather ride up a hill? Sew up tires are messy, geeky, light, delicate and just plain silly at times, but they are fast. I used to get into tremendous arguments with three guys who WERE the nom de plume of American cycling: Jobst Brandt, Eddie B and some clown from Harvard. Neither of the three ever raced. Eddie B told me, personally, in 1998, he had a better way to balance tires (he didn't and didn't understand the concept, plus he drugged all his cyclists). Jobst Brandt's sole claim to fame was that he rode his bicycle in Switzerland...once, and the clown from Harvard was a mathematician that did all the aero calculations for aero bikes. The three of them came together for the 1984 Olympics, using the billion Dollar highest tech aero funny bikes in the World. The team lost terribly, because it emphasized tech over the cyclist and the Euro cyclists just said poop on you, and they got on their bikes and rode the wheels off the Americans. Problem is, triathletes have kept their techy stuff, often ignoring the cyclist, and the legends of Eddie B, Jobst Brandt and the clown from Harvard live on. It's all in the legs and the proper equipment for the territory. IF there is no wind, ride the aero bike. If it will be blustery, hilly and lots of curves, consider a road bike with sew-ups and clip-ons, etc.

Are you a time trial racer? A lot of what you say makes sense for road rides and criteriums. But some of your application does not really make as much sense in the context of a time trial ride, especially a long one.

Well then....now we KNOW you're just trolling...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Now, we've gone from balancing bicycle wheels to calling me names. That's interesting. Keep the shiny side up.

I didn't call you a name. I merely described what you are doing.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

this is like a flashback to rec.bicycles.racing. well done.

Nope, you called me a name. Don't split hairs. In answer to your question, ask two winners of the RAAM. Their wins prove my point. You on the other hand, are merely irritating.

Ummm...what question? I don't recall asking a question of you.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

All I can say is thank fuck the aeronautical industry doesn't take your approach otherwise we'd still be flying around in bi-planes made out of spruce and muslin like the Wright brothers did.

Oh but hang on, you may or may not be surprised to learn that most of the research the Wright brothers conducted was in a small, homemade wind tunnel.

And holy shit, if I look up in the sky I can see these aeroplanes flying around. Astonishing. But I guess we just kept changing the shape of the metal bits and throwing it up into the air until we found something that worked. I don't think anybody modeled any fluid dynamics on a computer or tried anything out in a wind tunnel, because it just wouldn't have worked properly once you took it outside into the turbulent winds in the actual real life sky. That would be crazytown.

campy.1321 wrote:

<snip>

I agree that you were called a name.

what are your thoughts on this field testing/wind tunnel + math model based plot, campy.1321 :

---

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================

I was learning for 4.6 pages in this thread, then I became terribly amused.

Oh thank god for this information, now I know that had I run Conti Force when I did IMC (a while back), I would have finished 23 seconds faster in my 13 +hr effort.

Not blowing up in 35c weather and walking almost the entire marathon, might have erased that 23 second deficit.

For the pros this is a problem, but for the rest of us....come on.