SuperDave wrote:
chaparral wrote:
A couple of things,
1) I guess someone has finally provided windtunnel results in CdA.
2) Another test where the Shiv tri does not test particularly well.
3) Hard to tell, but the IA may be beat by both the SC and P5 at 0 yaw, but beat them both at yaw around 10 degrees.
4) A little suprised that the IA is not better at 0 yaw with those seat stays, really makes you think of how little making UCI illegal helps. Also, all the bikes are UCI illegal.
5) Finally some results of the DA. I just need 20 degree yaw and my bike is as fast as a P5!
6) DA results do line up with the thought that the DA is closer to the P4 than the P3.
Very seldom to triathletes see 0 yaw conditions, I don't think this is being disputed by Trek and Cervelo, right?
-SD
Especially me!
I agree, but it would depend on what the expected yaw conditions are. Cervelo is obliviously designing for lower yaw conditions than you guys or Trek. The Trek data did show that maybe Cervelo optimized for a course like Arizona, but you guys and Trek are designing for Kona (and I guess for slower athletes everywhere). Also Cervelo may be optimizing a bit for Pro-Tour time trials, which the IA does not need to be designed for. I just thought that things like the low seat stays would help you more at 0 yaw than at higher yaws.
Do you have any additional information regarding those windtunnel results that were posted. I assume the DA results include the Frame Bottle and probably the DI2 Battery Bulge. But do they include the Bayonet 4 fork?
I assume it was the P5-6 tested.