The other issue is test speed v actual use/race speed. I've done a ton of fabric testing this year and have found some that work super well at high speeds and poorly at low speeds, and vice versa. I think from a bike position stand point 48kph testing speed is fine, but some textiles tend to turn on at different speeds.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Athletes test at race pace wattage; speed is dictated by their individual power output, CdA, and wind conditions during testing and is, therefore, never a constant that can be relied on in real world testing, or racing for that matter.

I know folks are developing IMU-based or camera-based systems to monitor position, and may be of some use, but we care whether or not an athlete can repeat their position and numbers over and over again. During our testing, athletes are forced out of, and back into, their positions at least 6 times per test. We see real quick whether or not they can produce consistent numbers. If they can't, the test is invalidated...start over. It can be frustrating at times for the athlete and us.

We see this all the time with head position. Athletes try to hold unsustainable head positions to achieve a lower drag number. For a run or two, sure they can hold it, but then minute after minute, you see the CdA begin to climb. Once they lose concentration, or begin feeling discomfort, they move back to a natural position. I don't work with individuals too often anymore (I limit it to one a week now and even then I'm leaning to one a month), so if we're testing product, I want consistency. For testing like this video, I'm not actually concerned with the athlete's overall CdA, I just want repeatable numbers. In fact, I joke with one of our test riders that I really don't want to "fix" his position because he's our short reach, sitting up, guy and it gives me variety. LOL. The best advice I've found to help them achieve consistency is to have them place their hands in the exact same position every time. That typically produces repeatable positioning and results. Every once in a while, though, you just get those people who can't repeat numbers. I really can't use those athletes for what we're doing. Of course, power meter reliability comes into play there as well.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

I ordered them both and they both fit. I'm happy.

I am 42.5 in the morning and 43 at night. Ordered M size and it is a PERFECT fit.
The tall version goes up high, the top is less than 2 inch lower where my calf shelves.

Very informative video and results speak for themselves.

However, I may have missed it somewhere in the explanation —- but how do you get these socks to work with ankle timing chips? Especially the bigger, bulkier ones that need to be turned in at the end of the race? I can’t imagine any time savings in the overall scheme of things if you have to remove the timing chip, put on socks and then reattach the timing chip in T1.

---

Success does not consist of never making mistakes, but in never making the same mistake twice.

Can you post on your videos the Avg watts of the tests as well.

If someone is riding at 340 watts and gets 2.5 watts gain with socks for e.g at 45 km per hr, then people see the 2.5 watts are at that speed.

then another rider goes 200 watts and has no gain at least we know why ? or if they gain 5 watts we can see it's much more help etc.

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

We're getting away from quoting watts and moving to percentage as it's the more appropriate, though less sexy, way to express differences. But if you want to know their wattage, we provide both the percentage and the watts saved, so pretty easy math from there. We don't quote CdA either as these are competitive athletes and that information is not something they may want out in the universe, but that may change and be a prerequisite if an athlete wishes to be a test rider for us. I haven't decided on that yet. We did give that information when we tested the Rudy Project Wing.

All of this is still a bit of work in progress, so any wishes or criticisms are very welcome. Lots on our plate to test in the coming months. Calf sleeves are delayed everyone. Sorry, but there was another brand we wanted everyone to test that makes it all more relevant. We'll substitute it with another video next week, and probably a few thoughts on Specialized claims about their new Tarmac and how they've done something few others dare to do later this week.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

If you just use percentages then the tests are not telling of overall results in time for a race.

A top guy at 320 watts at 5 % is very different then a 160 watts rider at 5%.

wind is not much of a factor under 28 km per hr. these athletes are good? maybe? I don't know, I need to see their results.

I don't get why it is difficult to just put this avg watts beside the other numbers in the video?

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

I like to see savings quoted in watts and seconds saved at target race distance and target watts

For example 2 watts, 30 seconds over IM distance at 200watts, assuming flat, no wind. (made up numbers)

The athletes get the necessary information, after all they are paying for it. We on the other hand are getting information for free. We are lucky he is sharing any of this information with us. I don’t blame him for not sharing anything more.

---

blog

I have the same question haha. I actually have a pair of silca aero socks. I wear them for rides as they are pretty comfortable, but I brought them to my first tri this season and realized once I got into T1 that putting them on over the ankle chip would be really tricky/probably ruin the aero advantage so I just went sockless.

You aren't following, he isn't asking for the Cda, he is just asking for the watts. Jim has already said "But if you want to know their wattage, we provide both the percentage and the watts saved, so pretty easy math from there."

All Triathletetoth is asking for that Jim provides this so we don't have to crunch the number..

This is exactly why watts shouldn't be the metric. It's personal to your specific race wattage and is used all the time by manufacturers to, well let's just say, exaggerate the effectiveness of their products. "Our product saves you 20 watts!" Really? At what average wattage? Because 20 watts for a World Tour rider is a whole lot different than the average age grouper. Two completely different percentages of savings. 20 watts for one might be a 5% (or likely less) savings, while for an age grouper you're looking at well over 10%...well over. Percentage of drag savings is far better. If you see a test where multiple athletes saw an average drop in drag of 2.5% from a product, all you need to do is apply that percentage to your personal race wattage to understand how that particular product might effect your overall savings. Is your race pace 225 watts? Congrats, that's 5.6 watts savings for you. 125 watts? 3.1 watts. 400 watts? 10 watts. It's personal. I don't mind continuing to quote both, and I think average wattage is a good metric to add, but if you're trying to apply the results to your possible savings, percentage should mean far more to you. People have been conditioned to see drag savings in terms of wattage, which is my mistake as much as it is anyone else over the years because it's more palatable for athletes to think in those terms, but it doesn't make it the correct way to do it.

Aero certainly matters below 28 kph. Where do people keep getting these numbers? We've shown over and over again that's not true at all. Aero matters to everyone. I think that's actually a great idea for a test to specifically address this! Would be fun to do. On the list it goes.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Why should Jim provide the number?

---

blog

Why shouldn't he

Because that is his own information, he do whatever he want.

Steve did you forget to log out of your other account?

Sure it's his information, but he is putting it out for public consumption on Youtube. The whole idea is to generate clicks and promote his business. Why hide something that by his own admission is easily determined with 'simple math'?

Why? i don't want to speak for Jim but i suspect the reason is as basically stated in his last post - quoting watts saved is not a good approach. it is the norm but Jim has recognised the fallacy of that and is trying to change the norm, to push us to think in better ways and expect better stats from the industry.

if i had saved 20W for every optimisation that supposedly gave that i wouldn't even need to pedal!
saving 10% is more meaningful and at least makes it clear you will never reach 0 drag

I will say these athletes are testing for us specifically and are not paying clients. If they were, I couldn't share the information. We're developing a core group of testers and then a secondary level of test athletes. The core group of 8-10 athletes viewers will get to know over time. Many of these athletes have tested multiple times are are proven to provide consistent and reliable data. Eventually, they'll also begin to review products as everyday, non-paid, athletes who are just like everyone else. We will never rely on advertising for revenue, so we don't need to promise favorable reviews or results. It's real, it's raw, and it's for the consumer. This is not about marketing company's products. The manufacturers do not know we're testing their products until our testing is complete. If a manufacturer does provide product for testing, it will be divulged and, as said above, we will not guarantee favorable results.

This is also not about embarrassing anyone, or any "gotcha" moments. Will everything test well? No, and we have some videos coming that will show that. I've wrestled a lot with these results, and struggle with hurting a business, but if we're going to be about informing the consumer we have to provide everything, ugly and all. This is where I look to someone like Ray Maker, who's done this better than anyone. I'll give the company a heads-up, provide them with opportunity to fix an issue, or help us to get better results with proper setup of their product but, again, all of this will be known by the viewer.

I don't mind providing wattage data. It's certainly not necessary, but if it helps the viewer consume the information better, than why not? Again, I'm as much to blame as anyone for pushing results in wattage because it sounds cool and people can relate to it, but it was never the correct thing to do. Unfortunately, it's now how people are conditioned to relate to the data.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Saving 20 watts or 10% are both as meaningful or meaningless without the base to which they are being derived. 20 watts saved at 35kph means a hell of a lot. 10% saved is meaningless unless you say at what constant, speed or wattage?

ok can't catch up to everything, never said he must show all the data just why not??? adds more to discuss and rule out possible errors, no test is perfect but 2.7 % is about error on every power meter and device so??

I never said there was no wind resistance at 28 km per hr but does the aero gains of socks add to your speed at that speed??? when your body is already taking so much resistance. can you then even measure the socks??

Do a test at 28 km per hr no aerowheels, no socks, no bottles, no helmet. do the same 28 km per hr with all that gear on. you get the same watts to speed. did it with 5 athletes we all did the same time.

with the aero gear at high speeds all improved and especially with the tail wind at higher speeds.

Now I like what you are doing keep it up. without testing your just guessing.

so dude saves 1.33 % and 2.7 watts.

so he was 203 W on test one ( 34 km per hr) and then the same speed 34 km / hr) at 200.4 W. or did he go faster like 203 W on test one ( 34 km per hr) and then go 34.4 km per hr but at 206 watts. and you calculated how much "watts savings" based off the increase in speed.

Can we see that riders doing the test faster or slower each test are getting different results based off the power meter air gauge device. that's all I am wondering

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

Cool test. Nice to see "regular" socks with aero features test as fast as aero socks that come with their typical downsides.

I'd be curious to see how the DeFeet Evo Disruptor socks compare to Silca

Do they have them in tall/not tall? The only things I can specify when ordering is size and colour. Or maybe I overlook?

The socks are so flexible it is not a problem at all to put them over the chip in T1.

I wear these socks a lot, in all sorts of road and cyclocross races, and the bike leg of a tri in a relay. The pull right over the chip easy, they are nice and stretchy, and dang comfortable.

---

Pactimo brand ambassador, ask me about promo codes