Introduction
Starting about three years ago I began doing my own field testing using the Chung Virtual Elevation Method (technical stuff here, user experiences, tips, and tricks here on the world-famous ST Platypus Thread). Over that time I'm going to guess I logged perhaps 20-25 hours worth of "testing time" in the field and got what I thought were decent results: I felt fairly comfortable with A/B testing helmets and felt confident in the results because they were repeatable but I never felt very confident in anything other than ordinal values because when testing other things, such as clothing or equipment changes, I seemed to get a lot of noise (e.g. item A tests faster than item B one weekend but the next weekend there was either no difference or the order was reversed).
Around the beginning of this year, I became involved with a couple of early-stage triathlon related products in the capacity of "enthusiastic guinea-pig" and it was clear that some of these would have to go to the wind tunnel eventually. When I saw a mention of "Aero Camp 2017" I thought to myself "it's high time I go to the tunnel and do some testing." Due to a scheduling change for Aero Camp, I ended up testing on my own today.
My primary goal for today's trip was to validate my own field testing and equipment choices.
Equipment Tested
Trek Speed Concept size large with Ultegra Di2, HED+ rear disc wheel, Zipp 404 NSW front wheel, Continental GP4000S II tires 23mm front/rear, Bontrager XXX brake levers, Bontrager bento box, Bontrager plug-in extension, Zipp Vuka aluminum s-bend extensions, Zipp arm cups, trimmed arm cup "bridge", TriSports BTA Mount, X-lab Torpedo (backwards), Garmin 920 XT, Speedplay Pedals, and a Selle SMP saddle. I left my "Draft Box" flat kit at home on accident :(
I get a lot of questions about the Selle SMP saddle. I like it. The only other saddle I use is my ISM PN 1.1. For short, hard efforts I prefer the Selle because I really feel like it locks my body into place... which is also exactly what you want for aero testing. In all seriousness, it actually made a noticeable improvement in the quality of my field testing data which I'll elaborate on in a separate post in the next couple of weeks.
Personal physical dimensions: 6'1", 175lbs (got fat over winter, normally 165lbs), 32" waist, 42" chest, 34" inseam. Wide feet :p
Let's Detour and Talk Position for a Minute....
One thing you'll notice in the following recap is that I didn't make any position changes. Why? It took me a long time to get my position to where it's at and I'm happy with it. I'm very comfortable and it takes surprisingly little to piss off my shoulders. Also, for the racing I do (short-course), it's really not practical for me to ride any lower up front.
Why did I bring this up? For those of you who have not gone to a wind tunnel but have contemplated it, the less position work you do the more equipment testing you can do for a given time budget. Most bikes require a few minutes of wrenching for each change to arm pad width, stack, reach, tilt, etc. Helmet swaps are super fast. I think I got through six helmets in about 30 minutes of testing. Not bad. Clothing went at the same rate. The limiting factor was literally how long it took the fans to slow down.
Onward to Testing
First, I should note that A2 has a very healthy selection of helmets and other equipment to choose from. However, I brought my own helmets as the strap were already adjusted. I started wearing a Kiwami Spider WS1 and a Giro A2. 201 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 186 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
My Scott Split which I once thought was my fastest helmet (raising my front end has dinged it). 203 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 188 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
Specialized McLaren lens on. 203 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 186 Aero Watts (-10 yaw)
Giro Aerohead. This helmet consistently tested faster in field testing for me than anything else in my collection. 200 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 184 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
POC Cerebal. 203 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 189 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
Now let's get to some clothing. First up is my Kiwami Spider LD-Aero and my Giro Aerohead. I'd like to detour for a second because my tunnel experience is an interesting learning experience for all of those out there who are aero obsessed. If one were to look at trends in wind tunnel reports, one would assume that going from sleeveless to a sleeved suit should net a nice gain for a guy with my build. Right? Not so much. 199 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 183 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw) I'll revisit this point in my closing summary.
What about a different sleeved kit? Here's my Virklon which doesn't have a wrinkle anywhere. 203 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 184 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
Ok so I'm not making any headway with clothing. Maybe it's time to address my shoes? After all, look at those flaps! In all seriousness, let's take a moment here to discuss those flaps. Geoff and Heath poked some good fun at me when they first saw my ungainly Bont tri shoes and early on they thought the delta between them and my Simmons monocoque carbon fiber shoes would be quite large. Geoff thought there would be a 15 watt difference and was rather confident in his assertion. Heath thought that was overly optimistic but was quite confident in his guess of 8 watts. I was more conservative still guessing I'd see a 5 watt difference. In reality? Drumroll please.... 198 Aero Watts (Zero Yaw) 184 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw). Everyone was so slack-jawed that we actually took five minutes off from testing in the tunnel to compare photos of my positions between runs. As best as we could see, I was doing quite well when it came to the Mannequin Challenge.
The only position change I wanted to try was a Mantis position. Hallelujah a change in drag! 193 Aero Watts (0 yaw) 179 Aero Watts (-10 yaw)
Now let's try to emulate TJ Tollakson and run a bottle under the aero extensions. 198 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 179 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
I did test the MORF bars on my Shiv against my Alpha X but I'm going to withhold the results for now until I can get the data to Frank. Even though I tested his product on my time and my dime, it's his product so I'll let him handle the data accordingly. EDIT: DATA NOW INCLUDED BELOW To those who have keen eyes, yes, the position is quite different from my Speed Concept. Also, to go back to my whole notion of "my position is comfortable" the position below was killing me! Seriously, it took a ton of concentration on each run for me to hold that position. One more note: I know the two photos below look a bit different but that's because one was at yaw and the other was not. I promise you, we went to great pains between each run to ensure that I was in as close to the same position as possible between the two bars.
Let's talk about the protocol real quick: we did "12" runs. First I tested the MORF Tech bar at 0, -10, 0, -10. Then we swapped the TriRig Alpha X in and I tested at 0, -10, 0, -10. Then we put the MORF Tech bar back on and tested again at 0, -10, 0, -10. I would have put the TriRig bar back on but I was out of time.
The MORF bar averaged 204.45 Aero Watts at 0 Yaw (range: 202.1-206.1) and 192.65 Aero Watts at -10 Yaw (range: 191.5-193.3) The Alpha X bar averaged 200.75 Aero Watts (range: 200-201.5) and 192.2 Aero Watts at -10 Yaw (range: 191.5-192.9). So, at 0 Yaw, the MORF Tech bar was 3.7 Watts *SLOWER* at 0 Yaw and was basically tied at -10 Yaw.
Let's discuss this because this was another head-scratcher of a result. After all, why would removing the base bar be slower? TomA mentioned over in the original MORF Tech thread that his "aero or die" setup was worth 5-7 watts (I think). Another long-time Slowtwitcher (screen name eludes me at the moment) had similar expectations.
As I mentioned before, my position on these bars on my Shiv was different from my Speed Concept and was very uncomfortable. Could it be I was moving around? If you look at my data, the variance within runs is on ~1 watt though the variance between runs at 0 Yaw is much larger with the MORF Tech bar. I don't have a good explanation for why that is.
I purposely stacked the protocol in favor of the Alpha X by using bar plugs instead of brakes whereas the MORF Tech bar had it's integrated brakes. I did this to avoid someone saying "well you could have used brake lever XYZ on the Alpha X and it would have been faster". That said, I don't think this accounts for more than a watt which leaves a large delta between what was expected and what we saw.
I think Heath and Geoff's on-the-spot analysis is the best we can do: the MORF Tech bar was set up using a traditional 100mm +7 stem and the MORF Tech prototype bar had a very large circular clamping area to the left and right of where the stem mounted... I'd guess we're talking about close to 2" of exposed 31.8 circular tubing. Compare that to the Alpha X with it's integrated aerodynamic stem and... well... that might be some of the delta.
Personally, I think the result largely came down to the fact the bar was tested by *me* and that I might not be representative of a lot of riders. If I were a prospective consumer, I'd want more data. That said, as someone who races primarily short-course, I'd actually take a 3 watt hit to run these bars. For longer races I might consider a faster bar (assuming the MORF bars actually are slower). As a side note, considering my position was, higher, shorter, was running a 404 rear, and didn't have the mantis of my final Speed Concept run, I'd say the Shiv held up pretty well!
MORF
Alpha X
Summary and Closing Thoughts
At the end of the day, I largely validated much of my recent field testing. Prior to going to A2, my Giro Aerohead consistently tested faster than every other helmet in my arsenal. Also, I had previously tested a mantis position and on several occasions found it to be considerably faster than having my arms titled ~10 degrees (I can't ride comfortably with my arms level) but also found no change on some occasions (hence the question mark in my mind). In previous field testing I had never seen any sort of consistent difference in clothing for myself. Turns out sleeves don't do much for me!
It turns out I'm one of those folks who is sort of equipment agnostic: changes in equipment just don't result in big changes for me. This isn't unprecedented. IIRC James Haycraft is sort of like this. That's ok though. I'm very happy I was able to validate my equipment selections for this season and all in all, I was able to find 8 watts between my baseline and my fastest configuration. I really enjoyed my time at A2 and found both Geoff and Heath to be very helpful. Feel free to ask me any questions below.
Starting about three years ago I began doing my own field testing using the Chung Virtual Elevation Method (technical stuff here, user experiences, tips, and tricks here on the world-famous ST Platypus Thread). Over that time I'm going to guess I logged perhaps 20-25 hours worth of "testing time" in the field and got what I thought were decent results: I felt fairly comfortable with A/B testing helmets and felt confident in the results because they were repeatable but I never felt very confident in anything other than ordinal values because when testing other things, such as clothing or equipment changes, I seemed to get a lot of noise (e.g. item A tests faster than item B one weekend but the next weekend there was either no difference or the order was reversed).
Around the beginning of this year, I became involved with a couple of early-stage triathlon related products in the capacity of "enthusiastic guinea-pig" and it was clear that some of these would have to go to the wind tunnel eventually. When I saw a mention of "Aero Camp 2017" I thought to myself "it's high time I go to the tunnel and do some testing." Due to a scheduling change for Aero Camp, I ended up testing on my own today.
My primary goal for today's trip was to validate my own field testing and equipment choices.
Equipment Tested
Trek Speed Concept size large with Ultegra Di2, HED+ rear disc wheel, Zipp 404 NSW front wheel, Continental GP4000S II tires 23mm front/rear, Bontrager XXX brake levers, Bontrager bento box, Bontrager plug-in extension, Zipp Vuka aluminum s-bend extensions, Zipp arm cups, trimmed arm cup "bridge", TriSports BTA Mount, X-lab Torpedo (backwards), Garmin 920 XT, Speedplay Pedals, and a Selle SMP saddle. I left my "Draft Box" flat kit at home on accident :(
I get a lot of questions about the Selle SMP saddle. I like it. The only other saddle I use is my ISM PN 1.1. For short, hard efforts I prefer the Selle because I really feel like it locks my body into place... which is also exactly what you want for aero testing. In all seriousness, it actually made a noticeable improvement in the quality of my field testing data which I'll elaborate on in a separate post in the next couple of weeks.
Personal physical dimensions: 6'1", 175lbs (got fat over winter, normally 165lbs), 32" waist, 42" chest, 34" inseam. Wide feet :p
Let's Detour and Talk Position for a Minute....
One thing you'll notice in the following recap is that I didn't make any position changes. Why? It took me a long time to get my position to where it's at and I'm happy with it. I'm very comfortable and it takes surprisingly little to piss off my shoulders. Also, for the racing I do (short-course), it's really not practical for me to ride any lower up front.
Why did I bring this up? For those of you who have not gone to a wind tunnel but have contemplated it, the less position work you do the more equipment testing you can do for a given time budget. Most bikes require a few minutes of wrenching for each change to arm pad width, stack, reach, tilt, etc. Helmet swaps are super fast. I think I got through six helmets in about 30 minutes of testing. Not bad. Clothing went at the same rate. The limiting factor was literally how long it took the fans to slow down.
Onward to Testing
First, I should note that A2 has a very healthy selection of helmets and other equipment to choose from. However, I brought my own helmets as the strap were already adjusted. I started wearing a Kiwami Spider WS1 and a Giro A2. 201 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 186 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
My Scott Split which I once thought was my fastest helmet (raising my front end has dinged it). 203 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 188 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
Specialized McLaren lens on. 203 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 186 Aero Watts (-10 yaw)
Giro Aerohead. This helmet consistently tested faster in field testing for me than anything else in my collection. 200 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 184 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
POC Cerebal. 203 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 189 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
Now let's get to some clothing. First up is my Kiwami Spider LD-Aero and my Giro Aerohead. I'd like to detour for a second because my tunnel experience is an interesting learning experience for all of those out there who are aero obsessed. If one were to look at trends in wind tunnel reports, one would assume that going from sleeveless to a sleeved suit should net a nice gain for a guy with my build. Right? Not so much. 199 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 183 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw) I'll revisit this point in my closing summary.
What about a different sleeved kit? Here's my Virklon which doesn't have a wrinkle anywhere. 203 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 184 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
Ok so I'm not making any headway with clothing. Maybe it's time to address my shoes? After all, look at those flaps! In all seriousness, let's take a moment here to discuss those flaps. Geoff and Heath poked some good fun at me when they first saw my ungainly Bont tri shoes and early on they thought the delta between them and my Simmons monocoque carbon fiber shoes would be quite large. Geoff thought there would be a 15 watt difference and was rather confident in his assertion. Heath thought that was overly optimistic but was quite confident in his guess of 8 watts. I was more conservative still guessing I'd see a 5 watt difference. In reality? Drumroll please.... 198 Aero Watts (Zero Yaw) 184 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw). Everyone was so slack-jawed that we actually took five minutes off from testing in the tunnel to compare photos of my positions between runs. As best as we could see, I was doing quite well when it came to the Mannequin Challenge.
The only position change I wanted to try was a Mantis position. Hallelujah a change in drag! 193 Aero Watts (0 yaw) 179 Aero Watts (-10 yaw)
Now let's try to emulate TJ Tollakson and run a bottle under the aero extensions. 198 Aero Watts (0 Yaw) 179 Aero Watts (-10 Yaw)
I did test the MORF bars on my Shiv against my Alpha X but I'm going to withhold the results for now until I can get the data to Frank. Even though I tested his product on my time and my dime, it's his product so I'll let him handle the data accordingly. EDIT: DATA NOW INCLUDED BELOW To those who have keen eyes, yes, the position is quite different from my Speed Concept. Also, to go back to my whole notion of "my position is comfortable" the position below was killing me! Seriously, it took a ton of concentration on each run for me to hold that position. One more note: I know the two photos below look a bit different but that's because one was at yaw and the other was not. I promise you, we went to great pains between each run to ensure that I was in as close to the same position as possible between the two bars.
Let's talk about the protocol real quick: we did "12" runs. First I tested the MORF Tech bar at 0, -10, 0, -10. Then we swapped the TriRig Alpha X in and I tested at 0, -10, 0, -10. Then we put the MORF Tech bar back on and tested again at 0, -10, 0, -10. I would have put the TriRig bar back on but I was out of time.
The MORF bar averaged 204.45 Aero Watts at 0 Yaw (range: 202.1-206.1) and 192.65 Aero Watts at -10 Yaw (range: 191.5-193.3) The Alpha X bar averaged 200.75 Aero Watts (range: 200-201.5) and 192.2 Aero Watts at -10 Yaw (range: 191.5-192.9). So, at 0 Yaw, the MORF Tech bar was 3.7 Watts *SLOWER* at 0 Yaw and was basically tied at -10 Yaw.
Let's discuss this because this was another head-scratcher of a result. After all, why would removing the base bar be slower? TomA mentioned over in the original MORF Tech thread that his "aero or die" setup was worth 5-7 watts (I think). Another long-time Slowtwitcher (screen name eludes me at the moment) had similar expectations.
As I mentioned before, my position on these bars on my Shiv was different from my Speed Concept and was very uncomfortable. Could it be I was moving around? If you look at my data, the variance within runs is on ~1 watt though the variance between runs at 0 Yaw is much larger with the MORF Tech bar. I don't have a good explanation for why that is.
I purposely stacked the protocol in favor of the Alpha X by using bar plugs instead of brakes whereas the MORF Tech bar had it's integrated brakes. I did this to avoid someone saying "well you could have used brake lever XYZ on the Alpha X and it would have been faster". That said, I don't think this accounts for more than a watt which leaves a large delta between what was expected and what we saw.
I think Heath and Geoff's on-the-spot analysis is the best we can do: the MORF Tech bar was set up using a traditional 100mm +7 stem and the MORF Tech prototype bar had a very large circular clamping area to the left and right of where the stem mounted... I'd guess we're talking about close to 2" of exposed 31.8 circular tubing. Compare that to the Alpha X with it's integrated aerodynamic stem and... well... that might be some of the delta.
Personally, I think the result largely came down to the fact the bar was tested by *me* and that I might not be representative of a lot of riders. If I were a prospective consumer, I'd want more data. That said, as someone who races primarily short-course, I'd actually take a 3 watt hit to run these bars. For longer races I might consider a faster bar (assuming the MORF bars actually are slower). As a side note, considering my position was, higher, shorter, was running a 404 rear, and didn't have the mantis of my final Speed Concept run, I'd say the Shiv held up pretty well!
MORF
- 0 Yaw: 205.1 Aero Watts
- -10 Yaw: 192.8 Aero Watts
- 0 Yaw: 206.1 Aero Watts
- -10 Yaw: 193.3 Aero Watts
- 0 Yaw: 202.1 Aero Watts
- -10 Yaw: 191.5 Aero Watts
- 0 Yaw: 204.5 Aero Watts
- -10 Yaw: 193.0 Aero Watts
Alpha X
- 0 Yaw: 200.0 Aero Watts
- -10 Yaw: 191.5 Aero Watts
- 0 Yaw: 201.5 Aero Watts
- -10 Yaw: 192.9 Aero Watts
Summary and Closing Thoughts
At the end of the day, I largely validated much of my recent field testing. Prior to going to A2, my Giro Aerohead consistently tested faster than every other helmet in my arsenal. Also, I had previously tested a mantis position and on several occasions found it to be considerably faster than having my arms titled ~10 degrees (I can't ride comfortably with my arms level) but also found no change on some occasions (hence the question mark in my mind). In previous field testing I had never seen any sort of consistent difference in clothing for myself. Turns out sleeves don't do much for me!
It turns out I'm one of those folks who is sort of equipment agnostic: changes in equipment just don't result in big changes for me. This isn't unprecedented. IIRC James Haycraft is sort of like this. That's ok though. I'm very happy I was able to validate my equipment selections for this season and all in all, I was able to find 8 watts between my baseline and my fastest configuration. I really enjoyed my time at A2 and found both Geoff and Heath to be very helpful. Feel free to ask me any questions below.
Last edited by:
GreenPlease: Mar 11, 17 17:57