Yes, rider position is the most important factor but it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

What if Stadler rode a P5 or Speed Concept during his record ride? Assuming the same position. He'd be faster. Period.

The bikes are faster than before.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Marginally

Wellington smoked everyone on a old slice

Heather Jackson podiumed at Kona in a new un aero slice

I guess I feel that yes Stadler may? Have been faster on a P5 but for 95% of triathletes it doesn't save enough time to justify the cost.

If you can afford it great, but I see a lot of people thinking they can't compete locally if they only have a talon or slice

---

Yellowfin Endurance Coaching and Bike Fits
USAT Level 1, USAC Level 3

I agree, but this is slowtwitch.
Most of the wind tunnel data is totally biased/bullshit/unreliable/unrealistic IMHO anyway, but people still don't get it. Wow, every bike company claims their bike is the fastest, isn't that odd??? :)

So, I think your point was, are the gains really worth it. I agree with that, and take it a step further to say the claimed gains are in no way realistic for so many reasons.

when i was riding my older P2 i wasnt thinking i couldnt compete. I was envious of some of the rigs out there, but i didnt drop my head thinking that i may as well give up from an inferior bike.
I see what your saying, and position will trump everything. However wanting a new bike is often because we like shiny new things. They are marginally faster, but that isnt everything as to why we want one. Some just look damn good. Except Kestrals. They are shit. Friends dont let friends ride Kestrals haha

For...ahem...some of us it's either spend money on fast stuff or get younger so what are you gonna do?

I think it should read 'spend money on cool stuff'... :) I can totally relate to that!
But don't be fooled into thinking yer gonna be much faster.

The problem with this argument is that "relative cost" is different for everyone.

I agree with you to an extent. I keep getting an itch to replace my 2009 P2 with a super bike. But then I remind myself that Chrissy was killing it at Kona on this bike and I'll look at pictures of Dave and Scott and see the gear they used back in the day and think about how times now really aren't that much faster.

Sure, I'd be faster with a newer bike (and every wanted saved helps). But I've still got lots of optimization on my bike fitness, race setup, nutrition, and sleep habits, race execution. And I'm sure lots of others are in the same boat as me. It's easy to get caught up in the aeroness of every thing when manufacturers spell out the amount of time you'll save with their product. It'll be interesting to see the results of Kileys testing, but if I weee shopping for a new bike, how fast it is in the tunnel would only be one part of the decision.

---

Matt

I completely agree. Rode a 1st gen Speed Concept for 4 seasons through 2015. My 2nd gen doesn't appear to be significantly faster. But I switched power meters so no clear comparison.

I think the problem is that we spend tons of money to create aerodynamics gains on leading edges in front of the rider. That nice undisturbed air then hits the no so aero legs, feet, arms, body of the rider. So less aero leading edges loss less time than it seems, because the turbulents air they create is just going to hit an even less aerodynamic rider behind them.

When frame and wheel improvements matter more is slower riders at higher yaw angles where rider position is less critical and you have a larger frontal area. So a bike company could make a lot of money selling a frame to "real" riders that average 15-18mph in an ironman, and are optimized for 10+ degrees of yaw to give them an advantage there. Since with their relaxed positions, gains at low yaw are basically a lost cause. Picture adding a nice little air foil 2 feet in front of the complete width in front of a greyhound bus. Swap that out with a round tube. Does it really matter? Heck, the round tube might actually improve the aero of the buss overall.

Does it matter how well a bike performs at 25-30mph. No. Folks with case to spend are averaging 15-17mph and need a bike that fit well at relaxed positions, handles very predictible and stable, with the position they ride at, and is aero at the speeds they ride.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Can you do both? Is that allowed?

Trek's data doesn't make the mk2 Speed Concept much faster than the Mk1

Aero gains are to be found by optimising rider position and equipment. It's allowed ;)

There has been a bit of a leap forward in speed on the UK time trial scene lately. This is at least in part due to people testing position and equipment choices.

Well sure. Manufacturers are trying to sell bikes. But if a newbie comes to slow twitch, depending on the posts they read, they might think they need a super bike, $500 helmet, $1000 wetsuit, $2500 wheels to be close to competitive. Obviously that's not the case. As others have said it's also because people like shiny new toys.

Body position is huge. I'm not going to say it's "everything" but it's a very, very, very big component of aerodynamic drag (70% +/-) and amateurs spend shockingly little time testing and refining their position even though the tools are available to them. Interestingly enough, if you spend some time on the UK time trial forums you'll notice the people there spend more time talking about position than equipment.

I disagree by what you seem to imply about aero equipment not actually conferring any material advantage. I've teased out differences myself in the field and seen differences in the tunnel. Equipment does matter.... just maybe not as much as manufacturers would have you believe. The manufacturers aren't all bad actors either. Yes, there are plenty of examples of tests where the deck is stacked but I think there are an equal number of examples of honest, best-effort tests out there (I think QR was pretty honest with their aero data for the PR6).

As someone who's spent way too much money on bikes, helmets, gear, etc. I think you make a very good point: the corporate culture surrounding triathlon is intimidating to beginners. If you're racing on an old steel road bike and you rack next to a $10,000 P5 it's intimidating. You feel like the playing field isn't fair.

*cue the people who say life isn't fair*

Here's the thing: fairness is very important for participation. If you feel like someone can buy their way to the front, you feel a bit jaded about your own effort and performance. Some people might be in the sport just to "complete" rather than "compete" but the thought still enters their head "gee if I only had that bike..." and it's easy to become discouraged and feel like you don't "belong".

To that end, I think the governing bodies need to make the bold step of changing the equipment rules... mostly with regards to the bike. I think we should be limited to double diamond round tube construction and wheels no deeper than 30mm. Within that rule set, I could see companies like Tri Bike Transport, Race Day Wheels, etc offer rental bikes for very reasonable prices. This would encourage upper-middle class participants to travel to more races (weekend race-cations) and for the collegiate swimmer, runner, etc. who doesn't actually own a bike and trains on a spin bike to enter a local sprint race. Once they do a race and decide they want to continue in the sport they can purchase a "bike in a box" for $500 and that's all the investment they'll need to be competitive. Overall, I think it would be a boon for newcomers and it would be good for the sport.

With wetsuits I disagree. It's a safety thing. They shouldn't be discouraged. Also, if you read around, there's really not any tangible speed difference between a $250 Roka Maverick and a $700 Roka Maverick X.

The current path that the sport is on isn't too different from the path that golf was on twenty years ago. That path did not pan out well at all for golf. I hope triathlon can avoid making the same mistake.

Agreed, but. Slowtwitch is about the business of triathlon. Not Slowman per se.
We all need disk brakes too- all about money!

---

Team Zoot So Cal

2 things I really about with friends of mine...
The folks spending money on bikes have a physical manifestation of how committed they are... When you rack next to some guy who looks like a world beater, it's also intimidating.

We have folks in here all the time say a coach matters way more than a bike (I agree)... Should we limit budget on coaching, on recovery? No more then 1 massage every 3 months? Can you have normatec or no? Take a multivitamin more expensive then centrum? Can they fly in first class to the race to stay more comfortable? Work with a sports psychologist? Buy a kickr? What's the line?

There are a lot of places we all spend money...And to me , if it makes me smile a little wider during my next race, it is 100% worth it. The bike may clue you in to how much someone is spending.. But even if all bike were 5k... There are still a ton of differences.

Great...njs stamped tri bike gear. The hipsters will love it.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

Exactly! It's not like I set my lifetime best 40k at 58 or Pr'd in both races I did at 60. Oh, wait... ;-))

I like the idea of there being a sportsman( or stock class) with these rules. I bet these sportsman age groups would be very popular as people would feel they can compete with hard work alone

---

Yellowfin Endurance Coaching and Bike Fits
USAT Level 1, USAC Level 3

Interesting enough, I think a lot of people have these tests wrong. The wind tunnel data is to show how small the differences have become and help people feel comfortable NOT upgrading their equipment. I know this is the death sentence to sell sell sell new bikes wheels etc. Part of me thinks this industry has already realized this and are not releasing data in fear that it will create a commodity. I think that is inevitably what is going to happen regardless.

To me the solution is stop trying to build the latest and greatest, and re-channel that effort into getting more people into triathlon, biking etc. Turn that money into a lobby effort for better roads, safer roads, and bike friendly communities and triathlon and cycling will grow and so will their revenues and profits. To me, I really think triathlon is digging their own grave to some extent. Grow the pie, focusing on growing the pie, instead of trying to eat each others slices. I would love to see the expansion of a Divvy triathlon series, even with a pro purse.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Thomas - I like your posts, your website, your coupon codes! etc. :)

But with regards to the above statement....well, aren't you the one responsible for everyone on the forum buying Giro SLX shoes because they supposedly save 8 watts or so? People see that, and they become totally blind to the fact that other people have tested with smooth shoes / covers and have noted just the opposite results, meaning its probably all within a margin of error?
IMHO people put WAY too much faith in wind tunnel results by other people / companies.
Had to laugh when I recently posted about some LG shoes, and one of the first comments was how non-aero they were!!
And here we have Kienle, Odonnel, etc now using non-aero shoes, road helmets, etc.... All the folks buying those Giros....do they wonder why the top pro riders in the world are not only not using those shoes, but not even using shoe covers for the most part? Nope, they aren't wondering, because instead they are blinded by someone who posted on a forum saying they saved 8 watts in a wind tunnel test.

I was one of the people who tested aero shoes in the tunnel to basically no effect. For what it's worth, I'm a serious outlier in that area. You also have to look at aero risk/reward. TG's shoes aren't going to test slower than a tri shoe and, IMO, they're no slower to put on or take off. It's not like a helmet where there could be significant downsides (weight, ventilation) and the aero is a crapshoot.

I totally agree with regards to growing the pie. My suggestion for USAT/WTC/ITU to change the rules regarding bikes would basically turn the whole field into a Divvy bike division as the bikes would be totally commoditized.... they just wouldn't be Divvy bikes. Divvy bikes get the job done but the gearing leaves a lot to be desired and 90% of them have creaking bottom brackets :)

I'd be happy if races were ability graded like cycling instead of age graded, actually racing people of similar ability is so much fun. If it were ability graded you would generally see equipment come more into play as you move up to the faster Cats.

People don't start triathlon with a brand new P5, generally it's an old road bike, budget tri bike and then perhaps something like a P5, 2, 3 years down the track. That's the route a lot of mates and guys/girls I race against have gone down. And there isn't one triathlete that I've observed that's had a noticeable improvement when making the jump from say a P2 to P5. Maybe 1 - 2 minutes over the same 70.3 course, but then they've also upped their training too, so you could almost argue any performance improvements are negligible.