Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless.


Kind of is a bit. Which was my point.


How?

Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures for another. If you're discussing scientific findings then I think most would consider a protocol that completely ignores the value of 50% of your subject matter (one vs another) as somewhat lacking.

Maybe you just don't know what the word ascertain means?

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures

Sounds familiar.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
I get it -- the pull of confirmation bias is strong when you have invested this much time and money into a bicycle that is no better than the one you had before it.


I don't care too much for the picky variables that make little difference to my total race time. I have been somewhat laughed at for not caring about drag or whatever (to a degree). I also am more than happy to spend my money how I like, it's really not that much of an investment. It feels quick, I love riding it. I like 'it' as an object. I ride well on it. I train hard on it.

There is no bias. I like both bikes. I like riding the Dimond more. Maybe I am biased because I like riding it more. I certainly am not biased because I spoent a couple of grand on it, it's hardly an 'investment' it's a couple of grand on a bicycle. I would happily say if I didn't like it. The Scott may be quicker. I don't know. You don't either though.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 18:03
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures


Sounds familiar.

It does. You're as bad as me. Or I'm as bad as you. One of the two.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless.


Kind of is a bit. Which was my point.


How?

Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures for another. If you're discussing scientific findings then I think most would consider a protocol that completely ignores the value of 50% of your subject matter (one vs another) as somewhat lacking.

Maybe you just don't know what the word ascertain means?

Errr... no. Frame drag is a very small part of overall CdA, and good bar and/or front wheel choice more than make for the difference between them (it's no accident the P4 was tested with the Ventus or the P5 with the Aduro). Just take a look at Dimond's own data when you you put a rider on the bike, all those gains magically disappear! Plus based on how it performs against a poorly configured P5, it's easy for me to extrapolate how it will perform against my bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless.


Kind of is a bit. Which was my point.


How?


Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures for another. If you're discussing scientific findings then I think most would consider a protocol that completely ignores the value of 50% of your subject matter (one vs another) as somewhat lacking.

Maybe you just don't know what the word ascertain means?


Errr... no. Frame drag is a very small part of overall CdA, and good bar and/or front wheel choice more than make for the difference between them (it's no accident the P4 was tested with the Ventus or the P5 with the Aduro). Just take a look at Dimond's own data when you you put a rider on the bike, all those gains magically disappear! Plus based on how it performs against a poorly configured P5, it's easy for me to extrapolate how it will perform against my bike.


So you don't know what ascertain means.

I am not saying it's quicker. I wasn't even responding to your post. I was responding flippantly to someone else. I couldn't give a shit if the Plasma is two farts faster than a Cervelo and I know any gains on frame are going to be obliterated by bike fit and whatever else .... which is why I don't give a shit.

You could categorically tell me (categorically, having actually ascertained) that the Plasma is the fastest and I would have believed you and then I would still have sold it because I wanted to ride another bike and at the end of the day me wanting to ride a bike is more important, and will likely gain me better results, than spending all day reading a white paper.

My flippant point was, until you know then you don't actually know. You can guess, you can extrapolate, or you can say 'the chances are very high that' ... but you don't know. If you went and ascertained, as you said you had, then you would know. If you do actually find out then I would be interested. Wouldn't affect my bike choice though.

I know you may find it stupid that I don't care much about that kind of thing, and maybe it is. But I don't. I want to ride a Canyon too, I might give them a go one day. I will not be told what I like and don't like by a wind tunnel.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 18:16
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And that's fine, because at the end of the day the only reason to buy a Dimond is because you want one.

If anything your flippant remarks look to be a defensive measure to justify your heart over head approach to your sport. You sleep better with a hideous bike in your garage whereas I just have to take comfort in knowing I'm not giving up any speed regardless of how my bike looks. Different strokes.

Edit- just saw you had a Premium with Hed Jet wheels. Do you want to know what the slowest wheels, by a large margin, I tested were? ;)
Last edited by: Grill: Aug 3, 16 18:25
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
And that's fine, because at the end of the day the only reason to buy a Dimond is because you want one.

If anything your flippant remarks look to be a defensive measure to justify your heart over head approach to your sport. You sleep better with a hideous bike in your garage whereas I just have to take comfort in knowing I'm not giving up any speed regardless of how my bike looks. Different strokes.


You are so amazing. How are you at counting matchsticks?

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 18:35
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Who keeps sich a bicycle in a garage? Not me.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My garage has been converted to an office/bike room. Not sure I've ever met anyone on this side of the pond that actually stores their car in theirs!
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
I want to ride a Canyon too, I might give them a go one day. I will not be told what I like and don't like by a wind tunnel.

The Canyon is definitely the fastest. I know this without a wind tunnel or data simply because Jordan Rapp said so.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
I want to ride a Canyon too, I might give them a go one day. I will not be told what I like and don't like by a wind tunnel.

The Canyon is definitely the fastest. I know this without a wind tunnel or data simply because Jordan Rapp said so.

That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I said that, if you take a selection of top manufacturers, it *likely* that the fastest bike - in standalone testing - is going to be the newest one, because the goal is always to beat the previous benchmark set by existing frames. As the Canyon is the newest bike from a what I'd call a "thoughtful" manufacturer, it's reasonable to think that it's the fastest. Or, in the specific case of the Canyon, the fastest "when carrying X amount of stuff" because a primary focus of that frame was integration, and it inarguably does that very well.

And "when carrying X amount of stuff" is important, because while we like to forget it here, it is swim, bike, & run in triathlon. If, for whatever reason, you NEED to carry a bottle on the downtube - even an aero bottle, then it's important to consider - per (IIRC) Jim Manton's data - that the P5 suffers with a bottle on the downtube more than the Trek SC does. The P5s downtube really does not like anything on the trailing edge.

So think about what you need/want to carry. Think about what bikes offer solutions for doing so - e.g. Trek with its Speedbox, Cervelo which neatly integrates an XLab aerobag behind the stem, the Canyon which integrates storage for flat stuff, the Specialized with integrates a large fluid reservoir into the frame without adding weight to the front end and which still allowing aerobar choice, etc. Then just buy the newest bike that solves your problem because it's probably the fastest if it comes from a manufacturer with a reasonable engineering pedigree.


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree that manufacturers will try to outdo each other, but they cherry-pick competition and test protocol. The nosecone Shiv, P4, and TTX with the right bars are as fast or faster than anything available today.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That comment was meant to be tongue in cheek...

Although, by the line of judgment you've laid out in your response, maybe we should expect the new Diamondback to soon be the fastest ever? Kevin Quan Studios would seem to be of a "reasonable engineering pedigree", but I still expect this bike to attempt full integration and still be a piece of crap and an aerodynamic dog relative to the P5 in full "race trim", let alone the P6.

Anyways, for their unsurpassed sexiness, Canyon aero rigs still seem to lag offerings from Cervelo, Trek, Specialized, and Felt, per most publicly available independent test data. So I wouldn't be surprised if Frodo is fast in spite of his Canyon rather than because of it, even though I am certain the differences between these top end bicycles are so marginal that they can be offset simply by a something as minor as a slightly more disciplined head tuck. But what fun is that to split hairs over on a message board?
Last edited by: PubliusValerius: Aug 4, 16 8:19
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well, this thread took a tangent! Unfortunately I only saw it now - I've been too busy outside taking KOMs on my Dimond

____________________________________

Race Reports | How to kill 4 hours on a trainer
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The old Canyon is fast. Even if the new one is no faster it's still top tier.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [robgray] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
robgray wrote:
well, this thread took a tangent! Unfortunately I only saw it now - I've been too busy outside taking KOMs on my Dimond

It wasn't the Dimond; it was the Continental Supersonics. Independent variables.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
The old Canyon is fast. Even if the new one is no faster it's still top tier.

You misunderstood what I wrote if you think I don't agree with this statement.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
Grill wrote:
The old Canyon is fast. Even if the new one is no faster it's still top tier.


You misunderstood what I wrote if you think I don't agree with this statement.

Not at all, just adding weight to your sentiment.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
That comment was meant to be tongue in cheek...

Although, by the line of judgment you've laid out in your response, maybe we should expect the new Diamondback to soon be the fastest ever? Kevin Quan Studios would seem to be of a "reasonable engineering pedigree", but I still expect this bike to attempt full integration and still be a piece of crap and an aerodynamic dog relative to the P5 in full "race trim", let alone the P6.

Anyways, for their unsurpassed sexiness, Canyon aero rigs still seem to lag offerings from Cervelo, Trek, Specialized, and Felt, per most publicly available independent test data. So I wouldn't be surprised if Frodo is fast in spite of his Canyon rather than because of it, even though I am certain the differences between these top end bicycles are so marginal that they can be offset simply by a something as minor as a slightly more disciplined head tuck. But what fun is that to split hairs over on a message board?

I think the Canyon probably excels only if you say "bottle behind the seat, including spares, space to carry gels, and with Xoz of fluid on the bike (as I think that front hydration system is pretty large)." I think it lags the other bikes in "TT" set up for sure.

As far as the new Diamondback, my issue is that Kevin Quan got his start at Cervelo. And one relatively consistent theme is that bike design is iterative. There are some examples of huge departures in design that work out well:
- Scott Plasma 2 was, by all accounts, a POS. The Plasma 3 was outstanding. And the Plasma 3->Plasma 5 evolution is much more logical.

- The Specialized Transition was actually way faster than people thought. But the Nosecone Shiv looked almost nothing like it, and it was certainly very fast. I actually think that Specialized would have done better to iterate the nosecone design - Mark Cote would likely say that, in some ways, they did by moving the nosecone into a larger cross section downtube, but I disagree.

Quick note here - both the Plasma 3 and Nosecone Shiv were driven heavily by the demands of elite UCI teams. In both cases, I think that was the first really serious effort at an aero TT bike by either company. And they are both BIG companies with a strong history of overall engineering excellence, especially in composites. So it's not so surprising to see the big changes that resulted in a winning design. What is surprising is that Scott then followed a more traditional process from 3->5 while Specialized did not.

- the (carbon) Felt DA was a very fast bike. And the IA is/was an almost wholesale redesign and it is also fast. Jim Felt has a history of innovating. Felt is the sort of company where this kind of wholesale redesign is less surprising. Felt, because of Jim's leadership, has always been the sort of company to do crazy stuff and to scrap prior designs. So this makes sense

But you look at the Trek. The SC looks - to me anyway - like a somewhat logical evolution of the TTX. Obviously some big changes, especially geometrically and with the Kammtail design, but from just an overall "look," they both look like Treks.

The new Canyon looks a lot like it's predecessor. There is a sense that Canyon believes in it's fundamentals.

Cervelo is the MOST consistent. The P3->P3C->P4->P5 continuum is super consistent. You can see the refinement. And it's clearly fast. So that's what bothers me about Quan's designs. He came from a company that clearly believed there was a certain way to design a fast bike, and yet he has departed from that entirely. And that is an issue. I get the sense, a bit, that he's trying to say, "I'm just as capable as Phil & Gerard!" And so he doesn't want to copy them. But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

That's a primary reason why I believed in the Dimond as a first pass. Because it wasn't a "new" bike per se; it was the evolution of a proven design - the Zipp bike - with a lot of input from people at Zipp. That's why, for instance, I trust the Dimond to be faster than the Falco. I always like "second (or third or fourth) generation" designs better than first generation ones, except in a few rare circumstances.

So, no, I don't think the new Diamondback will be the fastest. Mostly because Kevin has yet to demonstrate that he can make a bike outside of the Cervelo "envelope" that is really fast. But he's certainly smart enough to do it. I just wonder how much he feels the need to make a bike that is visually distinct from a Cervelo even if it pays an aero penalty.


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As usual, a few things to say on the aero topics.

The Canyon stalls like mad. Zero yaw through maybe 5 degrees should be good. There is probably a pretty specific angle at which is 'sails' really well if you learn to tack correctly. That is hard to predict though. Canyon, as usual, left too many flat surfaces in place to have a fast bike from 5-15 degrees.

Falco vs. Dimond: No too bad of a contest. I'd call it 5W on average in favor of the Dimond. The Pearson on the other hand, is faster at lower yaw in some cases. I do not have the SuperFork (which should help), but I have modified a Cervelo P5-3 fork to fit and fill in the gap behind the crown correctly. The Falco would be be so close, but Binny did a much better job with the bottle location and the fairing behind the stem. Those make up a lot of ground.

Fast bikes at varied yaw are narrow and provide a solid amount of curvature. They fill in gaps with material rather than a crappy trailing edge. Kamms help a ton to hide bottles and provide the possibility of higher strength with narrow tubes.

Some of it is rocket science, but mostly it is easy to understand the principles with just a little study and some CFD plots. Also SolidWorks w/ CFD package and processing time.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Really interesting stuff...thanks for the detailed elaboration
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [robgray] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
robgray wrote:
well, this thread took a tangent! Unfortunately I only saw it now - I've been too busy outside taking KOMs on my Dimond


Don't they all? Stop riding. It's uneccesary.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 4, 16 13:06
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
robgray wrote:
well, this thread took a tangent! Unfortunately I only saw it now - I've been too busy outside taking KOMs on my Dimond


Don't they all? Stop riding. It's uneccesary.

Rob was getting his final 8 W per kilo surges done before IM Boulder so he is not tempted to do that on race day on Sunday. This is part of the proper ultraman Kona training plan, doing Mt. Everest style repeats on an IM race week to test how aero his Dimond is going up 10% grades with no air in Colorado.

Please feel free to call his cell phone at 3:19 pm Mountain time on Sunday to see if this training plan worked as it should and if he is in the beer tent at that point or not.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chicanery] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This fits in with what I have heard from some wind tunnel tests on the Canyon. Evidently it was the fastest bike this specific company had tested though other bikes like the Scott Plasma 5 do better in strong winds / higher angles.

Still not sure if the current crop of bikes offer a big enough improvement over my Plasma 3 for Time Trials (though the integrated drink/storage solutions would be a plus for 50mile + TT's).

From watching one in action the lack of rear wheel stiffness / possible power loss would be a worry for shorter events with a Dimond or similar beam bike, but potential fatigue saving a plus for longer races.
Quote Reply

Prev Next