The link I gave you showed a real world reduction in drag between two frames with the components and position all staying the same. I'm thinking you don't know what the word anecdotal actually means.

Anecdotal: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.


In this case he controlled the situation and applied accepted science and math to the problem. Now does the test account for every "real world" situation, no. Does it account for at least one? Yes.

---

---

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

One study (especially one rider) does not a widespread conclusion make.

Especially when none of the bike manufacturers, who have a very clear reason to publish this data if they had it for their frames, aren't doing so. They happily publish their wind tunnel tests showing their favorable frame aeroness, but when it comes to real-world data, they're pretty mum. And I think you know full well that they are fully capable of testing their frames against a variety of the most popular competing frames using similar methodology to the study you linked to above.

Now if there were a lot of the studies you linked to, from various sources including nonbiased ones, I'd def be more of a believer. As it stands though, I'm not convinced. Especially when it's so easy (and there is such a clear incentive for bike manufacturers) to do the studies themselves to prove it to us.

That study is a start, though. Now explain to me why to bike manufacturers can't do the same for their own frames, yet can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars sometimes even building their own wind tunnel?

The information is out there if only you were not too lazy to go look it up for yourself. I do find it interesting that you don't question aero wheels when the same protocols are used to derive the information as for the frames. My conclusion is that given the way you have argued your point, if a manufacturer did produce this data, you would simply say it was invalid because it is manufacturer derived.



But if it pleases you, you can go on riding your round tube steel tubed bike. I'm sure that's what you ride since there is no "real world" aero difference in frames.

---

---

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

You are making some huge assumptions about testing in general and Aero testing specifically. You test in a controlled environment so you can more accurately see smaller changes. Each of the frames that are manufactured by top companies are developed by taking hundreds of little details that each and of themselves do not mean much but when you add them all up the drag reductions become significant. Most of the time we only see the big picture...frame X has 40 grams less drag than frame Y, what you do not see is the dozens/hundreds of iterations that took to make up those 40 grams. Each one of those iterations would not have been as easily measured using testing on the road in a less controlled enviroment.

Why would any manufacturer spend more money that they have to by duplicating their testing in "the real world" when there is established research that correlates "the real world" with the wind tunnel.

Speaking to the validity of aero testing and wind tunnels to the real world I can only ask you to believe that math works. You can either believe it on a personal level or not. Thankfully planes will not fall out of the sky and cars will not careen off the road because you choose to not believe in math.

I'm not totally discounting wind tunnel studies, but for me to believe that an aero device is really saving time, my gold standard is that it has to be provable for me in real world settings, out of the wind tunnel.

It's actually pretty interesting to me that people are jumping all over me for asking the simple question "does it actually make me any faster in a race?" - if your windtunnel proven hardware cannot measurably show time savings in such a manner, sorry, I don't care how much investment you've put into it or how awesome it looks in the wind tunnel - bottom line is that it's not performing when it actually matters. That's actually a very fair criteria.

I work with science and drugs, and it's the same exact thing we do with new meds. Your new med might look great in the lab - heck it might even look great in small studies with specially selected subsets of people in the real world. But if it shows no measurable effect for broad populace application (or a effect so small that it's drowned out by the confounding noise in the environment or the variability of the thing being measured), it would be outright wrong to release it to the widespread public and claim that it's an effective medicine. Regardless of how good it looks in the lab.

And my thought process isn't that outlandish when you consider pro cycling practices as well. While pro cyclists are paid to ride particular bikes, they seem remarkably resilient when it comes to switching up bikes if sponsors or teams change, with similar results. For sure, no cyclists are jumping ship like the pro swimmers who were Tyr sponsored did by wearing Speedo textured speedsuits when they were allowed in competition (with Tyr's blessing, in fact).


Finally - full disclosure - I ride a fully aero-framed Cervelo P2. I like the way it looks, and yes I'll also admit that perchance that the aero actually is helping me speedwise, that's a plus. However, if you asked me to wager how much faster I would go on that aero Cervelo vs a round-tube TT bike with a near-identical fit, I'd tell you with dead honesty - zero second advantage on the Cervelo. I fully admit that this would be a conjecture on my part, and I could be outright wrong with this lack of speed gain, but as it stands right now, I personally haven't seen enough outdoor data to make me feel comforable saying that I'm really picking up meaningful speed from my aero frame. (My aerobars, wheels, and helmet, though - those I'll take.)

How does a tunnel not represent real world conditions?

You do realize that the Wright Brothers tested out airfoils in a makeshift wind tunnel and NASA made it to space using lab testing.

Yes, but their plane then flew in real-world conditions. Similarly, Nasa's rocket actually takes off after all that research. (They have a lot of other designs that didn't.)

If they did all that great research, but their final product never flew outdoors, you'd never know them.

I'm all for wind tunnel testing, research, and discussion. But as I said, I reserve final judgment for whether it actually yields a measurable gain outdoors. If you've invested millions in wind tunnel work, but can't get a product that shows a measurable gain compared to the nonengineered product outdoors, I'm not going to believe you when you say it's going to make me go measurably faster in races outdoors.

No different than the blood pressure medication that works wonders on mice, rodents, and people of a specific genetic makeup in the laboratory. If it doesn't show a measurable drop in blood pressure when given to the populace it's meant for out in the real world, you can't sell it as an effective medication even if your lab results are so amazing.

You're confusing marketing claims vs proven data. Gains in a properly made wind tunnel can be seen and have been seen outdoors.

Again, when it's more than anecdotal claims, I'll change my tune. It'll make a big difference convincing me when frame manufacturers start doing the tests, and even independent groups do them as well.

As I said, these aren't prohibitively difficult tests to do. If your aero gear actually works, say, like aerobars vs no aerobars, you WILL be able to measure it with a stopwatch and a reasonably large number of trials. (In the case of aerobars, reasonably FEW trials will show a very convincing result.)

If they start showing outdoor data that looks like their wind tunnel data, I'm all in with you guys on believing that these aero frames are really saving me more than insignificant quantities of time. I, for one, would much rather Specialized spend their millions not on the fancy newfangled wind tunnel that can do all different yaw angles,etc., but spend orders of magnitude less to provide outdoor data on their aero frame differences in their lineup, and with comparisons against round tubed bikes as well as several other competitor aero frames on the market. The wind tunnel stuff is great for marketing, for hype, and yes, also for research. But the results still need to be shown in real world results.


To reiterate - I think the wind tunnel is a GREAT tool to help design and conjure up aero products. I'm not saying it's useless at all - it's great. But it's only a means to an end - it's not the final authority. Not unless you're racing in a wind tunnel. In that case it would be.

As an aside, has anyone had an issue with their saddle starting to tilt down after about an hour of riding?
I took the seat post bits apart and put it back together but it didn't seem to help. I'm hesitant to crank it super tight.

Hey, sweet bike! I just wanted to suggest taking the shims out of your brakes, to help with clearance for those wheels. Our tri/tt brakes are designed to be used with or without the shims between the padholders and brake arms. You'll get a slightly more flush fit.
Thanks!
Katie