Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I thought this was the owners thread?

Sure...but since few actually have their hands on one yet and Carl has been so generous in answering everyone's questions in the meantime, this thread basically morphed into Q/A about the bikes. What's wrong with that?



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No worries. 9-series only, which is what the "OP" has.

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The P4 had its non-compliant post and non-compliant bottle.


As for fairness, our goal was to simulate on the competitor bikes to the greatest degree possible the range of adjustment offered by the new bar&stem system, on bikes of comparable frame size. In that context, is a non-UCI-compliant system which requires extreme stem angles and/or large spacer stacks (and longer lengths of exposed housing) to get to Manny's position really fairer? Open to the possibility, but not convinced just yet.

How would replacing the basebar with a different one (non 3:1) have changed things? I'm not sure if I'm following...

Personally, I think it would be very informative to see bikes compared in a "UCI-legal" configuration across the board...or, at a minimum have the "Radio Shack team setup" plotted on the same chart ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Personally, I think it would be very informative to see bikes compared in a "UCI-legal" configuration across the board...or, at a minimum have the "Radio Shack team setup" plotted on the same chart ;-)

Again, the SC is a TRI bike. The white paper is titled "Airfoil Development for the Trek Speed Concept Triathlon Bicycle." Not "UCI-legal TT bicycle." Anyway, 2100 hours of tunnel time according to them at many hundreds of dollars per hour each. The concept of the testing seems to be which is the fastest bike for Joe Triathlete. Joe Triathlete goes down to the bike store, buys a bike to race in triathlons, which one is fastest? Add another several hundred hours of wind tunnel time to re-test those bikes in UCI-legal configurations (again, the P4 was tested with the aero-bottle and non-compliant seatpost) and you are into some serious green pretty fast. At some point they have to quit testing and start producing and selling bikes to pay for all that R&D. Had they spent that money and run those tests, we would all still be on slowtwitch complaining that they weren't fair. That's just who we are :-)

I am excited that this will push the other manufacturers to do similar sorts of research and publishing of results. Cervelo did a lot of impressive work with the P1/P2/P3/P4 and Trek has continued this tradition and even gone further. Cervelo first, and now Trek, have both set a very high standard for their competitors. In the long run, this is very good for all of us as it means better, faster, more fun-to-ride bikes are still to come.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As an close indicator of a UCI legal SC, can't you look at the wind tunnel data for the TCT version instead of the 9 series? It's the same frame and the 9 series, but with a UCI legal base bar. The only differences besides the aero/base bar is the TCT is a standard front brake and the non-UCI legal seatpost.


Fraser Bicycle | First Endurance

Check out my blog here | Twitter:@tmalis3
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Personally, I think it would be very informative to see bikes compared in a "UCI-legal" configuration across the board...or, at a minimum have the "Radio Shack team setup" plotted on the same chart ;-)


Again, the SC is a TRI bike. The white paper is titled "Airfoil Development for the Trek Speed Concept Triathlon Bicycle." Not "UCI-legal TT bicycle." Anyway, 2100 hours of tunnel time according to them at many hundreds of dollars per hour each. The concept of the testing seems to be which is the fastest bike for Joe Triathlete. Joe Triathlete goes down to the bike store, buys a bike to race in triathlons, which one is fastest? ...

OK then, so why constrain the bars in the comparison bikes to be an obviously slower 3:1 configuration? If you want to claim you're fastest Tri bike, then put the Ventus back on the P4 and then make the comparison.

To accommodate your desire to compare the bikes in an "as purchased" condition, then you'd probably want to follow Steve Harad's (Kestrel) idea of testing protocols...

Plus...you don't think that they tested the final configuration of the SC in "UCI-legal" trim? I'd be shocked if they didn't ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom3] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
As an close indicator of a UCI legal SC, can't you look at the wind tunnel data for the TCT version instead of the 9 series? It's the same frame and the 9 series, but with a UCI legal base bar. The only differences besides the aero/base bar is the TCT is a standard front brake and the non-UCI legal seatpost.

Yes...and we asked Carl about that and what the offset would be (if any) from the SC 9 series curve due to the integrated front end of the fork, and he didn't want to put a number on it.

But, if we take the TCT curve as the "worst case" for a UCI bar on the SC, then the P4 is looking pretty darned good against it at 0-15deg of yaw (looking at both tests).



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I look at the TCT curve as a conservative estimate, since the integrated front brake will only improve it's performance. The only thing I'm not sure about is when I saw the 9-series in person the head tuibe is crazy narrow. It's hard to tell from the website if the 7 series has the same narrow head tube shape or if it's wider. That could skew the comparison as well.


Fraser Bicycle | First Endurance

Check out my blog here | Twitter:@tmalis3
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are we looking at the same document? The white paper hosted on this site shows the P4 only beating the TCT at 0 & 5 degrees, with the TCT winning at 10 or more. How does that equate to the P4 looking good at 0-15 degrees?
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [tttiltheend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Are we looking at the same document? The white paper hosted on this site shows the P4 only beating the TCT at 0 & 5 degrees, with the TCT winning at 10 or more. How does that equate to the P4 looking good at 0-15 degrees?

The "crossover point" appears to be between 5 and 10 deg...so if you average across the 0-15 deg range, it looks like pretty much a wash to me.

(Note that this conclusion is based upon Trek's own data, which relative to the P4 actually shows surprisingly little benefit as a result of the Ventus-like non-UCI legal bars and integrated brake found on the SC.)
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The TCT test uses the same bars as the P4, not the ventus like ones on the 9 series, and no integrated front brake.


Fraser Bicycle | First Endurance

Check out my blog here | Twitter:@tmalis3
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom3] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The TCT test uses the same bars as the P4, not the ventus like ones on the 9 series, and no integrated front brake.

Yes, I know that. My point is that Trek's data show much less benefit due to those features than I would expect based on other wind tunnel data. If in fact the difference between the TCT and SC is more in keeping with other results, then the P4 would look even better relative to the SC when both are in UCI-legal trim.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 8, 10 10:14
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So are you saying you would have expected a bigger beneift due to the integrated front brake/front end on the 9 series vs the non-integrated front end of the TCT?


Fraser Bicycle | First Endurance

Check out my blog here | Twitter:@tmalis3
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Are we looking at the same document? The white paper hosted on this site shows the P4 only beating the TCT at 0 & 5 degrees, with the TCT winning at 10 or more. How does that equate to the P4 looking good at 0-15 degrees?

The "crossover point" appears to be between 5 and 10 deg...so if you average across the 0-15 deg range, it looks like pretty much a wash to me.

(Note that this conclusion is based upon Trek's own data, which relative to the P4 actually shows surprisingly little benefit as a result of the Ventus-like non-UCI legal bars and integrated brake found on the SC.)

Well, this seems to have a hint of a Cervelo-positive spin, but fair enough. I do hope you guys keep the same skeptical attitude towards Cevelo when they allow marketing to affect the reporting of data, such as the curious omission of the 15 degree yaw results in their charts for the P4, even though they report that result for their other frames.

It’s unfortunate that Trek apparently tested the P4 with a UCI legal bar, vs the non-legal bar on the SC, since that’s the chink in their armor that you’re driving a wedge into. I’m not sure what it would take to produce more than “surprisingly little benefit,” since the OCLV series, (which does have the integrated brake, unlike the TCT) seems to have a pretty clear advantage in their tests, even if we throw out the 20 degree yaw angle. I guess it comes down to how much of that advantage is attributable to the bars, which could be considered an unfair comparison; vs. the integrated brakes and front end, which is for now a Trek-only feature and gives them a legitimate competitive edge (albeit at very high prices). Then there’s the “wild card” of the illegal P4 bottle, can we consider it a reasonably fair tradeoff of the bottle for the bars, I would guess you’d say no…

I seem to recall a while back some Cervelo patent drawings showing a fork with an integrated brake, wonder when this will see the light of day.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [tttiltheend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I guess it comes down to how much of that advantage is attributable to the bars


Indeed, it does - and based on other, independent wind tunnel data, it appears to me that the use of a non-UCI legal bar on the Speed Concept OCLV could account for its lower drag relative to the P4 at all yaw angles.

Indeed, even if you just rely on Trek's data (for the Speed Concept TCT) the Speed Concept OCLV version appears that it would be faster than the P4 only when the average yaw angle is >15 deg if both were fitted with UCI-legal handlebars.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 8, 10 11:28
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Indeed, even if you just rely on Trek's data (for the Speed Concept TCT) the Speed Concept OCLV version appears that it would be faster than the P4 only when the average yaw angle is >15 deg if both were fitted with UCI-legal handlebars.

Not following you there. In Figure 11 the 7 series bike has a lower drag than the P4 at yaw of about 6.5 degrees. Assuming the front end of the 9 series has zero aerodynamic benefit, it should test identically to the 7 series if the handlebars were identical to the other bikes, right?
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Indeed, even if you just rely on Trek's data (for the Speed Concept TCT) the Speed Concept OCLV version appears that it would be faster than the P4 only when the average yaw angle is >15 deg if both were fitted with UCI-legal handlebars.

Not following you there. In Figure 11 the 7 series bike has a lower drag than the P4 at yaw of about 6.5 degrees. Assuming the front end of the 9 series has zero aerodynamic benefit, it should test identically to the 7 series if the handlebars were identical to the other bikes, right?

I eyeball(ed) the crossover point at (roughly - I'm not going to argue about 1 deg) being 7.5 deg. Based on that, and assuming that the "front end" has zero aerodynamic benefit, the average drag over 0 to 15 deg of yaw would be essentially the same. Hence, you'd only be faster on the Trek if the average yaw angle were greater than that.*

*Actually, it's not quite that simple, i.e., time at yaw vs. speed of travel vs. distance would all factor into it...but you get the idea.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 8, 10 11:48
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Carl

Any suggestions on the best place to mount edge 305? i see that lieto has his joule mounted between his arm pads, but not sure how he has it rigged.

thanks

Toro Performance
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Indeed, even if you just rely on Trek's data (for the Speed Concept TCT) the Speed Concept OCLV version appears that it would be faster than the P4 only when the average yaw angle is >15 deg if both were fitted with UCI-legal handlebars.


Not following you there. In Figure 11 the 7 series bike has a lower drag than the P4 at yaw of about 6.5 degrees. Assuming the front end of the 9 series has zero aerodynamic benefit, it should test identically to the 7 series if the handlebars were identical to the other bikes, right?


I eyeball(ed) the crossover point at (roughly - I'm not going to argue about 1 deg) being 7.5 deg. Based on that, and assuming that the "front end" has zero aerodynamic benefit, the average drag over 0 to 15 deg of yaw would be essentially the same. Hence, you'd only be faster on the Trek if the average yaw angle were greater than that.*

*Actually, it's not quite that simple, i.e., time at yaw vs. speed of travel vs. distance would all factor into it...but you get the idea.

Got it, I see where you're coming from. So you'll be purchasing a 7-series and saving a few grand over the P4, right? After all, aerodynamically it's a wash as you've pointed out. Also you won't be able to use that P4 water bottle in your UCI races, so the 7 series might actually perform better in the UCI TT environment.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Got it, I see where you're coming from. So you'll be purchasing a 7-series and saving a few grand over the P4, right? After all, aerodynamically it's a wash as you've pointed out. Also you won't be able to use that P4 water bottle in your UCI races, so the 7 series might actually perform better in the UCI TT environment.

I might, except that 1) I can't afford either at the moment, 2) I take all manufacturer's data with a grain of salt, and 3) my remaining competitive goals are such that I am especially interested in what happens at low yaw angles, which is not where Trek seems to have focussed their design efforts.*

*Interestingly, independent wind tunnel tests of the Trek TTX also show that it performs best relative to the competition at 10 deg of yaw or more.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 8, 10 12:14
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [jbird2131] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's a hot topic in-house. Got several test riders trying different ideas. No shortage of bolts up there which could do double duty as bracket holders...the question is which one(s) provide the most options, and don't force folks to give up or alter their other forward accessories (aerobottles, ziptied cages, etc).

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I guess it comes down to how much of that advantage is attributable to the bars


Indeed, it does - and based on other, independent wind tunnel data, it appears to me that the use of a non-UCI legal bar on the Speed Concept OCLV could account for its lower drag relative to the P4 at all yaw angles.

Indeed, even if you just rely on Trek's data (for the Speed Concept TCT) the Speed Concept OCLV version appears that it would be faster than the P4 only when the average yaw angle is >15 deg if both were fitted with UCI-legal handlebars.



There's independent data which shows a non-compliant vs compliant bar (variant of the first or otherwise) drag differential on the order of 125-175g out at 10-15deg yaw? That's Huge. Where do I look for the details on that testing?

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So not exactly what I originally paid for (long story) but this is what I ended up with! Just picked it up last night but it was pouring and I havent been able to ride, but damn it just looks fast - see its even blurry in pictures! (Honestly, that is a terrible photo. Its not even directly from the side and blurry as hell. I truly need an actual camera as opposed to a damn phone.) I swapped out the saddle for my toupe and threw on my S60s instead of the Aeoleus 5.0s (they're for sale if anyone is interested...check the classifieds.)

I hope to take some better pics in better lighting this weekend and will post those at some point!


"One Line Robert"
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
why did you accept the bike outside of what you ordered? or is this over the spec that you ordered?

Whats the story?


nice bike btw… I saw one at Trek of San Diego last week.

ishi no ue ni san nen | Perseverance will win in the end. | Blog | @nebmot | Strava | Instagram |
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I guess it comes down to how much of that advantage is attributable to the bars


Indeed, it does - and based on other, independent wind tunnel data, it appears to me that the use of a non-UCI legal bar on the Speed Concept OCLV could account for its lower drag relative to the P4 at all yaw angles.

Indeed, even if you just rely on Trek's data (for the Speed Concept TCT) the Speed Concept OCLV version appears that it would be faster than the P4 only when the average yaw angle is >15 deg if both were fitted with UCI-legal handlebars.



There's independent data which shows a non-compliant vs compliant bar (variant of the first or otherwise) drag differential on the order of 125-175g out at 10-15deg yaw? That's Huge. Where do I look for the details on that testing?


1) I said based on other, independent wind tunnel data.

2) I didn't say publically available.

3) I stand by my conclusions (specifically as they are written).
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 10, 10 8:03
Quote Reply

Prev Next