Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [psoasminor] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just got back from placing my order for a XL 7.0 this morning - delivery date in the Trek system to the dealer (Trek factory / branded store) was Sept 9th. My dealer did place the order so it is "in the system" and he said he expected a mid August actual delivery - for what that is worth.

They can order the speedbox to add to the 7 series and I upgraded the basebar, both of which were included in the order to the factory - neither went through the project 1 process - just an add on for the speedbox and a dealer-level swap out on the bar.

The store (Trek in Downers Grove IL - Chicago burbs) does have a 9.5 size small on the floor if anyone is looking for one - it looked really sweet but pricey! Did not have the long stem - it was the shorty and didn't have the rubber cover on the cabling behind the stem - still looked clean but interesting the cover was off - hope they are well affixed and that isn't a common problem for the 9 series owners!

Keeping my fingers crossed the bikes are not on the proverbial slow boat from China and get here before September!
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not going to argue that the 9-series SC bars aren't contributing to the difference. If, in the course of developing the UCI-compliant version, we choose to determine the exact proportion and magnitude of their contribution and publish same, it'll be with the same transparency that we've demonstrated to date.


Thanks for the link to 3T's testimonial. The reference to the rider's already optimized position opens up another line of semi-rhetorical questioning. I wonder if the switch to the Ventus represented a move closer to what Slowman would call the bike's "native configuration". That is, whatever the other bar (and stem) system was, did changing to the Ventus also significantly reduce or eliminate whatever adjuncts were required to hit that position? And if so, how much did that contribute to the improvement, vs the Ventus' aspect ratio by itself?

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I hope your scales are off! I already have a boat anchor; I don't need another that cost twice that. I called several shops in my area and they have not gotten there SC's yet. It would be interesting to see exactly where all the weight is on the SC's. If its on the front end, I wonder how well it really rides.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [tttiltheend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you. Very much agreed.

"One Line Robert"
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [ironmanrex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First, I wouldn't put much stock in what a bathroom scale tells you. They can be quite inaccurate.

Secondly, 19 pounds is not a boat anchor where TT/tri bikes are concerned. You're not planning on using it on the Mt. Washington hillclimb, are you? If the front end is heavy due to the aero integration (which really should not be a surprise, actually) do you really think that weight distribution is going to matter once you're on board the bike?
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Not going to argue that the 9-series SC bars aren't contributing to the difference. If, in the course of developing the UCI-compliant version, we choose to determine the exact proportion and magnitude of their contribution and publish same, it'll be with the same transparency that we've demonstrated to date.


You mean the same transparency evident previously in this thread, where Tom A. had to pester you for quite a bit before you finally revealed what might be critical details of the testing (e.g., lack of derailleurs in some tests)? ;-)

In Reply To:
Thanks for the link to 3T's testimonial. The reference to the rider's already optimized position opens up another line of semi-rhetorical questioning. I wonder if the switch to the Ventus represented a move closer to what Slowman would call the bike's "native configuration". That is, whatever the other bar (and stem) system was, did changing to the Ventus also significantly reduce or eliminate whatever adjuncts were required to hit that position? And if so, how much did that contribute to the improvement, vs the Ventus' aspect ratio by itself?


As I said before, I take all manufacturer's data with a grain of salt.

That said, the 3T data with a rider are consistent with other, independent, bike-only data for the Ventus bars (e.g., Nico's), as well prior research by Jim Martin showing a close correlation between changes in drag due to different handlebars when comparing bike+rider data and bike-only data.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 11, 10 10:03
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Lovely ride! That color scheme looks great too.



TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So whats your point?

I mean, shouldnt all test data be taken with a grain of salt? Until a completely unbiased full scale test is done of all the "super bikes" holding everything across the board constant during a single testing trip and then publicly displaying that data and exact testing protocols, I think we are beating a long dead horse. At this point, there is actually no horse left. You and Tom A. have endlessly questioned Carl and hes done his best to respond open and honestly (I'm sure within the lines hes allowed to). Where is the Cervelo engineer on this forum answering our questions, or a Specialized or a Scott? Take what Trek and Carl say for what it is - manufacturers data and let it go. Maybe go ride more?

*Disclaimer - I'm way out of my league when discussing the intricacies of wind tunnel testing and testing protocols, which is why I havent gotten into those conversations specifically. I just feel like the back and forth has turned into a he said, she said affair. Either accept what they say for truth or dont. Clearly most of the manufacturers arent being truthful when they all claim that their bike is the fastest.

"One Line Robert"
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [ironmanrex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bathroom scales are not very accurate. That said, my stock M 9.9 SC is certainly heavier than my 2010 Madone 5.1 (56cm) by somewhere around 1-1.5lbs. That is with similar wheels (aeolus 6.5s on the SC and zipp 606 on the madone 5.1) and pedals (2007 dura-ace on the SC, 2004 ultegra on the madone 5.1).

This is not surprising to anyone that's had a tri bike before, they are almost always heavier than comparable road bikes. There is more cable housing, the tubes are big and funky shaped, aerobars have a lot of adjustable parts which means a lot of heavy bolts and threaded receivers, you don't have integrated shifting/brakes like on a road bike, etc...

My last tri bike before the SC was also a very high-end bike and it was about 0.5lbs heavier than the SC with comparable componentry. I also never worry about weight in any configuration that is not rideable. A lot of people will tell you their bike weighs 15lbs but when pressed you'll find out that that's without pedals or with silly super-lightweight tires and tubes that will flat riding through the parking lot. Put usable tires on almost any bike and real pedals that aren't made out of unobtainium and you're usually looking at around 17lbs for a high-end road bike and 19lbs for a high-end TT bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
So whats your point?

What I have said before: that I believe that much, if not all, of the difference between the OCLV SC and other bikes in the March 2010 tests could very well be due to the difference in handlebars.

As for Carl's presence here, I assume that he has at least Trek's tacit permission to participate in this forum. As such, I feel no more gratitude toward him than I would toward any other salesman, i.e., it is presumably part of his job responsibilites to try to address questions raised by consumers such as myself.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
You mean the same transparency evident previously in this thread, where Tom A. had to pester you for quite a bit before you finally revealed what might be critical details of the testing (e.g., lack of derailleurs in some tests)? ;-)

Well...to be fair, the fact that the second test was sans derailleurs was alluded to in the .pdf...I just had not noticed it right away.

Now then, the fact that the SC's seatpost isn't 3:1...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A and I were discussing the merits of gold standard setups for several posts before the topic of specific differences between the June 2009 and March 2010 trips came up. I wasn't feeling pestered about the latter in the least, and within a couple posts thereafter either I'd listed the differences or he'd answered his own question (on the derailleurs) by checking the relevant appendix of the white paper. So yes, that kind of transparency Wink.

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Tom A and I were discussing the merits of gold standard setups for several posts before the topic of specific differences between the June 2009 and March 2010 trips came up. I wasn't feeling pestered about the latter in the least, and within a couple posts thereafter either I'd listed the differences or he'd answered his own question (on the derailleurs) by checking the relevant appendix of the white paper. So yes, that kind of transparency Wink.


Fair enough, I picked a bad example.

In the interests of transparency, however: just what is the aspect ratio of the OCLV SC's handlebar?
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 11, 10 11:02
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew et al:

I will disclose some private data on the Ventus bars, since I've moved on to the Shiv.

I went to A2 wind tunnel on one occasion - where some of the tests were as follows:

P3C bike - without rider - with HED H3 front wheel, Hed disk rear wheel & Oval Concepts fork.

I tested it with the minimalist Easton Attack bars as well as with the 3T Ventus bars - at 0, 5, and 15 degrees yaw.

The data were as follows:

---- Easton Attack --- 3T Ventus
Yaw: --- CdA (m^2):
0 ---- .0728 ------- .068
5 ---- .067 -------- .065
15 --- .0596 ------- .058

The differences were .0048, .002, and .0016 for 0, 5 , & 15 yaw. I calculate those differences using Ron Ruff's spreadsheet for a 40 Km to be approx be between 8 to 21 seconds (the largest difference being at 0 yaw - but 5 and 15 are about equal at .002 - meaning that in real life, at 5 yaw == 7 second advantage and at 15 yaw == 8 seconds advantage.

So, the difference - though noticeable and clearly in the uber narrow Ventus favor - was NOT huge from 5-15 yaw - roughly a mere 2 Watts.

Dave Linenberg
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [dlinenbe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dave,

Any chance you could let us in on extensions on the Ventus?
and
Brake lever choice for the attacks?

Thanks for the data
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
So whats your point?


What I have said before: that I believe that much, if not all, of the difference between the OCLV SC and other bikes in the March 2010 tests could very well be due to the difference in handlebars.

As for Carl's presence here, I assume that he has at least Trek's tacit permission to participate in this forum. As such, I feel no more gratitude toward him than I would toward any other salesman, i.e., it is presumably part of his job responsibilites to try to address questions raised by consumers such as myself.

OK everyone, let's form two lines. One line for those who would like to purchase a 2, 7, or 9 series SC in the next couple of years or who have already ordered one. In the other line will be Andrew and Tom A. who don't trust manufacturer's testing data (at least when it comes from Trek).

I think Andrew and Tom A. are actually on to something though. While the rest of us will be wandering around T1 looking for our bike in a sea of Trek SC and Cervelo P2/P3s, their bikes will stand out and they'll have the lowest transition times :-)
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Runless] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sure.

The extensions on the ventus were the straight extensions that the ventus shipped with.

The brake levers on the attack were the SRAM carbon brake levers (at that point, they did not make the cheaper metal ones).
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [tttiltheend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll pass on Mt. Washington! :)

I did a little experiment by adding a full water bottle monted on top of my stem. The bike did not handle well at all. Now, go done a hill going 45mph with this and you realize that maybe that was not a good idea. So, to answer your question; Yes the weight on the front end does make a difference if it is not done right.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Covering a couple other bits first:

Tom asked about the Transition stall in the context of differences between tests (setups), which was answered. I don't know why (or to what degree) any of those differences had the effects they did.

My presence here is both explicitly approved and encouraged. Not sure I deserve the salesman label, though. I'm seriously lacking in the chutzpah department.

Bikeradar.com calculated the SC RXL bar's aspect ratio it at 5.5:1 in their review. That corresponds pretty well with the deepest chord they'd be able to access on an assembled front end (i.e. without stem or stem cover interference).

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [dlinenbe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Andrew et al:

I will disclose some private data on the Ventus bars, since I've moved on to the Shiv.

I went to A2 wind tunnel on one occasion - where some of the tests were as follows:

P3C bike - without rider - with HED H3 front wheel, Hed disk rear wheel & Oval Concepts fork.

I tested it with the minimalist Easton Attack bars as well as with the 3T Ventus bars - at 0, 5, and 15 degrees yaw.

The data were as follows:

---- Easton Attack --- 3T Ventus
Yaw: --- CdA (m^2):
0 ---- .0728 ------- .068
5 ---- .067 -------- .065
15 --- .0596 ------- .058

The differences were .0048, .002, and .0016 for 0, 5 , & 15 yaw. I calculate those differences using Ron Ruff's spreadsheet for a 40 Km to be approx be between 8 to 21 seconds (the largest difference being at 0 yaw - but 5 and 15 are about equal at .002 - meaning that in real life, at 5 yaw == 7 second advantage and at 15 yaw == 8 seconds advantage.

So, the difference - though noticeable and clearly in the uber narrow Ventus favor - was NOT huge from 5-15 yaw - roughly a mere 2 Watts.

Thanks for sharing! I have to say, though, that those results are not consistent with data I've seen from other independent tests (and not just from one person/one wind tunnel, either).
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Covering a couple other bits first:

Tom asked about the Transition stall in the context of differences between tests (setups), which was answered. I don't know why (or to what degree) any of those differences had the effects they did.

Yeah, I went back through the thread and saw your reply to him. Since you didn't quote him, though, it didn't really stick in my brain that you had done your best to answer his question (i.e., I wasn't sure what part of his question you meant to be addressing).

In Reply To:
My presence here is both explicitly approved and encouraged. Not sure I deserve the salesman label, though.

Well like it or not, that is the role you are serving here.

In Reply To:
Bikeradar.com calculated the SC RXL bar's aspect ratio it at 5.5:1 in their review.

Thanks. So, it only needs to be about twice as thick to be UCI compliant.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [dlinenbe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For those who want to use Dave's data to compare with something like Trek's I show the differences in grams of drag at 30mph:

0 degree = 55.9g
5 degrees = 23.25g
15 degrees = 18.66g

If i screwed up the calculations, let me know and I shall fix but that seems to match the time savings given to Dave when using Andrews rule of thumb 50g = .5s/k

Obviously the Attacks aren't the same bars as the one's used in Trek's test.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
OK everyone, let's form two lines. One line for those who would like to purchase a 2, 7, or 9 series SC in the next couple of years or who have already ordered one. In the other line will be Andrew and Tom A. who don't trust manufacturer's testing data (at least when it comes from Trek).

I think Andrew and Tom A. are actually on to something though. While the rest of us will be wandering around T1 looking for our bike in a sea of Trek SC and Cervelo P2/P3s, their bikes will stand out and they'll have the lowest transition times :-)

You seem to have missed the point: neither Tom A. nor I do triathlons. Rather, we are cyclists who (like the majority of cyclists in the world, and many here in the US) have to take into consideration UCI rules. Knowing just how slippery the OCLV SC would be with UCI legal bars compared to other UCI-legal offerings is therefore very important when it comes to making a purchasing decision.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It is possible that the easton attack bars are quite aerodynamic.

I have purchased Kraig Willet's paper on aerobars (where he tests in the wind tunnel different aerobars on the bike alone).

I cannot discuss the results - but purchasing & reading that is useful for anybody not familiar with such work - particularly when comparing the time differentials between such bars on a 40 Km.

Dave
Last edited by: dlinenbe: Jun 11, 10 11:55
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [dlinenbe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It is possible that the easton attack bars are quite aerodynamic.

I have purchased Kraig Willet's paper on aerobars (where he tests in the wind tunnel different aerobars on the bike alone).


Speaking of such tests...here are some of the data Jim Martin collected for VisionTech (saved from when it was on their website):

Difference in drag vs.cowhorn/clip-on (lbs of drag at 30 mph)
Handlebar 1995 1999
VisionTech -0.25 -0.28
Scott Extreme 0.04 n/a
Profile Carbon X n/a -0.17
ITM Dual Aero n/a -0.15
Cinelli Angel n/a -0.11
ITM Aero CX2 n/a -0.04
Quote Reply

Prev Next