Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
That just means you don't understand the aerodynamics of the situation. A "Kamm"-ed airfoil apparently performs better than a full foil of the same aspect ratio...but even better is going to be a full foil of a larger aspect ratio (i.e. the same foil but not truncated).
The Kamm foil shapes are a clever way of following the UCI 3:1 aspect ratios while still having a very aerodynamic shape AND having decent section moment of inertia (i.e. stiff tubing due to shape). For races run NOT run under UCI rules (as in the majority of triathlons) where there also tends to be "storage needs", it makes perfect sense to "tack back on" the rest of the truncated foil in the form of a "bento box".
Of course, it also makes one wonder why they don't just use the KVF shape on a basebar and supply a fully UCI-legal bike with the integrated stem as bootsie-cat suggests. That's a head scratcher for me as well...
But, the REAL question is why wasn't a 3:1 ratio bar the baseline for the design? That's what doesn't make sense...the WHOLE rest of the bike is designed around complying with the UCI bike restrictions and then the bar is left out of that...and in order to use a 3:1 bar, you have to use a significantly less integrated approach.
I guess what bootsie cat and I are wondering about is why the non-UCI bars weren't designed with an "accessory" approach like it is for the storage solutions? In other words, why not design around the 3:1 bar and then make it so that it will also accept a deeper AR bar as well.
Yeah...I understand that the vast majority of the buyers of this bike will NOT need a 3:1 bar...then again, the same could be said about the design of the whole rest of the bike, no?
The UCI-constrained crowd has not been forgotten. We are about accommodation (hence no disk restrictions in the rear, standard brake pads, class-leading adjustability in the cockpit, etc). It just wouldn't do to rush out a cake that's only half-baked. I just don't know how many minutes are left on the timer, dig?
Is there an adapter to allow the use of a octalink BB?
Just wondering if my bike cost would have to include a new SRM or not.
Team RACC | scottbowe.com
"no matt...your FTP is never high enough, there is always room for improvement." - jonnyo
Pad stack 58.5
Pad reach 49
BB to center of saddle 79
My dealer is holding a Medium for me. Looking at your chart, it looks to me as if I would need the 100/10 stem. Its my understanding he doesn't have this stem. When do you see these stems being shipped to dealers?
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Carl is THE MAN with the SC...
Nothing was overlooked with the bike and though it may be a bit "different" than what you are use to riding, let me assure you that you will fall in love with the bike...clean, fast and not hard to maintain once you know how it all works...
The bike is the fastest available, period...and not just in the tunnel...it climbs well(stiff), it out performs any bike with a crosswind and as most triathletes will like, it goes pretty well in a straight line...
Change is sometimes hard for people, but this is one change that you should embrace!
I'll have mine out in CDA for anyone to look at, ask Q's, etc....
For those of you in Wisconsin. we will be having a HUGE tri event on July 8th and should have bikes to check out!
PM me with any Q's you might have,
Owner of Blake Becker Multisport Coaching LLC / Team BBMC
Has anyone else noticed this?
Anyway, I took time to spread it all out in an excel spreadsheet and it seems the numbers within the elbow pad reach are inverted left to right within sizes. All the other numbers seems correct except for the elbow pad reach. Carl, please check this because, intuitively, the stem length as it lengthens must result in a longer elbow pad reach within a size. However, the Trek chart states otherwise - specifically when the stem increased, the elbow pad reach is shorter.
Maybe I am not understanding how this is calculated but my excel table formulas are all correct.
The Triathlon Gear Guide
It would make sense if the stem reach/rise read as 100/10, 90/45 and 80/75, instead of 100/10, 100/45 and 110/75.
The stack numbers are correct but the reach numbers are, like I said previously, inverted. The chart is intimidating, initially at least, due to all the numbers in there. But if anyone really takes the time to check the numbers he will see that the reach numbers don't make sense as they are presented. If inverted however, within sizes then they are correct.
Can't comment with any authority on ship dates for the various stem sizes. You dealer should be able to order one and get a ship date answer in the process.