Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [djciii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, if you look back at the article, the seatpost by itself "...behaved identically to a full 8:1 cross-section..." Looking at the Draft Box, I don't think you would see any increase in drag, as the box seems like it would match a more traditional aero profile. The idea being that you could ride with or without the box and suffer no change in performance.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [djciii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

This "bento box" really makes no sense to me.

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...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A Kamm'd basebar certainly would make 3:1 easier to hit...even if the aero benefits are essentially nil. Making it so the same extension hardware can be used is trickier...the chord of the spacers is right about 3x the bar's thickness as it is, and they're more or less centered fore-aft on the current profile...so simply hacking off the tail isn't an option. There is no "easy button" on this one...but it's not like we've never thought about it. The summer is young.



Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is there a white stem & aerobar option?

Dave in VA
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
A Kamm'd basebar certainly would make 3:1 easier to hit...even if the aero benefits are essentially nil. Making it so the same extension hardware can be used is trickier...the chord of the spacers is right about 3x the bar's thickness as it is, and they're more or less centered fore-aft on the current profile...so simply hacking off the tail isn't an option. There is no "easy button" on this one...but it's not like we've never thought about it. The summer is young.


I bet I could come up with something practical fairly quickly ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: May 30, 10 8:12
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [DC Pattie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't I wish...but I was one of the few who actually liked the white RXXXL too.



Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Carl,

Do you know the approximate weight of the SC frameset?
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [mile2424] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Check out the Trek website for that info (link below)....Carl's already fielded that one. I'm sure you'll start seeing weights for complete bikes here in a few days once the first bikes get delivered.


http://www.trekbikes.com/...ns.php?questionid=95
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
A Kamm'd basebar certainly would make 3:1 easier to hit...even if the aero benefits are essentially nil. Making it so the same extension hardware can be used is trickier...the chord of the spacers is right about 3x the bar's thickness as it is, and they're more or less centered fore-aft on the current profile...so simply hacking off the tail isn't an option. There is no "easy button" on this one...but it's not like we've never thought about it. The summer is young.

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?



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Carl,

I have my SC on order. I like to use Swiss Stop Brake Pads (yellow) with my Carbon Wheels.

Can I assume that Shimano shape brake pads will fit on the SC integrated brakes?

Thanks- Mike
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [MHG] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Absolutely. We didn't put cut-down or otherwise undersized brake carriers down there. Full size, standard pads will fit. The carriers are slightly different than what you might find on other road bikes in that the post is slightly aft on the carrier (to allow clearance to the frame), but that only becomes a consideration if (like me) you prefer to swap out pads&carriers as a unit. Then you'd need to get a 2nd set of the SC carriers from your LBS.


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, most of the rest of the bike (frame) was designed to fit into the 3:1 regulations after we discovered that the best KVF shape we had come up with so far put us right on the edge of the 3:1 rule. Tri was on our mind from the get-go. When the opportunity arose to avoid a hard decision on splitting the line over this issue, we jumped on the 3:1 bandwagon...knowing that it was far easier to deal with parallel-path UCI needs in the rest of the bike (bars, etc) than it was in the frame.


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?


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not very familar with bottom bracket sizing - so this may be a dump question, but is related.

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
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Carl, many thanks for your kind responses. Just wanted to quickly confirm your thoughts as to the proper size frame for:
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?
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Until you come up with a permanent solution for UCI bars you could elect to sell the "team only" bar/stem combo like Radioshack (or Julie Dibens) has been using.
If it is such a small %, you won't have to make too many of them-
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [bootsie_cat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's probably not a workable solution YET because 1) those team stems were all one off CNC jobs made to the specs of each rider, not a generic size run, and 2) the team bar isn't rated for consumer use yet. It would have to go through some standards testing which hasn't been done to my knowledge.



TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Last edited by: JudgeNick: May 30, 10 22:52
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey Ya'll,

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,

Blake

Professional Triathlete
Owner of Blake Becker Multisport Coaching LLC / Team BBMC
blakebeck@gmail.com
http://www.teambbmc.com
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Carl, can you tell me why the speedconcept fit pdf has reach numbers, for both the basebar and pads, getting shorter as the stem length increases for all sizes? Also the changes in reach dont seem to match the changes in stem lengths. For example the 100mm/10mm stem should be the same reach as the 100m/45mm stem. Am I missreading the document?

Has anyone else noticed this?
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [crom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I noticed this too and if you read the thread, a few pages up I mentioned to Carl that there seems to be something wrong with the numbers in the fit chart but I never got around to explain my observations.

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.

P..

.........................__0.............0
...................._.-\ <,_.........</\_
.....~_.o^,....(...)./.(...)......._/\...
Last edited by: paxfobiscum: May 31, 10 6:50
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [paxfobiscum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Doesn't seem like a glitch to me. If you have a stem that's 100mm long, but tilted UP, then it doesn't reach as far horizontally. Remember trigononetry? I.E. if the stem was 100mm long, but it was tilted at 90-degrees straight up, then it would have zero reach. So, the greater the angle above zero, the less the stem contributes to reach. Make sense?



TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [JudgeNick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick, I understand if you have a normal stem set-up, with 100mm length and -6 degree rise, you would have a shorter reach than with a 100mm stem at -10 or 17 degrees. The problem with the document is that it gives the stem dimensions in reach and rise. I would think that reach would be a horizontal distance only and rise vertical only. The rise numbers on the stem do equate exactly to equivalent rises in base bar stack. Why would the reach numbers on the stem not work in the same way?

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [crom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Nick, I understand if you have a normal stem set-up, with 100mm length and -6 degree rise, you would have a shorter reach than with a 100mm stem at -10 or 17 degrees. The problem with the document is that it gives the stem dimensions in reach and rise. I would think that reach would be a horizontal distance only and rise vertical only. The rise numbers on the stem do equate exactly to equivalent rises in base bar stack. Why would the reach numbers on the stem not work in the same way?

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.

X2.

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.

In Reply To:

.........................__0.............0
...................._.-\ <,_.........</\_
.....~_.o^,....(...)./.(...)......._/\...
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [sentania] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No adapter that I'm aware of.


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [TPerry] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Saddle height is driving you to the Medium frame, but your pad stack is actually below what's listed as the minimum for that frame size. Inasmuch as there's a few mm of wiggle room on either end of the range, the 100x10 certainly has the best chance of getting you close to your preferred fit. You'll have no room for downward adjustment, though.


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.



Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
damn - that will make it a tough sell to the wife.


"Honey, thanks for agreeing it's time for a new bike. Also, you know that 3k toy I bought a couple years ago, I need a new one"


:/


Team RACC | scottbowe.com

"no matt...your FTP is never high enough, there is always room for improvement." - jonnyo
Quote Reply

Prev Next