Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [nilloc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Howdy-

The fit chart is primarily intended for use with the 9-series, but it can also serve as a good first crack at 7-series sizing. The 9-series front end system was designed to cover a similar range of bar centers that you can achieve with standard stem & spacer combinations...the major difference being a drive towards micro-adjustment at the armpad level vs via stem & spacer changes.

Within a given frame size, then, the 9-series stem boxes on the chart each cover 1/6th of that bar center range. For 7-series purposes, once you've highlighted your pad stack row and pad reach column (-s...remember to give yourself 10-15mm on either side owing to pad-level adjustment capability), note which intersections occur within a stem box and which frame size covers the most (if not all) of those intersections. This should point you in the right direction, and you can fine tune with stems and spacers.

Following that process and bouncing the rest of your contact point measurements against the other corresponding cells of the fit chart, you look pretty solidly Medium to me.


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Would duplicating (in spirit anyway) what Mark and the troops @ Specialized have done along those lines make comparisons between the setups from different trips more scientifically sound? Sure. But the number of setup variables which have changed trip-to-trip as we refined our protocols for competitor comparison would still leave us only with a more defensible general setup comparison. Triathletes - and the Slowtwitch subspecies in particular - being an inquisitive lot, I can see the appeal for even this general comparative information...but we've elected to go down the road of finding middle-of-the-range setups which appeal to the masses for our comparisons. Pulling out individual component contributions to the changes (between bikes between trips) wouldn't necessarily get any easier with the calibration rig in place.


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am curious to the compatibility of the Quarq. What is needed to make a Quark work with the Speed Concept?

I have a SRAM compatible Quarq I would want to use if purchase a SC.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Would duplicating (in spirit anyway) what Mark and the troops @ Specialized have done along those lines make comparisons between the setups from different trips more scientifically sound? Sure. But the number of setup variables which have changed trip-to-trip as we refined our protocols for competitor comparison would still leave us only with a more defensible general setup comparison. Triathletes - and the Slowtwitch subspecies in particular - being an inquisitive lot, I can see the appeal for even this general comparative information...but we've elected to go down the road of finding middle-of-the-range setups which appeal to the masses for our comparisons. Pulling out individual component contributions to the changes (between bikes between trips) wouldn't necessarily get any easier with the calibration rig in place.

BTW...thanks for being so patient answering all of these "inquisitions" ;-)

I'm not sure if I'm following what you're saying above...do you mean that selecting/creating a "gold standard" test item (i.e. something that would NOT change between test sessions in any way) would not allow you to then see the effects of any setup changes on the resulting data? Wouldn't you be able to then remove the differences seen...much like removing fixture tare?



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If anyone is interested, Belmont Wheelworks just received 3 Speed Concept 9.8s.

We should have them built in the next few days...

Stop by and check them out!

-Jared
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the response, Carl. Your explanation clarifies things a bit and I think I will go with the Medium.

And thanks for engaging in the debate on Slowtwitch. I have more respect for companies that are willing to send somebody into the Slowtwitch gantlet (or gauntlet if you prefer) because it shows that they at least think their products are defensible to the kind of questioning (and, yes, attacking) that happens here.

It has been informative to read this thread.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm probably being obtuse. I'll try to simplify a bit:


If multiple setup variables change from one trip to the next, an invariate "gold standard" setup only establishes what (if any) trip-to-trip tunnel offset we might need to also apply to the data for setup-to-setup comparison. It does not help us determine the relative contributions of each individual change to the overall change. We'd still be in the boat AC is in: theorizing (soundly, on the basis of other, more focused, tunnel testing) that there is a dominant factor.


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [bartturner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your LBS is the best source for details, but if your SRAM-compatible Quarq is on the GXP BB standard (not BB30) you should only need the corresponding SRAM bearing kit (available thru your Trek dealer).


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I'm probably being obtuse. I'll try to simplify a bit:


If multiple setup variables change from one trip to the next, an invariate "gold standard" setup only establishes what (if any) trip-to-trip tunnel offset we might need to also apply to the data for setup-to-setup comparison. It does not help us determine the relative contributions of each individual change to the overall change. We'd still be in the boat AC is in: theorizing (soundly, on the basis of other, more focused, tunnel testing) that there is a dominant factor.

When you say "setup", are you referring to bike setups or fixturing, etc....or both?

Obviously, if you want to determine relative contributions of individual changes, you'll want to do more directed comparisons...but, having the "gold standard" run in there also allows you to get a better handle on the absolute value of each bike setup AND, if there happens to be only one change across a pair of trips, you can get relative contributions from individual changes across trips as well. For example, it appears that the only difference in the first bike test chart in your .pdf and the second chart is that the front wheel was changed from an H3 to an Aeolus 9.0. If, in fact, that WAS the only change, a "gold standard" run would allow you to "tare out" any other unaccounted for changes in the fixturing and determine the relative effects of that front wheel change...AND, give you an absolute value as well.

I guess I'm not seeing why having the "control" or "gold standard" run is undesirable (aside from a time standpoint, that is...understanding that tunnel time = $, of course).

It would seem to me that as your test protocols become more refined and "standardized" that the "control" bike measurements would actually become more valuable...but, maybe that's just me :-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm referring to bike setups. The front wheel change is not the only difference between the setups represented in those two charts. You're absolutely correct about the value of the calibration setup in the case of a single variable change. There may be such an instance hiding in the folders of previous projects, but in the case of the Speed Concept development there isn't.


We don't think maintaining a calibration setup (and records) is undesireable. It just hasn't been viewed as a critical omission from our work to date.



Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Now I'm curious because in the June 2009 data all of the bikes seem to have a 5 degree yaw "hump" but a seemingly later stall point. The data is also approximately 50 grams of drag higher across the board

Whereas the July 2009-March 2010 data all of the bikes have a smoother curve through 15 degrees and then an upsweep towards 20 degrees.

This leads me to think the Hed 3 is a damn good wheel for IM/slow person purposes unless of course it's responsible for the 50 grams of difference. This isn't the case right, there were other testing changes resulting in the difference in 50 grams besides the wheel change?
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Runless] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Great illustration of the dangers in comparing (& presenting!) results from separate trips. The front wheel was not the only setup change. I can see that by calling out only that change in the notes accompanying the respective figures it gives the impression of being the only change. Our intent was to ensure that the reader know the setups were different.


Carl

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

Do you know if each bike is shipped with the multiple stem configurations or does one come standard and then the shop will need to have the others in stock? I've got a medium on order and will need a 100/45 stem.

Also, same question for the seat posts. Does every bike ship with the the two different lengths or does one come standard?

"One Line Robert"
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Word of warning! Don't try and stuff the Draft Box to the gills! The lid "buttons" can get squeezed outward locking the top on. My phone was held hostage as I tried to carefully pry it open. All is good...... I will plan my trip essentials a little better next time. (Wore my tri suit so no safe pockets for a phone!)
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Stems: First mediums to be shipped have the 60x45 as OE, later shipments will have 100x45 OE. Shop is able to order other sizes as needed.


Posts: Long post is OE on M-L-XL, short post on XS-S.


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Great illustration of the dangers in comparing (& presenting!) results from separate trips. The front wheel was not the only setup change. I can see that by calling out only that change in the notes accompanying the respective figures it gives the impression of being the only change. Our intent was to ensure that the reader know the setups were different.

Maybe, maybe not... ;-) If the other things that were changed (can you list them out?) are expected to merely add a uniform drag offset (things like more or less spacers, etc.) then comparing the curves gives at least a qualitative feel for how the different front wheel choices affected the overall drag curves.

That's why you need to record/list out ALL of the differences...that way the reader can sift through the possibilities for why the curves are different across the 2 tests. For example, besides the front wheel change, what was different between the 2 tests for the Transition model tested? The reason I ask is that in the 2nd test it shows the Transition "stalling out" at higher yaws like never before seen in other tests (including your own first test). I would like to know why that is...so that I don't set mine up that way! ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My current reach is 465 and stack is 625. It looks like the 60/45 would work but the 100/45 would be more ideal right?

"One Line Robert"
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, looks like the 100/45 is your best bet, if your fit coordinates are solid. If you think you might ever want to go lower, then the 100/10 could be better for you.



TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your pad coordinates don't intersect in the 60/45 box, so that's out (as an optimum choice). Nick nailed it. If you feel strongly about your basebar stack, you can use that as a decision-maker between the 100/10 and 100/45 too...the latter likely being a little more comfortable for extended periods of time (higher + closer).


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The other significant difference in the June 2009 setup was the bar system. It was driven by the need to use the team-only minimally adjustable bar with that early iteration of the SC, so all bikes had it. In later testing it compared very favorably with the new bar system. Bar (pads) position was almost identical (i.e. similar stem and spacer combos to what was used on the March 2010 runs). Derailleurs were in place and saddle height was slightly lower for the June 2009 runs as well.


Carl

Carl Matson
Last edited by: Carl: Jun 3, 10 3:58
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks! Yes my Quarq uses the GXP BB.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh, and just in case anyone is wondering what the 100/10 stem looks like ... I'll be posting some more of these in a day or two. Check the front page on Sunday or Monday.





TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The other significant difference in the June 2009 setup was the bar system. It was driven by the need to use the team-only minimally adjustable bar with that early iteration of the SC, so all bikes had it. In later testing it compared very favorably with the new bar system. Bar (pads) position was almost identical (i.e. similar stem and spacer combos to what was used on the March 2010 runs).

Thanks. What were the differences in the bars on the comparison bikes, if any? The March 2010 notes say that it was a RXL Bullhorn and RXXXL ski extensions. What was used in June 2009?


In Reply To:
Derailleurs were in place and saddle height was slightly lower for the June 2009 runs as well.

Does that mean there were no derailleurs in place on the March 2010 runs? Does that mean no chain as well...or was it like shown in the "Manny" pics on p.14? (Oh wait...I see in the appendix that at chain tensioner was used in place of the front derailleur.)

I also noticed in the "Manny" pics that there were no aero extensions and it looks like Manny's elbows were just zip-tied to the pads. Was this done on all the bikes when doing the Manny testing (i.e. the extensions removed?)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
The other significant difference in the June 2009 setup was the bar system. It was driven by the need to use the team-only minimally adjustable bar with that early iteration of the SC, so all bikes had it. In later testing it compared very favorably with the new bar system. Bar (pads) position was almost identical (i.e. similar stem and spacer combos to what was used on the March 2010 runs).


Thanks. What were the differences in the bars on the comparison bikes, if any? The March 2010 notes say that it was a RXL Bullhorn and RXXXL ski extensions. What was used in June 2009?

as highlighted above, with RXXXL extensions.

In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Derailleurs were in place and saddle height was slightly lower for the June 2009 runs as well.


Does that mean there were no derailleurs in place on the March 2010 runs? Does that mean no chain as well...or was it like shown in the "Manny" pics on p.14? (Oh wait...I see in the appendix that at chain tensioner was used in place of the front derailleur.)

I also noticed in the "Manny" pics that there were no aero extensions and it looks like Manny's elbows were just zip-tied to the pads. Was this done on all the bikes when doing the Manny testing (i.e. the extensions removed?)


Correct. For simplicity of Manny's installation. For bike-only runs the extensions were present.

Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Got it...thanks again.



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply

Prev Next