So the V frame was the no top tube machine, right?

But...what was the X frame? Are there pictures floating around anywhere?

Chris

hey, thanks for posting that info. I realize I'm probably the only one who actually cares about those bikes...

I plan on doing some velodrome field testing on the GT versus the P3C. It'll be complicated by the fact that I can't use the same front wheel, but it should be interesting nonetheless.

Correct.


Actually, I should have said "Z" frame (and have edited my original post). There are pics of it in one or more old Cycling Science issues/articles, but it looked a lot like a Lotus (i.e., no downtube), except that it had thin seat stays (a lot like the P4's, as a matter of fact).

De nada.


My prediction is that that won't tell you what you really need to know. ;-)

In one of your other posts you mentioned a zipp 2001 was tested at project 96. Is that one of the frames listed here and I'm just not familiar with the labels?

EDIT: Thanks for posting this! I bothered you for it in the other thread.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

According to Jim Martin (who worked on Project 96), a Zipp was tested. However, it must have been on a different occasion, as it's not listed in the spreadsheet that I have.

well, maybe--maybe not... 2 things to keep in mind: 1) excluding one TT, the yaw ranges I race in are typically 3-6 degrees (it's just not that windy here, and for some reason, the few 'windy' courses I do are headwind/tailwind affairs. The 'drome should simulate that just fine. 2) I've convinced myself that I'm slower on the P3C due to the big-a$$ top tube which hits my knees and forces me to pedal differently. I bet the difference between the 2 bikes will be significant enough to detect.

Then again, maybe I'll just duck my head more on the GT so I can get rid of my Cervelo......

You mean the average yaw angle, right? ;-)

well, yeah--but honestly, I think the peak yaw I'll see on a track isn't too far off from what I typically see in TT's.

soo.....when do those frames start stalling in the tunnel? 15-20 degrees or so?

Nope - me too! "Project 96" was detailed in some small and obscure cycling magazine that I read one day while working in a bike shop during high school. In it, they detailed the process for fabricating the frames and provided insight as to how they were testing the machines. That article - which is laminated and sits on my desk to this day - is why I chose to specialize in composites while doing my aerospace and mechanical engineering degrees.

Hearing A.C. bring it up again today with all the hubbub around the P4 has certainly brought back some good memories!

So we're back to the facts - you have no data that states a Zipp does not provide an advantage over traditional designs?

Chris

Are you asking him to prove a negative? ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. I know what the frame does for me, and that is the important part. My interest is in what facts are known from other methods of testing, and not hearsay from someone who thinks they saw something on a chart one time.

Chris

You must have some tiny hips! I have trouble keeping my legs in close enough....

Is this the bicycle?

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Which pedal angle gave the greatest drag? I'm guessing that it was with cranks horizontal?

Also, did the bike have a disk rear?

I can tell you're a fellow 2001 rider! hello brother!

I don't think the data is out there. What i'm guessing is that somebody threw a 2001 in the tunnel to see how it did and never recorded it. Perhaps they didn't use a disc when they did the test, and "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy" that these frames test much better with a disc in the back. Perhaps they were wearing a sweatshirt when they had it in there. I digress...

What is needed is a direct (head-to-head) comparison of beam bikes (2001, fasTT, TitanFlex, whatever) with a P3C sporting the same equipment/rider/position.

Until that happens (and it won't as no company has incentive to 'double check' that their brand new frame is faster than technology that is 11 years old) the cervelo fans will simply assume that their $5000 frame is faster than my $500 frame.

What surprises me is that ST posters who are usually such sticklers for data don't give a crap about the lack of it and just go on what they've heard. See what happened to the tubular fans who did this for years?

Bottom line...race what you think makes you fastest. For me (and I assume you) that's the 2001. Ride it like you stole it!

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

I am a Zipp 2001 rider, you are correct. I just got back from my 3 times/week mid afternoon solo time trial on that very machine, and enjoyed every moment of it. That bike is an absolute joy to ride. I keep it cranked down with no "suspension" to speak of, but it still takes the edge off much better than anything else I've ridden without that 'this beam is moving, I must be losing power' feeling that I get with my Softride sometimes.

In almost all of my testing, the Zipp is faster than my Softride Rocket TT. I don't have a FasTT to test against, but I would very much like to take a look at that as well, since they went to the mono stay design and improved the lines in a few other places. I still feel like the dip in front of the rear wheel was a poor decision though, I don't understand that at all.

Chris

The hooker had a 650 front and 700 rear like the TT bike didn't it?

Mine did - Kyle's actually had a 24" front disk.

1. Have to get back to you...left my laptop at home today.

2. Yes.

Possibly...but possibly not. IOW, I think it would depend on the specific conditions under which you TT.


From what I've seen, much lower than that, at least w/o a rider.

Oh, a Zipp 2001 definitely was tested (both w/ and w/o a rear disk) - in fact, Jim got kicked off of Project 96 for imprudently suggesting that rather than spend a bunch of time and $$ developing Kyle's prototypes into ridable bikes, it would simpler and easier to just buy a bunch of Zipp 2001s and rebadge them as GTs. I just don't have the data to share...

No, that's clearly an 'X' frame. ;-)