Unfortunately the sweet spot is different for everyone :(

That said, would love to know as well.

That much is true, especially considering I ride 7.5cm of setback. saddle height is 74cm and pad stack is 59.5 which was no faster for me than going lower (including lowering both the saddle and pads).

That would probably be me. I never tested aero-or-die in the tunnel. But I did a heck of a lot of field-testing.

I am en-route to the Wind Tunnel in Arizona right now. Unfortunately, I didn't get the hoped-for set of the MORF bars to test in time. [Frank: it's not too late to send them to Faster by Monday morning ;-)).

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

Oh damn! Had I known I would have taken them off at A2 and shipped them out :/

not really a head scratcher a the base bar portion is not aero and the linkages are not going to help at all. while the concept may be good, it need a lot more refinement to be truly aero. just a matter of how much you want to give up for morphing

without knowing more about your training, but knowing that you are just now starting to train with power in a structured way, I would expect much bigger gains than 0.1W/kg per year if you are starting from 3.4W/kg and putting in decent hours. You are in my AG though so by all means progress more slowly!

He's been training for 6 years. You really have no idea what someone is capable of. And he is doing short course.

Twice starting from scratch (almost) I got nearly all my FTP in less than 6 months (at 27 years old and 44 years old). Longer distances seem to benefit from a longer training period.

Which part of "without knowing more about your training" was unclear? He admits spotty training and his FTP is frankly pretty low for a guy his size. He may be a genetic outlier but I would be very surprised if he can't boost his w/kg substantially if he puts in good volume and priperly structured training. Most people benefit from years of steady consistent training, and I doubt there are people really putting in the work who top out at 3.4W/kg (plenty of threads already on this about the theoretical limitation of every Joe schmoe and if I recall it was a lot closer to 4). To achieve ones peak FTP in 6months makes you a genetic freak, and of course there was more to be had if you had kept pushing beyond those six months, which you didn't.

It shows that it's a design in need of refinement.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

*Average* was close to 4 for someone who did everything to maximize their potential. Believe it or not, a lot of people are below average. And 4 is theoretical and IMO too high. Most people with no athletic aptitude never bother trying so they aren't included in the data set.

I didn't keep pushing beyond 6 months? Where on earth did you get that idea? The first time I raced (road not tris) for 7 years, and I'm currently 12 years past my "comeback".

I'd agree with this. It took me 8-9 years to the point where I reach my best FTP. Training consistently the whole time.

I think the mathematical models that are the basis of CTL, TSB, etc, can sometimes give too strong an impression that the body responds like a mathematical model. But sometimes it doesn't. It can respond in fits and starts. And plateaus. Sometimes you need to shock the system. Sometimes you need to back off for a while. It's not nearly as scientific as we'd like to think (in my opinion).

But I totally agree that there are rewards for those who approach it with dogged consistency. I'd call peak FTP in 6 months pure BS, except maybe for a long-time competitive cyclist who's fit year found , has reached "peak FTP" in the past, and just needs a targetted block to get the last 0.25 W/kg.

Actually the great majority was in only ~3 months, but there was still some noticeable progression for another few. I wasn't in terrible shape when I started. Wasn't fat and I'd played basketball in school so had some aerobic background. Gains in those first few months were huge (>50%). I tested at least once a week and was significantly better every time.

Don't think it's that freaky. Had a pro roady and coach (of a pro team) tell me it was not unusual.

I'd say it's not that there's anything unscientific about it, we simply don't understand the mechanisms as well as we'd like to think. I'm sure there's nothing magical happening, we just don't have a way to analyse/quantify lots of the factors as yet.

The PMC is based upon Banister's impulse-response model, with the latter (and hence the former) being purely descriptive in nature. In fact, not only is knowledge about mechanisms not incorporated into the modeling, the time constants are inconsistent with what we know about physiological adaptation (a point I made in my original article).

That said, both approaches can be helpful in figuring out when to train, which is really what they are designed to do. Guidelines also exist for CTL, so the PMC can also help you figure out how much to train (or you can just use CTL as a measuring stick and figure it out by trial-and-error). What neither set of equations tells you, though, is how to train...which is rather ironic, because that is arguably the most important question of all.

EDIT: And how the heck did we end up discussing mathematical modeling of training in a thread that is supposed to be about aero testing? :)

Good point.

Back to the topic at hand: Regardless of the specific results obtained for the MORF bar here, I remain very interested. I'm not entirely convinced by the testing GreenPeace managed to get done for the MORF. It's a good start but I think more sample points, repeatability checking and more configurations will be needed to get really solid idea of where it stands in it's current format.
For one thing, the absence of brake levers from the Tririg bar makes it an unequal test even though the impact can be expected to be relatively minor.
Nevertheless, my interest in the bar is not limited to it being the fastest option but also it's potential to perhaps be the simplest, safest and most intuitive to use.

First, a note about the MORF Tech bar I tested: it actually *did* have an aero profile on the base bar section. Not that that matters when it's in the aero position but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

I totally agree my test was just one data point and that much more testing is needed. That said, my data point is a head-scratcher. It doesn't line up with the guys who have tested "aero or die" setups which are basically identical to the MORF in the aero position. My best guess at this point is the stem and the area to the left/right of the stem mount.

To clarify regarding my (small) engine and structured training, this is not my first year training racing with power (fourth year?) but rather it's my first year with a truly comprehensive structure. E.g. in the past I never really considered what sort of an impact running had on my cycling and vice-versa. The result was that I would frequently train myself right into a hole.

morf...it might matter if that made it wide in front of your arms, ie 31.8 at stem, does it get less deep as it heads toward the brakes/hand location? compare whatever that is to a standard 22.2 as the first item hitting the wind. yes I know your arms are behind it

I don't suppose you have any close ups of the 2 bar configurations Alpha/MORF for comparison?
It would be good to see a close up of the MORF bar in the aero position, including the pads and stem. Perhaps there was one in the main MORF thread, I'll go back and have a look later.

Incidentally, I just realised my post may have come across as a criticism of your testing. Be assured it wasn't meant that way! I really appreciate the testing and the write-up you've provided here. It's very well done and useful information to have.
I expect it would have been unrealistic to try and produce a more comprehensive set of data for the MORF given the time available.
Thanks!

Yeah, the profile extends just beyond a standard 22.2... if I had to guess without measuring I'd say it's 25-26mm. I won't rule it out as a source of drag but there's a really big delta to account for: "aero or die" is supposedly 5-10 watts faster than a normal basebar and the MORF bar tested 0-8 watts slower at zero yaw (iirc). Something has to account for 5-18 watts of drag. That's a lot of drag. Maybe mine was just a bad test or there's some weird voodoo with how air flows over me. In any event, further testing is needed.

well for one, your head being lower in the non-morf test will have something to do with it

I've got it packed up to go back to Frank along with my Alpha X and some unused BTA systems :/ Maybe he can take some photos. I left the stem used for testing attached. Yeah, I pretty much just ran out of time and even though more time was offered to me I didn't think I'd be able to hold position well since my rotator cuffs were killing me from the position the Alpha X and MORF had me in. I'd imagine the MORF bar will see the wind tunnel a few more times in the near future and I'll certainly field test it as well.

I'm just talking about the delta between the MORF and the Alpha X, not the MORF and my position on my Speed Concept. I made that clear in the OP that the positions were different and there was no drag comparison between the two. The positions between the MORF and the Alpha X are as close as we could possibly get them. The photos are misleading because the photo of me on the Alpha X was taken at yaw. If you want I'll post all the photos I have from the MORF Alpha X test but it won't be until tonight... I friggin hate TinyPic.

Wait... can we seriously upload photos directly to ST and embed them inline now?!

Yup, but they have to be < 250kb.

---

Strava

they should both be while pedaling as well

So to achieve your Mantis like position you simply flipped some J bend aerobars? How did they feel with your elbows right into the pad? I am on a Felt IA so cant bend the actual pad at any angle

---

Professional Triathlete and Professional Orchestral Musician. Bikes, Bass, Beer.