I heard a mall story that Jurgen Zack had a beam mounting hardware failure that caused him to abandon a race- any information on this?


Sarcasm on:

Nah, that wasn't a hardware "failure". A competitor or spectator "manipulated" his bike at IMRoth a couple of years back.

Sarcasm off.

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

Is anyone surprised by the results?[/reply]I am - not necessarily by the direction of the difference, but certainly by the magnitude.


I agree. The data I've see thoughout the years seemed to suggest that the Softride (non UCI legal) was more aero than most double diamond frames.

The big surprise to me is the Blade, a bike that I would not put in the same category of the P3 (although, I will say that litespeed has significantly improved the design of the Blade over the years).

However, I see a few things that may indicate a certain skew toward the sponsors of the study. As such, sensational headlines always lowers the credibility of such a study.

- drag data (6.8 to 7.6 lbs) are characteristic of a very average to borderline mediocre rider position. I would venture that bad rider positioning would favour the Softride (with its absence of down tube). This suggests that they may have optimized the rider position on the Softride and kept the same position on the other bikes, putting them at a disadvantage.

- the use of a rear disc, again I think would favour the Softride. It is reasonable to believe that the other bikes would comparatively do better with a spoked wheel because of the fairing afforded by the down tube.

- why the hell would they give us composite drag values ? Give us all the data and let us judge for ourselves.

I am not suggesting that Softride is not the fastest bike or that they lie. But when the only thing you see from tunnel testing is a marketing press communique, you can bet that the numbers shown are maximally skewed toward their own purpose.

Show all results, describe and justify the testing protocols. Then we can talk.

Francois

Ride one!
Besides they look like they wouldn't be stiff, but that's not so. Fairly stiff frame with not stiff seatpost (beam). Everyone is perseverating about carbon vs various metal seat posts to reduce vibration, etc.--a non-issue here.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

I'd like to see a Titan Flex, and other non-seat-tubed bikes in these tests...then, maybe it would become more apparent if it is the abscence of the seat-tube, or the shape of the other parts of the frame, that make more of a difference in the respective numbers.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

"However, I see a few things that may indicate a certain skew toward the sponsors of the study. As such, sensational headlines always lowers the credibility of such a study. "

I don't see where the press release says who the sponsor was.

Is it just me or does the P3 appear to have about 4 inches of spacers on the fork? On my P2K that many spacers would put me in just about as aerodynamic a position as I'm in on my mountain bike. Just a thought.

Chris

save the pic to your HD, open it and use the zoom button...

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

I don't see where the press release says who the sponsor was.

This was implicitely discussed (if I remember correctly) in a previous thread, by someone at Softride, that they were sponsoring this study.

Francois in Montreal

And people ask me why I don't get the studies done to "prove" the PC's work. simply because, if I fund the study, then the sarcasm begins that the study is skewed and flawed and biased and everything else. People want to believe their biases and will do so if there is a "good" reason to discount data.

While no study is perfect, each can be a basis for further study should one want to confirm the results (always a good idea, especially when the results are "surprising") or do further testing to try to elucidate the reason for the results like including other beam bikes in future studies.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Even if an softride bias is expected by critical consumers. I still found the differences between Cervelo, Litespeed and Trek interesting. 31 sek penalty for lance seems quite surprising.

Torsten

And people ask me why I don't get the studies done to "prove" the PC's work. simply because, if I fund the study, then the sarcasm begins that the study is skewed and flawed and biased and everything else. People want to believe their biases and will do so if there is a "good" reason to discount data.

That may not be entirely accurate. Although the absence of bias will always be hard to prove when someone with a financial interest funds a study, there are ways it can be done properly.

Have someone independent (who will not be doing the tests) design the testing protocol. By independant, I mean someone in academia that understands exercise physiology, and, ideally, someone skeptical about your product. Have another independant person review the protocol and suggest improvements. Have someone (with similar credential) perform the testing. Make it part of the contract that there will be no interaction between you and the person responsible for the testing during the entire duration of the study. ALL results will be made available to the public, in the same form and at the same time it will be made available to you. No restriction for scientific publication. It should also be specified in the contract that any publicity mentioning the study should also includes a link to the web site containing ALL results.

This would work for me.

Francois in Montreal

Hello,

That's one of the problems with studying something so complex. Lance's bike is tested with three things in mind A) Lances preferred position and B) Lances on the bike, and C) Lances preferred equipment.

It highly likely (or at least possible) that the trek would be best with those thing in mind.

Styrrell

I've owned various Softride bikes over the years and currently have 3 Softrides (one road, one TT and one MTB) and a Kestrel Talon SL. I've also owned and ridden many miles on a Specialized and Trek. They are superior bikes.



I cannot understand why so many people have it out for them. They fit a niche and if they work for you they are the BEST.

It might work for you but it won't work for many of the skeptics.

I myself could design a good, unbiased, study for whatever good it would do. The key to a good study is the study design, not who funds it.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

drag force = coefficient of drag x (velocity) squared x area x air density / (2 x gc)

you bet your bippy the velocity at which the tests are conducted makes a difference. its not linear at all....as you see above the drag increases as the square of the velocity, therefore at 30 mph its 2.25 greater than at 20...hence, the only person this makes a difference to is bjorn :) if they tested at 20 mph, the results would be a lot closer.

disclaimer : i have a softride and love it but it still weighs 25 lbs and going up hills is a pain.

speed makes a difference, but it wouldn't change the order of the results. Also the slower the speed the more the time differential would be for the same length course.

Styrrell

i agree, the order wouldnt change.

on your second point im not sure i understand completely. if the effect of drag from 30mph to 20mph decreases by a factor of 2.25, all else being equal (riders, power, bla, bla), the effect of drag is less which means the time gap should be closer....i think...gotta think this one out...

could you elaborate on that, im guessing im missing something...

Reason that 30mph is used so much is that is often the slowest speed that the "low speed" wind tunnels can go down to and still produce accurate data. (air being moved by a big propellor). Air moves pretty much the same at 25mph so the same data would still hold true.

This study has a lot of holes, assuming that the position of the rider is kept the same on all bikes, all you can assume is that for this rider, in this position that the softride works better in this windtunnel aerodynamically speaking.

I would want to see a lot of different data collection done on different riders before I would rush out and buy a softride. I actually switched from a slingshot tri to a power-V in the mid 90's, and didnt really notice my bike splits dropping at all. There are just too many other variables.

The reason that thier would be a greater time differential at lower speeds is because you are riding for a longer time. At 30 mph it takes an hour to go 30 miles, at 15 mph it takes 2 hours. So the time differential for the slower riders is greater.



Styrrell

Hey lars do you work for or voultnteer for softride any compnay doing any buisness with softride?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I thought that was a minimum for being on this forum? NO?

This post goes out to all of the skeptics out there regarding the wind tunnel test.

For the record, I was there. I was there for Softride as a photographer and I represented Triathlete Magazine as well. There were also other industry folks there. People from a wetsuit company (I'm not going to mention names here), a very well recognized wetsuit company, people from a company that produces bike components, and a company that produces sports nutrition. It was not only Softride. They made sure other industry (non biased) people were present when this test went down. Not only did they have those people on hand, but the test was conducted by the University of Washington Aeronautical Laboratory staff and students. What do they know about the "triathlon industry"? Uh, NOTHING. They are students and staff that don't know Trek from Huffy..... Biased? Doubt it.

I was there and I consider myself a very ethical person. There was no hanky panky going on. I wouldn't be a part of it.

I just wanted to throw that out there. I'm sure some of you out there will tear me up, but I couldn't care less.

Troy Morgan
Blue Designs Inc.
[web] http://www.bluedesignsinc.com
[web] http://www.triathletemag.com

How about 30kph?

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra

Damn Troy baby relax. We aren't going to tear you apart we are just going to act like a photo on a website is all you need to measure things companies pay big bucks to find out.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

25 lb. I'd better weight mine. I know it's heavier than alot of others, but that sounds high. Besides, how much difference does that really make. That would make it only 2.5-3% higher, including rider, than most lighter bikes. I'm told that LeMond's bikes were considerably heavier than most of the other bikes when he won his TDF's.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.