Excellent work Tom!
Here's a related quiz to test out everyone's "eyeball wind tunnel" capabilities in regards to "Chunging it" with two different framesets:
Off the top of your head: if the "Chung method" estimate for the CdA of this rider/bike combo is around 0.270-0.275 (based on multiple TTs)...
http://www.hcphoto.smugmug.com/...2858355_aZDzn/Medium
...what would you estimate as the CdA for this rider/bike combo? http://www.hcphoto.smugmug.com/...4318610_i69ri/Medium
In the interest of full disclosure, here are the only equipment/kit differences between the two:
1) Bento box behind the stem in photo #1 (according to the MIT interview, should provide some significant aero savings)
2) Shoe covers in photo #1 (according to most sources: small, but measurable aero savings)
3) Rider weight around 2-3 lbs. less in photo #2 (yeah, I know the riders calf looks weirdly large in photo #1, but I think that is an optical illusion - it hasn't changed in size)
4) Different aerobar extensions (same S-bend shape though)
6) Different saddle
6) Different sunglasses
7) Different frameset (2005/6 Motobecane Nemesis (same frameset as the Fuji Aloha 1.0) vs. 2005 Cervelo P3SL
Everything else equipment-wise is the same (including components) down to the tubes/tires and tape on the valve holes. Total bike weights are within 0.5 lbs of each other.
As you can see, the rider's body position is VERY similar in the two photos. I could give you the measurements, but there are only very minor differences. Based on testing, I don't believe any of these to be aerodynamically significant.
I'll wait until I get some guesses about the CdA difference, and then reveal the answer...
Thanks for playing!
Rik
Here's a related quiz to test out everyone's "eyeball wind tunnel" capabilities in regards to "Chunging it" with two different framesets:
Off the top of your head: if the "Chung method" estimate for the CdA of this rider/bike combo is around 0.270-0.275 (based on multiple TTs)...
http://www.hcphoto.smugmug.com/...2858355_aZDzn/Medium
...what would you estimate as the CdA for this rider/bike combo? http://www.hcphoto.smugmug.com/...4318610_i69ri/Medium
In the interest of full disclosure, here are the only equipment/kit differences between the two:
1) Bento box behind the stem in photo #1 (according to the MIT interview, should provide some significant aero savings)
2) Shoe covers in photo #1 (according to most sources: small, but measurable aero savings)
3) Rider weight around 2-3 lbs. less in photo #2 (yeah, I know the riders calf looks weirdly large in photo #1, but I think that is an optical illusion - it hasn't changed in size)
4) Different aerobar extensions (same S-bend shape though)
6) Different saddle
6) Different sunglasses
7) Different frameset (2005/6 Motobecane Nemesis (same frameset as the Fuji Aloha 1.0) vs. 2005 Cervelo P3SL
Everything else equipment-wise is the same (including components) down to the tubes/tires and tape on the valve holes. Total bike weights are within 0.5 lbs of each other.
As you can see, the rider's body position is VERY similar in the two photos. I could give you the measurements, but there are only very minor differences. Based on testing, I don't believe any of these to be aerodynamically significant.
I'll wait until I get some guesses about the CdA difference, and then reveal the answer...
Thanks for playing!
Rik