I'm interested to hear if anyone has feedback with regard to improvements now that Paul Lew is involved...

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

I'm going there Monday. I'll let you know....

---

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

I went last year and they had made many changes and updates since they first opened. I tested a lot of small stuff, like gloves, with pretty good results. Their price per hour was also pretty reasonable.

Too bad there isn't a wind tunnel standard for tunnel accuracy. Knowing what sort of standard deviation you could expect from a drag measurement would be helpful, though much of the repeatability depends on your ability to hold a consistent position.

(i've never been, but have been to A2 quite a bit)

the main issues i've heard about are the tunnel construction. it's too small.

but, if the point in testing is figure out changes relative to your context, then perhaps it doesn't really matter.

I had heard different rumors that the initial problems were related to instrumentation and software. Talking with Aaron, who may or may not still be their, he said that they had done a lot of revision from the original setup.

While the tunnel isn't as big as the one Specialized built or LSWT, I would be surprised if it was too small. The length seems adequate to ensure smooth airflow and the area around the splitter plate seems large enough to avoid issues with boundary layer/rider interactions. My CdA numbers were in line with what I found using the Chung method,

For me the nice thing about the Faster tunnel is the price was pretty reasonable and getting there was fairly easy. Lots of cheap flights into Phoenix.

Last year, I arrange a group who took over the Tunnel for two days. We tested a ton. I was a little concerned based on some post by people here, most who had never been there. I was critical with the data that we received and after reviewing 12 hours of data I believe it to be consistent and low in error or inaccuracies. Most important was the staff and assistant, treated us like Kings and shared tons of knowledge that allowed us to get faster.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

the skepticism comes from some of the public data to come out of that facility. some of it looks like it came from another dimension

I think that was main concern...but Damon has posted here regarding the construction of the tunnel itself. Maybe I'm reading into his posts too much (very possible).

But really, is the discounted pricing "worth" any question you may have over the validity of the results? Charlotte or RDU is pretty cheap to fly into as well (although likely not as cheap as Sky Harbor). I guess it depends on how anal and/or how much disposable money you have.

How long is the wake behind a cyclist?
How long is the expansion section behind the test section?

Failing to let the wake fully develop downstream of the rider has unknown effects on the flow upstream in the test section. So the flow may or may not be consistent, and may or may not represent reality.

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

To avoid excessive blockage effects, the rule-of-thumb is to not test objects that occupy more than ~5% of the tunnel cross-sectional. Cyclists have a frontal area of up to ~0.5 m^2, which means the tunnel should really be at least 10 m^2. Many of those used for testing cyclists are of course are not that big, but it does illustrate the issue.

It's definitely "too small" compared to standard wind tunnel practice. They may have solved some other problems they've had, but that one isn't easy to fix. There is a reason why wind tunnels are typically massive and expensive.

What are its dimensions?

It is an open tunnel, so The cross-sectional area where the balance/splitter plate is located is much larger than the closed tunnel section. From memory I would guess that the closed section has a cross sectional area of roughly 80ft^2. The length and size of the wake area could possibly be an issue because the "entrance" of the tunnel has it's 90 degree turn fairly soon after the trailing edge of the back wheel. The "exit" of the closed tunnel looks to be roughly the same size as the Mercedes tunnel that Drag2Zero uses, so I wouldn't think that is an issue.

Whether this tunnel is more or less accurate than other tunnels is probably unknowable without looking at their raw data and testing with known shapes (I.e., CdA of a flat plate). I would think what is important for an individual athlete is whether the results are precise enough to determine if "minor" changes lead to increases or decreases in drag. I tested a bunch of clothing, helmet, glove, shoe and position options. Most of the time, things I thought would be faster ended up reducing drag. Some things didn't work out.

Overall the benefit to me was that the size of the changes in CdA were smaller than what I have been able to measure with the VE/Chung method. I still haven't found a good enough half-pipe and I am probably not meticulous enough to get really good estimates using Golden Cheetah.

I was in testing last Tuesday and again tomorrow. Aaron is still there working along with Jake Grantham doing the fits. Jake has been my fitter for a number of years. Another local friend who is an engineer, Chris Driver, has been working with them since the new management team took over to correct problems with the initial tunnel design and software. From what he has said they have it very well dialed in now. I'm very much enjoying the experience and will report back after my last few runs tomorrow. I've been testing helmets and position.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

This will give you an idea:



The small size, short entrance and exit regions, sharp bends, and abrupt changes in area look suspicious to me.

Compare to the Specialized tunnel:

Hmmm. They're quite different, aren't they?

I prefer the Specialized one. I've been there a few times.

---

Robert Driskell
Certified Master Body Geometry fit Technician
Certified Master Retul Fit Technician
Zipp Service Course Specialist
Bikes Plus Pensacola Florida

When I was there, I happen to see their scheduling book. I saw three larger companies known for their aero products were coming in for testing. The fact is that some pretty smart engineers who make great products are using them on static testing says something.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

The UNH cycling team was there last week as well as the guys from Ventum and some of their athletes including Leanda.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

   
I just got back from a trip there. I only have an experience from 10+ years ago at the San Diego LSWT to compare to, So take it for what it's worth.

It was much more cycling-centric than LSWT. Aaron is a real cyclist, with real fitting expertise. We went through lots of fit options, carefully considering the implications on power output, comfort, etc -- not just drag. At LSWT, it was more like "well we could try this and you might lower your drag." Kraig W was the only real cyclist there at the time, and I don't think that it was his responsibility to offer fitting-type advice. Maybe that's changed.

At LSWT, we did several non-pedaling runs, which I question the validity of in retrospect. The Faster method was to pedal everything at tempo power or above. It makes sense to test positions &etc as you actually ride them. I have to think that skinsuits, helmets, etc, comparisons are also going to be more valid in the real-world context of swirling legs and a core and head that's bobbing and twisting while you try to push out real power.

The tunnel definitely doesn't look as high-tech as the LSWT or some of the others, e.g. it's not fully enclosed. It's a little weird to be able to see other parts of the shop around the sides. So yeah I suppose it might be less accurate. HOWEVER, consider that the variability in the rider's body position during a run is likely to overshadow even significant imprecision of the test equipment. Why focus on tiny milligram differences when the rider is making movements that amount to mult-grams? Faster's vastly lower cost allows you to do a lot more/longer trials, which should help overcome the rider variability.

---

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

Yeah, I couldn't agree amore. I just got back from my 2nd runs and Aaron and Jake were terrific. Aaron spent the time to get my feedback, make suggestions and corrections, test again to see the results.I very much felt that he was taking the time to get me right as opposed to watching the clock, if anything we went over my hour time. We reviewed the results and he is going to send me all the data. He has a great eye for seeing the smallest deviation of form and could illustrate that with the data. All in I saved 8 watts over my initial base line position, almost 2min over 56 miles, and feel more relaxed and comfortable in a faster position. For the cost, I think this is a no brainer.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

I think most tunnels that now cater to cyclists have you pedal during the runs, and typically there's someone around who's knowledgeable about fit and equipment.

That is, the proper comparison isn't Faster today with the SDLSWT a decade ago. The right comparison is Faster today with some other testing facility today.

Well, closer to 1 minute than 2 minutes.

This discussion - at times - sounds like the ones where advocates of left-side only power measurement and it being "good enough" argue with "dual sided" power measurement advocates.

You don't know what you don't know.

(this is a general "you" and not a specific one and could include myself)

 
Yeah, I forgot to underscore the iterative nature of the process. We did an "old position" baseline, made some changes; tried that in the tunnel; made some more; tested again, etc.

At the LSWT, the clock started ticking. You had better know what you're going to do, in order. Because it doesn't stop ticking. Somebody was scheduled to go right after me, starting on the hour. So no wiggle room. I guess that's OK if you have John Cobb with you to tell you exactly what to do. Otherwise, the Faster method definitely works better.

---

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