Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Exactly. the 25.5mm width is a big part of why the frontal area is so minimal, which is also part of why the bike is fast. So again, it's about frontal area, not surface area.

Yes, you can have them. :)


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | I work @ Zwift

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
frontal area is much more dominant for aerodynamics. An increase in surface area is not inherently bad at all. Consider this bike, which you may have heard of:
<pic snipped>
that thing looks looks like a fat pig with those wide base bars, wide ass cranks, ugly brakes....

deep in it's heart it wants to look like this:






g


greg
www.wattagetraining.com
Last edited by: gregclimbs: Dec 24, 07 0:21
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Does Greg ever descend as well?
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]frontal area is much more dominant for aerodynamics. An increase in surface area is not inherently bad at all. [/reply]

Bigger frontal area tends to result in pressure drag due to separation, surface area results in surface drag. While pressure drag is around 10x worse than surface drag, it's still an issue.
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [starless] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's funny...

Gregclimbs is a bit of a misnomer and a joke all at once. I climb like a brick and descend like one as well...

G


greg
www.wattagetraining.com
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A great deal of bikes are desgined, or should I say styled, to look fast. Anyone with any kind of aerodynamic knowledge can spot the bikes designed by an industrial designer, as opposed to an engineer with knowledge of aerodynamics. The geometries are far from "clean" with styling features that quite frankly disturb the airflow and increase the drag rather than reduce it. If you look at an F1 car, where downforce is the main driver behind aerodynamic design, not drag, there are many external aerodynamic devices with a great deal of complex interactions between them and the rest of the car. I feel many, not all, bike manufacturers style their bikes with F1 cars in mind with the idea that it must look fast or revolutionary to sell. There are detailed interactions between the various parts of the bike and rider but at the end of the day a clean bike is a fast bike.

Some manufacturers make all kinds of exhorbitant claims about how much time they spent in the wind tunnel and on CFD analsysis . They'll publish "non-partisan" comparisons against other bikes where miraculously their bike ends up being the fastest. This has become a marketing battle without quality engineering to back it up. As a racer, with a degree in aeronautical engineering , over 15 years of experience in aerodynamics ,including wind tunnel testing and CFD, this devalues the work that some bike companies truely put in. I'm not a bike company employee with any particular affiliation, but if you look at the bikes each one produces you can tell which companies genuinely use the engineering tools they claim and those who just market themselves as using them. Wind tunnel testing and CFD is expensive, a stylized design and some marketing spin is a lot cheaper.
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [nocalclimber] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
By your highly trained eye, what bike frames do you consider to be the fastest aero wise??

Your top 5 list would be nice :-)

Shane D
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [nocalclimber] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is probably the most accurate post on this subject I have ever read and I definetly agree.




One of my favorite modern examples was the new Pinarello design shown in the UK's cycling weekly. When asked if it had been taken to the tunnel they replied 'that they didn't need to as they obtained the aero design knowledge off their previous designs'. the cycling reporter stated in his appraisal that ' going by their previous results they're obviously right in this policy'. With this king of of ignorance, it's no wonder we have half the dross on the market we do.

------------------------------------------------------------
"In God we trust but for everyone else, bring data".
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [Shane D] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Shane,

Hey, I thought my comments would be dismissed as the rantings of an engineering snob. You know I thought about this and I cant come up with 5 current production frames (from different manufacturers)where I think knowledgeable aerodynamic design was actually employed in the up front design process (as opposed to after the fact benchmarks and the like). The fact that I only genuinely believe one manufacturers claims (aside from the work the University of Sheffield did on the British Cycling track bike) regarding the level of engineering in their products would also make me appear bias.

Cheers
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [nocalclimber] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
With your aerodynamic experience, can you perhaps explain the double standard of Trek's when it comes to LeMond and their Aeolus wheels? They claim the 'trip strip' on the forks of LeMond tri bikes reduces overall drag by reducing surface contact with the air and virtually creating a larger airfoil shape. When comparing their wheels to Zipp, however, the 'larger airfoil' then becomes a 'low pressure wake' on the trailing edge of the rim (out in front of the bike) and increases aero drag. So...err...which way is it?

And can you at least affirm (and thereby commit ST heresy) that proper rider positioning on even the most aerodynamically deaf and dumb --well, not the MOST, but one that's poor...say, a tri on a Cannondale SystemSix-- is going to be more beneficial than riding on the sleekest bike with an aerodynamically useless position?
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very interesting bike set up you have there.

Looks like you took the minimalist approach with no basebar and no pedals.

I ride with a guy who races with only one aerobar extension. He is an interesting character.



Team Endurance Nation
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [QuintanaRooster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting, yes. That, and they both probably share the same destiny of crashing...Badly.
Last edited by: Deus ex Machina: Jan 17, 08 7:32
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [Deus ex Machina] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow, you make a lot of assumptions (about me, my abilities, the bike's difficulty in turning without a basebar, etc.)

The reality is, I rode this position/setup for a whole season of racing and training before committing to it (search my old posts for more info on my "hot swap" setup.

I had one close call last year on a training ride where a car cut me off (left turn in front of me) that the setup worked fine and the outcome wouldn't have been any different with full bars - I avoided the car.

G

p.s. The lack of pedals was due to needing another pair of x1s as they are narrower than the stainless versions.


greg
www.wattagetraining.com
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If my personal hero, Natasha, can crash, then I don't believe anyone else is immune. She is a total bad ass.
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Where are your hands when starting from a standstill and need to pull on the bars? I've seen some UK TTers use this approach but am having a hard time imagining how you get underway.
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [Deus ex Machina] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, you are right. If you don't look down the road, you will hit shit.

Doesn't mean it was the bar setup's fault. Doesn't mean that I or anyone else has a "destiny to crash".

:)

G


greg
www.wattagetraining.com
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [wasfast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Starts are a lot like braking, choke up on the bars (hands inside the brake levers) and support forearms on the armrests.

It does require using appropriate gearing (no starting in the 54x11), but that is a good thing.

G


greg
www.wattagetraining.com
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

What... no bento box? Just kidding... that is on SICK ride. This is, like, the third time I have found myself LUSTING after a bike you've posted. We must be drinking from the same koolaid since you keep buying my dream rides. The difference is that I dream about them while you're riding them.

A couple of quick questions: Are those Blackwells or old school (ie non-dimpled) 808s? Just wondering about your choice in wheelsets. Why no disc? Also, you seem to have your saddle adjusted pretty far back. Are you riding slack?

Also... can you post a pic of the drive side. Just for curiosity's sake.
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, God speed to you and keep the rubber side down.
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [bpq] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

Why no disc?
Powertap

_______________________________________________________
@MarkyV - 31 kona qualifiers 2006-'14
"If you cannot devote the time required to fully maximise your genetic potential, then don't make believe your own science and re-write decades of history of coaching wisdom, and pretend that you can do some magical training program on 8hrs /wk instead of 12-20 and get to the same level in [any endurance sport]. Accept the reality which is that you just have to settle for a performance level which isn't the absolute peak that your body is capable of." - Nathan Townsend
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [bpq] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
A couple of quick questions: Are those Blackwells or old school (ie non-dimpled) 808s?
actually, they are dimpled 808s (pt2.4 rear)

Quote:
Just wondering about your choice in wheelsets. Why no disc?

'cause that wheel also has a wheelbuilder disc cover (almost, but not quite as fast as the sub9). actually, the wheels, powermeter, crankset aren't really "sorted" yet.. that is just current running trim. Obviously the 808+cover won't work @ masters nats.

I have the fsa cronos on there now as the low q-factor. If the quarq comes out anytime soon, I will test it on these cranks and run a sub9. if not, I might try going back to my vista integrated crankset (which kills the crank based powermeter) and forces the 808 rear (or a replacement with the 1098!), but there is an overlap issue with the crank and the thick bb shell.

if I don't like the quarq, the SRM goes back on with sub9.

maybe with custom crankarms that match the narrow fsa crank...

Quote:
Also, you seem to have your saddle adjusted pretty far back. Are you riding slack?

yup. I am not a triathlete and so my saddle position matches my road bike. I have no reason to ride steep as 1) I am flexible enough to hold the position and 2) there is no discernable drop in power despite the "closed" hip angle that the slack+LOW position creates.

I attribute that to years of specificity and trining/racing in essentially the same position for a long time.

g


greg
www.wattagetraining.com
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you route the powertap wire internally, or does it go down the downtube? (or is it wireless?)
enjoy,
tom
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [tomp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As mentioned above a pt2.4 (wireless).

Whatever solution I ground out on will be wireless - pt, quarq or srm...

As probably the slc-sl will be eventually as well so the cabling doesn't bugger up aerodynamics.

G


greg
www.wattagetraining.com
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [gregclimbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ah, sorry, missed that. I saw the rear brake cable down by the bottom bracket and thought that was an internally routed PT cable. Nonetheless, nice bike! :)
tom

In Reply To:
As mentioned above a pt2.4 (wireless).

Whatever solution I ground out on will be wireless - pt, quarq or srm...

As probably the slc-sl will be eventually as well so the cabling doesn't bugger up aerodynamics.

G
Quote Reply
Re: Trek TTX is Faster Than the P3C [bpq] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

Why no basebars?
Quote Reply

Prev Next