Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: The challenge of aero testing bike vs bike [knighty76] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
knighty76 wrote:
No idea who produced this (maybe tour magazine?) but it's all I could find, thanks jackmott.


http://www.aeroweenie.com/...a/tour-road-bars.png[/quote]

Currently riding 44cm round tubed handlebars.
I know what my next upgrade will be!
Quote Reply
Re: The challenge of aero testing bike vs bike [Liaman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah I agree with bonesbrigade, it looks almost too good to be true. I think we are seeing a lot of evidence lately that the stuff that hits the wind first is what really counts, so what makes a superbike "super" is a lot to do with the aero bars, integrated stem, forks etc.

I look at that link and think - surely most of it is bringing the riders' arms in more narrow? I wonder if you couldn't achieve some of that with the bars you already have, by simply flexing at the wrist and bringing your elbows in. Might not be very comfortable though, and maybe that is what you get when you pay for those aero bars. But then the difference between the bottom two is probably the most interesting bit, if all of that drag difference is attributable to round vs aero profile tops.
Quote Reply
Re: The challenge of aero testing bike vs bike [knighty76] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agree massively.

The results above suggest that switching form my current set up to a 42cm aero profiled bar will save me ~100W at 30mph.
Now obviously I don't ride at those speeds often when I'm in the wind, basically never except on a descent. But even 20W at regular riding speeds is significant, enough that I would hope to be able to spot from a series of Garmin files which bar was used in each ride.
Quote Reply
Re: The challenge of aero testing bike vs bike [codygo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
codygo wrote:
..a prudent scientist would repeat the test point until statistical significance is achieved.
Continuously monitoring the results, and stopping the experiment when one has collected just enough data as to reach statistical significance would be treated as scientific misconduct.
Quote Reply
Re: The challenge of aero testing bike vs bike [Bonesbrigade] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oops, sorry. I feel silly. :{

Thanks to wsrobert for pointing out my confusion.

AndyF
bike geek
Quote Reply
Re: The challenge of aero testing bike vs bike [Tringe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're cherry picking my statement, and implying monitoring and bias. Note the reference to Pope's book and methods.

Though I'd rather not sidetrack on this, I suspect you mean to imply a misconduct by which one stops gathering results when they get the conclusion they want, which would be difficult to do if many runs are required to achieve a reasonable confidence of the true mean while not omitting data or introducing more direct forms of skewing results.
Quote Reply
Re: The challenge of aero testing bike vs bike [Jim@EROsports] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Jim

Can't seem to PM you for some reason.

Can you please email me at

Joshua@culpritbicycles.com

about wind tunnel testing with me on the new Legend after Kona. Oct 15-16.

Thanks

Joshua
Quote Reply
Re: The challenge of aero testing bike vs bike [Jim@EROsports] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is why I love Economics. So many variables. Awesome stuff.

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
Quote Reply

Prev Next