http://www.cyclingnews.com/...t-f01-aero-road-bike
Cyclingnews has a presentation of the new f01 from Scott. Apparently, it's based on a similar "truncated airfoil" design as the Speed Concept. Scott make the claim that it's more aero than the S3 or AR1, particularly at yaw, while also lighter and better-riding due to omission of very deep airfoil shapes. The red in this photo purports to indicated where airfoil "tails" were removed:
And the graphic on the downtube visible here shows the truncated airfoil concept:
It looks like a great bike, but I just can't believe these 3:2 ratio tube shapes could be all that aero. They claim extensive wind tunnel testing, and of course the Speed Concept seemed a bit suspect to the ol' eyeball wind tunnel as well. (The White Paper has me convinced that Trek did their homework on that one.)
But how much can you really truncate an airfoil and still be aero? Trek's Kamm is still 3:1 (ish?), but it behaves like a 4:1 or greater shape, no? Couldn't you just consider a round tube to be a very truncated airfoil? (It clearly is not, but that doesn't see far from what Scott is claiming...)
Cyclingnews has a presentation of the new f01 from Scott. Apparently, it's based on a similar "truncated airfoil" design as the Speed Concept. Scott make the claim that it's more aero than the S3 or AR1, particularly at yaw, while also lighter and better-riding due to omission of very deep airfoil shapes. The red in this photo purports to indicated where airfoil "tails" were removed:
And the graphic on the downtube visible here shows the truncated airfoil concept:
It looks like a great bike, but I just can't believe these 3:2 ratio tube shapes could be all that aero. They claim extensive wind tunnel testing, and of course the Speed Concept seemed a bit suspect to the ol' eyeball wind tunnel as well. (The White Paper has me convinced that Trek did their homework on that one.)
But how much can you really truncate an airfoil and still be aero? Trek's Kamm is still 3:1 (ish?), but it behaves like a 4:1 or greater shape, no? Couldn't you just consider a round tube to be a very truncated airfoil? (It clearly is not, but that doesn't see far from what Scott is claiming...)