That is as good as I have seen, though I would have used a road course instead of a track but it is more realistic than a wind tunnel. The difference in helmets is astounding, I think this will be my next purchase.
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: How much does the bike matter? [mauricemaher]
[ In reply to ]
Re: How much does the bike matter? [tessartype]
[ In reply to ]
tessartype wrote:
Why is that safe to say? I do the vast majority of my training in regular cycling gear, heavy, un-aero training wheels etc. Switching all the aero goodies to "on" nets me a healthy increase in speed - to the tune of 20 seconds on my favourite 5km testing loop - and I haven't yet tested the disc cover on that loop.
The only difference for me is wheels, aero helmet and fewer bottles & cages. I actually find them more comfortable overall. Aer helmet had soem more weight wheich is good any bad. It's less impacted by crosswinds, but a lot of it's weight is in the tail, os I think it makes it a little easier to hold my head position.
The wheels ride a lot smoother (latex tubes & carbon) so they reduce my fatigue.
I'ts funny, I had a a full box rim front wheel this morning with a heavy duty tube in it. Compared to my other training wheel which is semi-aero and has a standard tube both with same 1/2 worn out GP4000S (race tire "take off") on eac, mMy average speed dropped by right at about 0.5mph from that change alone. I'd say it was around 10 Watts equivalent. It was really throwing me off a little because it kept sticking me in a weird gap in my gear ratios around 22mph where I had to choose between about 100-102RPM or 88-90RPM.
TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Re: How much does the bike matter? [patsullivan6630]
[ In reply to ]
patsullivan6630 wrote:
That is a relatively simple answer. Over 5KM you will see a lot of benefit from your aero gear because other factors which will come into play over 90KM do not show themselves over a 5KM test loop. For example, rider fatigue is not an issue on a 5KM loop, the possibility of flats is lower on your loop, etc. In other words, over a long course, the minutes you could potentially save with your aero gear can be eaten by other factors. In my anecdotal experience, AGers who switched to all aero saw very modest to imperceptible improvement over the long course using aero gear. That doesn't mean it doesn't hold some value but in the case of the OP the biggest gains between two different TT bikes would probably be the helmet - so the bike itself doesn't really matter.That makes no sense. For starters - just because that loop is 5km doesn't mean I ride only 5km at a time, and I've done anything from 40km to 140km on that loop (it's not a busy road, and there's an inner running path that's perfect for bricks). Second, why would I fatigue manifest itself more strongly if I have all the aero goodies than if I'm without? An aero setup remains more aero (even an aero helmet with it's tail up is faster than a road lid, according to tests) and would save time regardless of how tired I am. Hell, I might even fatigue less since the aero setup will have me running at a time when the training setup would still be on the bike course.
Sure, I could lose minutes due to bad pacing, nutrition, fatigue or cramps. But I could lose those minutes with every other setup, as well. I'm also not too fussy about fatigue getting in the way: This is my position for anything from 5km loop to long-distance tri. I'm comfortable like that, I train to be able to hold that, and while we're talking anecdotes - at the race where the picture was taken (half-IM), I went 10 minutes faster than a friend of similar size and weight, with an average power that's 20W less.
Similarly, after four years of pretty similar (stagnant?) results at IM Frankfurt, I convinced my mum to "go aero" and ditch her round-tubed frame and Speedfil frame drink system in favour of a Speed Concept, disc wheel, tight clothing and sleeker hydration. She doesn't have a power meter, but her fitness is more or less the same over past few years: Yet this year, she shaved 15 minutes off her previous PR bike split and was fastest in her AG by 12 minutes.
My n=2 dataset shows the exact opposite. Aero gains add up fast.
ZONE3 - We Last Longer
Re: How much does the bike matter? [tessartype]
[ In reply to ]
It makes sense if you bothered to read it instead of getting all defensive. More weird stuff will happen over a 90KM course than a 5KM loop. Things that will eat 15 minutes like it is nothing, regardless of the type of bike you purchase. It doesn't shock me at all that a Trek Speed Concept is 15 minutes faster over 112th miles with the same rider than a regular road bike. You didn't just change one thing about her set-up, you changed everything. The cumulative effect is 15 minutes to include wheels, body position, jersey (aero helmet?) and frame. If you take all the advertising jargon she should have saved 40 minutes over the road bike on the same course. If we are talking potential savings in the 3-4 minute range by changing one variable, in the real world I would expect to actually see about 30 seconds.
You can't argue logically that a 90KM loop is the same as a 5KM loop done 18 times are really the same. 90KM will include different profiles, different wind patterns, different weather, different road conditions among other things.
You can't argue logically that a 90KM loop is the same as a 5KM loop done 18 times are really the same. 90KM will include different profiles, different wind patterns, different weather, different road conditions among other things.
Re: How much does the bike matter? [42x16ss]
[ In reply to ]
42x16ss wrote:
The most important thing is the engine driving the bike./thread. This. My times with my 2013 Speed Concept are no better (at all) than my aluminum frame Trek road/tri bike that I sold a year ago. Why? Because of the fatty riding on top, that's why.
Re: How much does the bike matter? [patsullivan6630]
[ In reply to ]
Fine, and if you had read what I said, you would've realized that my point is simple: Weird stuff can also happen on a non-aero setup, and will result in similar time-losses. Just because a freak occurrence can happen doesn't mean you shouldn't aim for an aero setup.
Now, I didn't say what type of bike we moved her from. I just said round tubes, and you assumed a road bike. In fact, we moved her from a round-tubed TT frame (with exposed cables and pretty welds to further mangle up the airflow) to a previous-gen SC7. All fit parameters were kept as similar as we could (estimate +-5mm). Equipment kept: Aerobars, grouppo , saddle, front wheel, helmet, shorts and shoes were new but same model as before. Basically, every contact point that could affect her position and comfort was kept constant. Changes: sized down the jersey, rear disc, and Schwalbe Ironman tyres with latex inners. Oh, and the frame.
Now, a key point in scientific work is that if you want your data to count for something, make sure there's a lot of it: 18 datapoints are better as a comparison than 1. If you save 20 seconds every single lap, that doesn't count for everything, but it counts for more than nothing. Of course, over 90km of varying terrain you'll see slightly different changes - but they follow the same trend. And, to extract meaningful data, you'll have to cover for a lot more noise (also, see Anecdote #1).
ZONE3 - We Last Longer
Now, I didn't say what type of bike we moved her from. I just said round tubes, and you assumed a road bike. In fact, we moved her from a round-tubed TT frame (with exposed cables and pretty welds to further mangle up the airflow) to a previous-gen SC7. All fit parameters were kept as similar as we could (estimate +-5mm). Equipment kept: Aerobars, grouppo , saddle, front wheel, helmet, shorts and shoes were new but same model as before. Basically, every contact point that could affect her position and comfort was kept constant. Changes: sized down the jersey, rear disc, and Schwalbe Ironman tyres with latex inners. Oh, and the frame.
Now, a key point in scientific work is that if you want your data to count for something, make sure there's a lot of it: 18 datapoints are better as a comparison than 1. If you save 20 seconds every single lap, that doesn't count for everything, but it counts for more than nothing. Of course, over 90km of varying terrain you'll see slightly different changes - but they follow the same trend. And, to extract meaningful data, you'll have to cover for a lot more noise (also, see Anecdote #1).
ZONE3 - We Last Longer
Re: How much does the bike matter? [tessartype]
[ In reply to ]
What I am demonstrating is that if you plan on saving 4 minutes because of piece of technology ABC you will probably realistically see 30 seconds of improvement in real life. I have seen people fall down the expensive TT bike with nice wheels and they were the same cyclist on that bike that they were on whatever they were riding before. I have never seen a misplaced weld or exposed cabling account for anything meaningful in terms of aero benefit. This goes back to the round tube vs shaped tube, the aero cross section of round tubes simply aren't that much that changing to a shaped tube could account for anything but a small improvement in aero efficiency. If you are going to a nice Trek SC (even the last gen SC) with a disc wheel in the back and a better jersey, I am not shocked by the improvement in speed. The jersey makes a big difference, I have personally experienced this difference. You took the largest aero impediment (your mother's torso) and made it more aerodynamic.
No one is suggesting that non-aero is better or that you won't see an improvement with aero stuff, the OP originally asked about the differences between Cervelo's two frames and the potential gains and my response is that there isn't much of a difference with regard to the frame. That isn't incorrect, in fact there isn't much of a difference between ANY frame when you get to brass tax.
No one is suggesting that non-aero is better or that you won't see an improvement with aero stuff, the OP originally asked about the differences between Cervelo's two frames and the potential gains and my response is that there isn't much of a difference with regard to the frame. That isn't incorrect, in fact there isn't much of a difference between ANY frame when you get to brass tax.
Re: How much does the bike matter? [patsullivan6630]
[ In reply to ]
patsullivan6630 wrote:
What I am demonstrating is that if you plan on saving 4 minutes because of piece of technology ABC you will probably realistically see 30 seconds of improvement in real life. I have seen people fall down the expensive TT bike with nice wheels and they were the same cyclist on that bike that they were on whatever they were riding before. I have never seen a misplaced weld or exposed cabling account for anything meaningful in terms of aero benefit. This goes back to the round tube vs shaped tube, the aero cross section of round tubes simply aren't that much that changing to a shaped tube could account for anything but a small improvement in aero efficiency. If you are going to a nice Trek SC (even the last gen SC) with a disc wheel in the back and a better jersey, I am not shocked by the improvement in speed. The jersey makes a big difference, I have personally experienced this difference. You took the largest aero impediment (your mother's torso) and made it more aerodynamic. No one is suggesting that non-aero is better or that you won't see an improvement with aero stuff, the OP originally asked about the differences between Cervelo's two frames and the potential gains and my response is that there isn't much of a difference with regard to the frame. That isn't incorrect, in fact there isn't much of a difference between ANY frame when you get to brass tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus
Re: How much does the bike matter? [patsullivan6630]
[ In reply to ]
patsullivan6630 wrote:
What I am demonstrating is that if you plan on saving 4 minutes because of piece of technology ABC you will probably realistically see 30 seconds of improvement in real life. I have seen people fall down the expensive TT bike with nice wheels and they were the same cyclist on that bike that they were on whatever they were riding before. I have never seen a misplaced weld or exposed cabling account for anything meaningful in terms of aero benefit. This goes back to the round tube vs shaped tube, the aero cross section of round tubes simply aren't that much that changing to a shaped tube could account for anything but a small improvement in aero efficiency. If you are going to a nice Trek SC (even the last gen SC) with a disc wheel in the back and a better jersey, I am not shocked by the improvement in speed. The jersey makes a big difference, I have personally experienced this difference. You took the largest aero impediment (your mother's torso) and made it more aerodynamic. No one is suggesting that non-aero is better or that you won't see an improvement with aero stuff, the OP originally asked about the differences between Cervelo's two frames and the potential gains and my response is that there isn't much of a difference with regard to the frame. That isn't incorrect, in fact there isn't much of a difference between ANY frame when you get to brass tax.
How did you demonstrate that? How did you demonstrate anything?
Nobody's claiming a single "misplaced weld" accounts for 4 minutes. Nobody's claiming there's a massive difference between the P2 and P5 either. But going from thick, round magnesium tubes, welded, with gussets and cable-stops and a thick head-tube - basically, a stone-age TT bike in every regard except for the geometry - to a slick, state-of-the-art TT bike with narrow tubes, cable and storage integration is, by itself, worth minutes. How many minutes? I trust the wind-tunnel and velodrome tests to give a ballpark number, whereas you chose to ignore basic scientific principles (and thousands of tests and anecdotes) and go by gut instinct.
Between a P2, P3 and P5 there's basically not much to choose from, and if it were my money I'd take the P2 and run. But that's because we're comparing one top-of-the-line bike - the P5 - to a bike which basically applies the essence of the first, in a more price-conscious package - the P3 and P2. Test the two with identical parts on them and you'll see little difference.
ZONE3 - We Last Longer
Re: How much does the bike matter? [SPL Tech]
[ In reply to ]
Go and read Hutchinson's book (http://www.amazon.com/...ds=hutchinson+faster)
He gives the best answer to this question.
SteveMc
He gives the best answer to this question.
SteveMc
jackmott wrote:
new p2 vs new p5, as delivered from the factory? 2 or 3 minutes per ironman. You could reduce that a lot with an aerobar change on the p2.
Without regard to budget, what aerobar would you select for the new P3? Priorities being fit flexibility and speed.
Scott