In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I guess it comes down to how much of that advantage is attributable to the bars
Indeed, it does - and based on other,
independent wind tunnel data,
it appears to me that the use of a non-UCI legal bar on the Speed Concept OCLV could account for its lower drag relative to the P4 at all yaw angles.
Indeed, even if you just rely on Trek's data (for the Speed Concept TCT) the Speed Concept OCLV version
appears that it would be faster than the P4 only when the average yaw angle is
>15 deg if both were fitted with UCI-legal handlebars.
There's independent data which shows a non-compliant vs compliant bar (variant of the first or otherwise) drag differential on the order of 125-175g out at 10-15deg yaw? That's Huge. Where do I look for the details on that testing?
1) I said based on
other, independent wind tunnel data.
2) I didn't say publically available.
3) I stand by my conclusions (specifically as they are written).
#2 establishes the proper context for your comments all by itself. Thank you.
Actually, I think that #s 1 and 3 are contextually far more important.
Be that as it may, here are some
publically-available manufacturer's data (also from the LSWT in San Diego) reporting a
~200 g reduction in drag with the 3T Ventus bar:
http://www.thenew3t.com/...ogy&i=WindTunnel They don't indicate what bar the Ventus was compared against, but as I have previously indicated, other, independent-but-not-publically-available data demonstrate that it is quite fast. Based on such data, I would expect the non-UCI legal bar that was used when testing the OCLV SC (in its final form) explains much of the difference in drag that was observed compared to the other bikes that were tested with UCI legal bars.
EDIT: Some
independent, publically available confirmation of the fact that non-UCI legal bars such as the Ventus can make a big difference (see para. 3):
http://www.cyclingtechblog.com/...hn-cobb-at-texas-am/