Now I'm really p*ssed at John. Based upon his earlier recommendations I sold my front mounted bottle on ebay and designed my own rear mounted "never reach" style system. Just as I finally get it working properly he comes out and says that I should have saved myself the effort and kept the front mounted bottle all along. Jeeze.

did the article mention that NOT having a bottle at all was the fastest? Also are you reffering to VeloNews, I have not got the latest copy yet.

Thx, Gary

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...tr/waterbottles.html

the things i took from this new article were:

1. whatever you go with, the biggest difference is about 3:26 over an ironman distance, and :39 over a 40k. is that enough to make it matter to a MOP AGer? absolutely not.

2. one test yields one result, while another will reveal something different. i find it seems that you can often keep repeating the same test until the data says what you want it to (or you can interpret it that way).

i agree with the advice, use whatever is most comfortable for you and will encourage you to drink and stay hydrated.

---

____________________________________________________________
"I'm happy when life's good,
and when it's bad I cry.
I've got values but I don't know how or why."
- The Who

AJ,
I thinkt he rerason the water bottles mounted behind high are probably slower is that they stick up into the wind. Where as the lower ones are shielded from the wind by the body a bit.
On another note, I've been using a down tube bottle for years. The others, if behind are prone to launching which is a danger to others and are hard to reach. If mounted in the front mine always seemed crooked or they fell off somehow. The way it seemed to me no water made for a slow then slower run which ultimately costs more time.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Now I'm really confused. Why is having a front Profile bottle faster than a downtube bottle but NO bottle slowest?

Does this mean for time trial racing that I should mount my aero Campy biodinamica bottle/cage on my downtube to decrease drag by 25 seconds?

Am I on the right track here?

The biggest differences between these tests and the earlier ones JC did were, from my reading:
-rider on bike
-fatter tubes on bike

This being the case, the results were different than when he tested for the bike alone, that being a skinny steel frame. How? From what I read...

The water bottle on the frame DT is actually a boon with a larger diameter frame member. The larger tube (relative to a skinny steel tube,) in front of the bottle, makes for a smoother transition, and the wind sees this as an increase in surface area/depth of the DT. The tube is effectively deeper, and may also be cowling the seat tube, minimizing the negative effect of the big hole in the middle of a diamond configuration frame.

With a rider on the bike, a lot changes, and the placement of a profile-style bottle on the front may well provide some sort of a fairing benefit. Perhaps it is helping with the dirty air in the knee/lower torso area? I would like to see what effect the bar/bottle height has on this number.

The rear mount bottle #'s are really interesting, and are counter to what JC has been saying for a while. These numbers are saying that higher is better. Very curious.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the riders back profile could have a profound effect on this #.

I would love to see these #'s with a larger sample size. This is VERY interesting stuff, but the rider on the bike is adding a pretty substantial variable to the testing, and I would liike to see how much these #'s change in a more varied sample/with other riders...

MH

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Fredly's on the money here.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

As usual, Fredly is "right on the money". I use the NeverReach simply because it gets me the most fluid in the easiest manner, and I can refill it so quickly and easily. I actually use a wide mouthed water bottle on my seat tube for my spare and tools, not water. I don't have a front-mounted water bottle system, simply because I don't want any extra steering forces up there, I run a Hed 3 up front, and that's enough to deal with in windy conditions without adding more surface area up front.

How does my setup compare to the latest from the windtunnel, and how does it compare to my "best" aero position? Who knows? I'm larger than the test rider, I doubt we are the same shape although we are almost the same in height, my knees may not be nearly as close to the top tube as the test rider...all of those things make a difference. But, probably not enough to sweat about for someone like me doing local triathlons, even if I'm FOP instead of MOP.

Comfort, function (getting the fluid you need), and bike handling are the important things that most of us need to fuss over as far as water bottles go. Your position on the bike will have a much greater effect on your drag than your water bottle(s) location. And unless you get in a wind tunnel, or do some well controlled tests, even body position is a guess...although it certainly seems that there are some rather obvious beneficial positioning guidelines to follow.

It's interesting stuff, though. But not stuff that may be directly related to any particular individual's drag numbers, except for the actual subject that did the test.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Re: "whatever you go with, the biggest difference is about 3:26 over an ironman distance, and :39 over a 40k. is that enough to make it matter to a MOP AGer? absolutely not."

From time to time on this site, there is discussion that slower folks gain more from good aerodynamics than faster ones. If that is true, and John's tests were all based on riding at 30 MPH, are some of us 23 mph guys going to save more than 39 seconds over 40K?

I've noticed that a front mounted water bottle tends to hide the brake/ shift cables that appear on the front-end of a syntace style base/aero bar setup. Maybe this cleaning up of the cable drag contributes to the bike with profile bottle being faster than a bike with no bottle. If you've already cleaned up these cables, perhaps the time savings dissappear...? Just a guess.

While the results are interesting, I am not sure they represent reality. What was tested was the drag resulting from carrying the bottles, not carrying AND using them. If one has to sit up to drink out of a downtube bottle 2-4 times in 40 km, drag increases while out of the aero position. Does this drag more than offset the minimal advantage over a front-mounted Profile bottle or a Never Reach wherein you do not have to sit up?

[reply]
John's tests were all based on riding at 30 MPH, are some of us 23 mph guys going to save more than 39 seconds over 40K?
[/reply]

Nope, you will save less time because the drag force increases with speed (not linear) so at a lower speed you will have less force slowing you down. I think the take home, which John mentions, is use what you like and will drink from the most.

A

"you will save less time because the drag force increases with speed" has always been my logic. But take a look at http://www.cervelo.com/qa/cervelo-calc.html, where Gerard says otherwise - I think.

One explanation I've read elsewhere is that drag amounts to a fixed wattage, such that a 200 watt cyclist who saves 25 watts in his setup gains 12.5% in power, whereas a 400 watt cyclist who saves that same 25 watts gains half that much. Again, I've always understood that drag force goes up geometrically with wind speed, so I can't get my head around the explanation.

Could it be as simple as saying that the 30 mph cyclist will save less time than the 23 mph cyclist simply because there is less time to work with at the higher speeds?

For those that use the NeverReach (even the home made ones) or Camelback, which based on these tests would seem to be less of an advantage vs. bottles, wouldn't the gains be from not having to come out of aero to drink. I agree that the differences are close to negligible vs. proper hydration. So if you are able to drink while in aero then you (the rider) will not add significantly to the drag that is now been captured in these tests. It would be interesting to see how the temporary increased drag attributed to reaching for and drinking from bottles compares to the steady state of the NeverReach or Camelback systems.

JayR

I missed something there. John mentions testing at 30mph, but the numbers are all around 1:07 over 40k which is closer to 22-23 mph. Maybe with no drag it is 30 mph and the resulting times are taking the drag into consideration.

they do the tests at 30 mph because that is the industry standard speed setting for the wind tunnel, or at least, the speed that is commonly used, therefore valid for comparison. They then extrapolate the drag coefficients that result from the test based on calculated times assuming a rider with a certain wattage output at that drag coefficient. Or something like that. I think he says he figured 200 watts for the time trial and 150 watts for the Ironman.

In any event, they probably have a set calculation that they just plug the drag coefficient into and it yields an approximate time split, given all other variables are fixed.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

From this data I would put the biggest advantage of the NeverReach system to the fact that it holds enough water for all but the longest races (you don't have to fill it all the way up on the shorter races if you want to save a little weight) such that one would never have to slow down at an aid station to get water. I am sure that is worth a minute or two over an IM distance. This was partially addressed in the PK Racing test but not here which could account for the difference findings.

JC did not address this aspect of the aerodynamic effect of having to reach for a bottle to drink or slowing and reaching to refill in his analysis. And what about those who have skinny tube bikes. Proof that studies designed to settle controversies frequently generate them.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I suspect another reason they test at 30 mph is it is high enough that any differences will be reliably discernable by the instruments they use. The relative numbers would be the same for 5 mph but the force differences would be milligrams. Once one has a number, then it is mathematically convertible to another speed as long as the airflow remains essentially the same - laminar vs turbulent.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Yeah, that's the reason. Drag increases with velocity, but a faster rider will save less time because they are on the course for a shorter amount of time. That's the problem with reducing all of these numbers down to "Time savings" It's misleading. It's really power savings. However, we can quantify time easier than power, so that's why it's reported that way.

Just because a slower rider saves more time, doesn't mean they get more of a benefit.

---

---------------------------------------------------------

"What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind and body can achieve; and those who stay will be champions."

is the way he accounted for the wind. It appears he tood measurements at 30 mph and varied the yaw. He also assumed that courses are laid out taking the wind into consideration. It seems to me that wind direction is random and is just as likely to come from the back as from the front or the side. Further, wind speed and direction is a compilation of bike speed over the ground and wind speed in relationship to bike speed. If the presumption is a 20 mph bike speed and 10 mph head wind (30 mph wind speed), the wind speed will always be less than 30 mph in any other direction, yet he presumed it to be the same (I think). What the actual wind speed and direction for any given yaw would be is a simple maneuvering board problem (to us old navy types) and so, it seems to me that the data he collected could be mathematically manipulated to account for these variables to give a "better" overall picture.

One may get very similar data (I don't know how the data changed in the various configurations with yaw) but this potential fly in the ointment didn't seem to be accounted for.

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

"If the presumption is a 20 mph bike speed and 10 mph head wind (30 mph wind speed), the wind speed will always be less than 30 mph in any other direction, yet he presumed it to be the same (I think). "

I agree with your reasoning but don't see a problem. The 30 mph wind in a tunnel is the apparent wind. To simplify, say you have an out & back course. In your example, the apparent wind is 30 mph in one direction but only 10 mph in the other. Obviously, we can't just average these and use 20 but some of you mathmeticians could easily come up with actual numbers based on a 30 mph standard. Rather than assume the apparent wind would always be 30 mph, I thought he was just using one standard that could be adapted to other speeds.

When I start factoring in side winds, a part of the course that is sheltered from the wind, the fact that the wind may be blowing up or down that long climb, etc., there is no way to predict real-world time savings. Still, the fact that a down-tube bottle is more efficient than a seat-tube bottle is relevant. Even more relevant is the fact that even in a steady state, the difference is not that much.

The simplistic approach works if the relative drag of the different setups does not change based upon wind direction, which I doubt. If the raw data were published we could do the calculations ourselves as to what would be best under expected racing conditions, but this was not a scientific study published in a pear review journal where such would be required. Since no mention was made of how the relative drag changes with yaw it is not possible to "know" if the conclusions are "reasonable" for most situations.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Hi Frank

As a layman and trying to get the most out of JC's test I determined that adding a bottle/cage to a previously bare frame will reduce drag by 1 second per mile ... is this fair to say? I estimate a 25 second advantage over a 40k at my 26 mph pace, would you agree that this is pretty accurate based on Johns numbers?



Thanks



Gary

Ah, I see what you're saying. Still, with the raw data I think all you could do would be to change the weighting of the time spent at each apparent wind angle. For example, he used a 30 degree angle for 5% of the ride. If I have a 30 mph 30 degree apparent wind, I'm either close to sitting still or that storm has a name. In either case, it's time for me to go home.

There is no way I could take that data and try to apply it to a real world race course. You or I might use different assumptions to define expected racing conditions but the results would still be so specific to those assumptions that the only conclusions I could draw would still have to be generalized ones like the ones I stated above.

Bill T wrote: "There is no way I could take that data and try to apply it to a real world race course. "

Oh, I disagree. Although you personally might not, data exists regarding wind direction and speed at verious locals at various times of the year and day. Then there is the daily forcaast available the day before the race. some would find this exercise useful, challenging, and enjoyable. Without taking these variables into account, the current study under discussion is a good start but is pretty much worthless for making decisions.

With good historical data and weather forcasts, one should have a pretty good idea as to what the wind conditions will be like (direction and speed) at any particular part of the course when the rider is expected to be there and what speed the rider will be riding at that point (is it uphill or downhill, etc.) such that the wind conditions for the bike and rider could be pretty well predicted for the entire race. Take Hawaii for instance, the wind is pretty much the same year after year. It would then be a "simple" matter of applying this data to the air resistance data to determine the best race set up for that course on that day, if one is so inclined to do so. In regards to overall race performance, the effort involved in doing this would be much more worthwhile and cost-effective than the work involved to attain the money to save a few grams on the bicycle.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

The simplistic approach can work because although the drag numbers at a yaw angle may be a bit too high (since the same 30mph is used instead of taking into account "the real apparent wind", this can be compensated by adjusting the relative weight in the overall drag number of this specific measurement.

Also, with regards to the wind coming from all directions, aside fromthe fact that the apparent wind will almost always come from some portion of the front quarter, even if the wind is so strong that the apparent wind is almost from the side, the airflow is stalled at that angle anyway so it makes no real difference at that point.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

I agree regarding the compensation except I didn't see this occurring in this analysis which is what brought on my original comment.

Next, the wind always appears to be coming from the forward quarter because we are almost always riding faster than the wind is blowing in the direction we are riding. (the old navy maneuvering board problem again) since we don't have the raw data we cannot see the relative effects of this side stall in the varous set-ups and the only effect that makes one whit of difference is the effect in the direction of travel. That is the criticism. The analysis as presented is only valid for one set of conditions and cannot be extrapolated to any other set of conditions. It may be valid for other sets of conditions but the data has not been presented that allows me to independently come to that conclusion.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Hi Frank

As a layman and trying to get the most out of JC's test I determined that adding a bottle/cage to a previously bare frame will reduce drag by 1 second per mile ... is this fair to say? I estimate a 25 second advantage over a 40k at my 26 mph pace, would you agree that this is pretty accurate based on Johns numbers?



Thanks



Gary

I would say that the "advantage" is dependent upon the wind conditions on the course you are riding. For instance, if your time trial course is an out and back and parallels the shore there in SD the wind is almost always going to be from one side or another so JC's assumptions do not apply to that course. I would look at the course you ride and see if the wind conditions are similar to JC's assumptions. If it is then those numbers may be good for you.

Further, the advantage or disadvantage may be different if you are a different body build than the rider he used in his test (although I think you are probably pretty close to his model). It would be great to have the data for a woman on a small bike where the size of the bottle is relatively large and a 200 lb six foot rider where the bottle size is a lot smaller, relative to the whole.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

...i'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the profile bottle is faster than anything else, and this is also the easiest set up to drink from and refill on the fly. (one assumes that syntace's jetstream would be equally as fast).

also, consider the discussion of why the down tube bottle is faster than no bottle -- the supposition that it pushes the air out and around the seat tube (in part) rendering the drag of the seat tube less meaningful. is it possible the front bottle does the same for the rider behind it? if so, then a bigger front bottle might be of greater value.

i remember the profile bullet bottle, which i believe got the heave-ho at ironman, and i believe the hed bottle may also have gotten the axe at that race, i'll have to go back and check. but perhaps these bottles are better yet because they'd presumable push more air out and around the rider.

the reason this is interesting is that it was always the guess that a trailing edge would be better than a leading edge, based on what both steve hed and john cobb thought a decade or so ago. therefore, the behind the seat "trailing edge" used by chuckie v quite a few years ago, with two holes in it to hold a pair of bottles, was thought to be faster (it looked like the trailing edge behind the saddle of a cafe racer motorcycle). now, i'm guessing a bullet shaped front bottle might be better.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I have always thought that angling the aerobars way up and putting the hands in a "fist" or ball shape would allow the body to "hide behind" this small area and draft itself and direct a lot of air down and away from the torso. This configuration is what divers use for a "splashless" entry. This data reinforces my belief.

It is one of the reasons I asked T. Demerly to look at this type of position if and when he ever gets to the wind tunnel. such positioning would allow the rider to sit up some, to be in a more powerful position yet remain quite aerodynamically efficient.

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

My take on your idea, FD, is that having the arms slanted severely upwards takes out much of the muscular leverage gained by the current straight out vogue. It particularly limits the core muscle groups' recruitment. While a few riders will be able to ride this way due to their particular body, most will, I believe, find themselves much less powerful. That loss would negate any aero advantage. I'm sure you remember the early days of aero bars. Almost everyone rode with them up and hands as close as possible. I had my old Scott DH's and then Profile clip-ons pointed high in the sky myself. My latest TT machine has my forearm centerline parallel with the deck. I feel much more able to use my core to support a powerful pedaling action. If it is less aero, I don't feel that. Things have certainly migrated the other way these days. Ullrich and Leder's positions are probably at the useful extreme. Most trackies are in similar positions on aero equipment.

For the discussion on forearm angle (zero, rising or down), there is already quite a body of work available. The old Cycling Science is full of it. The position with the hands lower than the elbows is usually frowned upon, but we have had riders in the tunnel for whom that is the fastest.
Doesn't make much sense to most people (or FOR most people), but sometimes that arm position has an effect on the shape of your shoulders. Of course breaking your collarbone can have the same effect.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

"Oh, I disagree."

Trust me. I couldn't. Never underestimate my lack of knowledge and ability.

"Although you personally might not, data exists regarding wind direction and speed at verious locals at various times of the year and day. Then there is the daily forcaast available the day before the race. some would find this exercise useful, challenging, and enjoyable. Without taking these variables into account, the current study under discussion is a good start but is pretty much worthless for making decisions."


I race sailboats at various places around the country so I have a lot of experience with wind speed and direction forecasts. If you are lucky, they are accurate enough to get the right sails on the boat but that's about it. Even in the trade winds there is so much variation from day to day and hour to hour that such an exercise would probably be no more accurate than the percentage weights used in the article. Even worse, this is a race on land where topography plays a huge part. Have you ever seen wind swirl as it passes over a hill or veer on the leeward side of a clump of trees? One would need a weather station every hundred yards or so to measure the wind at that spot. Then the forward speed of the rider at each point on the course must be factored in. Of course, on race day the sun hitting all those cars in a normally empty field creates a 2kt thermal and blows the whole thing.

Would this exercise be useful, challenging and enjoyable? I'll give you two out of three. If all you want is an approximation based on a particular course, maybe I'll even throw in useful. By that standard, though, the original study based on an averagae of all courses would also have to be considered useful.

Here is a money-making idea. Email me if you want to form a joint venture to do it. Let's compile the side-wind data for various components like disc wheels, aero helmets, frames, bottles, sunglasses - whatever. We can then use historical wind patterns and topo course maps to sell "optimized equipment lists" to competitors. Just think, for only $150 we could tell everyone to spend $1,500 on new gearing, wheels, etc.

"angling the aerobars way up"

i remember being at the texas a&m tunnel many years ago and this was tried. all the forearm angles yielded about the same drag except arms WAY up, with which the drag was lower. but it was a position almost nobody would want to ride.

as i recall, tho, colby pierce's arms sort of hide his body. but maybe i'm misremembering his position. he seems to me the one top time trialer for whom drag was/is the number one consideration, power coming second.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

What is most aero may not be most powerful and vice versa although I don't see how the position of the forarms affects core power. I suspect you feel most powerful there because that is how you spend all your time.

I can only say that from my cogitating on this "problem", it would seem that the current vogue, except in the sense it presents a small frontal area, looks like it is designed to be as unaero as possible. The head and torso slanting up and the arms down and out all forming a U shape as if designed to catch as much wind as possible up against the body. Seems to me we should be trying to move as much wind as possible away from the body by making a "fairing" out of our hands and arms, not a scoop.

Now maybe the work has been done and my thoughts on this process are all wet, but the conventional wisdom certainly didn't predict the results of this test. I wouldn't be surprised if something better existed out there that gave a better combination of aeroness and power.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Slowman wrote: "all the forearm angles yielded about the same drag except arms WAY up, with which the drag was lower. but it was a position almost nobody would want to ride. "

Really!. What was so uncomfortable or strange about the position that someone couldn't or wouldn't do it in order to go faster in a race?

I envision the fist being just below the eyes and about 6 inches in front of the head as being ridable and very aero. Is that what you remember or was it something different?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

"What was so uncomfortable or strange about the position that someone couldn't or wouldn't do it in order to go faster in a race?"

when lemond was interviewed after the '89 tour and asked about the scott bars, his answer was, "they give me an extra point of leverage."

i think this is one of the elements of aero bars that gets lost in the discussion. but more to the point, that point of leverage itself gets lost when the bars are turned up too much. there are other elements that get lost as well, such as handling (odd turning radius) and comfort (can't rest on the bars if the bars are at such a steep angle).

so of the four necessary elements in tri bike fit -- comfort, power, handling and aerodynamics -- three are lost when the hands are too high. it was perhaps that same wind tunnel test or maybe another, when i saw kenny glah in the tunnel getting fitted. his drag was dropped from 7lbs to 4lbs and change. but he just couldn't ride the position. not comfortable, not powerful. he had to go back to the position with greater drag.

you see the best riders in the world often riding positions that aren't really that low in drag. lance and indurain are the two most recent that come to mind. they just don't want to give up the power position that a lower drag would require. i'm guessing these guys are 6 and 7 lbs of drag respectively at 30mph in a straight blow, vs. colby's 4 lb. or so.

but when i look at millar, and ullrich (as of today's coverage) i see both good positioning and good aerodynamics. as fast as some of these really fast guys are, i still think there's more on the table. ullrich obviously thought so, we'll see how that works for him in the ITT stages.

but i do believe that you must keep your power and comfort intact. you can't give those up for aerodynamics. you can argue all you want theoretically, but the good riders from zack to spencer smith to lance to big mig, have found this to be the case. and this is the trick in tri bike fit, to work just a little harder, be just a little better, at your craft, and find a position that is BOTH aero AND powerful/comfortable.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

FD, The higher the arms, the more acute the inside angle at the elbow. This takes the triceps further out of its power range, and imbalances the input from bicep and tricep. It also slightly changes the angle of the upper body and places greater demands on the serratuus region for stability. This is why Dan's emphasis on a 90deg shoulder angle is so important. Any greater angle takes all these opposing muscle groups out of their optimum positions for leverage and stability.

You may not notice the contribution of all these muscle groups cruising along fairly relaxed at 20-24 in an IM, but cranking along at 30+ like these guys requires significant input from the upper and core body. Even Lemond claimed that his greatest benefit from the bars was more leverage than aero.

Lemond may have claimed that the benefit was more leverage than aero but I don't believe it. If there was an uphill time trial up Alp d'huez how many of those people would put their aero bars on for the increased leverage? Not a one I suspect. If they want to increase the power they open up the hips and if they want to pull on something they are better off doing so on the handlebars proper than on the end of a 10 inch tube. It is not necessary to ever pull on the bars to increase power in the saddle as we never push down with enough force to raise our bodies off of the saddle. The bars are used, i suspect, in this situation simply for stabilization and psycholgical reasons and not for adding any power beyond the legs. "I feel powerful, therefore I am."

Of course, positioning should take into consideration as to what it does to power. Unfortunately, I don't know how anyone can look at a position and say "this hurts your power more than it helps your aerodynamics." especially when the range can seemingly vary per Dan and JC from 4 to 7.5 lbs force on the aerodynamics part of the equation. How can we know any position cuts the power in half? Riders may feel uncomfortable with a position because it is so different but if they spent some time with it they might learn to like it (or, they might not).

One thing almost every PowerCranker learns is that their old "aero" position robs them of a lot of power. What I think this study (and the A&M wind tunnel data Dan mentions) suggests is that it may be possible to open up the hip angle to a more open position and then do some other things to improve aerodynamics in order to keep the power up without sacrificing a thing in aerodynamics. Many PowerCrankers are right now struggling to get down into their old aero postion and now we find it may not be optimal. Is there a better way, that is the question I think that must be asked. If I were them I would be experimenting right now to see if I could change my hand position some and cut my wind resistance in half (or, maybe, only 80%) while keeping my hips open and powerful! If we can cut the aerodynamic drag losses in half by some simple positioning changes and maintain the current power constant most of us should be able to gain 4-5 mph in TT speed and doesn't cost a dime. This seems like something worth pursuing.

One thing that seems to be happening here is there seems to be a lot of emotion invested in the old positioning whereas one thing that the JC study shows, almost any conventional wisdom can be proven wrong once it is actually studied. Actually, I am not sure the JC study proves anything but it suggests it and should be independently verified before considered proven.

One thing I will agree on, the rider needs to feel comfortable with the setup on race day whether the numbers say it is optimal or not.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Rotor cranks (www.rotorbike.com) allow riders very minimal break-in time (1 ride versus 6 months with PCs), and, using mechanical devices, provide an average of 2 minutes faster times in a 40k time trial without having to sacrafice the aero position and they are made to race on. They are also only 250 gms heavier than Dura Ace.

Worth checking out as an option for PowerCrank users who cannot find optimal aero position while riding PC's.