aaronechang wrote:
Why would someone test this before? Well at the beginning of the video one of them said that the shaved legs thing is one of the most frequent questions asked about aero, that's why.
Specialized is a bike / components company, and they just tested shaved vs. unshaved legs. You just answered your question "why would a bike company test this?" in your last sentence.
Wind tunnels have been around for a long, long time so I'm just wondering if there are any other studies / tests and if not, then why did it take so long. In fact you don't really need a wind tunnel to test this - people have been measuring the real-world effects of aero for quite a while outside of a wind tunnel using controlled roll down tests or riding around a track with a power meter. I even remember reading an experiment that Mark Cote did at Specialized using some Australian ProTour cyclist, a closed velodrome / track, and a power meter (I think it was to test effects of tri bike vs. road bike with aero bars, TT helmet vs aero helmet, and other stuff).
In short - since everyone has been debating this ad nauseum since the beginning of time, is this really the first test of shaved legs in a wind tunnel? If not - then how do the other studies compare?
Skipped most of the thread, so this may have already been addressed by the folks at Specialized, but here are a number of answers:
Point 1. I'm sure it has been tested at some point, by someone, prior to specialized. Olympic cyclists and TDF caliber athletes have been tested for details far less significant than the effects of surface texture of such a large area of their body.
So if it was tested before, why don't "we" know about it?
Point 2: First and foremost, wind tunnel test data is proprietary. The folks paying for the test own the data. Due to the enormous cost of obtaining this data, and competition-sensitive nature of the data (think: speed on the race track, being able to market production vehicle MPG/appearance), there is far greater value in keeping the data a secret and maintaining the competitive advantages than there is in releasing the data. The idea of releasing wind tunnel test data with competition-sensitive implications publicly (aside from the work of NASA/NACA or universities) probably didn't come about until fairly recently as "consumers" such as triathletes, motorsports hobbyists, etc. began shelling out the money for tunnel time, to obtain data that is of more value to them (as an individual) than to a competitor, or perhaps has some intrinsic value to the community that does not preclude the individual from obtaining a competitive advantage. Motorsports teams pay millions of dollars per year to book tunnel time, supply test assets and equipment, and to pay for engineers and staff to execute the tests, postprocess data, etc. The data collected influences whether or not teams win races, which is worth MANY millions of dollars per year. Giving away data is essentially financially damaging because it erodes the ROI on the tunnel testing investment. Basically: I believe that the phenomenon of people who expect no financial ROI on tunnel testing is relatively recent, and this expectation allows them to release data. Now, the way that cycling/triathlon goods producers have found a way, ostensibly to increase revenue, by releasing expensive data is interesting--by using the data to market the product to a niche group of well educated consumers, the producers are recouping their tunnel time investment by doing the exact opposite of what most commercial wind tunnel users do. But there are still people in cycling who need "wind tunnel secrets" to make money, namely professional cyclists. Why would a pro cyclist release their data, their drag-reduction ideas, or their proprietary equipment to their competition? If "shaved legs vs. hairy legs" was tested before, I suspect the data was not released for this very reason.
For some additional perspective:
Commercial wind tunnels (and their staff) by and large exist only to
facilitate the test. The information privacy requirements dictate that the tunnel staff (who will see equipment/parts/pieces/data from multiple teams) do not share this information between teams, so they necessarily cannot be involved in making changes, evaluating data, etc. The tunnel staff are contractually bound to secrecy, and it is taken EXTREMELY seriously. They are simply there to man the ship. Customers bring their own staff to write the test plans and test sequences, make changes/adjustments throughout the test, and evaluate results). This is where A2 (and FASTER too, I guess, though I don't have firsthand experience there) bridge the gap between the "commercial wind tunnel" and the end consumer. Like it's "big brother" Aerodyn, A2 supplies an operator that will control the wind tunnel, but unlike its entirely commercially oriented counterpart, the A2 operator also fulfills somewhat of the role of data collector/analyst, and has historically employed a person experienced with aerodynamic bike fitting to help with changes.
__________________________
I tweet!
vs. 
