that is, of course, if you can actually see said data...

I'm having a de ja vu all over again...kinda like the Tour data Zipp poorly photocopied then used as marketing material on it's website. Let's see: I can't really read German,but even if I could, I really can see anything...

I think it's great that they're taking some bikes into the wind tunnel and all, but I almost feel that there should be a 'for entertainment purposes only' warning on the data.

With that said, I think that devising a testing protocol that would be realistic and 'fair' to all of the various bikes/companies would end up being a bit more tricky than it would initially appear.

If it comes from Cervelo, its treated like gospel around these parts.

Please tell me again where Cervelo finished at Paris-Nice in stage one, Oh, that is right 16th place, 30 secoinds behind over a 9.3Km distance, what happened there?

Not by me...as I've said before, I'm an "equal opportunity skeptic" :-)

I also think you might be overgeneralizing a tad bit...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Doubt fear had anything to do with it.


100% speculation on my part, but I can see it going down like this: any bike company with a reputation for aero prowess and a history of megabucks spent on tunnel time might ask for details on exactly how a magazine intends to conduct a test like this...and if a "wrong" answer (or no answer) can't be resolved, they elect not to participate.


Carl


(disclaimer: I don't know if we were even contacted...might start developing a SuperDave complex ;-) )

---

Carl Matson

Tom, it seems to me that the whole idea of aero testing, and differentiating between frames is anti-thetical to what you preach.

you have always been on the 'fit-first' message (which i agree with), so based on that, aerodynamics shouldn't be much of a concern (especially if aerodynamic differences are small, which they may be for aero frames). unless aero frames have the exact same dimensions, one must be a better fit for a person.


so, can you support aero testing? is it against your own principles?

---

mckenzie

There is quite a bit of difference between wind speed and when the bike is moving to cause the "wind". Wind is laminar and the speed increases as the distance above the ground increases. Riding into the wind the speed of the wind is the same 1 inch above the ground and 10 feet above the ground. It could change the outcome of the test if this is not accounted for.

---

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

Well, my guess is that the TOUR testers still could buy the Cervelos and then test them anyway, right?

Doubt that a bike manufacturer has any recourse against that practice. Unless the mag does never ever want to sell ad space to Cervelo again.

So maybe TOUR has the data, but they don't publish them in the mag.

---

___________________________________________
Ego numquam pronuncio mendacium,
sed sum homo salvaticus

100% speculation on my part, but I can see it going down like this: any bike company with a reputation for aero prowess and a history of megabucks spent on tunnel time might ask for details on exactly how a magazine intends to conduct a test like this...and if a "wrong" answer (or no answer) can't be resolved, they elect not to participate.

I think the fear answer makes more sense. If your bike is a bad ass as you say it is, then send it to be tested. Anything short of being included will bring up many questions. here is my 100% speculation: the P4 wasn't sent because it hasn't passed UCI requirements and is being re-designed so the cervelo team can race it.

 

Where did they finish in stage 2 and what does that mean?

---

"the trick is to keep losing weight until your friends and family ask you if you've been sick. then you know you're within 10 pounds. if they start whispering to each other, wondering if you've got cancer or aids, you're within 5. when they actually do an intervention, you're at race weight." - Slowman

I'm looking forward to the day when we finally have a tri or TT where the course is actually in a wind tunnel so all of this data that we talk about can finally be relevant. Unfortunately in reality (where we happen to race) wind doesn't happen at a steady yaw and we do not pedal in a completely stable position at an even cadence. Every time our body moves slightly or we turn the wheel just so or we take a drink or eat some food or lift our asses to fart changes things just enough so that all the data we get from a wind tunnel is pretty much useless.

And the thing that almost never gets mentioned in all of the debates on this subject is that certain bikes will be more or less aero in a wind tunnel for certain riders since we all come in different shapes and sizes. Just because one bike might test better than another in a wind tunnel under one rider or even the DZ dummy doesn't mean that it would test as the most aero bike with you on it. And that says nothing about what your specific best position is on that bike or which bike would be most aero for your position. Since none of us will ever have the opportunity to test every bike out there with our specific position over every possible yaw angle all of this debate is meaningless. We talk about it because it is fun but it is no different than trying to argue whether Joe Montana, John Elway or Peyton Manning is the best quarterback ever. Fun but useless in any meaningful way. What I think is more telling is how sold some people are on the whole importance of bike aerodynamics despite the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't mean squat proven very and over by the fact that just about every bike out there wins in proportion to their ability to sponsor good athletes. And yet it is those people who preach the aero gospel who will dismiss those who do not buy into it as ignorant while never realizing that it is them that has been duped by marketing.

Find a bike that appeals to you AND allows you to get into your best possible position. Refine that position over time as you see fit and you'll likely get faster. Your position has WAY more effect on your speed than the relatively small bike you are riding ever will.

You know...you're right. It's all complete hooey and has zero utility whatsoever.

What was I thinking?? Carry on...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Funny thing is I read somewhere recently where Steve Hed basically said the same thing and he makes his living off aero stuff. He said that aero testing of a rider in a wind tunnel makes a much, much bigger difference than the aeroness (is that even a word) of a bike, whells or other goodies. I'm sure someone can link to the quote. I think most of your aero testing is done in the real world with you on your bike. I'm not poo pooing that. Just the whole notion that one aero fram has any significant real world difference over another aero frame.

That sounds like a stunning result for a team with no time trialist on the 2nd best bike!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

fatbastard

as has been mentioned 1000 times here

wind tunnel tests are done at a variety of yaw angles, they move the bike this way and that in realtime and get data to replicate real world conditions.

I KNOW that you KNOW this, so why do you act like you don't?

It is also talked about here endlessly, that people HAVE experimented with how different riders interact with the frames to change the results, and it has been found that they rarely do, with weird bikes like the Trimble being exceptions. I'm pretty sure you have been around here long enough to know this as well. Do you just not BELIEVE it?


Furthermore guys like TomA/Andrew Coggan/Chung have done convincing REAL WORLD tests with power meters to show that frames do make meaningful differences

how can you go on believing otherwise?

I really don't get it. Give me insight into your mind here.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Ummm...I don't think anyone denies that your position on your bike is the largest determiner of your total drag. But, what do you do when your done tweaking THAT lever?



Well...then how do you explain this?

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...%20borrowed;#1802183

...of course, I guess it all depends on your definition of "significant", huh?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Well said....

Find a bike that appeals to you AND allows you to get into your best possible position. Refine that position over time as you see fit and you'll likely get faster. Your position has WAY more effect on your speed than the relatively small bike you are riding ever will.

I know... science is the new religion. I'm generally a believer myself. Only the facts are constantly changing which suggests to me that they were never facts to begin with. I think we have all seen TomA/Andrew/Chung question the testing methodologies when they are published by the bike companies and rightly so since they tend to only release the data that shows them in the best light (also rightly so). Those guy should also know that in the real world it is virtually impossible to eliminate all possible variables which makes the margin of error potentially significant. And when you throw in the variables associated with trying to prove that the aero benefits of one aero frame over another aero frame with a rider in the exact same position over the course of an Ironman distance event it becomes next to impossible.

I want to believe but I'd rather just ride. Either way I still enjoy TomA and those guys trying to keep the bike guys honest with the geek stuff.

So basically they are saying that the Scott just might be the third or fourth most aerodynamic bike on the market. I suspect its actuall the fifth given the Felt's testing numbers and the P3s numbers.

Don't try to confuse this discussion with "data" and "facts". That is a really low blow. ;-)

I would argue that the data set is too small to extrapolate that time savings. It is a theoretical time savings. I'm guessing that you tried to really hold your position as steady as possible to eliminate variables. Your theoretical time savings assumes that you can hold that stable position over the distance we race in which we don't. Once we start popping up to grab bottles blow snot out of our nose or stretch our necks the theoretical time savings you got over your 10 minute test start decreasing. I would argue that on a 100 mile race there are enough of these little adjustments that equalize and ultimately marginalize the theoretical savings you achieve. Not to mention that with slightly different wind conditions the results you got on your test could have been even less significant.

Of course you are a much smarter guy than me (not meant sarcastically at all) so you would undoubtedly have great counter arguments to this. And I would ultimately have to retread my original argument which is that every bike out there wins a lot of races. The engine makes a huge difference. Positioning that engine correctly makes a huge difference. The bike under that engine makes a very, very small difference in the real world as race results prove over and over and over again.

Dude
if a frame is faster over an entire reasonable yaw sweep

it is going to be faster

its going to be faster if you sit up like a grandma

it is going to be faster if you are as aero as zabrisky

it is going to be faster if you use a sub9 disc

it is going to be faster if you use a box rim

it is going to be faster if you fart often, or rarely on the bike

theres simply less drag!

but i am glad people are skeptical, I for one can use the few extra minutes I get from being an aero weenie. Hell I see the direct effects of my efforts when I go to the local outdoor velodrome. On my commuter bike I get my ass handed to me. On my aero weenie bike I am unstoppable. it is like cheating!

;)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

So what? If you don't take racing seriously and can't hold a good position for most of the race you only get half the free speed of a guy who does it right?

What is the problem?

Not to mention, if you are blowing your nose on a P4 or Specialized transition, you are losing less speed than a guy blowing his nose on kuota

because it is more aero

if you blow your nose, you DEFINITELY want an aero frame, because no power is being applied, aero is all you have!

=)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

If you what you wrote above were true, then it would not be possible to use wind tunnel measurements to predict the power requiremet of cycling outdoors in very windy conditions to within 1-2%. As we demonstrated about a decade ago, however, it is; ergo, what you wrote above is not true.

No, science is science, and always has been.


Like so many, you are confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Or, to put it "science-y" terms: there is a difference between making a type I error and a type II error.