Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel!
Quote | Reply
http://www.cyclingnews.com/...t-f01-aero-road-bike

Cyclingnews has a presentation of the new f01 from Scott. Apparently, it's based on a similar "truncated airfoil" design as the Speed Concept. Scott make the claim that it's more aero than the S3 or AR1, particularly at yaw, while also lighter and better-riding due to omission of very deep airfoil shapes. The red in this photo purports to indicated where airfoil "tails" were removed:


And the graphic on the downtube visible here shows the truncated airfoil concept:



It looks like a great bike, but I just can't believe these 3:2 ratio tube shapes could be all that aero. They claim extensive wind tunnel testing, and of course the Speed Concept seemed a bit suspect to the ol' eyeball wind tunnel as well. (The White Paper has me convinced that Trek did their homework on that one.)

But how much can you really truncate an airfoil and still be aero? Trek's Kamm is still 3:1 (ish?), but it behaves like a 4:1 or greater shape, no? Couldn't you just consider a round tube to be a very truncated airfoil? (It clearly is not, but that doesn't see far from what Scott is claiming...)
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Drew_O] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
With this desgin its seems like it would be mouch more aero with waterbottles than the s3 or any other airfoil tail frame.
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [xcrunner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
With this desgin its seems like it would be mouch more aero with waterbottles than the s3 or any other airfoil tail frame.

What are you actually basing that claim off of? In very general terms, Kamm-tail airfoils are EXTREMELY sensitive to objects in the wake zone. Disturbances of the trailing vortices can absolutely ruin the performance of Kamm style airfoils. I suspect - though it's pure speculation - that the is a big part of why the SpeedBox is designed as it does - it basically extends the airfoil such that it is for all practical purposes a full-length airfoil. I would actually speculate that these sort of designs perform markedly WORSE with water bottles than a full-length airfoil.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
any word on release date??
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Drew_O] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As an addendum, Trek holds the patent on the use of Kamm-tail airfoils on bikes. So I'm VERY curious to see what happens with that.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is a bit of a misnomer since you cannot technically patent the use of a design in the public domain. Trek has applied for the patent, but I don't think it has been granted.

HEre is my issue: A wide variety of auto designers used the Kamm-Tail or Kammback in their designs and if the use was accepted across multiple manufacturers then I don't see how Trek could be granted a patent in the bike industry.

Bob
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Macho Grande] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
This is a bit of a misnomer since you cannot technically patent the use of a design in the public domain. Trek has applied for the patent, but I don't think it has been granted.

HEre is my issue: A wide variety of auto designers used the Kamm-Tail or Kammback in their designs and if the use was accepted across multiple manufacturers then I don't see how Trek could be granted a patent in the bike industry.

Bob

I was surprised when I heard that Trek "had" the patent, but of course, I could easily be "mis-remembering" and they might have said "had applied for." I do remember the very real implication that they felt they could have exclusive use.

It *may* have been applied for patent long enough ago to have expired in the auto industry. Beyond that, it had widespread acceptance in the Can-Am series for racing, and anytime you have some series designs (though Can-Am was not a "formula" series), that would preclude a patent, I would think.

In any case, I am not a patent lawyer, but perhaps it is considered public domain wrt automobiles, but not bicycles, which is why Trek felt it had a case for patenting the shape on bicycles.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What I read was that patents had been applied for, not granted.

In the past you could take an idea in one "domain" apply it in a new domain, and get a patent. This has largely been tightened up (I think that it was the KSR case -- “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).

They may be able to patent something in the frame design that is novel, but I'd be surprised if "the use of a Kamm shape on a bicycle frame" is patentable. Clearly airfoils have been used on bikes, and clearly a Kamm tail is an "airfoil" so it would not be "novel".

Quote:
It *may* have been applied for patent long enough ago to have expired in the auto industry.

not sure what you meant here, but when a patent expires, it is freely available to the public, IOW never patentable again.

Quote:
In any case, I am not a patent lawyer, but perhaps it is considered public domain wrt automobiles, but not bicycles, which is why Trek felt it had a case for patenting the shape on bicycles.

I am a patent agent, and do not believe that this is novel (there is no publication yet), but if Treks lawyers are good enough, a patent may be granted. However, it may not stand up to litigation.
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [CW in VT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Quote:
It *may* have been applied for patent long enough ago to have expired in the auto industry.

not sure what you meant here, but when a patent expires, it is freely available to the public, IOW never patentable again.

I was referring to the sort of example you had above. I.e., Kammtails are now widely used in the auto-industry, but that doesn't - inherently - mean that was never a patent in the automotive industry, and that patent might have expired, thus allowing everyone in the auto industry to now use that design. But the expiration of that patent I don't THINK would prevent a patent from being applied for in the bicycle industry because it could be "novel." But again, you're the patent lawyer, not me.

E.g, 1945, Mercedes applies for - and gets - a patent for the use of a Kamm shape on auto bodies. That patent expires 17 (right?) years later. (The prior is totally hypothetical.) But then, in 2009, Trek decides to apply the basic Kamm shape in a "novel" way and applies for a patent. Is the shape not patentable despite the fact that a patent was previously applied for - but for a different usage in a different domain?

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pre KSR (2007) Trek would have stood a good shot of getting a patent. Now not so much. Its really a re-definition of "obviousness" by the SCOTUS. Just because the Kamm tail had not been used on a bike, does not mean that its use is not "obvious". But, until the application is published, its tough to figure out what exactly is being claimed, so there may be a novel idea in there that they are not now publishing (in the lay-press), or they may just want to scare people off...

IMO patent law and patents in general had jumped the proverbial shark prior to this ruling. An example, a competitor to my former employer (capital equipment manufacturer) patented online ordering of our "specific market segment/product". This was in ~2002ish. Online ordering of all sorts of stuff was going on, just not of this particular product segment, is that novel?

So, IMO the use of a proven aerodynamic shape, in an aerodynamic application is not novel. However the use of a Kamm tail in some sort of medical device might be... Also, I'm an engineer that passed the patent bar, so not a patent lawyer, just a patent "agent or practitioner"...

Quote:
That patent expires 17 (right?) years later.

There have been a lot of "patent terms". Current law is 20 years from the application date. So in many cases its ~17yrs (takes around 3yrs to issue), but in certain segments, i.e. medical, it works out to be ~14 years, as you get "extensions" due to FDA testing, but its capped.
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The term we use in 'circles inside circles'

Lets say you patent 'cars', 2 years later i come out and patent 'the use of seats in cars'. I cannot create a car because you have the patent on cars, you cannot put seats in your cars because i have a patent on seats. You can create a car with no seats, and I can't create anything, until your patent is up. Once your patent is up I can create a car with seats and the public can create a car without seats (for 2 years until my patent is up, then they can build a car with seats). This is how I understand it, I am not a patent agent but look at them occasionally. I will also confirm with the above poster that the patent office is becoming more strict so while it may have been seen as novel before it may not be now just due to the strictness of the patent application. Also, as far as scott using it anyways here is how I would understand that: I apply for a patent on spoons. I put 'patent pending' on my spoon. My competitors can gamble on whether or not they think my patent will be passed. If they do not think it is going to get passed (which takes years), they can say hey that patent is not going to get passed we are going to make and sell spoons anyways even though you put 'patent pending' on your device. Lets say 5 years goes by and my patent has been denied then my competitor has been able to sell spoons for 5 years without any penalty. If my patent gets approved then I have to sue the competitor for infringing on my patent over the past 5 years since I conceived of it first. This is just how it has been explained to me.

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com
Last edited by: msuguy512: Jul 4, 10 19:01
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Patents nowadays are rarely broad of simple. Its unlikely that Trek would try to patent "the Kamm airfoil for bicyclke use". For one it wouldn't hold up, Scott could argue that using a kamm for energy savings with a car and a bike is similar, as both are vehicles.

Likely Trek would try to patent a specific Kamm shape, using a specific material, and include structural benefits as well as aero. Of course you need a good writer / lawyer, because the narrower the patent the more likely ypu will get it granted, but the more likely someone can come up with a variation that isn't covered.

Styrrell

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [msuguy512] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
pretty much on, but

Quote:
If my patent gets approved then I have to sue the competitor for infringing on my patent over the past 5 years since I conceived of it first.


you can't really infringe until the patent is issued. however reasonable compensation is usually granted from the time you put the "infringer" on notice (by providing them with the patent application as published), provided your claims do not change substantially through the prosecution of the patent, i.e. before it issues... So its not from when you apply, or conceive, but when the application is published that your "potential" enforcement rights begin.

Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Drew_O] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm guessing that Scott used a heavily truncated airfoil to keep a boxier tube section and keep the weight lower. The level of truncation to an airfoil is not all that aero, more of the benefit comes from internally routing the cables and having good shaping of the headtube, fork, and downtube integration. If the cross section looks like the graphic on the downtube (i.e. cut off at the widest point) a round tube would probably be faster.


A quick note on Kamm tails. It's generally better to take an optimal airfoil and truncate it than to compress it*. Trek realized this and while a 5:1 airfoil might be the fastest, the UCI limits them to 3:1, so better to hack off the last 40% than go with a 3:1 airfoil. The draftbox is a way to get part of the bike back to the ideal airfoil dimensions.

*All the theory I've worked on has been at 0deg. yaw, so I can't speak to the impacts of airfoil truncation in crosswinds.

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Drew_O] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
looks sickk...I am however very bias towards Scott as they were my first sponsor as young ski-racer (poles and goggles,)and had a first edition Plasma. I,despite my Cervelo/ Felt fetish am always rooting for them. Can only hope they have something in the future I am willing to pay for/ willing to ride.
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [CW in VT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mark "patent pending" on device FTW on damages ;)

In Reply To:
pretty much on, but

Quote:
If my patent gets approved then I have to sue the competitor for infringing on my patent over the past 5 years since I conceived of it first.


you can't really infringe until the patent is issued. however reasonable compensation is usually granted from the time you put the "infringer" on notice (by providing them with the patent application as published), provided your claims do not change substantially through the prosecution of the patent, i.e. before it issues... So its not from when you apply, or conceive, but when the application is published that your "potential" enforcement rights begin.
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Drew_O] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
the seatpost "clamp" area looks pretty sick on this thing. looks similar to what Scott has done on the Plasma 3.
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Drew_O] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
in case it makes any difference, i posted this in another thread...


Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [rayyantoh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting, thanks for that. The cross-section in the pic you posted does looks more believably aero than the downtube graphic. I'm certainly reserving judgement until I see the bike in person or see better pics; it's hard to get a sense of the tube shapes from the pics I've seen so far. It looks like a great bike, and if the aero claims prove true it may be the one to replace my beloved C-50. Looks like I'll have to wait 'till 2012 though...
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
One thing to keep in mind with the eyeball wind tunnel analysis is that on a bike the tubes aren't orientated vertically to the wind. For instance on an old school steel bike the cross section that the wind sees at 0 yaw for the downtube is oval, not round, even though the tube is round.

The truncated Scott tubes aren't quite as stubby as they look to the naked eye.

Styrrell

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [rayyantoh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i can only imagine what the bullet profile looks at a higher yaw...
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
that is a good point.

In Reply To:
One thing to keep in mind with the eyeball wind tunnel analysis is that on a bike the tubes aren't orientated vertically to the wind. For instance on an old school steel bike the cross section that the wind sees at 0 yaw for the downtube is oval, not round, even though the tube is round.

The truncated Scott tubes aren't quite as stubby as they look to the naked eye.

Styrrell



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
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A good point (one gut check on how well researched the frame is is that the shape of the tube should vary by frame size since the angle of the downtube changes). It also means that (at least for the downtube) that round tubes aren't as bad as "perpendicular to the flow" analysis would imply, since the wind is seeing an oval (aspect ratio determined by the angle of the tube).

It still feels to me like they did this to keep the frame lighter (vs. a full airfoil). I checked and Cervelo's best aero road frame is ~1/2lb. heavier than their best production round-tube frame (excluding the Project California frame for now). Haven't checked the delta on the Scotts, but I'd bet its less.

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott F01 "aero" road bike: to the eyeball wind tunnel! [Drew_O] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply

Prev Next