Sorry, I'm on a phone with not a lot of time. I'm not sure what the question is. The numbers are what they are. We're not fitting these test riders, they simply were test riders. If I were fitting Ian, his position would be vastly different and the CdA would be lower. For instance, at 250lbs, my personal CdA was in the area of .268, and I'll soon test it again to see what it is 50lbs lighter, and then adjust my positon since I'm now capable of going back to my original fit coordinates. I'm guessing my drag numbers, even at 200 lbs, will be much better than most triathletes. The protocols are the same for everyone, and though there's a lot more to the algorithm, it's basically power vs speed. Simple. They're the same protocols that helped me fit 6 elite UCI World Champions in 2016 alone.
These are the same protocols that allowed me to estimate Luke McKenzie's Kone split from 2013 to within 43 seconds of his actual time, and Heather Jackson to within 7 seconds of her last Wildflower split. From this year, I knew Amber Neben (who I fit, tested in the tunnel and tested again using the Alphamantis system on 3 consecutive days) should've been about 30 seconds ahead of Kristin Armstrong at US Nationals, and if I'm not mistaken she beat her by 28 seconds (and would have easily won
gold in Rio).
On this board, I constantly see people overestimating (or underestimating) their CdA. People are much higher than they want to believe. We see very few triathletes below .25 when they come in. Very few. They might leave lower, but they come in way high, and most need a decent bike fit far more than they need an aero test. Bike Fit, good bike fit, has been lost to marketing. It's now about selling product, not about optimal performance.
These tests were not about the riders position, they were about testing a product. Ian was excellent for that. His was very consistent, which is what we need. What the athletes CdA is, whether high or low, means nothing to me.
Jim Manton /
ERO Sports