Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: New 2017 Quintana Roo PRsix! [Petrus101]
[ In reply to ]
Re: New 2017 Quintana Roo PRsix! [BryanD]
[ In reply to ]
Ouch.. good dumb down just not the message I wanted to hear. Thank you.
Re: New 2017 Quintana Roo PRsix! [dcohen24]
[ In reply to ]
dcohen24 wrote:
In the original pr6 white paper, you can see see the pr6 is about 1/3 of the way between a shiv and p5-six. Overlay that with the felt ia data, and the original pr6 is probably about 60-70g slower at 0 degrees.
I'm gonna disagree with this as you can't really mix and match data from different tests. Too many differences between the tests and how they are run. You can end up with vastly different numbers depending on which tests you choose. For example, Felt found the IA to be ~75g faster then the DA at zero yaw (run at 30mph). I believe the estimate is that 50g of drag = 5w, so this would give us 7.5 watts. Quintana Roo ran found that PRsix was ~20 watts faster than the DA at zero yaw (run at 22mph). So if we overlayed this then the PRsix would be faster. Of course the problem with my example is the tests were run at different speeds so there is probably some more calculations that would have to be done. But the point is, you really can't mix and match tests.
Anyway, to the poster that asked about the PRsix vs IA. IMHO, the bikes are close enough in terms of aerodynamics that it may be more important to weight the other benefits and drawbacks of each bike. Especially if the bike could put you as a rider in a more aerodynamic position. That said, it would have been nice if QR would have run their tests with the IA instead of the DA (assuming the IA was out at the time...not sure the time table of tests and bike releases)
Matt
Re: New 2017 Quintana Roo PRsix! [Pun_Times]
[ In reply to ]
Pun_Times wrote:
dcohen24 wrote:
In the original pr6 white paper, you can see see the pr6 is about 1/3 of the way between a shiv and p5-six. Overlay that with the felt ia data, and the original pr6 is probably about 60-70g slower at 0 degrees.
I'm gonna disagree with this as you can't really mix and match data from different tests. Too many differences between the tests and how they are run. You can end up with vastly different numbers depending on which tests you choose. For example, Felt found the IA to be ~75g faster then the DA at zero yaw (run at 30mph). I believe the estimate is that 50g of drag = 5w, so this would give us 7.5 watts. Quintana Roo ran found that PRsix was ~20 watts faster than the DA at zero yaw (run at 22mph). So if we overlayed this then the PRsix would be faster. Of course the problem with my example is the tests were run at different speeds so there is probably some more calculations that would have to be done. But the point is, you really can't mix and match tests.
Anyway, to the poster that asked about the PRsix vs IA. IMHO, the bikes are close enough in terms of aerodynamics that it may be more important to weight the other benefits and drawbacks of each bike. Especially if the bike could put you as a rider in a more aerodynamic position. That said, it would have been nice if QR would have run their tests with the IA instead of the DA (assuming the IA was out at the time...not sure the time table of tests and bike releases)
in last year, do you know (or someone else) the aero of prsix about other bikes (canyon, felt ai, bmc...)? i am thinking to buy the prsix disc
Regards
felipe.g.c wrote:
Pun_Times wrote:
dcohen24 wrote:
In the original pr6 white paper, you can see see the pr6 is about 1/3 of the way between a shiv and p5-six. Overlay that with the felt ia data, and the original pr6 is probably about 60-70g slower at 0 degrees.
I'm gonna disagree with this as you can't really mix and match data from different tests. Too many differences between the tests and how they are run. You can end up with vastly different numbers depending on which tests you choose. For example, Felt found the IA to be ~75g faster then the DA at zero yaw (run at 30mph). I believe the estimate is that 50g of drag = 5w, so this would give us 7.5 watts. Quintana Roo ran found that PRsix was ~20 watts faster than the DA at zero yaw (run at 22mph). So if we overlayed this then the PRsix would be faster. Of course the problem with my example is the tests were run at different speeds so there is probably some more calculations that would have to be done. But the point is, you really can't mix and match tests.
Anyway, to the poster that asked about the PRsix vs IA. IMHO, the bikes are close enough in terms of aerodynamics that it may be more important to weight the other benefits and drawbacks of each bike. Especially if the bike could put you as a rider in a more aerodynamic position. That said, it would have been nice if QR would have run their tests with the IA instead of the DA (assuming the IA was out at the time...not sure the time table of tests and bike releases)
in last year, do you know (or someone else) the aero of prsix about other bikes (canyon, felt ai, bmc...)? i am thinking to buy the prsix disc
Regards
aha. great. i answered you in spanish in your other thread, but am much better equipped to do this in english.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman