xyei wrote:
I just registered into this account to say a few things.
First off, I got into this forum and post as I'm subscribed to Hambini's channel. Now don't let that get you all riled up.
I'm currently a ME student and I discovered his channel after looking into aftermarket solutions to 'inadequately-thought' design conclusions by some manufacturers. I could give less crap about aerodynamics in my current level right now and
I only watch his channel for those one-off solutions to piñata-quality frames sent to him. On that regard (the aero jazz), you can go ream him as much as you want.
On one thought though: disregarding his behavior and practices, I think his premise is actually legitimate when it comes to planting skepticism towards 'innovation' by certain bicycle manufacturers, as you have all been projecting towards his line of work, tests, and data. Having perspective from a not-so-scientifically-rigid side of cycling, I see that casual people seem to be just deepthroating whatever the industry has been biffling out.
Technical forums (whether ST is one of them or not depends on you) may have been skeptic already, but the casual community has not been; at least not sufficiently enough. So while you can all go and rape the aerospace street-shitter, I think he still has his place in the aformentioned subject.
After all, isn't 'engineering' technically "providing solutions that are
significantly positive-sum"? To that standard, many designs in the cycling industry aren't really 'engineered' enough. And seeing that they're really thriving, I guess there isn't enough doubt in the minds of the consumers.
For me personally, Hambone's opinion on which is crap or not tends to be a baseline if something is worth buying or not. You may see that as a very vague standard, but seeing as he doesn't prefer threaded BBs as much as I do, he must be a tad more nitpicky than the standard bloke. I'm not a die-hard racer, so for as long as my bike is 'aero' enough and structurally decent, I could give less manure about some dimples on chinese carbon.
Anyways, I haven't really explored this forum enough, but if it's not done much yet, I think you all should also give more attention to these manufacturers with regards to their umm... revolutionary, watt-saving butterfuckfest. Whatever the fuck happened to actual human training, seeing that a novice with the highest-end componentry couldn't even beat an ancient hour record.
I am a mechanical engineer (graduate degree) with significant real world experience in CFD among other skills. Not involved in bike design of any kind by the way and I am by no means an aerodynamics expert (not even close to a rookie) but have the technical background to understand the fundamentals. I often cringe when I read some of the studies, concepts, or designs by some bike manufacturers. Nobody is perfect, but I often feel an air of arrogance in the bike industry and very little ownership for some of horrible concepts and products. Having said that, there is also a lot of great innovation and good engineering. I find the "aero" side of the industry to be the one with the most snake oil.
About Hambini, it probably won't sit well with a bunch of people in these forums, but the guy is actually qualified and competent specially with aerodynamics. I disagree with some of the stuff he says (or how he conducts himself sometimes) but I enjoyed his chat on TT position discussing steady state/transient, praying mantis position, etc.