mike s wrote:
I have a large KASK Mistral with Aero Pro Eye Shield/Visor if you want to borrow. I am in Fayetteville, NCIG - @ryanppax
http://www.geluminati.com
Use code ST5 for $5 off your order
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Alex Dowsett's "The Big Test" Aero Series [mike s]
[ In reply to ]
You all are awesome! Shoot me a dm ffor your return address and box size and I'll send you over a label
IG - @ryanppax
http://www.geluminati.com
Use code ST5 for $5 off your order
Re: Alex Dowsett's "The Big Test" Aero Series [codygo]
[ In reply to ]
codygo wrote:
dfru wrote:
Toothengineer wrote:
applenutt wrote:
They both have me thinking I need to spend $375 for a TT5 helmet.I bought it after watching lol.... 375 + tax but no shipping at least on orders over 300 :-)
Wait - you are riding? ;)
It's so ugly - which we said about the original aerohead. I just...love the 2.0 the more i see it haha so I'll wait!
I recently bought the POC Procen even though I would have chosen the TT5 because the latter was never available.
The TT5 seems like it was designed by someone with more aero expertise, (sharper trailing edges that are essentially inactive in a low head position and likely beneficial in normal people’s head tilt angles, more orthogonal face shield and venting to/from wake zones and no duct gimmicks) and the Aerohead 2.0 has features that look more like what a designer thinks “looks aero” but may not be all that great, particularly the long forward nose and tangential face shield.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the TT5 is still better for most people, even in the Aerohead 2.0 ideal head attitude. The only doubt I have is I’d imagine Giro must have benchmarked the TT5 since it has been out for a while now.
Why eyeball aero when you can go meta and eyeball implied aero expertise from helmets and then infer aero from that.
Re: Alex Dowsett's "The Big Test" Aero Series [aravilare]
[ In reply to ]
aravilare wrote:
codygo wrote:
dfru wrote:
Toothengineer wrote:
applenutt wrote:
They both have me thinking I need to spend $375 for a TT5 helmet.I bought it after watching lol.... 375 + tax but no shipping at least on orders over 300 :-)
Wait - you are riding? ;)
It's so ugly - which we said about the original aerohead. I just...love the 2.0 the more i see it haha so I'll wait!
I recently bought the POC Procen even though I would have chosen the TT5 because the latter was never available.
The TT5 seems like it was designed by someone with more aero expertise, (sharper trailing edges that are essentially inactive in a low head position and likely beneficial in normal people’s head tilt angles, more orthogonal face shield and venting to/from wake zones and no duct gimmicks) and the Aerohead 2.0 has features that look more like what a designer thinks “looks aero” but may not be all that great, particularly the long forward nose and tangential face shield.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the TT5 is still better for most people, even in the Aerohead 2.0 ideal head attitude. The only doubt I have is I’d imagine Giro must have benchmarked the TT5 since it has been out for a while now.
Why eyeball aero when you can go meta and eyeball implied aero expertise from helmets and then infer aero from that.
I have a lot of academic and professional experience as an aerodynamicist, including theory, computation, and wind tunnel testing, so yes I’d say I’m very accurate in assessing aerodynamic designs. I like Slowtwitch because of the shared knowledge from several enthusiastic experts, so I try to contribute in kind. You don’t have to believe me, but at least be a positive contributor to the forum.
Re: Alex Dowsett's "The Big Test" Aero Series [codygo]
[ In reply to ]
codygo wrote:
aravilare wrote:
Why eyeball aero when you can go meta and eyeball implied aero expertise from helmets and then infer aero from that.
I have a lot of academic and professional experience as an aerodynamicist, including theory, computation, and wind tunnel testing, so yes I’d say I’m very accurate in assessing aerodynamic designs. I like Slowtwitch because of the shared knowledge from several enthusiastic experts, so I try to contribute in kind. You don’t have to believe me, but at least be a positive contributor to the forum.
So, in your professional opinion as an aerodynamicist, we should just rely on your eyeballs to assess aerodynamics instead of actual testing, especially for equipment that is supposedly highly individualized in performance.
Re: Alex Dowsett's "The Big Test" Aero Series [Ex-cyclist]
[ In reply to ]
Ex-cyclist wrote:
applenutt wrote:
His series is genius.It's a good series. But it is also specific for Dowsett. I wouldn't buy a helmet based on his findings. I've tested the TT5 on several people, it's never been fastest for those people. Not saying it's a bad helmet. But if I were buying a helmet without data, I'd go with the AeroHead or Mistral.
Interesting re: mistral.
Always thought it was aerohead above all, the wing close second, perhaps poc cerebral third, throw a blanky over the rest ?
Re: Alex Dowsett's "The Big Test" Aero Series [IamSpartacus]
[ In reply to ]
IamSpartacus wrote:
Ex-cyclist wrote:
applenutt wrote:
His series is genius.It's a good series. But it is also specific for Dowsett. I wouldn't buy a helmet based on his findings. I've tested the TT5 on several people, it's never been fastest for those people. Not saying it's a bad helmet. But if I were buying a helmet without data, I'd go with the AeroHead or Mistral.
Interesting re: mistral.
Always thought it was aerohead above all, the wing close second, perhaps poc cerebral third, throw a blanky over the rest ?
The Aerohead is usually in the top 3. In my testing the Mistral is right in there as well. I’m working more with TT’ers and Track riders than with triathletes these days. But last triathlete is had in the Mistral was fastest…
Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
aravilare wrote:
codygo wrote:
aravilare wrote:
Why eyeball aero when you can go meta and eyeball implied aero expertise from helmets and then infer aero from that.
I have a lot of academic and professional experience as an aerodynamicist, including theory, computation, and wind tunnel testing, so yes I’d say I’m very accurate in assessing aerodynamic designs. I like Slowtwitch because of the shared knowledge from several enthusiastic experts, so I try to contribute in kind. You don’t have to believe me, but at least be a positive contributor to the forum.
So, in your professional opinion as an aerodynamicist, we should just rely on your eyeballs to assess aerodynamics instead of actual testing, especially for equipment that is supposedly highly individualized in performance.
Nobody said to avoid testing, but will you test every option under the sun? Aerodynamics is expensive for many reasons, among them the immense design space. Given finite time and testing resources, an expert will extract far more value and be far less surprised by any computational or experimental study. Yes, I can tell right away from surface characteristics if there has been proper aerodynamic refinement, which allows me to test maybe a handful of design options and outperform someone trying to use “DOE” software. Theory, or “eyeballs,” as you say, is what I get paid to do.
Part of why I commented here is to say the notion of “highly individualized” isn’t really that much of an elusive mystery if you consider rider states more carefully than it is commonly discussed, e.g. head and torso attitude as I have. It will continue to remain a mystery because most people test for force numbers as if the test were on a black box, and don’t try to get any flowfield data (qualitative or quantitative) to guide refinement or what to test next.