pk wrote:
marcag wrote:
dfru wrote:
the second one at Aerow that Jan is in?
ETA Day 5 - about 26:00 in. It's more Lionel going over the changes but Jan sounding happy about the testing higher stack was telling, then Lionel goes over the other things they tried. Obviously not the whole thing. And Talbot is a genius with putting out JUST enough info.
I could be wrong - you would know best! But I don't think I am hahaha
Ok, when I watched that I didn't realize Jan was speaking in the background. I thought there was only the cameo at the engly. The only data I have seen is what you guys saw.
I'll tell you this, he has confirmed and double confirmed and triple confirmed a lot of his findings. He did a road test in September, another in December, A2 tunnel in January and this.
The Met helmet is a really good test becase a) it tests fast. We tested on several WT riders and it did well. b) he didn't have one when we tested. Same for suits, he only had Surpass and another type.
It will be interesting to see what data they include in future videos. As to your comment on "JUST enough", sometimes I don't think they realize just how much they are revealing to the trained eye.
out of interest how does the set up work with him i think he did some work with jonas after kona that might have been more fitting , you , the aero then in the tunnel i would assume again with jonas so who brings all the numbers together.
and then of course who comes up with the baseline after all the pre testing .230 seems more marketing than reality ..... hard to believe that was his baseline after all the testing he had already done .
I think Jonas and his company have close relationships with Canyon and it's normal for the bike sponsor to be involved with this kind of testing. Especially when you start testing UCI vs non UCI, Canyon vs third party cockpits, etc etc.
I tested Lionel on the road pre Kona. Way back then he mentioned he would eventually go to Germany for testing. They were building their tunnel at that time
Then Jonas tested him on the velodrome.
Then I tested back on the road. Biggest difference between velodrome and road is 0 yaw on the velodrome and harder to control yaw on the road. 0 yaw is wonderful, but remember, numbers are always worst at 0 and that is not real world, especially at Kona.
Then he decided to test at A2, a lot of which to confirm what we found previously and test some very specific things. A tunnel is better for some things, not as good for others. But the problem with a tunnel, or testing in general is you can't take "raw numbers" and compare them. There is a need for interpretation. I think that was where I could help at A2.
I did post race analysis after Oceanside which was basically confirming the work we had done previously.
I suspect his injury kind of made it the right time for his testing in Germany. It was probably good for his coach to be there :-).
As for the .230.....well........I guess that's where a little interpretation of results comes in. Where the fixtures that hold the bike subtracted ? Some tunnels do, some don't. I think even Lionel questioned that number saying "a person wouldn't be competitive". This after winning Oceanside.
Absolute numbers and hair shaving apart, I didn't see anything strange in those videos. I think Jonas did a great job and the video really well done. Find a youtube video were they don't find 30watts :-)
Personally I would have asked a few questions to get more context but I suspect many questions were asked and Lionel has people on his team that can properly interpret the data.