Interestingly I have a very different opinion. The fact that a rider on a Dimond bike had the fastest bike split means nothing. Except, this rider walked the marathon therefore either he had to work too hard (i.e. bike is not aero) or he simply came out with a strategy to have the fastest bike split without caring about the result of the triathlon he participated in.

Using this argument as evidence that a Dimond is fast is very weak to my opinion. Seriously, is that all you got, Dimond? I would put 100x more trust in the aerodynamic performance of a bike who's rider was 5 minutes slower on the bike but then won the race because he still had the legs to have a strong run. Because unlike what so many think, triathlon ends after the run, not after the bike.

As Rich Strauss has already said so many times: there's no such thing as a good bike followed by a bad run. And therefore, Twelsiek's run does not count as a good bike split at all.

OK, fine; you're right. With all the money companies like Trek are spending on testing - including on-road testing; we can all agree that they are doing on-road testing now, right? - they aren't doing exactly what you're asking for.

The question one should generally ask oneself in this type of a situation is "am I the smartest guy in the room, or do I just not know what the hell I'm talking about?"

Nice try again at deflecting from the original point with more ad hominem attacks.

I never tried to say "I'm the smartest guy in the room." If you want proof, look above, where I clearly agree with Tom A's later post where he tested it himself - I'm not out to prove I'm the smartest - I'm just pointing out the truth about testing if you really want to do it right.

I'm looking at all the 'white papers' from bike companies with a skeptical eye. They've got so much money, yet they can't produce a single field test a la Tom A or Dr. Coggan where they prove their engineered bike is faster outdoors than the competition, but they're happy to claim 'we've got the fastest wind tunnel tested bike' (Cervelo, at least.)


I'm not asking them to go above and beyond reasonable testing. I'm asking for perhaps the most obvious, low-cost testing method and to post the results publicly if their bike can do what they claim. Their glaring lack of having such data is very telling - it basically demands that you should view of what they're showing in that white paper as intentional obfuscation and unnecessarily complicating the situation in an effort to avoid showing the results of the simple test - line up the bikes, line up the riders, pace 'em out at 200 watts on a windless day outdoors, and show us the results. If their wind tunnel results are really that translatable to real world, let's see it. Tom A's test is the first I've seen that actually attempts to do this, and yes, his n=1 result suggests that you SHOULD be able to have a measurable difference between frames outdoors.

And like you, I'm not naive - you and I both know that they're testing the crap out of their bikes outdoors, right now. Many, many times over. So the next obvious question, which is the crux of my entire posting on this thread - why haven't we seen it? What are they hiding?

I think you're over-selling how easy it is to do the field testing properly (as Doc C. pointed out earlier), along with how limited the results can be (basically near zero yaw...unless using bike mounted wind measuring equipment with a "street value" of ~$15k-20k). Do you think it was inexpensive for Specialized to rent the Lowes Motor Speedway?

Let's put it this way: I'm a mechanical engineer who has done field testing AND has also participated in wind tunnel tests. If I was responsible for developing a new aerodynamic bicycle frame, I know exactly where I would go for the best and most efficient testing of the development models...and that would be in a wind tunnel...hands down. Yes, field testing has a lower entry cost, but it takes a LOT of effort and time to get results comparable to what is possible in a wind tunnel.

Here's another take...if field testing was a better and easier option, why were the guys at Specialized able to make the business case for building their own facility from scratch? Someone had to look at the ROI and agree it made sense, no?