Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This thread is sapping my will to live.
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Be positive! It looks like we're going to get an R01 on ST test aerodynamics! How awesome is that?
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [dkennison] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
100 grams of drag at 30mph is more than 2 watts.
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RChung wrote:
This thread is sapping my will to live.

This is exactly why I'm glad you are for stricter gun control. Who knows what you'd do if you had a handgun sitting on your desk right now!



Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Runless] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was corrected by Ex-cyclist. Thank you as well.

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Runless] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was trying to make a bigger point with my original post. Most bike companies publish data that is very close. But..10 watts is a lot (in my example) so I need to correct that.

I had a misunderstanding of the formula with grams/watts though; so at least I learned something:-)

I guess when the difference gets down to 20-30 grams, the trade off between low and high price bikes begin to be suspect based on error rates.

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Ex-cyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ex-cyclist wrote:
RChung wrote:
This thread is sapping my will to live.


This is exactly why I'm glad you are for stricter gun control. Who knows what you'd do if you had a handgun sitting on your desk right now!

For the win! Beware of an angry and armed RChung!
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [dkennison] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, I agree. I bought a P5 right around when the new P3 came out. My cost through my shop was about the same, so I went with the P5. If I was buying a bike now, I'd probably buy the P2, strip and sell the components, put a fast bar on it and call it a day. I think the two bikes would be within the error bars of testing.


dkennison wrote:
I was trying to make a bigger point with my original post. Most bike companies publish data that is very close. But..10 watts is a lot (in my example) so I need to correct that.

I had a misunderstanding of the formula with grams/watts though; so at least I learned something:-)

I guess when the difference gets down to 20-30 grams, the trade off between low and high price bikes begin to be suspect based on error rates.



Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Runless] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Runless wrote:
100 grams of drag at 30mph is more than 2 watts.


I was wondering if someone else would notice that...yeah, like ~5X more ;-)

Edit: Oops, I see Heath was on it first...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Oct 17, 15 11:56
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Ex-cyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ex-cyclist wrote:
Yeah, I agree. I bought a P5 right around when the new P3 came out. My cost through my shop was about the same, so I went with the P5. If I was buying a bike now, I'd probably buy the P2, strip and sell the components, put a fast bar on it and call it a day. I think the two bikes would be within the error bars.

Exactly what I did this last spring...which reminds me, I've got a bar, a crankset, and some brakes to sell ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


RChung summarized my thesis in eight words.

The aerodynamic argument is dead. It's over. It's trended. It's no longer relevant. It isn't a key part of how the majority of customers make a buying decision.

There are some people who still feel it is relevant. You see them in this thread, locked in the desperate death-spiral circular spread-sheet debate about aero-bestness that seldom progresses beyond a kind of weird discussion about how to determine if something is best, but really missing the main answer of which thing actually is best. Because that is impossible to determine since there is so much smoke obscuring the battlefield.

And so, the circular debate continues. And continues. And continues.

But somewhere out there, some sales, marketing or product manager will find fresh approach that speaks to consumers. They will be rewarded.

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Tom Demerly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom Demerly wrote:


RChung summarized my thesis in eight words.

The aerodynamic argument is dead. It's over. It's trended. It's no longer relevant. It isn't a key part of how the majority of customers make a buying decision.

There are some people who still feel it is relevant. You see them in this thread, locked in the desperate death-spiral circular spread-sheet debate about aero-bestness that seldom progresses beyond a kind of weird discussion about how to determine if something is best, but really missing the main answer of which thing actually is best. Because that is impossible to determine since there is so much smoke obscuring the battlefield.

And so, the circular debate continues. And continues. And continues.

But somewhere out there, some sales, marketing or product manager will find fresh approach that speaks to consumers. They will be rewarded.


You're right...the aerodynamic argument IS dead, but not how you think. It's settled for those with the ability to use science and logic. Aerodynamics MATTER to anyone who wishes to go faster for a given effort. Period. (You may not have noticed, but on one side of the argument above is only ONE vocal outlier...which happens to be the side you think is the majority...Ummm...ok...)

The customers understand this and demand to see the data to ensure they aren't making themselves slower than they would be otherwise by focusing on other, much less relevant features (in regards to bike speed)...all those other things you wish to be able to tout for some reason. Probably because you aren't selling a bike that's as aero as other options :-/

Being good aerodynamically is the MINIMUM needed for a good TT/Tri bike. Everything else is "icing". THAT is why aero data is "King".

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Oct 17, 15 13:10
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [dkennison] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dkennison wrote:
Great link

was the null hypothesis rejected?

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [BikeTechReview] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BikeTechReview wrote:
dkennison wrote:
Great link

was the null hypothesis rejected?

At what alpha? P=0.05 might be traditional, but there seems little reason to adhere to it in this context.
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RChung wrote:
This thread is sapping my will to live.

Keep the faith! May the aero be with you! Personally I always keep my fingers crossed with threads like this that most of my competitors will deduce "it's all engine anyways, just buy a bike in a color I like, get comfortable, wear a helmet that keeps me cool, and use flat-proof tires."
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Tom Demerly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom Demerly wrote:
somewhere out there, some sales, marketing or product manager will find fresh approach that speaks to consumers.

I've heard that "sex sells". Think there's anything to it?
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Good luck with that.....but I don't read what others are saying that way...Tom A said it best..."Being good aerodynamically is the MINIMUM needed for a good TT/Tri bike. Everything else is "icing". THAT is why aero data is "King".

The pointy end of the scale for aero bikes is no longer pointy. Even the pioneers are finding it hard to beat themselves "numbers wise".

A few companies forged new ground with respect to aero frames. Now 7-12 years later (depending on who you like best), just about any competent manufacturer/designer should be able to produce and aero bike based off many examples, comparative modeling, CFD, and wind tunnel testing. If they can't; of course they are SOL.


So....What else you can offer the customer is becoming more and more important. And thats gonna be different strokes for different folks.





Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Tom Demerly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom Demerly wrote:

But somewhere out there, some sales, marketing or product manager will find fresh approach that speaks to consumers. They will be rewarded.

It's called price.

I've been in enough transition areas by now where I can say, with great confidence, that if someone made a bike within 50grams of drag of a Speed Concept but the frameset sold for $650 they would own the market.

That wasn't realistic ten years ago... maybe not even five years ago... but I think it's realistic to do that now with aluminum.

The aero argument isn't dead... it's certainly not dead. Cannondale's new Slice is a perfect example: aero dud so you're not likely to see any FOP pros on one... maybe not even FOP age groupers.
Last edited by: GreenPlease: Oct 17, 15 14:32
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [dkennison] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think companies who don't understand automatically are SOL. You pay a marketing department to avoid such things.

And aeroness isn't what most people think it might be. Beautifully-painted aero shaped carbon on a tall frame with integrated aero bars that can't be adjusted ... still sell well.

I won't make any friends with this, but a customer recently bought the brand-new Pinarello Bolide right after Wiggins' Hour Record. That was a very bad experience in trying to position him into something that was aero. And it involved scrapping the integrated bars that he paid so much money for. But Pinarello will continue to sell lots of bikes because they're viewed as being so aero.

Aero marketing works, I guess.

AndyF
bike geek
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
BikeTechReview wrote:
dkennison wrote:
Great link

was the null hypothesis rejected?

At what alpha? P=0.05 might be traditional, but there seems little reason to adhere to it in this context.

P=0.01

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Tom Demerly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom Demerly wrote:
The thing that boggles me about always trying to sell bikes in the same way is the "blank space".

The blank space is everything left over to sell a bike. Everything left besides bicycle aerodynamics.

Things like:

  • Appearance (more important than most of us are willing to admit).
  • Weight.
  • Warranty.
  • Frame stiffness (Note here: one highly credible brand has a unique feature that makes their bikes stiffer, but none of their P.O.P. displays mention it.)
  • Component specification. (I dare someone to run an ad that says, "Best value in a Dura-Ace equipped triathlon bike).
  • Fit. (Everyone acknowledges the importance of bike fit. No manufacturer actively uses it as a selling tool in their marketing.)
  • History.
  • Construction technique.
  • Durability.
  • Ride quality.
  • Comfort.
  • Ease of maintenance (honorable mention to Quintana Roo for their "Ease of Packing" campaign for their very good PR bikes).
  • Mise en scene (the cache' of the brand, an analogue that is more important than most consumers are willing to admit since some of it is subconscious.)
.

Details?

Doesn't Cervelo, on their website?

Who cares, isn't it all made in the same 5 factories anyway? Does this make a difference in other industries(that aren't handicraft)? Nobody I know goes, 'no, I want the truck with the hyrdoformed chassis'-they look at the towing&bed capacity.
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
lightheir also thinks that because he had some success by training on a VASA a lot, that technique doesn't matter much in swimming.

Honestly wish he'd take up decathlon...think of all the sports disciplines he could be wrong about!
Quote Reply
Post deleted by Administrator [ In reply to ]
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [Tom Demerly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm late to the party, that's what driving across country does to you. Since everyone, or at least many tried to poit out is aero matters. What I'm going to do is point out why your list is a bunch of bullshit, maybe more bullshit then you thinking aero doesn't matter.

Sure appearance matters but aerodynamics will beat aesthetics. Orbea is a good brand to point this out. Their bikes were shit slow but they looked good. They tried to make something look fast and here they are 5+ years late to the aero game and they lost a lot of market share, enough they won't get it back.

Weight - who gives a shit, aero trumps weight every time. There is so much written on this, it's a tragedy you even brought it up.

Frame stiffness - Someone made a contraption so they couldn't see which bike they were riding, compared a stiff bike to a non stiff bike, couldn't tell the difference. It may have been Jonnyo. If you're selling a bike based on this it's malpractice

Components - matters some especially if comparing tiarga to ultegra

FIT - I can't tell you how many piss poor fits I've redone or tweaked when doing aero testing from some famous fitters and not so famous fitters. I've also seen many of your fits through the years. You fit more for comfort, more upright. Basically you're negating a lot of the benefits of an aero frame. If someone can touch their toes they can ride more along the lines of an aero pro. If you can't get them into an aero position that's comfy have you thought about a different saddle?

History - Orbea anyone?

Ride quality and comfort are more the same then different. Most test rides are too short to determine this for the long haul.

I think you get the point, or I hope so. A lot of what you say will sell a bike will sell it. But why sell a piece of slow shit when you can sell a fast bike and not further hinder your customer. Do no harm. Which means don't sell slow shit.

It took 4 minutes to type why those companies aren't having those conversations.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Last edited by: desert dude: Oct 17, 15 16:01
Quote Reply
Re: How Much Credibility do you Assign to Bike Brand Wind Tunnel Claims? [gabbiev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yup, we agree.

Even here on Slowtwitch, how many intelligent, avid readers will go out and get an expert bike fit FIRST, and THEN go and find a frame, crank, and aerobars that work?

Why? Because carbon and colourful epoxy paint sells better than fit.

AndyF
bike geek
Quote Reply

Prev Next