Lotus frame.
Zipp Wheels
MDT Cahinset
MDT aerobars or Hed?
Shimano Dura Ace or Campag Record - both will do.

Or just buy one the Team GB special bikes that were built for Athens. Apparently, they were over 10,000 pounds each. But no UCI regulation - I think the Lotus frame. I have no aero data to backup the Lotus frame, but this is my perception from I have been reading.

---

---------------------------------------------------------

Softride frame

disc -- any will do

808 front

hed bars

rocket helmet

And, most importantly (by far)...

a short-legged but big, powerful rider. that would exclude me.

What are the rules as far as non ITU triathlon, and bikes go? Measurements, fairings etc etc.

~Matt

I would say Lotus!

---

_______________________________
The "Pocket Hercules" - jgrat

Technique sets the upper limit to where your fitness will take you...

Those recumbants would be a good choice if you threw the rulebook out. Fully faired, they go like 70 kph for a power output of about 400 watts, the same power that might take you to a 54 minute 40km on a "conventional" bike.

-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

yeah, current short distance speed record is now at 81 MILES per hour. i would say that is fast.

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

I think the old "Cheetah II" had a lower drag coefficient than any bicycle WITHOUT a rider, let alone the sail a conventional bike becomes when you put a rider aboard.

Yikes, 81 mph!

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

[reply]

And, most importantly (by far)...

a short-legged but big, powerful rider. that would exclude me.[/reply]

I believe that long legs, short torso is the best phenotype for cycling. more leverage in the legs, less weight from the torso. however, that's about power/weight. why is short legs better for aerodynamics?

-Lotus Carbon 110 Sport Frame
-Mono-blade fork.
-New Blackwell aerobars.
-Campy Ghibli disc, Campy (whateverthehellucallit) disc with the holes punched in it on the front.
-Zipp brake retro fitted to the bottom bracket of the Lotus. Dura-ace AX front brake (anodized black of course.)
-Probably the old Zipp cranks (the buble looking ones) or the european set that escape my memory at the moment. (Think pizza cutter.)

And of course, for maximum aero benefit, it would need a brand new screaming red pheonix custom painted and double clear coated into the finish.

No base bars...areobars only...cut off all the rest. Go Flinstone style for the brakes.

I would build a bike with so much windtunnel testing during development that it would be prohibitively expensive. Between that and some Ti-nitride sprockets and chainrings, as well as ceramic bearings, this bike would be dialed, but only IF I could turn the pedals over and do it justice.

I would actually try and revive an older freewheel disc wheel (or better yet- get a new one with new technology), have a custom freewheel machined (it can be done, and it comes with a price) with 8 speeds. This freewheel would be ti-nitrided, as well as the ratched mechanism reworked. Ceramic bearings would be inserted where ever possible, as well as ti-nitride will treat any surface that friction would slow the wheel down.

The cranks would be Cat Carbon bikes cranks, unless I could come up with something that weighed as much as the (responsibly) lightest alloy cranks but in a very aero shape. The BB would have the nicest ti spindle (and a square taper, no ISIS for me) and ceramic bearings. The cones and cups would be ti-nitrided.

I would rework a Hooker brake for the front (as it can be improved), and rework a Zipp brake for the rear. The brake would be in the very most aero place, determined by loads of computer modeling AND functional mockups ridden by me.

I would also use a Profile UPS for the shifting, as well as a Tiso Bartols system for front shifting duties.

Aerobar would probably be similar to the Blackwell unit that goes for about $1200, but would be customised and optimised for me, probably costing more in the neighbourhood of $2000.

Front wheels would be tested in the wind tunnel for the best aero package. There would be a windy day wheel, as well as a non-windy day wheel, unless research and development would determine a perfect front wheel for both conditions. The hub would be narrowed for the fork, and ceramic bearings and Ti-nitride surfaces for the bearings would be fitted.

This is what I would get if money were no object. Between the wind tunnel testing ($500 per hour), and the ti nitride (lots of $$$) and ceramic bearings (usually about $1500-5000 per set for an entire bike, including what I rework), and the parts in their stock form (plenty of $$$), and fabrication costs,I would estimate this bike would cost about $50,000-100,000 to get it from foam sculpture to the road. And I would still get skunked by a pro.

Would it be a boingy bike?

---

Call me Big Dick

You don't need all the ti-nitride and ceramics for the most AERO bike. That would be for the lowest coefficient of friction bike.

David Millar's world's TT frame ran 100,000GBP, so I imagine that'd be a good guess for budget.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Lower frontal area for a given amount of power/weight ratio. All else equal, that's your fastest cyclist -- in an aero tuck.

I love my Softride,but I understand that the Zipps are awfully aerodynamic.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

[reply][reply]
why is short legs better for aerodynamics? [/reply]


Lower frontal area for a given amount of power/weight ratio. All else equal, that's your fastest cyclist -- in an aero tuck.[/reply]

good point. however, one could argue that longer legs relative to torso = more leg muscle at same weight = more power and power/weight. the increase in power/weight might be enough to overcome the increase in frontal area.

Well, I would do the ti nitride stuff merely to make the best use of aero. If you can't make everything roll smoothly, then there's no point in making it have the least wind resistance. Go for broke if money is no object, I say.

100,000 GBP would be an excellent budget for bike development. I wish I could afford a budget even 1/10th of that for a bike...

Long legs will be better. For aerodynamics, you are almost always better off with a larger rider as the muscle mass increases relative to mass cubed (related to volume) while surface area (which is what matters for wind resistance) increases relative to mass squared.

Indurain was the perfect example of this. He won the TdF through his outstanding TT prowess, then let the goats chip away at the lead during the mountain stages. TT'ing is about W/CdA. And a bigger rider can usually create more wattage than the relative increase in CdA due to him being larger. Cyclists also carry most of the bulk in their legs, which is also not going to change CdA as much as if that bulk was carried in the upper body. I bet Indurain had pretty narrow shoulders for someone of his size.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

With his preparation also a cheaper frame would be Aero.