I'd like to see some designs not tied to UCI rules! Making a bike UCI legal means sticking with a double diamond frame and limiting the depths of the airfoil tubing....all so a few hundred pro roadies can use it. Bikes like the Softride Rocket TT, Kestrel KM40, Zipp, and Titanflex showed that you can make a much faster bike if you drop these rules. Hopefully the triathlon market is big enough that there are some companies that can service just this market and reopen the floodgates of innovation.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Awesome point, and I agree! Anyone else have ideas?

I'll guess that the double diamond frame is more or less maxed out. There is very little room for any major aero improvements so any future changes will not be technically dramatic. There have been a number of non traditional bikes on the market but they never really sold in large numbers even among triathletes.

Can anyone enlighten me on why they don't allow these bikes (titanflex, airfoil, etc.)? I don't seem to understand...if it's faster....why won't they just allow it?

Perhaps they want to retain a bit of the "its about the engine" philosophy. I dunno...

What I remember from reading about it just before the rules went into effect, the UCI wanted to establish an "even playing ground" for bike manufacturers of all countries, including the countries that may not have the technology or resources that other's may have at their disposal. I also remember being very disappointed when reading about it because I had just purchased a Softride Rocketwing. I always felt that the rules kept the sport from evolving. Let's have this year's Indy 500 raced with Model T's.

So is frame shape the biggest improvement to be made? What about materials? New composites?

according to Cervelo, they haven't found any non uci legal ways to make a bike faster than their P3/P4 designs

so its not yet been demonstrated that the UCI rules are holding anyone back much.

look at todays top bikes, the P4, felt, specialized, etc

what can be improved, if we ignore uci rules?

We can make the forks a bit more aero probably

perhaps wireless electrict shifting and braking could get rid of all the cables and shifters and brake levers

and perhaps someone can figure out a way to hide the front brake.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Idea:

Cheetah/Zipp style frame, though most of these ideas can be applied outside of triathlon bikes.

Single Sided fork and rear stay/seat stay (more aero, better for fixing flats)

Internal, hydraulic or electronic drum brakes within hubs (batteries recharge while wheel moves and can be recharged to max)

Could take it a bit further - have just the front, or both wheels as Hubless Wheels (google image search hubless wheels) Eliminates spinning drag! braking for these wheels could be electronic wedge/drum style brakes within rim, say 3-5 different wedges/drums around rim to accomplish this. Deep rims could provide room for these internals.

Internal continually variable shifting (like NuVinci) but within the bottom bracket - electronic shifting. R shifter shifts up, L shifter shifts down. Recharges while you pedal and can be taken out to be completely recharged. Bottom Bracket Spindle 100mm in diameter and spins around shifting mechanism within - super stiff, super low Q factor. Crank arm starts off super wide (side view) and then tapers down narrow. Nice to have powermeter and Rotor RS4X incorporated in a super aero package. Use CNT carbon technology to lighten/narrow up the RS4X unit. ceramic everything for bearings and cups.

No chain, wound carbon fiber drive shaft through chain stay. BMW style. catch/ratchet mechanism at both of ends of drive shaft. one end for the crank, the other for the outside parameter of the hubless wheel.

Computer up front with the following options:
Left thumb button - use computer mode
Right thumb button - Select
Shifters for going up or down through menu
Can manually shift or can choose 3 options in the order of your choice:
Wattage, heart rate, cadence: the computer puts you in a gear that best keeps you at either a selected wattage, heart rate or cadence. So say you select that you want to be in a gear that lets you stay at 300watts, 160bpm HR and 95rpms. If you selected that cadence be your first priority, if you fall below or go above 95 rpms, the gearing changes with first preference to get you back to 95rpms over your goal wattage and heart rate. and the same can go for heart rate and wattage being first.

Last idea: have an option on the computer that allows you to choose which adjustment you want to make while riding: seat angle, height or fore/aft, aero bar extension reach, stem angle/length (Look style stem). electronic cams to adjust internally. use compressed carbon (CNT) when ever possible, for internal gearing hub as well for weight reasons.

Final result - a bike that can be adjusted on the fly even while racing, can keep you in desired wattage/hr/cadence ranges, ultra aero with no external components, no spinning drag from the wheels. Some people may be anti-electronic, then use hydraulic. but, ultra lightweight electronic would be awesome, with batteries that can be easily extracted (from the non drive side of the crank, where typically there would be a crank bolt, but with the spindle being 100mm, the 'bolt' plate is 80mm+ and can be screwed off and the entire shifting mechanism along with the battery can be extracted, separately. with the spindle being around the shifting mechanism, the shifters communicate with this unit wirelessley but from a wire that runs down the main tube/down tube so the transmission doesn't have to go far) No gears/chain could mean much narrower hubs. If the hubless wheel is used, this is not an issue.

This technology could benefit time trial bikes, road bikes and mountain/cx bikes where no external components would get damaged, wet, muddy or jammed.

damn, to work for a bike company with a budget!

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

driveshaft drivetrains are less efficient than chain ones.

=)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

more aero. and BMW seems to do OK

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

The P4 tested faster than the Lotus in the wind tunnel. I know that it is not yet tested in racing, but this kind of result in the tunnel against a 'no holds barred' non-uci super-bike certainly bodes well for the future success of the P4.

---

Geoffrey Nenninger

what is more aero about it?

BMW does ok with mcpherson struts too but that doesn't mean they are better than double wishbones.

good lord I hate the internet.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

maybe that's just more of an issue of the R&D $ that went into the P4. maybe if that much time and money and talent was spent on a non double diamond frame it could be faster. What about comparing Cervelo's early non double diamond track bikes vs. a P4 track bike?

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

"goodlord", I hate negative posters. seriously, look back at your posts and count how many of them have a negative tone.

An internal drive shaft with internal gearing is in fact more aero than a chain ring, chain, derailleur, cassette set up.

yes, the stress that a 53tooth chain ring can take is such a huge advantage that it is favored over a Rolf hub or current NuVinci hub design, but use your imagination and enjoy some free flowing thoughts and simmer down on the stifling negativity. thanks.

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

How do you envision an internal driveshaft working, more specifically? And, in your opinion, would the Aero gains outweigh the added weight needed for this design?

True, but with the advances in technology since the lotus was made, I think it is possible that they could make it even better now.
I mean, the P4 was made a decade and a half after the lotus. I seriously hope it is faster.

hollow wound carbon fiber to withstand flex. within the chain stay with exits at the crank set and rim of the hubless wheel. claw and hook mechanism, motorcycle style for grabbing the wheel and small ring on backside of crank, remember that the crank is 100mm wide at the bottom bracket.

heavier? if you use all compressed, cnt carbon fiber, like the Easton seat post clamps, could it be made lighter than the current set up? no cassette, no chain, no chain rings, no freebody on the hub....

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

exactly

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

and/butt...zipp said (on this forum) their 3001 was faster than the lotus in the tunnel. Thus, the zipp frames from the 1990's are probably on par with the P4 frame from 2009 aerodynamically (but a headache to work on...). plus the zipp was probably tested with roundtubed 'aero' bars, old levers, and other 90's 'aero' gear.

I'm guessing that someone smart could update a lotus/zipp or similar non-uci legal frame to be a bit faster after a decade of tech development.

---

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

My training

That's certainly true, but there are dozens of other 'aero' bicycles that were made a decade and a half after the Lotus that aren't faster. It would be interesting to see what some of these great tunnel minds could come up with if they weren't constrained by UCI rules...

---

Geoffrey Nenninger

Cross a Softride main frame with the Titanflex beam in a horizontal configuration, plus a nice aero seatpost only 1cm wide and 4cm deep. Behind the stem cable routing. Front bladder hydration ahead of the head tube similar to the Giant TT bike (except don't leave the damned thing empty).

Chris

A valid point, but just because a lot of people made bikes worse doesn't mean that someone isn't capable of making something better. As you say, it would be interesting to see what the best minds in the industry could come up with...

and then again, if using a hubless wheel, you don't need a driveshaft. A 100m bottom bracket with matching crank arm would mean that a ring behind the top of the crank arm or barely extruding would be right next to the rim, so the crank could directly link up to the rim. Can you get any more efficient than that?!

and maybe a hook/catch mechanism (motorcycle style) is not aero enough, so maybe have both sides of the crank set ring mechanism touch the rim and turn the wheel through direct contact, no catching mechanism, no intermediate component to connect the wheel to the crank! (incorporate a free wheel mechanism) light. efficient. powerful.

Titanflex, Softride, Lotus, Cheetah, Zipp? haven't those bikes been talked to death on these boards. new ideas?

As the examples in my original post illustrate, there is plenty more than just frame design. How about the idea above?

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram