Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
  


rruff wrote:
I'm measuring temperature and pressure, so air density shouldn't be an issue.


Regardless, it's a fact that on a sunny day the tire temperature will be a lot hotter than the air. Just checked near my house today after I got back from a ride. Air was 70F, road was 103F, tire was 86F... while going ~15mph. So if you are adjusting Crr for temperature, just using air temp doesn't cut it.


Go out and measure CRR against ambient temp. Plot it and you will get an equation good enough to adjust CRR. Tom A had done something similar I think it's somewhere on ST.

While I didn't do the exercise for temp or road temp, I did measure them and see a correlation between ambient temp. I suspect if I did the exact same thing I could get equations for those. I didn't because it is not practical for me to use those during testing.

Now if I had a ladida tire pressure/temp sensor, maybe I would.

But right now you and I have much bigger sources of error to worry about.

My comment on air density is that I also get much better consistency in my results when I don't use air density. This may be partially due to the fact I measure over very long loops (15km) where barometric pressure, temperature and relative humidity vary more. I am pretty sure I can find two points on the course that are more than 2% difference in air density at a given time. If your CRR is varying, your PM is varying (due to temp) and air density is varying, that isa lot of varying. My point, poorly made was the fewer variables, the better.

The reason I test over 15km loops comes to comments made in the future of testing thread, I don't have time to do 15 measurements every 3km loop when I am out riding. I want to train and get aero data at the same time. If a device allows me to get better or marginally better data with less futsing, that's a win. Very much a personal opinion.
Last edited by: marcag: Oct 6, 19 6:53
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [marcag] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
marcag wrote:
But right now you and I have much bigger sources of error to worry about.

I must confess, I really don't know what you are talking about...

It's impossible to get good results if you ignore important variables. Assuming that Crr is only dependent on ambient temperature (rather than tire temperature) can be a 6% error in CdA as I showed earlier. I'm measuring temperature and pressure in real time with CdACrr, so density isn't an issue. And my PM is zeroed before and in the middle of every run (Powertap). The temperature variation on my course is quite small anyway. This would generally be the case when testing. It's sounds like you are just using your TT data as a CdA test? That's obviously going to have greater challenges and error.
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
marcag wrote:
But right now you and I have much bigger sources of error to worry about.


I must confess, I really don't know what you are talking about...

It's impossible to get good results if you ignore important variables. Assuming that Crr is only dependent on ambient temperature (rather than tire temperature) can be a 6% error in CdA as I showed earlier. I'm measuring temperature and pressure in real time with CdACrr, so density isn't an issue. And my PM is zeroed before and in the middle of every run (Powertap). The temperature variation on my course is quite small anyway. This would generally be the case when testing. It's sounds like you are just using your TT data as a CdA test? That's obviously going to have greater challenges and error.


I am not sure how/where you showed the 6%.

Here is the thread where Tom A talks about correcting CRR with ambient temp.
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...%20temp%20q#p3916843

Too bad some of the charts aren't there anymore.

I am curious how your app corrects air density as you move around the course. I suspect it reads the closest weather station ? If so, how often does it refresh and how does it correct as you roll around the course

I do not use my TT exclusively. I use my TT, I do velodrome, I have done Alphamantis velodrome testing, I do small loops using Aerolab,, , I have been to the wind tunnel to confirm numbers....

Nobody is ignoring variables. What I said was some devices do not need air density, therefore eliminating a source of error/noise.

If you are gtting very different numbers from day to day I suspect there is more to it than temp impact on CRR
Last edited by: marcag: Oct 6, 19 10:53
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [marcag] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Post #469. Tire temperature relative to ambient can vary enough to cause a big error.

Temperature, pressure, and humidity are measured on the bike, and density is calculated from these. I assume your probe measures dynamic pressure, so density is included in that. The WF meter might also be measuring that actually, which is why the calibration factor on airspeed varies. It would be nice if that's the case.

I was getting very consistent numbers until I started testing in the morning rather than the afternoon...
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [marcag] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
marcag wrote:


Go out and measure CRR against ambient temp. Plot it and you will get an equation good enough to adjust CRR. Tom A had done something similar I think it's somewhere on ST.

How do you measure CRR? Is it so easy to get reliable and precise values for CRR?
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:

Post #469. Tire temperature relative to ambient can vary enough to cause a big error.


This ?

rruff wrote:

What I'm wondering is what you got for the relationship between the temperature of air, road, and tire in different conditions.

1%/F is a 20% difference in Crr if the tire is 20F hotter than the air. With my data that's about a 6% difference in CdA... way too much to ignore.


I do not know how you got at 1% is a 20%....if tire is hotter than air....

the correction does not look at ambient vs tire temp/


rruff wrote:

temperature, pressure, and humidity are measured on the bike, and density is calculated from these.


Measured by the phone ?

rruff wrote:

I assume your probe measures dynamic pressure, so density is included in that.


kind of.

rruff wrote:

The WF meter might also be measuring that actually, which is why the calibration factor on airspeed varies. It would be nice if that's the case.


Calibration would be required wether a pitot or a traditional anemometer.
Last edited by: marcag: Oct 6, 19 14:13
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [BergHugi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BergHugi wrote:
marcag wrote:


Go out and measure CRR against ambient temp. Plot it and you will get an equation good enough to adjust CRR. Tom A had done something similar I think it's somewhere on ST.


How do you measure CRR? Is it so easy to get reliable and precise values for CRR?

There are protocols for doing on the road. Personally I only got good results under very constrained conditions. The idea is that by riding a various speeds you can figure out CDA and CRR because they . track differenttly with speed. But other factors sometimes get in the way.

I do test rolling resistance with a protocol laid out by Tom A on rollers. I get very good results. 2 years ago I tested a bunch of tires and the results were confirmed by a lab in Norway.

I use that as my base CRR and correct it. I also have pothole detection which must be disabled in Quebec :-)

I do believe we can get to very good road testing of CRR as some of the tech out there improves and removes some of the constraints I mentioned above.
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I probably missed this, but how is the entering speed of a lap accounted for? E.g., it seems like folks often throw out the first lap, so they would be starting a run at some non-zero speed which could vary from run to run. Is it in practice insignificant, or am I missing something?
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [brbbiking] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
brbbiking wrote:
I probably missed this, but how is the entering speed of a lap accounted for? E.g., it seems like folks often throw out the first lap, so they would be starting a run at some non-zero speed which could vary from run to run. Is it in practice insignificant, or am I missing something?
Ah. Well, depending on the length of the lap, no, it might not be insignificant. So I take the initial speed into account to calculate the kinetic energy component of the equation, and also the second before the start of the lap so I can calculate the acceleration.
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [marcag] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll try an example. If you are using Tom's factor that's 1.4%/C. So you adjust Crr based on ambient air temperature. Say you are testing on a cloudy day and the tire temperature is the same as the air temperature. No problem then. The next day you test on a sunny afternoon in summer. The road temperature is 30C hotter than the air and the tire temperature is 12C hotter than the air. These are realistic numbers. Your ambient air temperature correction for Crr is going to be off by 12C*1.4% or 16.8%. That would result in ~5% error in CdA. I don't see an alternative to actually measuring the tire temperature (or at least the road) unless you restrict testing to conditions where the road and air temperature are the same. Or if you are testing A vs B with lots of swapping and don't care about the raw number.

The app uses pressure from the phone. The WF meter measures pressure, temperature, and humidity. You can also use a Garmin temperature sensor if you wish.
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
IThe road temperature is 30C hotter than the air and the tire temperature is 12C hotter than the air. These are realistic numbers.


30C ? really ? So for example outdoor temp is 25C and road is 55C ?

Have you actually measured the impact on CRR or is this theoretical ? Do you have data that correlates tire temperature to CRR ?

I can tell you what I did. I ride for 4-5 hours (IM Training). I start at 8AM and finish at noon-1PM or 10am to 3PM, same road, some position.If I don't correct, my "CDA" slowly decreases.In fact it's my CRR that is improving. I adjust as per Tom A's formula (or something very close) and CDA is constant.

If you have data that show better ways of correcting, I;d be more than happy to try.

BTW, I am getting pretty close to good on road CRR estimation. If I get there, my previous way of adjusting may go out the window, but for now, it's been pretty consistent
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [marcag] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've measured that the tire temperature tends to run ~1/3 between the road and air temperature at high speed. Isn't tire temperature the thing that is actually affecting the Crr? Air temperature is a poor proxy for that if you are riding on a sunlit road.
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
I've measured that the tire temperature tends to run ~1/3 between the road and air temperature at high speed. Isn't tire temperature the thing that is actually affecting the Crr? Air temperature is a poor proxy for that if you are riding on a sunlit road.


In the thread I referenced earlier, Tom A says

"if you look earlier in that wattagetraining.com forum thread, you'll see some data I took that basically shows that tire temperature ends up being a fixed amount above the ambient air temp."

Have you seen different ?
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [marcag] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wasn't that roller testing in his garage?
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
Wasn't that roller testing in his garage?

I don't know but probably

This is what I do know. I've measured ambient temperature vs CRR and got pretty consistent results.

However I have never tried or seen conditions where road temp is 30deg higher than ambient. I have always seen ambient/road/and tire track together more or less.

Maybe road temp or tire temp would have a better correlation with CRR. It would have to be measured to see. Without mesasuring we're speculating.

Ambient to CRR is easy to measure and I saw good correlation.

I'd be more than happy to collect it but it's not something very practical to do and especially to correlate. I believe there are bigger fish to fry in the determination/correction of CRR.
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [RChung] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did some testing today, and this was pretty interesting (at least to me 😃).

In the below, we have ABAB (2,4,6,8). You see the same undulations from the wind as before (coincides with the laps of the velodrome). But you see them more prominently for B. B was a higher position, and it looks to be more susceptible to the effects from the wind (worse in head wind, better in tailwind, overall a bit worse).


Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [brbbiking] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very nice. Yeah, it looks like B is, overall, not as good as A.

As Fred Mosteller was fond of saying, "although the data speak for themselves, their voices can be soft and sly." I think VE is sort of an amplifier to raise the volume.
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [AndyF] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've submitted a Golden Cheetah feature request, after a difficulty I found recently doing some off-road CRR testing. I'm not sure how many people use the Aerolab chart for off-road testing. I'm sure the vast majority of users are doing CdA analyses for TT/Tri bikes.

The problem I encountered is that the CRR slider only goes to a maximum of 0.01, whereas my analysis needed to set a CRR greater than 0.01 (see chart below). Even on rough chipseal, the CRR for knobbly cyclocross tyres was around 0.01. This limitation in GC meant that I had to do the VE calculation outside of GC, in Excel. That gave the same result, but takes quite a bit more time.

If this is a very niche application, it's obviously not worth modifying GC. Perhaps a good option would be to create an alternative "off-road" version of the Aerolab Chung Analysis Chart, allowing CRRs up to at least 0.03. That would allow the fine scale of the current chart to be retained for the majority of road applications. By the way, "0.03" isn't a mistake, it's not missing a zero! My testing suggested it really could be that high. It's incredible to think rolling resistance losses off-road are an order of magnitude more than on the road, with about 150W (~half the losses) going into overcoming rolling resistance on a flat grass course.



I wanted to do this test to see if there is an optimum tyre pressure off road, in terms of CRR, for the purposes of my local summer cyclocross race series (which probably won't happen this year!). The conventional wisdom amongst CX racers is to set pressures as low as possible, but I couldn't find data to support this. It was also unclear to me how much this low pressure recommendation is coming from traction considerations. I found the results of this test quite interesting and surprising. There seems to be no minima for best usable pressure. The traditional practice of setting pressure as low as possible seems like a good one, even when only considering CRR. The differences seen in the session 3 repeats I think could be due to the grass becoming somewhat flattened from the multiple laps during the session 2 runs.

All this suggests suspension losses dominate over tyre deformation hysteresis losses for this kind of off-road situation.
Last edited by: NickD1: Apr 27, 20 13:51
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [NickD1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 

What does your test protocol look like ?
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [NickD1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nice. Your finding of "the lower the pressure, the faster" matches up with some old MTB studies done by the Swiss MTB team (IIRC) that found the same thing. My suspicion is that this is the case because off-road, the loss properties of the surface become relatively more important than the tire loss properties. In other words, the ground "squish" is the dominant factor.

This also shows why tubulars are still such a big deal in CX. Due to the fact that lower pressures are "faster", ideally they should be using tires significantly wider than 34mm...but, they can't. So, in order to make lower pressure "work", they rely on the fact that narrow tubulars aren't going to roll off a rim and/or "burp", plus a bit of lower pinch flat occurance.

I'm a bit surprised at the .01 CRR for the Schwalbe on chipseal...although maybe I shouldn't be. The only tire I've roller tested so far with a similar knob structure in the center has been the Conti Terra Trail, and those knobs don't look to be as large as the ones on the X-Ones, and the Terra Trail was predicted to run ~.006 on smooth pavement.

Interesting stuff. I too would love to see more description of your protocol. Thanks for sharing!

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
Wasn't that roller testing in his garage?

I didn't catch this back in October, but no, my temp readings were of actual tire temperature outside while riding using a handheld IR thermometer. Even on sunny days, the tire temperature tracked the air temp.

Oh yeah, and to get the air temp reading, I placed a small plastic "placard" on the bike, hung by a string that basically "tumbled" in the air in a shaded spot on the bike. I took an IR reading of that to get the air temp just so I'd be using the same instrument for both the tire and air temp.

It appeared that due to the large amount of convective cooling, the tire temp basically tracked the air temp (at an offset of course...I forget the amount). I had already done the trials of roller Crr vs. ambient temperature on a Conti GP4K, and so decided to just correct for ambient air temp in the reported results. The fact that when I've run my "control" tire at varying ambient temps on the rollers and the results are basically identical tends to confirm it's a reasonable approach :-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
Interesting stuff. I too would love to see more description of your protocol. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks Tom. That's interesting and all make sense. I was also surprised by the 0.01 CRR on chipseal, but the loop I use is very rough and broken. It's local and traffic-free though, hence why I use it. When I've used my TT bike on the same loop, with Conti GP5Ks and Conti GPTTs, I need to use a CRR of around 0.006. I do sets of fast and slow laps, to try to separate aero and rolling resistance effects as much as possible.

I was thinking more about it today. Road surfaces, whether smooth or rough, don't yield at all under the pressure of bike tyres, whereas even quite dry off-road surfaces will deform if enough pressure is applied. I'm thinking about if someone walks across grass with either flat-soled shoes, or alternatively with high heels. Even a dry grass surface has a kind or plasticity, with the deformation related to the pressure applied. Since any plastic deformation doesn't return any energy, high pressure applications should be subject to more losses through this mechanism. I wonder if low tyre pressures causes less deformation of the underlying surface and therefore experiences smaller losses, as well as reducing the rider suspension losses.

Here is a description of the protocol I used:

- Stages G2 LH power meter. I realise this is not ideal, but it's all I've got.
- Tyre pressures measured with a digital Topeak pressure gauge. Possibly not accurate, but hopefully consistent.
- Garmin speed sensor. I realised after posting the chart this morning that my protocol has a slight flaw, because I didn't change the wheel circumference when I dropped the tyre pressure. Today, I measured the circumference changes, and there is almost a 2% reduction, going from 45psi to 15psi, so I need to correct the measured speeds and see how much that changes the CRR results. A slower speed for the lower pressures should give a higher CRR values for the lower pressures I think. I'll re-post the corrected chart once I do it.
- Air density: Pressure from the weather forecast app. Temperature from the Garmin head unit.
- 0.97 transmission efficiency assumed throughout.
- Bike + rider weighing before and after the ride.
- No adjustment for wind. Sessions 1-3 in the chart were done with the forecast wind being 10-15mph. From what I've read, the ground level wind speed is less that forecast wind speed by about half. My hope is that it would be consistent enough to give good enough increments between the pressures, even if the absolute numbers might be affected by the wind.

Tarmac runs
1) Tyres inflated to 45 psi.
2) 6 x laps of a tarmac oval loop, each lap 1 mile in length. First 3 laps done at ~230W, next 3 laps done at ~130W. No traffic.
3) VE analysis done in Golden Cheetah and Excel to check they give the same result, to check I haven't made a mistake in my Excel equations.
4) CdA and CRR determined post-ride so there is no elevation loss or gain over the six laps, trying also to keep the same flatness for the sets of fast and slow laps. The CdA derived from this analysis, 0.393, was then used for the VE analysis for the grass runs.

Grass runs
Straight from tarmac runs, I cycled about 1 mile to a local grass field, roughly the size of a football pitch.
1) I checked the pressure before starting at 45 psi.
2) Accelerated up to speed before the maximum elevation point of the lap. Pressed the start/stop on the Garmin about 5-10 seconds before the max elevation point.
3) 3 laps at ~230W, followed by 3 laps at ~130W. I changed gear only once at the transition between fast and slow sets of laps, to keep the cadence reasonable. The time to do six laps was 7-8 minutes. I tried to follow a consistent line, but I had to avoid an occasional dog walker, approximately once every 5 laps (and these days trying to give people at least 5 metres of space!)
4) After the max elevation point at the end of the 6th lap, I continued for ~10 seconds, and pressed start stop on the Garmin.
5) Stopped in the shade. I avoided direct sunlight when stopped to prevent the sun warming the tyres. I checked the pressures, before then reducing the pressure by 5psi ready for the next run. I could get it within 0.5psi of the target. If I overshot the reduction for the first tyre (e.g. 39.5psi), I compensated by leaving the other tyre half a psi higher (e.g. 40.5psi). I chose to reduce pressure, rather than increase it, because I was concerned that pumping the tyre up might increase the internal air temperature and possibly the tyre wall temperature. Letting pressure out was also easier.
6) Step 2 onwards was repeated for 45 psi down to 15 psi in steps of 5 psi.
7) I then went home (<1 mile away), pumped the tyres back to 40 psi with a track pump, returned and followed the same protocol, but in 10 psi steps (40, 30, 20 psi). I wanted to do these repeats because I hadn't done an ABAB type test, and also because the grass was becoming increasingly flattened, which I think might have affected the CRR.
8) I also did a few repeats two days later, on a less windy day (~5mph wind according to the forecast)
9) CRR values were obtained to give no elevation gain/loss over the 6 laps, using the fixed CdA of 0.393. I obviously tried to keep the same kit and position on the bike throughout.

There may be other things that I've forgotten to mention. If anything is unclear, please ask. Any suggestions or criticisms about the protocol also very welcome, of course.
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [NickD1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NickD1 wrote:
I've submitted a Golden Cheetah feature request .. The problem I encountered is that the CRR slider only goes to a maximum of 0.01, whereas my analysis needed to set a CRR greater than 0.01 (see chart below).

Hi Nick,

The Crr slider goes from 0.001 thru 0.015, are you using the latest release v3.5?
The maximum was fixed at the end of November 2016 literally days after we released 3.4, so was a long time coming !

Mark
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [liversedge] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Mark,

I just checked and, yeah, I'm using v3.4. I installed it a few years ago. The new upper limit of 0.015 will be enough for road purposes, for sure, but for off-road I think CRRs even large than 0.015 are needed. On the other hand, if I'm the only person using the Aerolab chart for off-road conditions, then it's not worth changing it just for one user.

Nick
Quote Reply
Re: Platypus Thread: Aero Virtual Elevation Testing Protocol [NickD1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Will increase it, its trivial to do, even if just for one user :)

Cheers
Mark
Quote Reply

Prev Next