Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department
Quote | Reply
Here's my take on it (though some of you could find it as a joke, at first):

1: old-school steel forks, with or without crowns, are not nearly as unaero as once thought. A brake like a Campy Delta, Hooker, or Zipp would smooth out the area in front of the crown enough to make the crown of a fork "not that big of a deal".

Why do I say this? Old school steel forks are pretty small, have a reasonably oval shape (though not an AIRFOIL shape, but that can be worked on), and would be UCI legal.

2: Old school aerobars might be decent, as they are light and very fluid pieces of metal.

Why do I say this? Though I do not see someone coming out with a "new" Scott 100K bar, I could see someone seeing that this could be made into carbon fibre with airfoil shapes and ending up being lighter than ANY of the current designs out there. There are no clamps to mess with, and an integrated brake lever could be put on there very easily. The armrest clamp can even be made to be more aero than the original versions, especially in carbon fibre.

3: You don't need ten stinkin' gears for a time trial, or even a triathlon/duathlon bike leg.

Unless it is a very hilly race, most could get by with five or six gears and one chainring. This, coupled with a cassette saver on an eight or nine speed drivetrain, can save considerable weight on a steel-cogged cassette, more with aluminium sprockets. Note that one should be a very competent time trialist before attempting such a proceedure.

4: Round tubes are not particularly unaero under a well-positioned athlete, especially smaller steel tubes.

Airfoil shaped tubes would be better, but a well-positioned, well-conditioned athlete will whip the tail off of a guy who has poor positioning and a super-aero bike. Remember Mike McCarthy in '92? He had a pretty radical designed, steel-tubed aero bike, but I am certain that it was not as "tunnel fast" as the Lotus and Sean Wallace (I might have the name of this guy wrong) combo that he beat in '92. I am not saying that McCarthy beat a poorly positioned or conditioned athlete by any means, but he beat the "fastest production frameset" in its prototypical stages. Look at McCarthy's frame on http://www.yamaguchibike.com/. You might be able to correct me on names.

5: The Profile Bullet-shaped aerobottle will be revisited.

Somehow, some very unaero thing will be added to it or something, but I think that this, while not directly any sort of contradiction, will be part of something that is an overturned opinion (front bottles not being good-overturned here on Slowtwitch). But the current Jetstreams, et.al. are poorly designed, add too much of a weight bias to the front end, and the straw can be VERY unaero (just my opinion). It can be executed better, in my opinion.
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
1: Old-school steel forks, aren't that bad. I agree. They are weighty, but aren't going to be a drag suit for your bike. Those "bladed" forks are great in headwinds, but don't do much (actually hurt) in a cross wind

2: I think this all has to do with body positioning, I think the one-pieces are here to stay

3: I definitely agree, but the weight savings probably isn't enough to matter (especially if you are doing flatter stages)

4: I agree here - see point 1

5: Definitely agree - I hate that thing. It makes the front end way too heavy - I mount my water on the back - NeverReach. But the tube thing - I doubt you're getting around that. It doesn't really add that much to the aero-profile.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Animal!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [blinky] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]5: Definitely agree - I hate that thing. It makes the front end way too heavy - I mount my water on the back - NeverReach. But the tube thing - I doubt you're getting around that.[/reply]

Just like everywhere else, I think it is time for a wireless water system, a well-aimed squirt from the neverreach that somehow makes it to your helmet vent where it is rechanneled to your mouth. Failing that, you can run a tube from the neverreach through your jersey and out the neck hole to your mouth. It may take a few seconds more to mount the bike, but the thought alone of being so aero should make up for that. Of course, once you are all tubed up it may be difficult to dismount the bike for a pee stop, so maybe a second set of tubes is required.

Gerard.
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [blinky] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, people like their wing-section aerobars. I had one of the first modern wing-section aerobars (ITM Dual Rominger-type back in '96). I still think that a well-designed wing-section aerobar looks the best and performs well. But- I have kinda rediscovered the virtues of the old Scott Extreme and 100K bars, as well.

The straw can be made a little less inoffensive:

1)cut it down shorter

2) use flexible hose and mount it lower to the base bar or stem, with a 90 degree elbow in already disturbed air (look at Natascha's Cat Oasis; though her bladder is in the frame, no on the bars).

Either way, one will have to bend down to drink, and possibly need to move something around with their hands, but one still does not have to get out of the tuck to drink. And that silly straw would be not costing so much time.

I merely think of ways to get rid of dead weight, and the cassette is definitely one of them. Would it make huge time differences? Probably not. Would it simplify the bike? Most definitely. Simplification is one of the virtues of a good TT machine.

A bladed steel fork can probably be just as aero and somewhat competitive in weight with a carbon one. You'll never see a 350 gram steel fork, but with the newer super steels out there, you could get one somewhat close to what the old benchmark Kestrel EMS fork was. Also, one could bond a carbon steerer to a steel fork to lighten it up.

I need to make one more point: I am not a retro grouch, as I have a carbon "super bike". But, I am thinking in the realm of what is old will be new again, somehow.
Last edited by: bunnyman: Sep 3, 03 7:01
Quote Reply
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK - how do they help?

From any angle of attack greater than a few degrees, the bladed forks will create air seperation and a high pressure area on the leeward side of the blade. That is a bad thing. Laminar air flow is very delicate. It doesn't take much to disturb it. The best forks are the ones that offer the most clearance of the rim of the wheel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Animal!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well! There's a blanket answer!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't recognize opportunity because it wears bib overalls and looks like work.
~Teddy Roosevelt
Quote Reply
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
interesting

I may stand corrected. I'd like to see the test data (conditions, how the tests were performed, etc.) before I would completely agree, but if those are the numbers, those are the numbers. I seem to recall some tests done a while back that showed the benefit of the round forks, but I guess tests can be controlled to tell you what they want. Do you have a link to the data that you provided me? I'd like to see the test data on disks too - never bought into them for the same reason.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Animal!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your point is arguable either way. If you asked Mike if the title were soft, I am sure that he would say no (unless you were his best friend). But, those world championship stripes on the Yamaguchi frame in question are there legitamately, even if it could be argued as a "soft" win. Mike still won that day. I will not say whether or not I thought the title was legit or not.

Is reducing the number of sprockets on the rear wheel old school? Not particularly, except that with the advent of cassettes and the diminshing or quality freewheels, it is now. Many of us raced on six and five speed freewheels (on TT bikes) until the teeth were pointy. We did not want to give up our ancient disc wheels that were screw-on only. But we got to liking the simpler gearing when replacing these freewheel-only discs and tri/quad spokes. Some who came into the bike world with seven or eight speed cassettes are seeing that you don't need that many gears on a TT bike.

It ain't an aero issue in many ways, but it is by virtue of being on a bike designed for a timed event. Wll I go beyond nine speeds on my dedicated tri bike? Absolutely not, as nine is plenty on a bike that goes on every race, hilly or not. But I won't go over four or five on my flat course TT only bike, for certain.
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"As you can see from the numbers, the advantage of an aero fork actually increases when the angle of attack is greater than a few degrees. The same thing is seen when testing aero wheels (why do you think a disk is so fast?) and aero frames. "

Looks like you just answered my post regarding aeroframes and crosswinds. Much thanks.
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Now, before y'all think that I am thinking that there will be an about-face on the fork issue- remember that I said "not that bad" about the steel forks, but not "aero as a Lotus", as it could be done in steel, but nobody wants a five pound fork. Also, I am thinking of the oval-shaped steel forks, that could be massaged to work a bit better and be UCI legal (not a factor to any of us here). With the ever-shrinking UCI regs on forks (and I don't think they're done, yet), I could see this being a problem that may be addressed with a skinny, short-sided, aeroprofile steel fork (steel being cheaper to fabricate and requiring no mould, atleast for a quick fix). Cobb's Oval fork could be banned at any time (it looks too radical for the UCI)...

Will anyone go back to steel? Probably not for a fork, unless someone who thinks FAR outside of the box thinks it up, which will deeply upset the retro grouches and make many others scratch their heads. It could happen if the limits of carbon and marketing were reached.
Last edited by: bunnyman: Sep 3, 03 7:57
Quote Reply
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very familiar with the Hooker and MDT forks. I would have one if I were to get to England more than once per year.

MDT is not known too far outside of the TT circles, but they would be extremely capable of producing a pretty aero steel fork. As far as a Hooker fork, most of those are probably raced into the ground. They also require a special width hub, if I am assuming correct.

So, to streamline my point: if the UCI regs get forks to shrink even more, the MDT fork would probably fill the bill for a quick fix (while the mfrs go back to the drawing board and make new carbon moulds).
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a picture in a collage of images posted up at my desk here at work from the 1992 Ironman Canada race. It is from the bike ride - nearing the summit of Richter Pass. The bike I am riding is a steel, lugged road bike frame made by the now defunct Gardin company. The only consesstion to current aerodynamics are the original Profile I one piece aero bars. Other details: The rim/tire combo was 28 spoke Mavic Mach 2 CD Tubular rims with Continental Comp GP tires. Dura Ace Gruppo. Frame mounted waterbottle cages. By todays standards this bike weighed a ton and was very un-aero.

Bike split that day = 5:00 Still not sure how I did that, other than a great deal of hard work and a little luck.

All the discussion about all the various aero doo-dads is just that, discussion. When the rubber hist the road it's about fitness, position, power and comfort.

Your mileage may vary!


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MDT does make a steel bladed fork, which I cant think is any more beneficial than a comparable carbon model

I have been wrestling with the idea that maybe, possible, a super small diameter steel frame is more aero than, say, a P2K

I'm not sure, I guess I'll have to ask john about that

I am using a Zipp front brake circa. 1997. Works great

I have also mounted a water bottle to my downtube

I'm using Rotor cranks, guess what, I went from a 10 mile tt 24.5 mph avg earlier this year to a 26.6 MPH average now, through training, new aero gear, a proper fit from Bicycle Sports, and my Rotors

I still doubt that aero frames make very much difference, and if they do, its in the seatstays as that is the outer most section of the bike - next to the fork it is the most exposed area.

Gary
Quote Reply
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Somebody woke up gruuuuuummmmmm-py this morning

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Animal!!!
Quote Reply
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
a small diameter frame may be more aero, or maybe it is not, I am talking the DIFFERENCE here, whether or not there is a big difference in aerodynamics between the two

the seat tube on my bike looks like a Softride to the wind, now that I am using a downtube mounted bottle, according to JC

it all depends on the rider, for the most part

fit is everything,

the rest is sprinkles on a doughnut



Gary
Quote Reply
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Huh? "

You might find this site interesting.It shows the bike times of all the IM Kona winners. The fastest times were set by Mark Allen in 1993 and Luc VanLierde in 1999. I don't know what Allen rode in '93 but VanLierde was on Giant TCR in '96. Note that Dave Scott's 1986 time is about the same as Tim DeBoom in 2002.

I'm with you as a believer in aero frames, but these results do make you wonder. Also consider Hellreigel's top time last year on a round tube bike.

http://www.terra.es/...lpenag/tri_iron1.htm
Quote Reply
Re: Poll: predictions on what will be contradictory in the aero department [TimeTrial.org] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

the rest is sprinkles on a doughnut
I like doughnuts - they're aero

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Animal!!!
Quote Reply

Prev Next