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.
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.