Interesting.

might be a Christmas present to myself this year.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I got one last season just because I got a good deal on the Omega before the X came out and thought the 2 watts was a pretty good outcome. But 6-7 watts is crazy. And I like that one of the bikes was a 56 DA because that is the exact bike I have! Really cool to think I am saving a minute over 70.3 and 2 plus over an IM.

---

Twitter - Instagram

The only thing is, Jim didn't test the Omega X against the same brakes that TriRig tested it against. So when you say that ERO found that you are giving up MINUTES by not running an Omega X, sure that is the case if you are running the baseline FSA gossamer brake, but what if you are running something else (which Jim didn't test)? For instance, TriRig's own white paper shows that the Magura RT8TT is faster than the Omega X at zero yaw. Yes that same white paper shows that as yaw increases, the Omega X has the advantage over the Magura, and so at a typical yaw sweep, using TriRig's data, the Omega X is faster, but is it faster by MINUTES over the Magura? I'm guessing not.

I don't think anyone doubts that the Omega X is a very fast brake. But it is super duper fast or is the baseline FSA gossamer brake super duper slow? Or a bit of both?

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

Very cool...and also tends to confirm my field tested results for the Simkins Egg brake at ~3-4W from way back :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Yeah he didn't test it against the same brakes but he tested it against HR Trimax aero brake which is supposed to be as fast. But obviously a lot depends on the frame/brake integration. I am excited since they did a test on my exact bike so it hits closer to home for me. And I can't imagine the Magura fitting as well on my DA as it does on a P5. So I may be saving minutes but someone else may not be.

---

Twitter - Instagram

Cool stuff, but it would have been nice to use the Dura-Ace road brake as the baseline.

i guess it's too late to try to sell my trimax!

Remember that our original aero tests for the Omega Standard were performed in Andy Coggan's mini tunnel, without a spinning wheel or complete frame. We tried to be conservative in our results, but couldn't be completely confident in how they would translate onto a complete bike with spinning wheels (not to mention a rider).

We'd cautiously suggest that these tests represent a more realistic scenario. ERO did a lot of repeat tests to ensure consistency and repeatability of their results, and they look valid. To be clear, this was a completely independent test. I didn't know what Jim was up to until he sent me an email this morning with a link to the test.

Regarding the brakes tested, the FSA Gossamer that ERO tested would be most similar to either the Shimano Dura-Ace or Cervelo Mach 2 from our previous tunnel tests - all three are traditional sidepull brakes.

---

--
TriRig.com

Right, but we still don't know how the FSA gossamer compares to other sidepull brakes. Your own white paper shows a significant difference between different sidepull brakes. So maybe the FSA is a brick and we need to discount the Omega's results. Or maybe the FSA is actually a pretty slippery sidepull brake and the Omega is truly an ass-whupper. Seems like it could be either.

To be clear, I would only run one of two brakes on my P5: the Magura RT8TT or the Omega. I have the Maguras now but was already contemplating a switch to Omegas so that I could run 9071 levers and get di2 shifting at the base bar (without having to hack di2). For me, Jim's results encourage rather than discourage that switch. But I think it's fair to note that Jim's data is limited to a comparison against the FSA and Vision brakes.

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

So, this is more of what you're going to see from us. Completely independent tests without participation from the manufacturer. In this case, I bought the Omega X myself at full price (though it was on sale at the time), and also the Shimano Ultegra brake we used for the DA. The other two brakes came off the Cervelo and IA10.

This test was of particular interest because I had two tests shared with me that indicated the Trimax was faster. Problem was, once I dug a little deeper, I found out the Trimax tested at about 2-3 watts faster than a standard Shimano brake, but the Omega X wasn't actually tested, they just assumed, based on the data off the TriRig site suggesting a 2 watt advantage for the Omega X, that the Trimax was as good or better. I should know better than to trust anyone's data at this point.

As stated, and as you can see on the site, we tested each brake multiple times to insure accuracy. For these tests, we didn't need to repeat more than twice (on each bike) since the results were so consistent across the board; however, it's not unusual to have tests that are "outliers" showing results that are much better or worse than previous tests. In these instances, more testing needs to be completed to determine which is the outlier and which is the true number. It takes time and patience, but that's how you get good, reliable, data.

Anytime you include an actual human on a bike, you're going to get inconsistent data, and it will happen often. Wind tunnel or velodrome, it doesn't matter - rider variability is always present. As the saying goes, "Measure twice before cutting." You'll also notice I wrote about re-baselining multiple times. This, too, is key for any aero testing, but especially important for velodrome testing as results can vary from fatigue, or even the athlete simply getting better at riding the velodrome itself.

Now that I think of it, I should probably have included the "baseline" numbers from both the Gossamer and Ultegra brakes. They, too, were tested multiple times.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

It would be nice to have CdA figures, watts take a bit of work to be useful.
Aside from that nitpicking, thanks very much for doing that study.

As much as I like ERO and Tririg (owned an omega brake and tested with ERO), these time savings seem too large.

 What savings did you find nick? How much different was it?

'

There are CdA figures, near the bottom. Though I find Watts more useful.

CdA doesn't change appreciably with speeds that cyclists ride. Watts on the other hand can vary quite a bit.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

[/quote]
Yeah, I get it. But at least for me differential Watts are a more accessible mechanism for understanding the magnitude of effect.

If he had just reported the CdA differences of 0.006 (which is roughly what it was), I'd have to spend some time converting that to something else.

Reporting that it saved 6W @ 200W is immediately accessible.

Maybe you've learned to have a more intuitive sense of CdA, but I think you'd be in the minority there. We spend all day looking at power meters. Except Jim, and a few others. I do my own Chung testing, but even then I like to look at Watt differential at the speeds I'm going.

You *believe* that the watt figure is more accessible, but it actually isn't. Which is the problem.

6W out of 200W doesn't mean anything unless you know the CdA for at least one of those, *and* the CdA for yourself on the bike. (EDIT: since 200W includes other resistance besides aero, knowing total CdA won't help either).

Every time this comes up half the people ask how to translate the data to their own situation, and another 49% think they understand what it means, but actually don't. The remaining 1% realize that there is no way to know what it means with any precision because the necessary information is missing.

If you have CdA then you know something, and you can translate it to any rider and any situation you like. My CdA is 0.20 and I got a reduction of .01, that's 5% of my aero drag.

This isn't true for watts or grams. When I see "watts savings", I immediately wonder what speed and what air density? The speed is sometimes revealed, but the air density usually never. But even if I know the speed then I need to convert it to *my* riding speed. Since the power to overcome aero drag goes up with V^3 this is a huge factor! About 2x higher at 50 km/hr vs 40 km/hr. And I live at 7000 ft so there is another correction factor.

saw those. But would like to see them in the tables so it's all 100% clear.
I don't think in terms of watts for aero at all. It's CdA all the way. As I can model that for a scenario relevant to me (or others). Watt differentials for 40km @200w just look like random numbers.

Jim provided both my CdA and the calculated power savings. I was the test rider on the IA10. I know my actual watt savings will differ. For the test laps I was putting out 275-300W.

I trust the results. My IA now has a Tririg Omega X front brake.


Fun fact the IA tested slower without a front brake than with one.

What speed do the watt figures relate to?

Looking over my garmin data it was around 26MPH as recorded by a magnetless garmin speed sensor. I pretty much stayed between 25 and 27 for all runs.

I didnt have a target power or speed in mind. I just settled in at a pace and embraced the burn until the run was over.

But it is.

I get it. I understand how to get grams and Watts from CdA. I prefer Watts. And let's be honest. This is CdA for some other dude who's apparently as aero as a barn door. On some bike that's totally different than mine. Vs. a baseline brake that I don't have. So let's not pretend that by getting CdA differential it's like somehow immediately far more applicable to me than getting order-of-magnitude Watts saving.

That's all we're getting. Approximate magnitude of what we might expect from this brake. Watts are perfectly fine for that.

Those "random numbers" should correlate perfectly to CdA...just saying.

That's all we're getting. Approximate magnitude of what we might expect from this brake. Watts are perfectly fine for that.

Well, for starters you don't even know what the approximate magnitude is for *you*, unless you know the speed and air density and then do the calculation. If you know CdA, then you don't need to know these variables. 6W at 30km/hr is a 4.6x bigger change in aero drag than 6W at 50km/hr!

I get it. I understand how to get grams and Watts from CdA.

We are given 6 watts. Without the speed and air density that relates to this 6 watts, you can't get CdA or translate it to your conditions. Even if it is 6 W out of 200 W we still don't know what it means.