Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [stephen J] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Hey Andrew,

Im not sure if you will be able to set me straight, but for some reason I remember that there was testing done on both the 100k and the scott extremes (I went through two sets of these), and the drag numbers were worse than the base-bar/aero bar combo. I took it as a surprise at the time, as I thought that they 'looked' the fastest. My recollection was that the testing was done pre-slowtwitch, and appeared on RST a bunch of years ago (maybe back around 2000ish). Am I remembering this completely wrong? This was the main reason that I abandoned the extremes and went to a vision tech base bar/ clipon (well that, and I got a set of vision techs for near nothing).

Stephen J

Well...I field tested the Scott 100K bars with the CX levers on the insides of the loops to be ~0.5-1 s/km faster than the same arm position with a Vision aluminum basebar, Profile T2+ extensions/pads, and Tektro brake levers...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [stephen J] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dont think it was in RST, I just did an extensive search.

Want: 58cm Cervelo Soloist. PM me if you have one to sell

Vintage Cervelo: A Resource
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [jeremyb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Separate front inserts for different preferred aero bar ends.

Modify the shape so a front mounted drinking system will fit in there easily

Internal cable routing (holes will likely be cheaper than grooves)

Good idea tho

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [R10C] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
What I think is missing from this as well as the Retro thread is the best shifting system EVER for aero bars - GRIP SHIFT!

Meh...I've got a set of 8sp DA Grip shifters that I could have used on the 100K bar (and also put the "bridge" in place)...but, IMHO they're a bit bulky...not too mention limiting me to 8 speed. I actually like the slightly higher hand position that running my regular bar-end shifters upside down affords.

Don't worry though...those shifters aren't going to waste. They're installed on my '86 Bianchi Sport SX as bar end shifters on the drops :-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [jeremyb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think it is a great idea...but, I would not be shocked if someone at Profile, Scott (who is still around) or Leonard was to drop a meanie letter.

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

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [R10C] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
R10 you must be conflicted about this thread

on the one hand its ridiculous aero weenie stuff
on the other, its so wonderfully retro!



In Reply To:
I think it is a great idea...but, I would not be shocked if someone at Profile, Scott (who is still around) or Leonard was to drop a meanie letter.



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
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Aerobars that are up to 3lbs lighter than current bars...I am all for that.

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

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [R10C] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Aerobars that are up to 3lbs lighter than current bars...I am all for that.

my science, you are a weight weenie?!?!



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
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Keep in mind that patent life in the US is limited to 20 years for most things ... so, if these were introduced in 1990 or earlier, their patent has likely expired.



TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [stephen J] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Hey Andrew,

Im not sure if you will be able to set me straight, but for some reason I remember that there was testing done on both the 100k and the scott extremes (I went through two sets of these), and the drag numbers were worse than the base-bar/aero bar combo. I took it as a surprise at the time, as I thought that they 'looked' the fastest. My recollection was that the testing was done pre-slowtwitch, and appeared on RST a bunch of years ago (maybe back around 2000ish). Am I remembering this completely wrong? This was the main reason that I abandoned the extremes and went to a vision tech base bar/ clipon (well that, and I got a set of vision techs for near nothing).

Stephen J


I don't recall ever seeing any wind tunnel data for the Scott 100k bars. However, Dr. Jim Martin (hi Jim! <g>) did some handlebar (and helmet) testing for Project 96 that included the Scott Extremes. Compared to round cowhorns + clip-ons, they were actually slightly less aerodynamic, possible because their mouthharp shape meant that there were two sections of round tubing crossing the wind.
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

I don't recall ever seeing any wind tunnel data for the Scott 100k bars. However, Dr. Jim Martin (hi Jim! <g>) did some handlebar (and helmet) testing for Project 96 that included the Scott Extremes. Compared to round cowhorns + clip-ons, they were actually slightly less aerodynamic, possible because their mouthharp shape meant that there were two sections of round tubing crossing the wind.

Hmmm....judging by his response above ("Don't mess with perfection! I'd buy a pair of reproductions.") I would guess the 100Ks aren't as bad as the Extremes...pure speculation though ;-)




http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:


I don't recall ever seeing any wind tunnel data for the Scott 100k bars. However, Dr. Jim Martin (hi Jim! <g>) did some handlebar (and helmet) testing for Project 96 that included the Scott Extremes. Compared to round cowhorns + clip-ons, they were actually slightly less aerodynamic, possible because their mouthharp shape meant that there were two sections of round tubing crossing the wind.


Hmmm....judging by his response above ("Don't mess with perfection! I'd buy a pair of reproductions.") I would guess the 100Ks aren't as bad as the Extremes...pure speculation though ;-)


As I indicated, I don't think Jim ever tested the 100k bars. I agree, though, that their narrowness/lesser curvature than the Extremes makes it seem likely that they are more aero, although not necessarily more aero than modern conventional bars.

(I need to dig up the old pics of my Shogun/Nishiki 24"/700C funny bike fitted with Scott 100k bars and post 'em to the retro thread. Come to think of it, I should have some pics of it fitted with Scott Extreme bars as well, which are what I used on it during my 2 y as a duathlete.)
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Bio_McGeek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Don't mess with perfection! I'd buy a pair of reproductions.

Cheers,

Jim


Maybe if somebody finally gave you back your tubing bender you could just make some? ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
As I indicated, I don't think Jim ever tested the 100k bars. I agree, though, that their narrowness/lesser curvature than the Extremes makes it seem likely that they are more aero, although not necessarily more aero than modern conventional bars.

The drop in CdA I measured going from the Vision/Profile T2+ setup to the 100Ks implies that they can be...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Maybe if somebody finally gave you back your tubing bender you could just make some? ;-)

HA! I wondered where that thing had gone! Bikie!
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
can you just zip-tie the things narrower?

Not really...they're fairly stiff.



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

As I indicated, I don't think Jim ever tested the 100k bars. I agree, though, that their narrowness/lesser curvature than the Extremes makes it seem likely that they are more aero, although not necessarily more aero than modern conventional bars.


The drop in CdA I measured going from the Vision/Profile T2+ setup to the 100Ks implies that they can be...

I think it's an open question. I really don't consider the set up to which you compared it to be that ideal. The brake levers are pretty clunky, and the hardware on the Profile bars seems less-than ideal. Also, if you used the stock Profile arms rests, those alone could be adding some drag. Add into that the variability of field testing... I'm not saying it's not faster, just that I'm not convinced.


Personally, I'd still put my slightly-modified one-piece Vision bar up against it. Of course, there's that UCI thing...

Do you feel you lose anything at the start/turnaround? (better question: how long does it take you to do the first 1000 feet of a flat TT with that set-up).
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [roady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

Do you feel you lose anything at the start/turnaround? (better question: how long does it take you to do the first 1000 feet of a flat TT with that set-up).

Nope...not at all. I'll look at the start and turnaround from the 20K TT I did on Sunday sometime tonight and get back on that.

In any case, I don't think those sections of a 20K or 40K course are anywhere near as critical to overall time as they would be for, let's say, a track sprint event or a pursuit ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
These are pretty great bars--but this is coming from someone who currently has them on three different bikes. What I'd like to see are some decent low profile mounts for the pads.

Have you tried the CeeGees mounts? About the only thing I don't like about them is I wish I could move them outboard just slightly...since they clamp on the straight part of the bar they end up fairly narrow. Although, I do have to say I've gotten used to my elbows being in so close. But, I'm sure others might not like them that narrow...

I agree on bringing the "handgrip" portions in closer together...also, maybe the "loops" could have a short straight section in the middle of them (running fore-aft)?

A very low profile brake lever made specifically for that bar that could be mounted on the outer portions of the "loops" pointing down would be a nice addition as well.

Actually...this all gave me an alternate idea :-)


No--thanks for the lead. I've used the old Scott mounts from the clip-ons and currently and using medium density MTB grips, which are okay for 40K or shorter. I'll have to check them out.

Brake lever--just got a Hed lever that mounts to the bar end shifter. I'm going to use this for my rear brake, which is vestigial, anyway.
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [roady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

As I indicated, I don't think Jim ever tested the 100k bars. I agree, though, that their narrowness/lesser curvature than the Extremes makes it seem likely that they are more aero, although not necessarily more aero than modern conventional bars.


The drop in CdA I measured going from the Vision/Profile T2+ setup to the 100Ks implies that they can be...

I think it's an open question. I really don't consider the set up to which you compared it to be that ideal. The brake levers are pretty clunky, and the hardware on the Profile bars seems less-than ideal. Also, if you used the stock Profile arms rests, those alone could be adding some drag. Add into that the variability of field testing... I'm not saying it's not faster, just that I'm not convinced.


Personally, I'd still put my slightly-modified one-piece Vision bar up against it. Of course, there's that UCI thing...

Do you feel you lose anything at the start/turnaround? (better question: how long does it take you to do the first 1000 feet of a flat TT with that set-up).


Interesting, on my end, I tested them against the my Vision one piece aerobars and sold the Visions in fairly short order; did the same with my Heds, which I sold, too.

No problems using them on the road at all. I've even used them on the track for the pursuit. Still prefer a more *traditional* cowhorn-type bar for the kilo, though.
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [gabbiev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
They aren't listed on the CeeGees website, but you can usually find them selling the "transformer arm rest plates" on ebay...like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/...?hash=item2556e6f61c

Like I mentioned earlier though, on the 100Ks the set angle of the arm rests and the limited straight section of the bar tends to put them in a position where each arm rest is "pointing" at the opposite shifter location. I've gotten used to that though, and it's not uncomfortable at all...there's still a lot of "leeway" in how you place your elbows/forearms in the cups.



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
They aren't listed on the CeeGees website, but you can usually find them selling the "transformer arm rest plates" on ebay...like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/...?hash=item2556e6f61c

Like I mentioned earlier though, on the 100Ks the set angle of the arm rests and the limited straight section of the bar tends to put them in a position where each arm rest is "pointing" at the opposite shifter location. I've gotten used to that though, and it's not uncomfortable at all...there's still a lot of "leeway" in how you place your elbows/forearms in the cups.

Perfect and thanks! I just bought a couple of sets. Should be more comfortable than what I'm using right now.
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [gabbiev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Those are the same pair that I am giving to Jackmott for the 100k bars that he just bought. Also send him some Jagwire Shifter mounts. I can not wait to see his set up.


AERO & LIGHT is RIGHT

Last edited by: BMAN: Feb 11, 10 16:29
Quote Reply
Re: Scott 100k's recreated [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yep I bought a set too.

Want: 58cm Cervelo Soloist. PM me if you have one to sell

Vintage Cervelo: A Resource
Quote Reply

Prev Next