I agree. Chung VE has been available for a long time but I’ll concede it’s not for everybody (or even most). You need to be really stringent in controlling your variables and sometimes it can be difficult to find a viable loop/half-pipe.

These devices keep getting closer and closer to a final product, but I get the feeling they still aren't going to be available until late-2018 early 2019.

The other surprise for me was that Swiss Side had new wheels. How did I miss that?

I like the idea, but what real-time quantitative information would something like this provide to you when the winds are a ever changing? Would the application be for training, real-time fitting data, or something you would race with? Maybe, all the above? Just trying to wrap my mind around the potential uses of something like this and the ROI to the end user.
Thoughts?

Think about all of the random threads on here where people are asking for aero data or advice. Without testing themselves, most of these people are guessing. Everyone wants the simple answer "is it faster?" It depends is the answer. The entire system matters, not just one piece.

Currently you have to pay $500 an hour at a wind tunnel or go see Jim at ERO to have good data. Not everyone can afford $500 an hour and if you change something, well now you need to go back and test.

With these devices, you don't need to go to a wind tunnel to know if something is faster. You pick a route, run the data, switch a wheel, helmet, suit, etc., and re-run the route. Your Cda value will drop if it makes you faster or go up if it doesn't. These devices allow you to test any time, any where, and know for sure if you have bought something to make you faster. The days of guessing on Slowtwitch will soon be over.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

What I don't get is how you get the data - is it only being displayed on the screen of the unit? To get consistent result, wouldn't it have to compared to all the other data like speed, power etc? If you can only look at your data in that very moment, its pretty much useless, you need comparisons and multiple tests and averaging of the data.

I hope they are working to get an ANT+ Standard or similar so you get your values on your Garmin as all the other data. But since so many other companies working on something similar, I hope there will be something universal and useful

Garmin bought AlphaMantis Technology last year. They are working on an AeroPod

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

I know, but that doesn't mean they do create an open standard. If I remember correctly then foot pod running dynamics and the pedaling metrics on their power meter were exclusive protocols that only Garmin units could use with Garmin headunits?

It's too early to tell right now.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

But doesn't the wind-tunnel provide the rider a more definitive base-line result as you are in a controlled environment? If so, and when used in-conjuntion with a device post base-line testing, it would then allow the athlete to make better predictions about what piece of equipment to use that day? I would have to believe you will still need a controlled base-line test and then ride outside with this device to better suit your race day needs.

I love seeing this type of technology coming to our sport and look forward to hearing more about how a bell-curve athlete, like myself, can benefit from it :)...

Greatly appreciate the preceptive and your thoughts.

Wind tunnels don't factor in power to rotate wheels or the affect of steering on the bike. Since it's locked into the struts, it doesn't tell the entire story. It's still a great test to do.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Having done a fair share of field testing (using various methods, i.e. classic regression, "Chung" VE, "Work per Lap", etc.) and having played around with sensors intended to estimate wind strength and/or direction, IMO the thing that will be key in the use and adaptation of these devices is how well they are made to be "plug and play".

Even with a wind sensor, the need to be extra careful with sensor location, zeroing, PM calibration, etc. is paramount to getting usable results. It's not always easy...so, they guys who figure out how to make it easiest for the even the most "tech challenged" potential users will be the ones who are the most successful. That's going to be a pretty tough nut to crack...I'm not saying it can't be done. It just may take a bit of time.

That said, the ability of having an on-board wind sensor is obviously going to make field testing a more attractive prospect...if anything, just so I don't have to venture out at the crack of dawn and freeze my butt off to ensure low wind conditions :-)

edit: For a "deep dive" into some of the technology and issues with using a sensor like this for field testing, the info on the Aerolab.tech site is a good place to start: https://www.aerolab.tech/journal

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The thing that worries me the most about all of these "aero sticks" is placement. For example, the problem I see with the Swisside setup is that large changes to the tilt of the aerobars change where the sensor is relative to.... ah heck, help me with the term here.... center of pressure? No, that's not it. Ideally you'd have the sensor mounted separately to the steerer and extend well in front of the rider so that it is relatively unaffected by changes in stack, reach, tilt, etc. The problem with such a mount is that it wouldn't play nice with integrated cockpits.

Once they can make these accurate and consistent, this was be a good investment.

I don't think vertical position matters that much, as long as the sensors are in "clean air." The one pic where the sensor are relatively close to the tire would concern me. But it seems the sensors are far enough from the bars, both horizontally and vertically, that they wouldn't be influenced by the cockpit in any way.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

That's the promise (hype?) but it isn't that easy. I don't believe these will add much to Chung VE for those who know how to do it. For people who think VE is too much trouble, these devices will give a better number than nothing (or a Velocomp Powerpod), but an accurate number will still not be easy.

The position of the pod is close enough to the rider to need calibration anytime something changes, including the wind. In other words the dynamic pressure it measures will be less than free-stream, so you need to guess and fudge that. It doesn't take a very big wind measurement error to throw off CdA.

Does it though? Do the absolute numbers matter, or just the change in measured air speed vs the changes in power, speed, elevation, and yaw in the same sample cycle?

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

I agree with calibrating for changes in position. I don’t think you need to calibrate for changes in wind speed unless you’re after accuracy (repeatability is good enough for the intended purpose: getting faster). Contrary to what some might believe these sensors are not in “clean air”. They’re close enough to the bike/rider that changes downstream can affect things upstream... IMO

If the sensor pressure indicates a 25mph airspeed when it is really 24mph, that is a significant error. If it is always off by that same amount then your A-B tests won't incur much error. But I don't think it will be that consistent. The influence of the bike and body on the reading will vary depending on wind conditions, and adjustments to position will effect it as well.

My $0.02: the further you mount the sensor from the bike, the less of an effect changes to the bike/rider system will have on the sensor.

Stagnation affecting the airspeed measurement is a real issue. Making a sensor that doesn’t need recalibration/compensation after a position change proved to be a ‘fun’ exercise.

I agree with those above saying that making something that can be used by people with little practice is paramount.

---

Developing aero, fit and other fun stuff at Red is Faster

Everything you guys are talking about here is part of the Aerolab.tech "secret sauce", if you read the patent application Coggan linked to on that thread.

"Less than ideal" sensor placement can apparently be calibrated out...with the large caveat, of course, that anything which later ends up changing the pressure gradient in and around that location significantly (for example, with a sensor mounted under the bars like the Swiss Side pic, and then looking at "high hands" vs. level hand positions) may cause you to have to do that calibration procedure over again.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The aero stick will be widely adopted as soon as it provides the same experience a good PM does these days.

PM: Install on your bike, it pairs with your head unit, and your Garmin screen gives you a nice, accurate number that "makes sense," i.e. when you look at your historical times up your favorite reference climb **all things being equal ** you see a nice relationship between more watts and a faster time.

Aerostick: Install on your bike, pair with your head unit, and your Garmin screen gives you a nice, accurate number that "makes sense," i.e. is it stable as you maintain a stable position, and it responds the way you would expect it to when you make a position change. e.g. take a couple fingers off the aero extensions and stick them out in the wind, see CdA increase. Stick out more fingers, see it increase more.

Good PMs are "set it and forget it" and trustworthy. When Aerosticks are the same, they will really take off with consumers.

---

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

Right and that's a real concern IMO. The mantis position, when it works, seems to really work so it's something everyone should try IMO. Also, hydration options that sit in front of the head tube, such as the the Torhans and Profile Design systems, would also affect the pressure gradient.

Regardless, it's always fun to have new toys to play with.

Joining in on the Aero Sensor party. Keep in mind, in our patent we use "streamline-projection" method for calibrating the sensor. This means that the 3-hole probe on the front does not even need a static pressure measurement along the tube. We had the static pressure measurement for fun for a while, but later removed it. This reduces the influence of front-end modifications (hands, etc.) on the sensor calibration - you can imagine a 3D change in flow development results in a 3D pressure gradient field change. All of our sensor measurements of wind and wind yaw are at a single point in 3D space, which is nice to have. The caveat is that you need a good transducer.

---

Chris Morton, PhD
Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering
co-Founder and inventor of AeroLab Tech
For updates see Instagram