Man, if the results are half as exciting as this thread it'll be awesome!

---

--Chris

Do the parties involved have any known and/or suspected ties to Russian oligarchs, who might have financial interests in the outcome of these tests?

---

"Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps"
Blog = http://extrememomentum.com|Photos = http://wheelgoodphotos.com

"Just because it irks me, "freedom of speech" is a right guaranteed by The US Constitution from infringement by the GOVERNMENT."

he can't read your post. i've lost my patience.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

 
i think the distinction here is between people trying to do tests and sharing on the forum (chung aero, toma tires, etc) with the intent of learning stuff, vs someone using dans forum to gain resources and an audience for what has at least been indicated to be a biased publicity exercise. sounds fair to me.

The one thing that, above all else, could help make the testing reproducible and informative has been punted on because it's too hard.

That you even pursued the idea is commendable. The thing is, I agree. It makes testing slow, expensive, and tedious. But that's the price to be paid in order to adequately answer the questions you're hoping to answer.

EDIT: One additional note - at A2 they have a camera and projector so your head position is projected on a whiteboard sitting in front of your front wheel. You can establish a position, they'll trace your head, and then you just simply have to put your head in the lines to reproduce a previous position.

It's not foolproof, but it's clever and definitely reduces error.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

Well said Jordan.

You might have missed Jordan's post above about how not even a mannequin is a silver bullet in terms of repeatability. I have heard similar things from others, including one experienced tester who became so frustrated with a mannequin moving around that he threw it in the garbage.

You also may have missed my point about a static mannequin not properly capturing drive side flow that is much more turbulent with a pedaling rider. It is conceivable that the Andean's "aero core" would test quite a bit differently with a pedaling rider vs a static mannequin, especially at yaw.

So no, I wouldn't say that I or we discarded the idea of manny just because it was too hard. There's disagreement among very experienced and informed people about whether even a static dummy bolted to the frame is a better or more reliable model of reality than a live rider. Both can have errors and both types of errors should be admitted and detailed and where possible quantified.

Fair enough and I respect that opinion and Jordan's opinion as well. And we're in agreement on another point - neither of us is very informed. :)

But I will note that repeatability isn't something that the Specialized tunnel really does at all - with Jordan, with mannequins, with bikes on their own, etc. I don't believe there is a meaningful explanation to the idea that somehow a human being is more repeatable than a static mannequin, but I don't doubt that wasn't the result Jordan and the S engineers experienced.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

Who cares? All these bikes are FUGLY.

Finally. Some rational thought.

Though, the B2 included in the test is pretty hawt.

And more seriously, these non traditional frames have grown on me. I'm not sure I like any of them aesthetically more than say, a really nicely appointed P5. But over time they've become less appalling. That includes the Ventum, Omni, Andean, P5x, etc.

---

"One Line Robert"

You posted this without error bars??! We can't even evaluate the possible sources of error in fugliness. Like if you're drunk. Also you're a nordic skier, and nordic skiing went full fugly when they started allowing so-called "skating." You, sir, have a long way to go if you want to establish credibility.

Also, I think the Felt B series looks OK. And the Premier is OK, borrowing from what I think is the pretty sexy Canyon design language. I'm with you on all the others.

* All assertions are +/- 10% on the NBFS (Normalized Bike FUGLY Scale). .Normalized where 100% is the P5x and 0% is the English Cycles Time Trial Mk2
Possible sources of error are: GFY.

What are you basing your assessment that the Specialized tunnel is not repeatable off of?

I've been in the Specialized tunnel twice. A year apart. Position between the two trips was unchanged though.

In both trips we did a comparison test of CdA with the Evade vs the McLaren TT. And the CdA differential between those two helmets was virtually identical between the two trips - 0.006 m^2, or just over 5w.

Since the purpose of this thread is - to a large extent - the very real issues with baseless accusations against the credibility of those who have established their bona fides, I'd ask what proof - if any - you have the Mark, Chris, & Cam aren't able to demonstrate repeatable data? Because that certainly doesn't jive with either my own experience or with subsequent discussions I've had with them about other findings.

Mark can also speak, if he wants, to the challenges with dealing with a mannequin. The fact that I was more repeatable than the mannequin was noteworthy, but it also wasn't surprising to either Mark or Chris.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Secondhand discussion with folks that work at two other tunnels. I think the general criticism revolved around the shape of the tunnel and the difficulty in straightening the air.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

More agreement here. Man, agreeing can be fun.

But the English TT bike is so hawt. I've always wondered how it'd compare in the tunnel against the best carbon.

Who owns it? Can they ship to A2 by end of week?

---

"One Line Robert"

Are you sure you/they were/are talking about the Specialized tunnel? That would surprise me. Because those issues sound like you are describing Faster.

I guess this also assumes that the people you were talking to are more knowledgeable of the Specialized tunnel than Mark or Chris?

You spent a lot of time talking about the potential pitfalls of attempting a comprehensive tunnel test (all valid - not disagreeing there). But then repeat second hand information about the validity of data coming out of a tunnel you've actually never been to? Seems an odd stance.

---

"One Line Robert"

I'm certain they were talking about the S tunnel. Isn't the S tunnel a big rectangle?

The way it was described for my public educated brain to grok was that air moves well in a column, a la the shape of a tornado, hurricane, etc.

Additionally, one of the notes the Texas A&M folks mentioned was that their tunnel is a big loop, meaning that it helps make the air more straight when it enters the testing area (as opposed to sucking air in one end and just pushing it out the other end).

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

I feel confident that the people I talked to are educated on the subject. But I concede that doesn't make them correct.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

Good god... Precisely my point. It's not really worth getting into the tall weeds of tunnel design here. There are valid of criticisms that can be made about every type of tunnel design. And there's absolutely no clear answer about what sort of tunnel design is "best."

The Specialized tunnel has quite a few positives that really stand alone in the industry. The biggest one is that it was it was designed solely for bikes, so the balance is perfectly flush with the floor. And, of course, the balance never gets taken in or out.

But, to the larger point, for someone who has spent most of this thread attempting to pick apart the test protocol presented here, for you to say, "Repeatability is not something Specialized does well" and to not state that you are basing that off what is AT BEST secondhand - and possibly third/fourth/fifth/Nth-hand - information that you do not fully comprehend is totally absurd.

If you can elaborate a thoughtful criticism about what - EXACTLY - is wrong with the Specialized tunnel AND/OR present data DEMONSTRATING that it is not repeatable, fine. Until then...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I think the Andean hits 105%.

Wow. Guess I didn't realize how sensitive the topic was. You guys have a great day. I'm punching out.

---

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)

Inside the error bars, so I'll allow it.

FWIW Dan, I think the main requirement for posting here should be that they need to be completely transparent about their testing protocol. Tell us what the setups were that were tested, in detail, and how those were determined. Also, report EVERY test, not just the ones you like. That's already a way higher bar than almost any other tests we discuss here.

Sure, most people have some biases, and some of the guys involved have some opinions that they've already stated. However, their commercial interest/biases can't possibly be anywhere near the likes of Cervelo or Trek, or Flo, or whoever else's tests we discuss here all the time. The fact that they want to run the tests at all, at considerable expense to themselves presumably, means they have some interest in finding the right answer. I would urge you to require transparency but let them post the results.

The Mk2 is a beautiful bike but looks like it would have the stiffness of a wet noodle.

You're being reasonable, and I think our two moderators have communicated this poorly, with some odd rationalizations. But I've kind of come full circle on this. The closest thing to this effort might be TomA's wheel testing. Which was quasi-independent, but had a Specialized "flavor" to it, using a lot of Specialized products and the Specialized wind tunnel.

And he served the results on his own blog. Just pointed to it from here. This forum, being based on like 1970's InterWeb technology, isn't even well served to displaying data well. Formatting, etc.

No big deal to post them on one of the many free blog services. And if it becomes very popular for these guys, that way they can start getting their own ad revenue instead of driving it all to Slowtwitch.

The results *will* get discussed here. That pretty much can't be stopped unless the moderators go full Kim Jong-il on our asses.