>Hmmm...why am I finding these 2 statements to be somewhat in conflict?

That's a good catch. I'm assuming the 1g is the advertised standalone precision of their force-measuring device, and doesn't account for all the other experimental error introduced through the testing process.

As for the bottles, I guess I'd be perfectly happy if they were all tested with a round bottle.

doo-dads= Heres 4 of them. Would Goss not shuttin the door be considered a doo-dad?

Finally we get down to the truth of the matter: expensive toys for girls and boys.

Think yourself lucky to have 3rd and 4th cat racing. Where I live there are no such categories to help preserve these illusions/delusions.

I'm not saying equipment doesn't matter, but to question how Cav and Thor will do this year because they're not on aero bikes is silly. I'm also not disparaging cat 4s because to a ProTeam rider a cat 1 is just as much a joke. Likewise, I can think about what setup I'd ride for P-R or M-SR, but that means absolutely nothing about knowing what's best since I haven't done it (nor could I).

Well with Cav vs Tyler we do have a sort of double whammy.

Cav was like what, 100 wins to 1 loss against tyler in sprints last year.

Now cav is losing a few watts with this bike change, and Tyler is saving a few with his.

So, maybe it will be 99-2 this year? lol

---

---

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

Hard to have any delusions when your license says "cat 4" right there to remind you that you suck!

anyway my toys aren't expensive. I ride aluminium =)

---

---

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

Is it also possible that different cranks have different drag contributions?

Just so everyone gets the perspective, here's what that top plot looks like if you include zero:



Here's what the plot looks like if you include zero but scale it to a normal aspect ratio:




Just sayin'. The bikes are not all THAT different from one another. Whether the Venge or S5 (or AR1!) is better you can't say due to the size of the error bars.

Asad

Are you referring to THIS "non-aero" frame? Ironically (I guess) named the "Aeroad"? ;-)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/...lberts-canyon-aeroad



Huh? BTW, can you remind us what your "go to" race wheels are again? They're box section, 32 spoke wheels, right? ;-)

It seems more to me that ignoring one half of the "go fast" equation is actually an example of "oversimplification of what it takes to win"...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I also hesitated for a little when I read this but I think it does make sense. I don't work at a wind tunnel so I can just guess. (anybody does?) I would assume even though the measurements are within 1g exact the repeated measuring is not or the drag oszillates between let's say 2985 and 3015g...

Right...but looking at it that way is misleading since there's a huge "fixed bias". Saying that the differences are small as a percentage of total drag is true, but it also then downplays the potential gains of incremental differences. 5, 10, 15, or 20W on top of 300W is HUGE if your FTP is 300W (or less).

You may not be able to say from THIS test, but that probably says more about this testing itself (as evidenced by the error bars) than any actual differences.

You know, this isn't the first time that Tour's testing doesn't quite jive with Cervelo's or even VN's testing.... :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

...and once again points out why consumers should demand to see error bars on ANY aero plots, whether from independent tests or manufacturers.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The real world has that huge fixed bias!! I would argue that it's "misleading" in some sense to subtract off the bias to make it appear visually as if there's a bigger difference than there actually is. Sure, it makes the differences more visible, but the visual impact is amplified more than the actual numbers indicate.


Yeah but the difference between the top 3 here (ignoring error bars) is what, 2 watts? Trying to argue over whether the Cervelo or the Specialized is faster based on these data is pointless.

Asad

For some races, yes, they're box rims and tubeless.

Go ahead and start moving the goalposts like you do; nobody said "ignoring one half" of the equation. How many races did Cav lose to Thor or Tyler before he got on the Venge? How did he do at M-SR in 2010? How many races did Fabian win in 2010 on an aero bike? How about Voeckler and Chavanel, a couple guys who tend to be off the front?

All the TOP guys also used to do just fine with normal drop bars during their TT's. Maybe we need Greg LeMond to ride/win the TDF on a S5 to end the debate.

That's the thing...you can't ignore the error bars since it changes the conclusion. The actual differences could be as large as nearly 10W and this testing wouldn't be able to tell that...and, if the Venge is basically the same as an S3 (as has been reported previously) then it all fits since the reported difference by Cervelo between the S3 and the S5 is ~10W.

So yes, trying independently verify Cervelo's claims with this testing IS pointless.

The conclusion shouldn't be that these bikes are all necessarily "tied", it should be that this testing isn't sensitive enough to determine the actual differences. Isn't the "rule of thumb" for metrology that you want your measurement error to be less than 1/10th the size of the effect you're trying to measure? In this case, that would mean that they can't reliably measure differences below ~+/- 30W.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Nothing's going to help me win a Cat 4 crit anymore...mostly because I'm not allowed to race them :-P

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

We're not talking about TTs.

I am simply pointing out that just because everyone is not using them now, it doesn't mean they won't be later. Clearly the best guys in the world could take my old trek from the garage and still be one of the best guys in the world. But if aero frames prove to be faster, and prove to handle well, and are stiff, etc., over time they will become the norm.

This argument comes up every time their is a possible major change. TT bars, deeper wheels, even clip-in pedals.

I get that, but aero road frames have been around for a while, so it's not like they're new.

The flaw here is that it's a road race, not a TT, and owing to position, helmet etc. the bike contribution to this 300 W is not nearly as large as, say, Cervelo's DZ testing implies that it will be. If your FTP is 300 W then you are simply not that fast on a road bike, and so the delta change from the aero road frame is not that great (i.e. not the HUGE 20 W above), particularly in the situations that often count, such as uphill grades.

And where was Cav's aero advantage in this tight finish ;) ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCUD0CPKJSM

If they make such a difference, then it will also turn out mandatory that all pros will have to wear aero helmets, the highest tech skinsuits, booties, aerodynamic mitts, and race in their best tuck if they are to have a chance in road races. No more riding on the hoods, and certainly no domestiques stuffing their jerseys with a dozen bidons.

Nice win on a round tube addict. :) Then again when manufacturers start making the Renshaw nose cone addon, I'll line up gladly to hand over my money and enjoy those free watts. ;)

Castelli one piece road kits comes to mind... and also, riding on the hoods is fastest.. just saying..

---

---

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