I tested the previous canyon to be 2-4w slower than the premier tactical over a yaw sweep, getting worse as the yaw angles went out. That would put in the group of bikes just behind the Premier in the aerobike shoot we did and near the top of that group.

Is that slow? No. Are there faster bikes? Yes. It was still an above average performer and probably still is given the scope of TT bikes out there.

9w vs the old canyon is going to make the new Canyon ~4-6w faster than a P5-6 and probably ~ 4-6w slower than the current Cervelo releases.

Does that make the new Canyon slow? Nope.

Just like the old canyon it's going to be an above average performer, this time Canyon is even closer to the front of the pecking order.

If you're riding a P5-6 or trek SC should you rush out to buy the new Canyon? If you have money burning a hole through your pocket sure, go ahead. I'd personally put it into a dividend paying stock if I owned one of those 2 bikes. You're ROI will be higher even if you're a pro triathlete with a legit shot at cash every race you race.


eta: I'm too lazy to actually go figure out the exact watt differences . iirc I posted that on a different thread

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Yes, that's what Canyon is saying without saying it.

very little. just this, because i asked. the 9w was at 45kph, and the wind tunnel testing; the results were congruent with what they expected from the CFD modeling; and that the results held up whether there was a rider aboard or not.

that is, if i understood them right and am representing faithfully what they said.

what i don't know - didn't see - were graphs of sweeps. which side is faster? it's faster by 9w where? straight wind? 5°? 10°? so, there's more here that should be fleshed out. we have more articles coming on this bike - how it fits, how you size yourself for it, how it is to work on - and what i wrote was just the top line. i got the bike itself at 9pm, the night before the embargo was to lift at 3am. what i wrote were the barest details.

also, more than 1 version of the bike got launched, and i haven't seen that bike. (the downstreamed versions)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

on the aerocoach page where they have the inner tube comparison they have this about a tubeless liner:
https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/...d-rolling-resistance
not sure what about this liner is different from the backer foam rod one can buy at any hardware store?
https://www.homedepot.com/...-Rod-71464/202837935

looks the same to me. Would it provide similar characteristics at a pretty low cost?

Latex is fast because it has low hysteresis; when it stretches very little energy is released. I had one of the old plastic tubes (don't recall the name; it was better than butyl but still shy of latex performance), but it felt nothing like latex. It was like... well, plastic. Not stretchy at all. When installed in a tire though, the tube doesn't need to stretch much, and if the hysteresis is low it can still do better than butyl.

New Cervelos are ~10W faster than a P5-6 at 45km/hr?

I wish companies would stay away from the drag and watt saving statements. I think it would serve them better to convert that to time savings at different speeds.

9 watts savings at 45 kph means very little to the average triathlete. To someone that averages 18-20 mph, they read 9 watts and automatically think "1-3 watts for me". Is "1-3 watts" worth $12.5k to them? Probably not because the average triathlete can't compute how much time that would actually save them over a 70.3 or 140.6.

---

blog

okay. but if low hysteresis is what makes a latex tube fast, since most drum testers have beyond-real-world "road feature" (e.g., diamondplate) surfaces, then the elegance of latex, as a tool for speed, would be even more prominently felt on these drum rollers or mandrels. i had always thought the hysteresis was the thing. the secret sauce. so, to what do you ascribe the aerothan's low rolling resistance? i'm not trying to angle toward a thesis. i don't know. i'm asking.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

i'm not sure that's an easy one. if you simply rode their test speed, that's a 4:30 bike ride. if you drop that from 40kph to 35kph, now it's 5:10 or so. so the question is, how often are you at that 35kph to 50kph speed?

because the one long distance race i used to do in recent decades was wildflower, and i spend a lot of time at that speed. and then i spent a lot of time at speeds way below that, i.e., we all - pros included - were way below that. so, it's not a simple calculation.

that's not counting wind direction. the slower you go, yes, the less of a benefit you get. but... the slower you go, the more you're riding in a yaw. so, what you see out there, nearer the edges of the parabola in sweep charts, that's you. so if you complain that you are not that fictitious guy that gets the 9w, but you're the real world guy that gets 4w, okay, but then you shouldn't be looking at the same place on the sweep chart as the pro to see what your power savings is (seems to me).

the *real world* guy should be asking questions, yes, and i've tried pretty hard for 20 years to tell you guys what questions you should be asking, and you (the communal you) have never impressed me as ever much caring. which is fine. to each his own. but i take your point.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It's not the elasticity so much (i.e. ability to conform) as it is the low inherent hysteresis (internal energy loss from flexing) or "damping" of the material that makes it "fast" in a tube/tire context.

So, it's very likely the Schwalbe material could have high elasticity (higher than latex, anyway) i.e. "stiffer", and yet also have somewhat low hysteresis losses.

edit: I incorrectly had high and low elasticity swapped...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

That is helpful.

It's when you see a marketing team get creative with the numbers ie the old bento held 4 gels, now it holds 12 so we'll tape 8 to the top tube and compare. Or the old bike was max 25mm tires, now it's 30 and that a rolling resistance decrease of 4 watts.....Sound like Canyon did it right in the wind tunnel

I even saw A was faster than B by 8 watts. "But B had a ceramic speed pulley and we know that's 10 watts, so can we say 18". NO. "Ok, just asking" :-)

And...to be fair, isn't the previous model being compared to using tube shapes/depths that conform to the UCI rules of the time? If so, gaining ~9W by just using deeper, more complete aero sections isn't too surprising.

I recall having a conversation with Brad DeVaney at Interbike one year right after the initial Trek Speed Concept was introduced. He told me he'd taken an SC and 3D printed "tails" for the rear of each of the truncated foil sections to basically complete the airfoils. He said that with those tails attached, it was uber-fast...considerably more than 10W @ 45kph "faster" IIRC....

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

it seems to me this is the pebax argument (running shoe foam). a lot of elasticity but (if i can anthropomorphize) an urgent inclination to return quickly to its original shape. it's a good spring and a bad shock. no?

i guess i'm not smart enough to imagine how - on a diamondplate drum - you're recognizing some virtue other than that. there's no issue of friction or whatever else may slow down a tire that results from direct contact with the drum.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Hysteresis is a different material property than elasticity. You appear to be conflating the 2.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

No doubt it's difficult to get an exact time savings with real world conditions (elevation and wind changes). But just like how bike mfg's make assumptions when they say "9 watt savings", you can make similar assumptions for a time savings. I'd be ok if they just assumed no wind and no elevation.

---

blog

That cannot be right. Cervelo said the P5d is "17 grams" faster than the previous P5. With the limited details about those data, it is probably grams at 30 mph / 48km/h and compared to P5-6. So about 2 W faster.

Also in the "peak aero" testing P5-X was ~20 g faster than P5-6 @ 48 km/h.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8RrY_TRtezdc2pYSHJ1cVllUjQ/view

It probably depends how they (the various testers and Cervelo) account for the storage and hydration of the new P5d.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

you're right. i am. i absolutely am. and that's why i said i'm just not smart enough. because, when i study this, and i read what people write about hysteresis in tires, what i read is that there's a value, measurable in heat, during that process between the tire's deformation and its recovery (the delta between the energy during deformation and the energy of recovery). and that sounds an awful lot like measuring elasticity, that is to say, we note the tendency of an object to resume its normal shape after deformation (elasticity) and then measure the energy loss during that process.

this is why you're smart and i'm not, and we rely on the smart people here. because you understand the distinction and i don't.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

That's why I don't see any point in having a "diamondplate" surface on a tire roller drum...and the use of them demonstrates (to me, at least) that the designer/user doesn't understand it doesn't give any additional information about the hysteresis properties of the item under test. All it does is add additional flexing to the contact patch that is already being flexed.

Most of the time, the use of a "rough" drum on a roller tester is just to try to satisfy the misunderstanding of folks who say "that's not like the real world", IMHO...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Must be low hysteresis. It can have that property without being anywhere near as stretchy as latex. It just needs to stretch enough to match the distortion in a tire rolling on the ground.

as per Dan just because I don't know the answer, to what extent is it actually hysteresis and or is it that the tube is able to move as easily as the tire, ie sort of a slip plain? and also butyl vs latex vs whatever, does it not have an elastic property when you inflate it? and the resistance to that stretching might that as well have something to do with hysteresis in that it sets up a bit of an air spring the more stiff it is? just wondering

A good way to think about inner tube hysteresis is friction within the tube material, resisting deformation of the tube, turning some of the energy spent deforming the tube into heat.

A plastic tube might be made out of a material that has similar internal friction as butyl rubber, or perhaps even worse. But if the plastic tube is extremely thin, you might suffer less loss to this friction than with butyl simply because there's so little material being deformed.

if i understand you to be talking about friction between the tube and the inside of the tire, okay, makes sense, but that sounds like a completely separate argument than hysteresis. as i understand it, hysteresis is a measurable value in tubeless tires, no?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I mean friction within the material of the tube. When you bend a piece of rubber, you're generating heat.

When you bend the rubber, some of your effort is spent on overcoming the stiffness of the rubber, and some is spent on hysteresis (turning into heat). As the rubber springs back, yet more energy is consumed as heat. This is why you spend more mechanical energy bending the rubber initially, than is returned when the rubber springs back.

The tube doesn't have enough stiffness to slip against the tire casing. It's stuck to it by pressure.

The loss is due to internal friction of the tube material as it distorts.