Jeroen,
Your post on this forum of a) data obtained from an athlete who b) participated in a marketing event and not a full aero test, is rather unprofessional for following reasons:
The athlete in question did not allow you to use marketing data provided to him by Kú Cycle on a public forum. You have overstepped your boundaries completely.
The event was a marketing event organised by Kú Cycle in partnership with IRONMAN The Netherlands to enable triathletes to a) experience a test ride on a Kú TF1 and b) to experience the Kú Cycle Aero Performance Testing capabilities. This was NOT an Aero Performance Test at all, it was a marketing event where nearly 20 athletes got to ride a Kú TF1 spread over 2 days. Any one familiar with aero testing, knows so many riders in such a short time span can never be a proper test! The athletes were fitted to a TF1 demo model in 15 minutes time based on their current stack/reach and saddle stack. Zero fit tuning took place on the TF1. This enabled the athletes to actually get to ride and feel a TF1 outdoors on an out-and-back course for about 4km. A simple test sample report was provided with photo’s and a video as part of the experience and NO conclusions were drawn by Kú Cycle to any of the incomplete data provided and we have mentioned these reports to be illustrative. If your goal is to trash or discredit a company that takes aero testing very serious, then think again and you need to do so when we have published our official aero testing protocol, official test data and official test results on our website in August 2022 when published. You are making many claims in your messages in this thread and your so called involvement in our company. We have kept silent many times on your unfounded social media or forum messages, but expect to be called out from this moment forward. We have a right to defend our efforts and investments made.
You contact me frequently on a personal basis with questions and market updates. Why not sending me a simple message to ask about some data you have obtained from an athlete, instead of making a huge public fuzz on this forum? It seems however that was exactly your goal.
With one message or phone call received from you, I could have told you instantly:
This was NOT an aero test but a marketing event.
We have a very strict testing protocol for Kú Aero Camps. This marketing event was not about science, nor about test data but about providing an experience to athletes only. At Kú Cycle we are extremely data-driven, committed to solid research and we let the numbers tell the true story. This test was NOT a test story, no conclusions were drawn (the report says nothing about which bike is faster or not) and all customers knew this data was incomplete as 1 run with 4 out and backs of 800 meters is not a test at all!. Some 20 athletes however felt wonderful about being able to test ride a triathlon super bike with the latest technology on a day that was fully paid for by the manufacturer. No athletes was being mislead about bike comparisons, that is what you have turned it into and willingly so.
**The data of any aero test belongs firstly to the athlete and secondly to the manufacturer that organises the test and seeks consent from the athlete to use the test data. **
You have no right to publish this data and you had no consent from the athlete to publish this data on a public forum.
Kú Cycle aero testing efforts
Over the past 9 months we have performed some 1200km test kilometers (with full data capture), with 24 age group athletes and a handful of professional athletes in batches of 6 athletes taking place for 4 consecutive test days outdoor, indoor velodrome and then back to outdoors. A total of 20 days of 8-10 hours each day of data testing took place. We have invested > 50% of our marketing budget for 2022 in aero testing and have always had a minimum of 3 external aero consultants on site for each test camp. One athlete who purchased a bike from us last December asked to conduct a “fly-on-the-wall-documentary” of a Kú Aero camp which we have allowed. He was provided full and free access and able to publish everything he desired, from our camp locations, his own test data, our test protocol and the athlete test results. There were zero restrictions for this person. His test took place from 14- 18 March 2022 after his bike was commissioned to be built in December 2021 and the documentary was published last week. We have no interest into turning this post into marketing message on this forum, but your messages are trying to discredit our company and our professionalism and you publicly question our aero testing efforts. You are are asking for a response, so you will have it. I believe we are very progressive in our aero testing efforts compared to many other manufacturers. Judge us on our protocol and by August 2022 judge us on our test data published on our website. Judge us on that content and not some little marketing document. Keep it professional please. The documentary that explains our test protocol can be viewed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/...a-leih28s&t=883s
Test Results
We have indeed tested many brands and models with specific riders and have scientific test data that indeed proves the Kú TF1 benefits greatly from the Fork Air Stream Technology, especially with frontal wind under jaws between 5 and 15 degree. This is a very new and patented technology and we leverage a lot on the AeroLab technology, which has enabled us to demonstrate across all our outdoor aero testing to deliver significant watts saved for each and every rider we have tested with as a result of a) better bike fits b) new bike technology c) aero testing expertise on site and d) testing non-bike parts such as apparel, hydrations systems and other accessories used on the bike. We are happy to share this on transparent and public basis to further progress outdoor aero testing, as races take place outdoors and not in a wind tunnel 
In conclusion:
Instead of this public posting, please contact me personally if you have questions on our published aero data, not on some sample marketing report that can never be called an aero test. Due to the nature of the marketing event that took place, there will be guaranteed data issues / errors as it was never a scientific test, nor a way to discredit any other bike brand or promote our brand. How many manufacturers allow for this sort of practical experience based ride event with high-end bikes? The athlete’s current bike set up was directly transferred on to a Kú demo TF1 as we have no stock of bikes and fixed sizes. There were differences in wheels, groups sets, hydration systems as again, it was NOT an aero test, no conclusions were drawn to what little sample data was collected. So please stop creating a public fuzz over something we would never call an aero test, and instead let us all focus on more aero testing and public sharing these results as then the sport and product development will actually progress as whole and athlete performances will benefit.Now, if you don’t mind, we continue with more true aero testing and documenting these results on our website, so please call me with questions and do not expect any further online response or back and forth’s as it’s a waste of our and many other people’s time.
Regards,
Alex Bok
CEO Kú Cycle