I’m off and running on my frame design study here at the university and whilst a lot of modern bikes look aero I’m sceptical many actually see a wind tunnel.
Cervelo’s have had some, I know the Trek uses computational fluid dynamics, and the new Time TT frame logged some hours, (plus Softride have been in regulary) but do you know of any other designs that have had this level of attention to detail ?
bryce.
The new Time TT rig was in the tunnel, it was a feature in the recent procycling.
And Larsen was recently in the wind tunnel testing the Scott Plasma
Orbea claim that their Ordu has too. While tunnel testing is expensive for an individual I’d imagine even a fairly comprehensive testing is a samll part of the R&D cost on a new frame from a major manufacturer that’s going to sell in the thousands.
Personally I’d be more surprised if most manufacturers didn’t test most of their new TT/Tri frames (even if they keep the results to themselves!). Given aerodynamics are so fundamental it’s pretty cynical to suggest frames are constructed purely on the basis of what looks good or sounds like it might be aero
On paper yes although i would hazard a guess that Kuota and QR’s stuff hasn’t seen too much air refinement (although if anyone is connected to any brands that do and post here please tell me all about it !).
http://www.trifuel.com/gear/product/396.php
(This has been top of the page for 5 mins now - we’re clearly the only people up!)
.
Bryce, this testing is more through a team than a manufacturer but here’s some info using GURU’s.
http://www.triathletemag.com/story.cfm?story_id=9455&publicationID=92&pageID=1728
I would hazard a guess that FEWER bikes have spent time in the wind tunnel presently than previously. Doesn’t it seem funny that after one bike tests okay, every other bike company copies it’s details? You can say that your details were “wind tunnel tested” and even tell the truth when you had ripped them off of another maker.
In the '90s, many, many bikes spent time in the wind tunnel. Some bikes were tested without riders, some were tested with a rider. Some bikes were even brought in as “ringers”. That being said, there was quite a bit of data compiled over the years, and some people even had access to it. Piece it all together and you could come up with something impressive.
Do I honestly think that Cannondales spent any time in the wind tunnel while their “aero” bikes were being developed? No. I wager that they had used an Italian coach maker’s name for a price (as anything associated with that silly prancing horse can be bought for a HUGE amount of Euros), and who the f*** is going to go to Italy and ask for their data? It was never published to my knowlege.
I know for a fact that these bikes spent considerable time in the wind tunnel,either in their development or after:
Kestrel KM 40
Zipp 2001/3001
Softride Power V, Qualifier, amongst others
Lotus Sport 110 (both the 1992 Olympic medal winner Boardman rode), as well as the production version.
Javelin’s original TT rig, as well as their subsequent offerings.
Cannondale 2.8 (yes, as a comparison of how horrible it was aerodynamically)
Hooker Elite
I could go on and on, but time is ticking away…
I’m off and running on my frame design study here at the university and whilst a lot of modern bikes look aero I’m sceptical many actually see a wind tunnel.
Cervelo’s have had some, I know the Trek uses computational fluid dynamics, and the new Time TT frame logged some hours, (plus Softride have been in regulary) but do you know of any other designs that have had this level of attention to detail ?
bryce.
Several have, but that’s not really the interesting question. All that windtunnel testing is done after the bike is finalized, when nothing can be changed anymore. so it is good for marketing, and Time can say their TT bike is 25% more aero than the previous version (which was a round-tube bike!) but it doesn’t improve the bike. The real question is, who does tunnel tests BEFORE a model is optimized. As far as Cervelo goes, we probably have relatively little tunnel time on final models, simply because it isn’t that interesting anymore. Of course we do it as it provides a baseline for the next models, but the important tests are done at the beginning of a project, not at the end. That’s just marketing spiel.
The real question is, who does tunnel tests BEFORE a model is optimized. As far as Cervelo goes, we probably have relatively little tunnel time on final models, simply because it isn’t that interesting anymore. Of course we do it as it provides a baseline for the next models, but the important tests are done at the beginning of a project, not at the end. That’s just marketing spiel.
Now thats what I’m really looking for ! This is what solid design and development is all about. Again this narrows those that really consider performance even further. There is obviously expense here and Treks use of CFD probably was used to reduce this but surely on a performance front this is what equipment design really needs.
(Good article in Cycle sport by the way Gerard).
Gerard,
I just want to thank you for your invaluable insight. One of the things that has hooked me to the forum other than the fact that I am an aspiring triathlete, is the fact that we get people like you to actually post and who actually care about the consumer. That is exactly why my next bike will be a Cervelo. Currently I have a roady with clip on’s. But you’ll be happy to hear I have put down a deposit so I can be one of the first to own a P2C in March. Is that still the date you have projected for launch?
PR
Yes, March is the (conservative) launch date.
If you can get the fit go for the P3c !!! The P2c looks great (I’d prefer non painted plain weave myself though) but the P3c has got so much more to it’s design. Only which I could get one to fit me…
I think I’ve seen that the Softride FASTT has spent some time in the University of Washington wind tunnel.
Will the P2C ever be offered in a NUDE carbon paint job??
t~
I know the Australian (BT?) track bikes have had a lot of tunnel time during development. My brother (PhD in aerodynamics) worked at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology back when they developed the first versions which are now UCI illegal of course. He does know the people who have helped develop the current versions. He has gone on to do UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) work in the defense industry. I think part of the reason that the development of aerodynamics and composites tends to be less than what it could be is that the best engineers can make a hell of a lot more money working in the defense industry where profits from a good UAV program for example can make millions.
Gerard…you are a very wise man…maybe if people here it from you they may start to get it…I think you and I would agree on the following… As aero as a bike is - the rider is the most unaero thing around. Many super aero bikes are ridden by human bricks with bad position - nulifying the aero benefit of an aero frame. Aero frames though they benifit all, are mostly a benifit to those elites who have the ability to “buy” speed because their training is spot on. Most tri folks (AG’ers) would be faster with more training than a more aero frame.
And finer points… Wind tunnel tests can show anything the tester wants them to show. Wnd tunnel tests for a frame and rider have little relation to average Joe on the same bike
I am not saying that Aero is bad…it isnt, it is good…but maybe not as much of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow as some people infer.
Guys, for most posers on this forum (including myself), an aero frame makes pretty well no difference. First get an aero position you can hold for 95% of the race aside from the steepest uphills. Train well, rest well, eat well, taper and race and this will help you more than the diffference between any aero frame.
Seriously, most people are putting the priorities in the wrong places. Look at the T1 and T2 times from any race. For 90% of the field, there is a free 2-5 min to be gained by being level headed, efficient and practicing transitions rather than worring around which frame will save them 5 seconds over another one.
You dont know what you are talking about.
Hey record10,
Answer me this, didn’t you just post a picture of yourself and ask people to critique your “aero” position. Other than the fact that you have:
a)a horrible sense of style (i.e. yellow shoes etc.)
b)you put your bike on a trainer with a disk, wear a helet, AND singlasses indoors
c) you look like a human brick
what makes you such an expert on being aero and aero frames, if you were asking people’s opinion? The “aero” affect may be minimal, but who are you to say who should own one?? Dont you have a Cervelo? Doesnt it have an aero frame? Since your form looks so horrible on those pictures, why don’t you trade in your “aero” bike for a regular one, or maybe just get a roadie with clip on’s. I don’t pretend to be an expert, I am certainly not, I just don’t judge people who want to spend THEIR hard earned money on any type of frame they want, aero or not, even the only effect they get is the placebo effect.