Tom A,
Good call on the pic error. The pic of the P3 was from a pull where the P2’s Wolf TT was sub’d in. I tested many combinations of frames and forks and did attempt to calculate out any subtle variations. The actual data of the P3 is raw (not factored or calculated with change) and using a 3T that was trimmed to spec. Nice call and debate me as busted (laughs and respect).
Jordan,
Great plug in of the BRAIN data which confirms my respect and reasoning for making a very simple comparison with the Cervelos. They are the class of the field and have provided the benchmark to beat with regards to production bikes. Fortunately, I’ve been able to benchmark against many prototypes and concept bikes that yielded better (and worse) results. Needless to say, the P3 is a great performing aero rig.
As for your success on the 1st GEN Lucero: your input has been invaluable for the changes that have gone into the Seduza, Caliente, Lucero mold. A steeper seat angle and aero tuning are what the 2009 model feature. The 1st gen results (as you rode) are right in line with the BRAIN classification. Now, instead of patting John on the back for his contributions to the old Lucero, how about giving yourself some acknowledgement on what led to the SHIFT (Cd0.1) concept. It was that cold morning in Flagg as we sat at Late for the Train when you posed the question of “why not fair the chainring?”. I went home and built a prototype and furthered the design until August of last year. That’s when I gave up on getting the performance gain across a 40deg (±20) yaw sweep. I spent countless hours in the tunnel adding and subtracting material from that proto. I should send it to you for ‘wall art’ (laughs). Until I removed the beloved fairing and started tuning what was happening behind the front wheel, the idea didn’t work well enough in all conditions. The concept was simply too extreme. I want to publicly thank you for your contributions to QR as an athelete, friend, and evil genius.
footwerx,
A2 did a really cool study by installing a wind probe on a PRO and JOE AVERAGE and putting them on the same courses (same days) in a huge variety of conditions. Initially I felt 14-16 degrees was the sweetspot that the bike should be tuned to. Eventhough the bike does work well there, the sub 10 degree category is what the latest research shows as important for all of us. As you will read in the data, I’m very interested in what benefit we can realize from our much lower side loads experienced in QR’s latest work. I think this could be more important than drag when considering stability and efficiency of effort. Thoughts anyone? This will be a fun field of study moving forward.
Tom A,
I love your insights. You’re bright (respect). Wheels are spinning, Stinger front, Proto super-fat disc that Steve (Hed) gave me for this testing protocol. This thing is wicked fast and I had to develop and evaluate with a standard. This was what he and I felt was best to baseline with as well as use for compatibility. It didn’t fit in one of the Highroad prototypes (super narrow with 60mm BB shell) that Lars allowed me to test with. Wheel and wind speeds were varied and the design was tuned accordingly. By all means, the last thing we wanted to create was a “Pro Only” bike. Testing was done with a variety of forks and each bike was reported with the best fork available for/with each. Thanks again for busting me on the bad photo selection … these were pulled from hundreds. Please trust me that the data is presented in a very fair and virtuous manner. No cheating has been allowed.
heloguy,
You are correct, drag is always higher on the drive side. That was the primary inspiration for this design: reduce air flow across the drive train. Please know that the data presented is an easily digestable ‘snapshot’ presented for the sake of explaining a benefit of the design. We’ve purposely shown this in a simple, debatable format if for no other reason than the questions that will arrise. The reasoning of only showing the Cervelos in the comparison is purely respect. They are wonderful bikes and have set a standard. Much like the BRAIN data, the Cervelo result in our production bike data is of the best. The information is not presented as a slam on Cervelo but to respectfully show how QR’s efforts and newest bikes compete with what we feel is the best competitor.
To comment on the title of the thread: Until now, the Body Axis drag has been the category of focus. The P3 actually trumps our QR Seduza in this category and shouldn’t be considered as 3rd. The other stats are left for all of us to debate.
Thanks all,
Brad DeVaney
