Hey, I heard a while back that John Cobb did some testing of a bunch of aero frames including Hotta and Zipp vs. P4 etc. I think it was for triathlete mag.
Any idea when this article might come out?
When Triathlete decides that they’re quite happy doing without advertising revenue from the losers???
http://johncobbresearch.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/a-fun-week/
he talks about it on his blog but no results
.
John Cobb has always been a fan of beam bikes when it comes to aero
but that could have changed
.
Once at this link check out my question, I asked for such data to be published in Triathlete, this is their response.
Triathlete’s response may or may not be 100% factual but it certainly seems like a realistic and sensible approach.
When it comes down to it, a magazine is a business that is intended to make money. How much money we may never know. That they present some useful information for us to read is fine by me. I know they (and all other commercial magazines) have thier own agendas so I take what they say with a grain of salt.
I don’t need them to provide hard scientific facts on any given issue. If they do, great, but it’s not particularly vital since we all have varied requirements for our purchases and therefore different bikes will suit different people. Therefore, I want to have a range of bikes available so I will agree with what they said in the reply.
Besides we all know:
- The best information available under the sun comes from Slowtwitch
- Cervelo RULES!!!
End of story.
I did do this testing but not for Triathlete magazine. I was testing frame tubing shapes, so some of the things I did to equalize the frames surface area would make the results not very comparative to other frame test by the manufacturers. There is a considerable difference in the specific shapes of the tubing and it envolves a lot more than just measuring the width of each tube. As for doing a frame shoot out, I don’t really think there is a way to reasonably arrive at a final answer. The cost would be pretty high, I suspect 5 straight days of tunnel time. I think that a good test for frames would be to establish a yaw range of “0”- “20”, test every 5 degrees and average it on a bell curve for two different average speed ranges. Then, if a frame makes it down to that CdA number it could be advertized as “good” like “CSPC approved” or it’s “Slow”. I do strongly suggest using a frame with any shape aero tubing compared to round tubing. Proper fit of the rider will still be the most important thing because none of these frames pedal themselves. I think that there are 3-4 frames currently that are the world’s fastest, combined with the world’s fastest wheels or tires or pedals, there must be several different “worlds” out there. For most age group racers, a good fitting bike is much more valuable. I get many e-mails everyday asking about seat comfort. The right seat can make or break a good bike frame. I go to a lot of races and watch the other racers, that worlds fastest frame doesn’t help much when you’re standing on the side of the road stretching your back muscles from a poor bike setup. I think that I am pretty “aero aware” and when I look at my bike it makes me cringe but it’s comfortable for my half Ironman races. My frame’s about as aero as anything out there but would it help if I was on a Cannondale Slice, maybe 15 seconds over a half but maybe none if I couldn’t get my setup right. For other parts of the cycling sport, the small aero differences will really show up. For track pursuit racing, for Senior Olympic TT’s and masters nationals, it really matters. For triathlons I’d go with a better position. That Bentto box or front bottle will offset most of the aero difference in any of the top 10 - 12 frames. I suggest going with the aero frame that has the right feel. The frame that jumps up a hill and gives you confidance when going downhill at 45mph. Sorry for the rant, I just got to thinking about it.
A few of the more ‘popular’ ST’ers saw the data from Cobb’s test somehow. Search the forum, maybe they’ll tell you (they won’t tell me).
I’m interested in comparing my 1996 zipp frame to today’s best.
It’s funny how the German magazines have taken a completely different tack from American mags like Bicycling and Triathlete. The American mags print a bunch of vapid fluff whenever it comes to equipment: “this is the hot bike of the year” “this tire is a real performer.” What a pile of crap!
Read the German magazines and you’ll find actual wind tunnel results on wheels and frames; actual rolling resistance tests on tires; actual stiffness tests on cranks; and so on. They have the balls to potentially offend advertisers and that earns them loyal subscribers.
American Bike and Tri mag writers should go back to writing their fluff for Cosmo or GQ.
I would agree. The American mags are pretty fluff at best. Now that they are all owned by one parent company pretty much would they really loose any revenue by actually testing bikes the way that the German mags do. Lets be honest, they now have a monopoly on the american mag side of things and the bike companies pretty much have to go with them or they will not have any exposure in print. Maybe a bit of a catch 22.
What we really need is a triathlete with a fair bit of coin to say to someone like Cobb or Dan that they will pay for the testing and be damned with the outcome. I am sure someone with enough coin can purchase the bike stock from a bunch of different stores and do the testing over a two week period. Damn if I had the money, I would for sure and while I was there get set up at the same time and fiddle with a bunch of differnt items that I would love to see tested.
Horizontal water bottles.
Modified Oval rear brake mounted on the front with the cable running down infront of the center of the headtube.
A custom bento box that mounts behind the stem and runs about half way down the top tube.
aero bottles mounted as close to the BB as possible on different frames.
A slew of ideas I have about how a basebar, aero bar and brake levers can be mounted and made to work better than an all in one set up.
Aero or die set-ups
wheelcover mounted on a standard wheel vs a 50 mm wheel vs a 60mm wheel vs a 85mm wheel. So a wheelcover actually perform at 98% of a real disc.
What I would love to see is what the time difference really is between all of the frames (round, so called aero and aero)
There are a ton of items I would love to see tested but alas, I just do not have the money to do this.
biketechreview.com baby
they got what you NEED
wheelcover mounted on a standard wheel vs a 50 mm wheel vs a 60mm wheel vs a 85mm wheel. So a wheelcover actually perform at 98% of a real disc.
That Bentto box or front bottle will offset most of the aero difference in any of the top 10 - 12 frames.
Does that mean bento boxes are bad again now? I thought Mark Cote’s testing at MIT showed an advantage for them.
Rik
I did do this testing but not for Triathlete magazine. I was testing frame tubing shapes, so some of the things I did to equalize the frames surface area would make the results not very comparative to other frame test by the manufacturers.
If you were just testing tube shapes, would CFD not have been easier?
I avoid buying all the mags for the reasons everyone else stated. I just though, IF this was going to be published I’d actually buy one. It’s really a shame mass media treats us like imbeciles.
If not, then I have no reason to keep rifling through the magazine rack. Next year I’m hoping to be “in the market” and information is power!
If you guys think Triathlete Mag is bad, try out Triathlon Canada. It’s horrible!