Culprit Legend- Features and wind tunnel data

Culprit set out to make the fastest, user friendly triathlon bike. The design goals were to make a bike that was fast, easy to travel with, had lots of hydration options and could use most aftermarket parts.

So, we started with our patented design of no seatstays. We chose to keep the front triangle because of what it offers for hydration needs. Some people still prefer to use standard hydration in training or racing and we know that some long training rides you need to carry as much as you can. So, fitting 2 bottles in the front triangle for all sizing was a determining factor in the rest of the tube sizing.

From there, we wanted to use brake systems that could be purchased easily in the event of damage. Of course, we used a new TRP rim brake integrated into the fork and covers, but when removed, a standard Shimano direct mount brake can be used. Same holds true for aero bars and stems. We worked with a new brand to develop what works seamlessly with the bike but any aftermarket bar and stem will work on this design allowing even further fit refinement for a rider or the ability to transfer over parts and only upgrade a frame.

We realize disc brakes are the future and believe strongly in them ourselves, so we put more focus on the disc fork of the bike first since calipers are already on the market. The disc brake version of the bike out shined our rim version as the air flow of the fork is truly amazing as there is airflow at the top of the wheel/fork that a rim brake blocks. Upon testing the rim brake forks, we had a prototype brake and were awaiting a final brake design before finalizing the fork design. So the rim fork will see some changes before production which will lead to a faster rim version of the bike.

Some of the additional features of the bike include a multi tool in the top tube, interchangeable drop outs for rim or disc, 1x11 cover for running a 1x11 build and hiding the Front derailleur frame recess. Bento box included but any bento box can be used in its place.

We only tested the bike against a Cervelo P5-6. We would have loved to test more bikes but were unable to get bikes with the same fit measurements to run against the Legend. The bike did very well in the tunnel. We did not set out to make the FASTEST bike at all expense. We had design features we wanted to offer athletes, mentioned above and this limited some of what we could accomplish and added a slight drag penalty. But we, Like Quintana roo, Want to offer a user friendly, fast bike and the data supports that.

The Culprit Legend disc establishes itself as a serious contender in the triathlon market. The data confirms that the Legend disc can compete with the best. Testing has shown that the differences between the Legend and P5-6 are very close. The average CDA difference between the two bikes is only .008, or 1.9 aero watts. This is even more astonishing considering the non integration and use of disc brakes.

The full white paper be found Here

For those naysayers about Faster wind tunnel. the delta between the two days of testing was zero, or a CDA difference of .120 and .1205 on their Cervelo S5 they do for baseline testing. Image of S5 below

Please help support us with a pre order to make this bike a reality. Kickstarter pre order Now.

https://scontent-tpe1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/12241099_971874909558775_3156934056225956036_o.jpg
https://scontent-tpe1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/12239159_971876859558580_4573458748100585973_o.jpg
https://scontent-tpe1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/12238224_971874916225441_3095954897314018059_o.jpg
https://scontent-tpe1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/11222919_971874849558781_524325845755805601_o.jpg
https://scontent-tpe1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/10548907_971874846225448_8877647226758239801_o.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/2i0zq8j.jpg

The data confirms that the Legend disc can compete with the best. Testing has shown that the differences between the Legend and P5-6 are very close. The average CDA difference between the two bikes is only .008, or 1.9 aero watts. This is even more astonishing considering the non integration and use of disc brakes.

Can you expand on this a bit? A CdA change of 0.008m^2 would result in an aerodynamic drag penalty/gain of 1.9w only if you were travelling at 26.3kph, assuming a triathlete 0.250m^2 base.

At 32.2kph (your stated test speed) this is 3.5w, at 40kph 6.6w and at 48.3kph 11.7w.

Xavier

Have you removed the tares in the comparison graph between the P5 and the Legend? From the CdA values I suspect that you haven’t. With those wide cylindrical struts the yawed data looks completely useless to me. The lack of a well defined stall point for the P5 clearly supports this. I don’t know if we are looking at the aeroness of the bike or how well the bike interacts with some big cylinders that won’t be present in real world riding.

Error data not present as always.

As many others have pointed out, the decision to test at 20mph is questionable from a resolution standpoint.

I haven’t run the exact numbers but a CdA difference of .008 equals to approximately 180s at the end of an Ironman bike leg. I think that you are giving power values at very low speeds to minimise the real difference between bikes.

I’m going to hop in on the kickstarter today. XL with bars, probably just rim brakes. not hilly or rainy enough for discs where I live.

What Cervelo is in the last picture you tested against?

With those wide cylindrical struts the yawed data looks completely useless to me.

I think you’re over-stating that a bit.

With those wide cylindrical struts the yawed data looks completely useless to me.

I think you’re over-stating that a bit.

It’s hard to satisfy the experts.

http://img.memecdn.com/welcome-to-the-internet_o_184208.jpg

“Interesting” white paper…

A couple comments…first, the “industry standard” test speed is NOT 50mph (and I agree that your decision to test at only 20mph is mis-guided)…and secondly, why no pics of the P5-6 setup? The Cervelo you show in the post above is an S5.

Tom

I added the images of the P5-6 images to the original post.

Regarding the industry standard. The white paper had a typo. The kph was correct but the MPH was typed wrong, it was supposed to read 30. Updating and changes on site.

The Reason for the S5 image is the baseline bike that Faster uses for wind tunnel checking and they used it during the 2 days I was at the tunnel to verify the tunnels accuracy. I only had the borrowed P5 for a 6 hour window and my Legend we kept changing parts for testing so was unable to repeat test it throughout the time.

I think you will soon be hearing alot from Paul Lew

Hopefully not.

Tom

I added the images of the P5-6 images to the original post.

Regarding the industry standard. The white paper had a typo. The kph was correct but the MPH was typed wrong, it was supposed to read 30. Updating and changes on site. About being misguided on the 20 mph. I think you will soon be hearing alot from Paul Lew of Reynolds of how the 30 mph system is a flawed design that has been outdated such as UCI rules and will be sharing his suggested methods of wind tunnel testing for real world data. I spoke with Paul for 3 hours about my data and Tunnel time and the take away is. Tell me what Real world ride, do you have less drag once you go beyond 0 yaw. Keep in mind, 0 yaw is essentially no head wind. Once you start a yaw sweep, you are now riding into a head wind. Have you ever experienced that in real world? Or those speeds of wind at a 15-20 yaw in real world riding?

The Reason for the S5 image is the baseline bike that Faster uses for wind tunnel checking and they used it during the 2 days I was at the tunnel to verify the tunnels accuracy. I only had the borrowed P5 for a 6 hour window and my Legend we kept changing parts for testing so was unable to repeat test it throughout the time.

I commend you for your undertaking and wish you success.

You look like you have a long way to go on kickstarter and reaching the funding goal is going to be a significant challenge.

You certainly don’t have to divulge your strategic plans here, but I hope you have alternative plans to raise capital, as it would be great to see you enter the market.

Keep in mind, 0 yaw is essentially no head wind.

I hope this isn’t a dumb question - but I thought 0 yaw was a pure head wind? Or am I completely misreading your intent, e.g. are you making some distinction between “real” and apparent wind direction?

Tom

I added the images of the P5-6 images to the original post.

Regarding the industry standard. The white paper had a typo. The kph was correct but the MPH was typed wrong, it was supposed to read 30. Updating and changes on site. About being misguided on the 20 mph. I think you will soon be hearing alot from Paul Lew of Reynolds of how the 30 mph system is a flawed design that has been outdated such as UCI rules and will be sharing his suggested methods of wind tunnel testing for real world data. I spoke with Paul for 3 hours about my data and Tunnel time and the take away is. Tell me what Real world ride, do you have less drag once you go beyond 0 yaw. Keep in mind, 0 yaw is essentially no head wind. Once you start a yaw sweep, you are now riding into a head wind. Have you ever experienced that in real world? Or those speeds of wind at a 15-20 yaw in real world riding?

The Reason for the S5 image is the baseline bike that Faster uses for wind tunnel checking and they used it during the 2 days I was at the tunnel to verify the tunnels accuracy. I only had the borrowed P5 for a 6 hour window and my Legend we kept changing parts for testing so was unable to repeat test it throughout the time.

Ummm, yeah…I hope this doesn’t sound harsh…but by his previous writings, Mr. Lew has demonstrated he doesn’t quite truly understand the concept of “apparent wind”. So, I personally am not taking any stock in that “endorsement”.

Tom

I was on the phone at 2 am for that chat with Paul and a bit tired after a full day of work. I will reply later and update my comment as I confirm. sorry

Keep in mind, 0 yaw is essentially no head wind.

I hope this isn’t a dumb question - but I thought 0 yaw was a pure head wind? Or am I completely misreading your intent, e.g. are you making some distinction between “real” and apparent wind direction?

0 yaw can result from either 1) absolutely no wind (in which case Va=Vg), or 2) a headwind that is precisely aligned with the direction of travel (in which case Va = Vg + Vw).

On average what is the degree of yaw that most cyclists face while riding. Is it possible to estimate. +/- 7.5??

Aligning tailwind too?

Aligning tailwind too?

Good point!

On average what is the degree of yaw that most cyclists face while riding. Is it possible to estimate. +/- 7.5??

Probably closer to 5 deg (just estimating from mental image of distributions that have been posted here before), but of course it depends on how fast you are and how windy it is where you ride.

Not super winding where I live and race. My 35km ride to and from work normally has a tail/head wind. Normal riding speed is between 30-36kph.