Interesting article at Lava.com regarding Cervelo’s findings regarding best position for Hydration systems/Aero Water bottles vs. round bottles.
http://lavamagazine.com/gear/free-speed-cervelos-tips-on-aerodynamic-hydration/#axzz1ZIecoPC4
Thanks for sharing this. It’s a topic I’ve been thinking about lately.
So from the article, it seems that if I need 2 standard bottles, the fastest bottle configuration is a horizontal bottle on the aero bars and one behind the seat tucked closely. Lieto does this, though he uses a third aero bottle on the downtube:
Thanks for sharing this. It’s a topic I’ve been thinking about lately.
So from the article, it seems that if I need 2 standard bottles, the fastest bottle configuration is a horizontal bottle on the aero bars and one behind the seat tucked closely. Lieto does this, though he uses a third aero bottle on the downtube:
The aero bottle is usually a flat kit on Lieto’s bike. The UCI-compliant Speed Concept can be made faster by filling in the downtube/seatube junction. Note: he does this instead of using the speed box. On his old TTX he used to have two aero bottles to fill in space on the frame.
According to the article, the fastest front mounted bottle is the horizontal mounted round bottle between the aerobars, NOT a vertically mounted bottle with a straw, as seen in your pic of Lieto.
That being said, I own both types and still like using my PD Aerodrink with straw.
Clearly you should have a standard water bottle between your arms horizontally and use your aero bento box and nothing else on the bike unless you are riding a P4 and you can use the aero bottle.
I’m with you on liking the vertical configuration better. I, for one, use the TorHans bottle.
Until now, however, I’ve carried my second bottle on the down tube (I have a P2) but likely will change that to my xlab carbon wing before this weekend’s 70.3. Has the advantage of letting me store my flat kit in the second rear cage.
They touch on the fact you need to drink, but is the change in body\equipment position required to actually drink taken into account when saying 1 way is “faster” than another?
Front mounted horizontal bottle = less drag when the bottle is between the hands in the aero position.
At the very least, you take 1 shielding arm and the bottle away from this position every time you drink.
How much drag does this add vs say, lowering your head to drink from the standard aero drink bottles?
Thanks for sharing this. It’s a topic I’ve been thinking about lately.
So from the article, it seems that if I need 2 standard bottles, the fastest bottle configuration is a horizontal bottle on the aero bars and one behind the seat tucked closely. Lieto does this, though he uses a third aero bottle on the downtube:
The aero bottle is usually a flat kit on Lieto’s bike. The UCI-compliant Speed Concept can be made faster by filling in the downtube/seatube junction. Note: he does this instead of using the speed box. On his old TTX he used to have two aero bottles to fill in space on the frame.
Why wouldn’t he always use the speed box? I thought the SC is faster with it on.
Perhaps an engineer like Rappstar could pipe in on this, but has there ever been any investigation into how user management of a hydration system affects drag over a 40, 80 or 120K ride? For example, while a horizontally mounted water bottle may be more aerodynamic than, say, a vertically hanging aerobar hydration system, do those benefits disappear when accounting for the arms repeatedly reaching and grabbing that horizontally mounted bottle?
Or is it a miniscule difference too stupid to be thinking about?
Ben Greenfield
I think that if you look at Jordan’s choices for IM racing, it’s pretty clear what he thinks is best 
Brent
.
The % of time you are breaking the aero position to drink is so minimal as an overall % that it is not material. Additionally, consider the time spent refilling an aerodrink (with the bottle sticking up into the wind costing 350g of drag), and it’s probably a wash. The biggest advantage of an aerodrink is that the straw is constantly there, so it’s harder to forget to hydrate (you don’t put off drinking because you forget or it’s inconvenient).
Perhaps an engineer like Rappstar could pipe in on this, but has there ever been any investigation into how user management of a hydration system affects drag over a 40, 80 or 120K ride? For example, while a horizontally mounted water bottle may be more aerodynamic than, say, a vertically hanging aerobar hydration system, do those benefits disappear when accounting for the arms repeatedly reaching and grabbing that horizontally mounted bottle?
Or is it a miniscule difference too stupid to be thinking about?
Ben Greenfield
Yes.
Somebody tested for this, I recall seeing it posted here (or rather, a link to the report). I forget where or when, but it wasn’t too long ago.
The net result was, the tester was somewhat shocked (in the pleasantly-surprised way) about the lack of “aero penalty” for grabbing the bottle and drinking from it, provided the rider did not break aero to do so.
Meaning, if you can leave the one arm on the pad, and just lean a bit to drink w/ the other one, it’s not that big a deal, and it only lasts for a very brief time.
So, even multiplied by doing this multiple times per hour, even for an IM ride, it wasn’t that much of a negative, which was more than outweighed by the improved aero of the torpedo bottle the remaining 98% of the time.
vs. most other front hydration options, which are less aero 100% of the time.
anyone notice that it seems like Cervelo and Trek were both aware of what Crowie’s new bike was?
anyone notice that it seems like Cervelo and Trek were both aware of what Crowie’s new bike was?
I’d imagine they each knew it wasn’t THEIRS. Be kinda weird if they didn’t. 
And, it looked nothing like a SC, so unless Trek was/is going in an entirely different direction, they were never a possibility, based on the pics posted.
I mean that both seemed to be aware it offered integrated hydration
based on Carl’s post asking about integrated hydration
and cervelo’s article taking pains to point out how you can carry water without aero penalty
anyone notice that it seems like Cervelo and Trek were both aware of what Crowie’s new bike was?
I’d imagine they each knew it wasn’t THEIRS. Be kinda weird if they didn’t.
And, it looked nothing like a SC, so unless Trek was/is going in an entirely different direction, they were never a possibility, based on the pics posted.
Was thinking the same thing.
To be fair, the box at interbike did hint at the fuel being integrated.
To be fair, the box at interbike did hint at the fuel being integrated.
I know, I was guessing it would be in a nosecone
I was close!
Was thinking the same thing.
I just want to see how this integrated system works. How easy to clean? Refill? Etc.
Regarding the Behind-the-seat-options, these finding seem to contradict what John Cobb found/said a couple of years ago - that there were more significant penalties for behind-the-seat. Here, the findings are neutral or only a slight negative penalty…
Interesting.