Any reduction in drag is an advantage. Bike races are won by a few seconds all the time.
I can think of one won by 13s recently:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/?id=results/tour070
g
I would be up your butt, but your head keeps blocking the way…
You know, I never saw the need for a sig line…but I just may have to borrow this one.
Thanks Greg! 
I KNEW you of all people would appreciate that…
g
Am I the only one who sees 15% of total drag as being a rather LARGE percentage? One object that is 15% of total drag seems like an excellent area to address and make improvements to me!
Any reduction in drag is an advantage. Bike races are won by a few seconds all the time.
Exactly, especially when you’ve done all you can with the “big hitters” already. Just keep working down the Pareto chart…
No
- Unlike, e.g., a baseball franchise, professional cycling teams are entirely dependent on sponsorship to fund their budgets. This means that they - and the riders they support - often have very little real choice in the equipment that they use. IOW, even if wind tunnel testing shows brand X to be faster than brand Y, teams will often go with brand Y because they’re the company offering the most $$. (For example, even the tech-savvy Australians use Mavic instead of Zipp wheels on the track because Mavic is willing to pay them to do so, whereas Zipp is not.)
Yes, I know that. Riders on teams still found a way to get those Zipp wheels onto their bikes. Teams get their money not only from bicycle and bicycle related accessory manufacturers, but from other areas as well. And as you said, teams find a way and use the latest tech developments: take the work and testing of Discovery’s “tech” and its partnership with TREK… there’s a symbiosis there. Does Astana do the same with BMC?
- Despite the above, “rebadging” of equipment by elite riders (but not usually entire squads) is quite common, and always has been. Perhaps the most relevant example of this stems from the Tour a few years ago, when Jalabert used an aluminum P3 TT bike that was labeled a Look.
Yep… makes good sense. Teams doing the best that they can for their riders…
- Even given the above facts, teams are in fact reworking their contracts with suppliers to try to obtain the fastest equipment - and as Gerard described recently in one of his blogs, Cervelo is trying to use this desire to force them to adopt strict anti-doping regimens.
Cool, = yeah, - personally, - I’m of a bunch of minds on this subject that is outside our discussion about the importance of one slightly more aero frame over another very aero frame. Doping is not what we’re talking about here, - and nearly is how a team operates. It’s good that all aspects of the sport are working to get rid of doping. But it’s bad to have a witch hunt. I can’t begin to know anything about Cervelo’s relationship with CSC. I don’t really care. I think that Cervelo makes a darn good bike, so does BMC, Colnago, Pinarello, etc. etc. In the past, teams have encouraged doping. So, it’s essential to get them on board with stopping it. I think that it’s also essential to get the testing community to follow best practices. But, all of this is completely irrelevant to the real world advantages/difference between one aero frame and another…
Bottom line, is a slowtwitcher going to get the added benefit of a 2007 slightly more aero 15 pound P3 with the same aerobars, helmet, body suit, wheels, etc., than a 2005 Pinarello Montello configured the same?? My answer: “not so much.”
Any reduction in drag is an advantage. Bike races are won by a few seconds all the time.
I can think of one won by 13s recently:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/.../?id=results/tour070
g
I can top that: only 0.34 s separated Judith Arndt and Amber Neben at Thuringen:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road.php?id=road/2007/jul07/thuringen07/thuringen076
In what way Paulo? Can you be more specific? It would be very helpful to me if you did…
Thanks for the advice. I’ll take a moment to go and do some more research, and take your advice.
Do you have anything of value to the subject at hand? Or, are you making pronouncements from above? Or, do I have to make specific, good arguments, whereas you do not?
I just came to the rescue with some friendly advice, since going through your posts was a bit embarrassing to read.
Tom, Jack,
Outside our discussion: the number is not 15%. Are you using 15% as a Straw Man here?
If the bike is less than 15%, and the wheels are a “significant portion” of that 15% of the bike, - then how can the frame be 15%?
Thanks again for rendering up your esteemed opinion and your detailed contribution to the discussion. I’m sorry that you had to read my embarrassing posts. Are you a moderator here?
Just as a friendly reminder, you don’t have to read my, or anyone else’s posts; that is if you want to be assured of not being embarrassed.
Stop digging.
I’m not surpirsed that a bunch of bikes with 3:1 aspect ratios, tight fitting rear wheel cutouts and narrowed head tubes perform similarly.
What I would be curious to know is if you threw a Scott plasma, a Planet X, heck even an old Cannondale or a Qunitana Roo into the mix. Look at what less than ideal bikes look like with and without a rider.
Gerard himself has acknowledged that Walser, the P3c, the P2c, Trek’s TTX are all similarly performing bikes. But he also has hinted at the fact that after these bikes theres a drop off to the P2sl and after the P2sl there is another significant decline in performance of bikes aerodynamically, both with and without a rider in the tunnel.
Chewgl, anything?
Tom, Jack,
Outside our discussion: the number is not 15%. Are you using 15% as a Straw Man here?
If the bike is less than 15%, and the wheels are a “significant portion” of that 15% of the bike, - then how can the frame be 15%?
I don’t care if it’s 15% or some other number. All I care about is the absolute value of the reduction. Obviously, it makes sense to go after the large contributors and/or the less expensive improvements first. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. You started this all by ranting that frames make “no difference”, which is a demonstrably false statement.
If I’ve already minimized the influences of the larger contributors (which, BTW, would INCREASE the % contribution of a given frame, and which you also seem to ignore), why wouldn’t I go for a reduction in the frame contribution?..especially if it can be up to a couple of seconds per kilometer of difference? In fact, that’s exactly what I’ve done myself. I’ve been using a Soloist as my TT frame to this point and aside for a slight possible improvement to my front wheel, I’m basically down to what kind of improvements can I get in my frame by going to a dedicated TT frame. According to you, it’s going to make “no difference”. I’m sure that it actually will, otherwise I wouldn’t waste the money.
Like I said above, just start at the left end of the Pareto chart and keep knocking the columns down sequentially
What I would be curious to know is if you threw a Scott plasma, a Planet X, heck even an old Cannondale or a Qunitana Roo into the mix. Look at what less than ideal bikes look like with and without a rider.
Cannondale slice to P2C was a bigger drop than .5lbs of drag for me (there was a very minor position change allowed by the frame change).
If you look at the chart of frame cross sections I posted a while back you will notice that the Slice is better featured than many of the carbon tt bikes…
If the frame is even 1%, I can see value in addressing it.
Bikes are cheap, might as well make them fast if you can.
Wow. Thats a lot. If I recall Cannondale was about 7th on your chart,
Cool…
Fair enough… if you mean that there is a 1% drag difference between a Cervelo P3 frame and a Pinarello Montello, - (which I don’t know if there is, and kind of doubt it, but it could very well be), - then fine… Of course, non of my business either way… What’s best for you is a beautiful thing… all other things being equal…
Fair enough Tom…
We don’t need to walk over ground already covered. I’ll say I’m sorry again for my lack of clarity and hyperbole on that point of “no appreciable difference.”
Underneath a lot of what I’ve been saying here is the propensity and potential of a slowtwitcher to over emphasize the importance of the “aero-ness” of the frame, (and the bike in general), - over the more important and significant contributions of the rider position and what the rider wears. The MIT wind tunnel tests corroborate it.
Stick the P3 frame, and Orbea frame in a wind tunnel with the same wheels and cranks and it’ll show not much difference. Check the thread on P3 Circus here. Those bikes looks so close, - it’s incredible. (Yep, I know that looks can be deceiving, and we’re not getting a super complete view of the frame, - but sheesh, - they are really darn similar looking).
Please don’t say that STers don’t ever lose focus and go down the wrong path in this area, - as there have been several threads in the past few weeks alone… (one is titled close to something like: “do you think that Rasmussen is hurt by his Colnago TT bike?”).
In my mind, I haven’t been shown, (a paste), of any quote or evidence that any average STer would not improve their TT time significantly by riding Cervelo’s “slightly more” aero over any other really aero frame. Differences would be miniscule and more likely in how the rider attacked a couple of turns…
And yes, people miss beating someone by seconds in triathlons; but are those shown to be attributed to the bike ride, and specifically to the frame being less aero? Come on. The people who are whining on this thread about the “possible” few seconds saved by their precious Cervelo aero frame are the same people who are wearing POS IronMan helmets and scuba masks in the swim…
TOENAIL,
I suggest you read cyclenutnz’s post about Cannondale slice vs. P2 carbon.
I’m nearly convinced you’re a troll you’re so thick headed.
C’mon man,
Back up your accusations; don’t just claim to be right by yelling louder, - then mislabeling me. (If I was a troll I wouldn’t be participating in the argument. A troll is someone who starts a fight and runs and hides under the bridge: I’m here).
I’m willing to admit that I’m wrong.
If you’re going to cite data, - copy and paste it into the body of your message and let’s talk about it. Get specific: shall I summarize the point of contention for you?
Please…
What do you have to fear?
Cyclenutznz - Cannondale slice to P2C was a bigger drop than .5lbs of drag for me (there was a very minor position change allowed by the frame change).