PF30/386evo assuming the manufacturer actually pays attention to tolerances, but I’ve been pretty lucky and have never had a frame with bad PF bb-tolerances Not of fan of T47 as it’s heavier than it needs to be.
At this rate, I’ll be getting something like 50W of aero gains when I switch from my Specialized Transition, aluminum brake track 404s, no disc, tri shorts with cycling jersey, and LG rocket helmet to a new tri bike, modern wheels and tires, a disc, an aero short sleeve trisuit, and aerohead helmet. Unless, of course, most of the proposed gains from manufacturers are overstated…
Honestly, if your fit can be improved a little and your current kit has a bunch of wrinkles, 50W above 22mph sounds plausible for all those changes. Depending on details of course (tires, tubes, etc.)
<< just, in general, what kinds of BBs do you prefer? >>
just about any press fit, BB30, BB386, PF30.
BB30 is super annoying as it’s really short, so your cranks stick out super far and you need spacers.
no argument there, point is not a fan of the T47 BB
.
Agreed. T47 is bike companies being too cheap to implement proper QC and manufacturing methods. So they change to a worse BB to fix tolerance issues and then sell that as an improvement.
BB30 is super annoying as it’s really short, so your cranks stick out super far and you need spacers.
Those of us of the duck footed persuasion find BB30 cranks* often have better heel/ankle clearance than most other current cranks…
*Actual BB30 cranks, not 386/MegaExo/Hollowtech cranks fitted with adapters and spacers in a BB30 shell…
I think at this point consumers should be demanding data from independent sources who are completely transparent about the process used to obtain their numbers.
If you’re a consumer and blindly believe some of the wild numbers being claimed, well, that’s on you because I can guarantee those numbers didn’t come from engineering, they were washed through marketing.
That’s exactly why I plan on attending the event next week. Forget about the pros, giveaways, food, etc**. As a mechanical engineer myself, I’m there for the engineering team.** It’ll be nice to hear straight from the source.
.
As a fellow ME with the same aspirations/interest, please take good notes to share!
X watts faster than what baseline bike at what yaw and speed, w or w/o rider (I can’t imagine it without at that magnitude)Compared to other super bikes?
At this rate, I’ll be getting something like 50W of aero gains when I switch from my Specialized Transition, aluminum brake track 404s, no disc, tri shorts with cycling jersey, and LG rocket helmet to a new tri bike, modern wheels and tires, a disc, an aero short sleeve trisuit, and aerohead helmet. Unless, of course, most of the proposed gains from manufacturers are overstated…
Your closing sentence is on point. It seems that all these claims don’t ever seem to measure up. But, I’m guessing all the calculations are based on staying perfectly aero for the entirety of the race with perfect winds etc…
You’d obviously make gains, but you won’t see your speed immediately jump by 50 actual watts. But you already know that.
I don’t disagree that those are the places you can make that kind of gain. I was just pointing to all the cumulative claims manufacturers make. If you go back and look at the line of wheels from new 454 NSW to old ones to 404 FC to mine it’s like a claimed 20-30W gain. I find it very hard to believe. Same for frames from the Shiv Disc to my Transition.
I think at this point consumers should be demanding data from independent sources who are completely transparent about the process used to obtain their numbers.
If you’re a consumer and blindly believe some of the wild numbers being claimed, well, that’s on you because I can guarantee those numbers didn’t come from engineering, they were washed through marketing.
I wasn’t around for the Aero Shootout, but was any of that crowd funded? What did that cost? You can’t demand that stuff if someone isn’t already doing it. In regards to consumers…80% of people likely buy what fits them that their favorite LBS sells…but after seeing if it looks cool. Because remember, the first rule: always look cool.
All of those claims can be right though. They’re just not additive. Each claim is for specific conditions or constraints, depending on which is favorable. But they don’t have to be false or exaggerated.
If Zipp claimed 10W at 0-10 yaw for a gen 2 wheel and later 10W at 10-15 yaw sweep later for gen 3 over gen 2, those can both be right even if the third wheel is only 10W faster in across all yaw than gen 1.
Consumers are oversimplifying but that’s not Zipp’s or anyone else’s fault.
We’d basically proven the new 454/404 speed gains were bs in another thread?
This is probably the best show we have of the cockpit. Kanute is 6 ft, so the bike seems to get pretty low although he could have sized down. Maybe the L shaped brackets are trek’s current way of getting more reach. They hydration solution does not appear to be integrated, but is custom made? Whether that’s a pro or con is to be seen.
I think at this point consumers should be demanding data from independent sources who are completely transparent about the process used to obtain their numbers.
If you’re a consumer and blindly believe some of the wild numbers being claimed, well, that’s on you because I can guarantee those numbers didn’t come from engineering, they were washed through marketing.
I wasn’t around for the Aero Shootout, but was any of that crowd funded? What did that cost? You can’t demand that stuff if someone isn’t already doing it. In regards to consumers…80% of people likely buy what fits them that their favorite LBS sells…but after seeing if it looks cool. Because remember, the first rule: always look cool.
They had a target of $4100 and raised $4280.
https://www.gofundme.com/...tt-bike-aerodynamics
It was extremely well done. Their white paper and that of the P5 at launch were the two best to date.
Historically Trek has provided good data so I’m optimistic we will see enough info to make educated guesses on the new bike. If Mitch is around to answer questions on the Trek data, then bonus. Product managers/engineers able to answer questions (like Damon did), is gold. Take away his popcorn and feed him a few beers 
It is very hard to find independent and competent sources but Brian and Heath achieved it.
There is another paper that made a claim like the 17W, but they explain how they get it and the slightly technical person can figure out what is real and what is fluff. But at least all the data is there to figure it out.
I think at this point consumers should be demanding data from independent sources who are completely transparent about the process used to obtain their numbers.
If you’re a consumer and blindly believe some of the wild numbers being claimed, well, that’s on you because I can guarantee those numbers didn’t come from engineering, they were washed through marketing.
Once I get my hands on the new bike, I may be making a trip to see you so we could compare the existing SC vs new SC.
I assume said new bike will probably line up with today’s high end price points…… gone are the days of the cheaper barrier to entry bikes like the p2 and old shiv.
I have the current sc, and I’m really struggling to see how they could find 15+ watts on this thing. From what I read the current gen is in line with the p5 as the most slippery bike you can get ?
.
I have the current sc, and I’m really struggling to see how they could find 15+ watts on this thing. From what I read the current gen is in line with the p5 as the most slippery bike you can get ?
I think at this point consumers should be demanding data from independent sources who are completely transparent about the process used to obtain their numbers.
If you’re a consumer and blindly believe some of the wild numbers being claimed, well, that’s on you because I can guarantee those numbers didn’t come from engineering, they were washed through marketing.
I wasn’t around for the Aero Shootout, but was any of that crowd funded? What did that cost? You can’t demand that stuff if someone isn’t already doing it. In regards to consumers…80% of people likely buy what fits them that their favorite LBS sells…but after seeing if it looks cool. Because remember, the first rule: always look cool.
They had a target of $4100 and raised $4280.
https://www.gofundme.com/...tt-bike-aerodynamics
It was extremely well done. Their white paper and that of the P5 at launch were the two best to date.
Historically Trek has provided good data so I’m optimistic we will see enough info to make educated guesses on the new bike. If Mitch is around to answer questions on the Trek data, then bonus. Product managers/engineers able to answer questions (like Damon did), is gold. Take away his popcorn and feed him a few beers
It is very hard to find independent and competent sources but Brian and Heath achieved it.
There is another paper that made a claim like the 17W, but they explain how they get it and the slightly technical person can figure out what is real and what is fluff. But at least all the data is there to figure it out.
But that’s also not what that cost, gotta lump in the cost of the bikes, travel, hotels, etc. But that’s pretty good, I’d throw a fiver at this if they did it again.