Silca claims 4 - 8 watts savings with their new socks. Not sure I believe it. Maybe Josh could chime in on how the testing was done, at what speed, etc.
Sorry if this was already discussed, I did a search and didn’t see it.
Josh does say that aero socks could save 12 watts at 50 kph, if that is the case how would that play out for a sprint at 70 kph where the difference between winning and not is often extremely close would 12 + watts saved equal that small photo finish difference?
how long until the UCI bans them?
OK just watched the video (as opposed to just reading the article)…
Would still be interested to know the diff at a more age group / Ironman pace of like 30-35km/hr, and compared to what other socks.
Even if it’s half as many watts, for $30 it’s pretty cheap way to buy some speed. Especially since a decent pair of quality socks is $10-$15 anyway.
I know desert dude has said in the past that socks tend to be pretty individual with some people testing faster and others slower in the tunnel
I think he was comparing to no socks, or maybe standard non-aero socks. Not other brands of aero socks.
I think he mentioned 1-2W at slower speeds. (30kph?) Don’t quote me.
I think he was comparing to no socks, or maybe standard non-aero socks. Not other brands of aero socks.
I think he mentioned 1-2W at slower speeds. (30kph?) Don’t quote me.
This is important because the length of the ones shown appear pretty short.
Most TT “socks” or overcover/sock combos are right on the UCI limits for length (or over it on purpose for non UCI events).
These look more like a “this versus your pair of Defeet Aerators”.
I’m waiting for it to cool off, as lots of threshold in hot weather sucks, but putting the Notio to work against the Nopinz/Aerocoach covers and some other socks at some point.
Would still be interested to know the diff at a more age group / Ironman pace of like 30-35km/hr, and compared to what other socks.
Power cost of aerodynamic drag tends to be roughly cubic with speed. So for example, if you’re trying to translate from 5W at 50kph to 30kph, you can ballpark it by 5W*((30/50)^3) = 1.08W.
I think he was comparing to no socks, or maybe standard non-aero socks. Not other brands of aero socks.
I think he mentioned 1-2W at slower speeds. (30kph?) Don’t quote me.
This is important because the length of the ones shown appear pretty short.
I thought the same. I’d love to see them made in a “barely UCI legal” version.
Most TT “socks” or overcover/sock combos are right on the UCI limits for length (or over it on purpose for non UCI events).
Do you happen to know any aero socks that are intentionally much longer than UCI legality? Thinking about 24-hr TT worlds.
[quote Chemist
I know desert dude has said in the past that socks tend to be pretty individual with some people testing faster and others slower in the tunnel
Very individualistic.
I’ve yet to find a pair of go fast socks that are actually faster than my bare legs. IIRC I’m somewhere in the N=7-9 range tested. yet I’ve seen people who just about anything works better than their bare legs and it comes do to pitting sock against sock.
To me socks are one of those things where if I’m not testing it I’m not rolling the dice on it, doubly true given my lackluster hx with “aero” socks
I think he was comparing to no socks, or maybe standard non-aero socks. Not other brands of aero socks.
I think he mentioned 1-2W at slower speeds. (30kph?) Don’t quote me.
This is important because the length of the ones shown appear pretty short.
I thought the same. I’d love to see them made in a “barely UCI legal” version.
Most TT “socks” or overcover/sock combos are right on the UCI limits for length (or over it on purpose for non UCI events).
Do you happen to know any aero socks that are intentionally much longer than UCI legality? Thinking about 24-hr TT worlds.
Nopinz Flow-covers (Long)
https://www.nopinz.com/product/flow-covers-long/
[quote Chemist
I know desert dude has said in the past that socks tend to be pretty individual with some people testing faster and others slower in the tunnel
Very individualistic.
I’ve yet to find a pair of go fast socks that are actually faster than my bare legs. IIRC I’m somewhere in the N=7-9 range tested. yet I’ve seen people who just about anything works better than their bare legs and it comes do to pitting sock against sock.
To me socks are one of those things where if I’m not testing it I’m not rolling the dice on it, doubly true given my lackluster hx with “aero” socks
Interesting. Josh in his video says “every single time you put them on somebody, significant savings” and this was in the lead up to why he developed his own.
Do you have any intuition as to the cross-sectional shape of lower half of lower leg that might lead socks to be a go or no-go? Or any other intuition (or data) as to what characteristics of rider, bike, or rider-bike interaction, that would lead socks to be a go or no-go?
Interesting. Josh in his video says “every single time you put them on somebody, significant savings” and this was in the lead up to why he developed his own.
I’ve not found that with numerous athletes. I’ve even been sent socks to try by companies with that assurance only to find the 1-2-3w slower.
It’s like a research study, different populations may have different results. I suspect one component of success is the faster you go and/or the narrower the yaw angles the more likely they are to work. I also think that’s not a guarantee.
Feels like there are the “aero road helmet” of socks. Not as fast as the full-on aero socks like NoPins, but much more suitable for everyday use (both from a comfort and appearance standpoint).
For triathlons, aero calf guards make more sense than aero socks IMO. They cover more of the leg (than UCI-legal socks); can be worn in the swim (under a wetsuit); you can run through transition in them; and they let you pick the running sock of your choice.
They are super ugly. Does that matter.
Very individualistic.
I’ve yet to find a pair of go fast socks that are actually faster than my bare legs. IIRC I’m somewhere in the N=7-9 range tested. yet I’ve seen people who just about anything works better than their bare legs and it comes do to pitting sock against sock.
To me socks are one of those things where if I’m not testing it I’m not rolling the dice on it, doubly true given my lackluster hx with “aero” socks
This is one of those cases where qualitative aero studies are useful. If the bare leg is not separating somewhere, then adding vorticity only adds increased skin friction, and in general adding material adds thickness and effective area.
This should be detectable with the right flow visualization liquid applied on bare skin, and it doesn’t have to be done in a tunnel.
I’d wager that the lower, more elliptical part of the legs have little or no separation on almost anyone, and it’s the peak calve area with a rather flat aft shape (more importantly, higher 1/local_radius > 1/avg_calve_radius… ) that causes the most separation issues… and many socks may not reach this high up, and the ones that do may cancel their effectiveness by adding vorticity where it isn’t needed… probably best to shave with intent than to use a random product.
[quote Chemist
I know desert dude has said in the past that socks tend to be pretty individual with some people testing faster and others slower in the tunnel
Very individualistic.
I’ve yet to find a pair of go fast socks that are actually faster than my bare legs. IIRC I’m somewhere in the N=7-9 range tested. yet I’ve seen people who just about anything works better than their bare legs and it comes do to pitting sock against sock.
To me socks are one of those things where if I’m not testing it I’m not rolling the dice on it, doubly true given my lackluster hx with “aero” socks
I’m assuming this is the same with aero calf sleeves? A sleeve covers more of the leg than a sock so I guess that could make you faster or that much slower???
So we tested these at 30, 40, and 50kph, the watt savings range is compared to DeFeet Aireator socks of same cuff height. Both DeFeet and Specialized also make fully knit aero socks, both with ~1mm vertical ribbing around the entire circumference of the sock, so my vision here was to just knit the turbulators into the sock right ahead of the separation zone and leave the front of the sock smooth. This leaves us a watt or 2 better than those two, but still a watt or 2 behind something like the Castelli Speed or Aerocoach sock, which are both quite a bit taller.
My vision here was for an everyday aero sock… so it’s not just some full on TT item, but rather a sock that is every bit as nice as the nicest socks from the top brands, but with an added aero advantage over. It’s an aero sock for all the days that you aren’t wearing aero socks 
We’ve tested these at both ARC and A2 and found repeatable savings across multiple riders in both instances.
So I’m wondering how calf sleeves and socks don’t run contrary to the rule that:
(f) No additional equipment, whether it is worn under the competitor’s clothing, over the competitors clothing, or is otherwise attached to the athlete’s body, which has the effect of reducing wind resistance is permitted. An exception is the use of safety helmets as described in Section 5.9. Such helmets may have the effect of reducing the wind resistance of the head only.
Unless clothing doesn’t count as equipment?
Very helpful - I have a pair of these arriving today and was wondering how they would compare to the Aireators I’ve been racing.