Anybody ever seen any wind tunnel data for Tiemeyer frames? I’m specifically interested in data for the UCI-compliant version, not the earlier bikes made out of the same tubing as the GT SB-1.
Sorry AC, I don’t have their UCI legal frame test.
The old tubes suffered from the old-school approach of using high speed airfoil shapes, not the modern ones used that have much better high yaw angle data. They had great head-on numbers for mid-90s alloy frames.
I’m sure there must be trackies that have been in the tunnel on Dave’s bikes, not sure if any would have the resources to test them vs. another bike though.
I’d be curious to see the data too.
I’d love to see it, too. I used to have a Tiemeyer TT frame, built around 03 or 04. Heavy, but always “seemed” fast, esp on high speed sections (false flat downhills, esp). Be curious as to what the numbers say.
I seem fast on downhills too!
AFM took his to the LSWT… but dunno if he took another bike and/or went back since…
I believe this is the newer style tubing… and note the pk racing sticker 
g
That was LITERALLY my bike - Al bought my frame from me. 
We’ll have to fire off a note to him and see what he can tell us.
That’s me on Christopher’s Tiemeyer - his name is stamped into the BB shell. Obviously I did take it to the LSWT but didn’t have any runs done on the bike only. I don’t really know but assumed I guess that is was UCI compliant but it really didn’t matter when I bought it from Christopher. That purchase along with the 999 Zipp wheel set with Tufo S33 Special tires - my first venture into the tubular dark side - is what got me interested in rolling resistance. Spent a bunch of money to get faster but (a very long story) ended up losing ~ 25 watts - all in the tires as it turned out. Pinned down the root cause about a week before Sattley, found some Zipp tubulars which were sold out in most places at the time at the Davis Wheelworks, Christopher glued them on, and set a PR the next weekend.
Thanks, everyone, for their replies. FWIW, here is part of the reason for my curiousity:
http://i40.tinypic.com/x3uae0.png
(from http://www.tiemeyercycles.com/pdf/whitsell_woodring_release.pdf)
I seem fast on downhills too!
You know what they say - train your weaknesses, race your strengths.
I remember that whole ordeal - boy did we learn a lot from your work on rolling resistance, shocking stuff I would say.
So is it 5 years in a row you’ve won Sattley now? A record, I believe.
We should connect. I’m making an effort to get back to bike racing fitness, which I’m a long way from at this point!
Thanks, everyone, for their replies. FWIW, here is part of the reason for my curiousity:
(from http://www.tiemeyercycles.com/...woodring_release.pdf)
Are you and JV looking to lower your record?
BTW, that .pdf says that it’s Reynolds tubing…perhaps you can get some info from them?
Are you and JV looking to lower your record?
More like daydreaming about when both the kids are in school!
BTW, that .pdf says that it’s Reynolds tubing…perhaps you can get some info from them?
Oh, I’m sure that the bikes have quite functional aerodynamics (at least at/near 0 deg of yaw, as SuperDave said)…I was more interested in exactly how good, which I’m not sure you could determine from tube shapes or even aerodynamics tests of tubes.
Are you and JV looking to lower your record?
More like daydreaming about when both the kids are in school!
Hmmm^TM…sounds like a run at the mixed gender record is being contemplated.
Hmmm^TM…sounds like a run at the mixed gender record is being contemplated.
Well, let’s see:
90+ 46:47.72 John Verheul, Andrew Coggan, Moriarty, NM,
9/1/08
90+ 48:47.77 Carol Ann Bostick, David Spangler,Moriarty, NM 9/3/95
So almost exactly a 2 min differential. Applying my ROT, that means that if our CdA, Crr, etc., were the same, then our power could be 30 W lower and we should still be able to match it. That would require a sea level combined power of (560-30)/0.9 = 590 W. That is about 20-25 W more than I think we could generate…but then again, our CdA and Crr should be less, so it isn’t necessarily impossible.
Andrew,
What size bike do you ride? I actually have Tiemeyer frameset in a small/medium-ish size (actually ckautz had a hand in this one as well). Pretty short headtube (you would probably run an ergo stem or adjustable stem anyhow)- I am not currently racing it, you could test it out if you want.
It is currently a frame/fork/headset so it would be easy to run it as a fixie if you test that way.
Is that the original one we built you?
Yep- bought it back from 3rd owner- never selling it again. But Andy can play with it if he wants.
Even got an Edge fork for it.
I knew it’d been sold a few times - that’s why I was wondering if it was the original. I’d love to see the drag numbers. You always went fast on that bike.
Andrew,
What size bike do you ride? I actually have Tiemeyer frameset in a small/medium-ish size (actually ckautz had a hand in this one as well). Pretty short headtube (you would probably run an ergo stem or adjustable stem anyhow)- I am not currently racing it, you could test it out if you want.
It is currently a frame/fork/headset so it would be easy to run it as a fixie if you test that way.
That is a very generous offer! As it turns out, though, I’ve got a friend in town (the 50+ 2009 Missouri TT champ) who has a Tiemeyer that he said I could borrow if I wished. If I could get to a wind tunnel I’d definitely take him up on it, just to see how the frame stacks up. However, I don’t think that the usual field tests would tell me what I’d like to know. That is, I’d be surprised if it didn’t perform reasonably well at/near 0 deg of yaw; the question in my mind is how it compares to more modern designs when the wind comes from an angle (as it almost always does).
Wouldn’t the exact set-up test in your home “tunnel” tell you that? I thouhgt I remember you conducting similar tests last year?