Doesnt this bike look like the most aero thing ever?
kamm tails, perfectly integrated breaks, not a single rough surface!
ill probably never buy it, but this def looks more aero than the shiv, giant, or p4.
Doesnt this bike look like the most aero thing ever?
kamm tails, perfectly integrated breaks, not a single rough surface!
ill probably never buy it, but this def looks more aero than the shiv, giant, or p4.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/...peed-concept-preview
Do you mean it’s got perforated sections or something so it only breaks in certain areas when you crash?..Cool.
Doesnt this bike look like the most aero thing ever?
kamm tails, perfectly integrated breaks, not a single rough surface!
ill probably never buy it, but this def looks more aero than the shiv, giant, or p4.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/...peed-concept-preview
Do you mean it’s got perforated sections or something so it only breaks in certain areas when you crash?..Cool.
I believe they are called “crumple zones.” It’s another feature borrowed from the automotive industry.
ahah, i meant brakes. the “e” and “r” keys are pretty darn close.
I’m saving my $$ now for 2011. That is one of the best looking new frames there is.
cept kamm tails aren’t more aero
Doesnt this bike look like the most aero thing ever?
kamm tails, perfectly integrated breaks, not a single rough surface!
ill probably never buy it, but this def looks more aero than the shiv, giant, or p4.
That thing is hawt, but I do not like the idea of integrated rear brakes. Seems hard to work on, propriatary designs and they could leave you SOL in a race situation.
cept kamm tails aren’t more aero
I hate to put you on the spot Jack, but where is your data that Kamm tails in the application of a bicycle is not more aerodynamic?
I have no data. I do know that Trek has been working on this bike for 2 years so I doubt they just decided ahh what the shit, lets put a cutoff airfoil on the bike just for the hell of it.
I do know that Cervelo used to very blatantly say that the the most important part of bicycle tubes were the leading edges. Seems to me that an 8:1 leading edge would be every bit as effective as the leading edge of a 3:1.
To the original poster. Yes, it’s a sweet looking bike and I really hope their integrated front end is easier to work on than my current bike that starts with an F.
Beh…no dimples…that bike is shit.
cept kamm tails aren’t more aero
I hate to put you on the spot Jack, but where is your data that Kamm tails in the application of a bicycle is not more aerodynamic?
I have no data. I do know that Trek has been working on this bike for 2 years so I doubt they just decided ahh what the shit, lets put a cutoff airfoil on the bike just for the hell of it.
I do know that Cervelo used to very blatantly say that the the most important part of bicycle tubes were the leading edges. Seems to me that an 8:1 leading edge would be every bit as effective as the leading edge of a 3:1.
To the original poster. Yes, it’s a sweet looking bike and I really hope their integrated front end is easier to work on than my current bike that starts with an F.
It’s actually widely known. Read ANY of the research on Kamm tails. There is a caveat, though. Kamm tails are LESS aero than the EQUIVALENT full length airfoil. I.e., an 8:1 airfoil is always going to be more aero than a truncated pseudo-8:1 Kamm tail style airfoil. So the big question is does going to a Kamm tail give you a benefit WITHIN UCI CONSTRAINTS. That is, if the UCI did not oppose a 3:1 restriction, a Kamm tail would DEFINITELY be worse than a full length airfoil. It’s POSSIBLE that within the confines of UCI restrictions, a Kamm tail airfoil offers an advantage, but that is not clear.
It’s also VERY dependent on yaw angle. At lower yaw angles, the Kamm tail design appears to be definitively worse. But it appears that it may be better at higher yaw angles, especially if the flow is already separated as you approach the trailing edge.
Make no mistake though, the Kamm tail is a compromise. It may, however, be a worthwhile compromise given the UCI restrictions. There are other considerations to consider, but this is a pretty good starting point towards evaluating the Kamm tail. Simply put, it’s not a clear “win,” as many people here assume. It may turn out to offer an advantage, but it will likely be dependent on the yaw angles. But at lower yaw angles, the Kamm tail is worse. At higher yaw angles, it appears to be better. And of course, in the middle ground where everything interesting happens, it’s not yet clear. The Trek folks are very smart, but so are the Specialized, Giant, Cervelo, and Scott engineers. I’m sure they’ve all made great decisions, and bad ones as well.
I’d also point you to the thread of BTR, where Kraig Willett’s analysis of the Trek graph is that the 3:1 airfoil actually LOOKS BETTER than the truncated (Kamm tail) airfoil, but that there are circumstances where that might not be the case (it just appears to be so in the pictures Trek shows) – http://forum.biketechreview.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2564
I hope that helps. However, Jackmott’s point that Kamm tails are not more aero is absolutely true. The key to the SpeedConcept’s design is that by utilizing a Kamm tail, you may be able come up with something that works better within UCI regulations. But if the UCI regs were not in place, you would not want to use a Kamm back design, you’d want to use a full length airfoil.
The Kamm shape gives you a bigger palate of engineering colors with which to paint your bike design. 
Even with UCI 3:1 considerations aside:
An 8:1 airfoil with the same frontal area as a Kamm foil would have a much higher side area that affects handling and skin drag (and stall angle which you implied). It’s also likely heavier.
And, an 8:1 airfoil with the same side area as a Kamm foil would be very skinny and might pose strength/stiffness structural challenges.
The Kamm shape isn’t, by itself, a new miracle tube shape…especially considering how old it is. But, it may allow better system design compromises to be made when considerations beyond CdA are figured.
The Kamm shape gives you a bigger palate of engineering colors with which to paint your bike design.
And THAT is the most important thing for 99.99999% of the folks who will be on that bike.
I don’t understand the thinking of Trek. Why isn’t this bike available in 2010? It was ready for the Astana riders at the TdF and is also used at Kona.
What is there left to develop with this frame? I don’t think that Trek will sell a lot of the Equinox ttx next year as most riders who would be interested in a Trek tri bike will wait another year till the Speed concept will be available. At least I will wait!
Frank
I think this will not be the final bike/form that hits the public. How will they re-design the stem to fit the masses ? Will they have 50 different stems to account for different lengths and heights ? WE NEED SPACERS !
I think this will be the issue with the new super-bikes. Not enough flexibility in the cockpits… and LBS’ that can’t build and fit them properly.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/trek-speed-concept-preview/77604
im not saying its going to be good for the public. its going to be amazing for whoever gets to ride it!
I’m rather new to bikes but I have studied, designed, built, tested, flown, and raced airfoil shapes in regards to speed and efficiency (and lift) when dealing with airplanes. So the Trek graphic illustrating their wind tunnel tests is confusing as it actually shows the 8:1 being a lot more aerodynamic. The 3:1 and Kamm tail looks about identical with MAYBE the 3:1 being slightly more controlled. What you are looking for is the amount of disturbance in the tail and the 8:1 shows the air coming back in a much thinner and controlled fashion which illustrates a more controlled airflow.
I’m not debating the yaw factor here though as the 3:1 or Kamm shape may very well be better at crosswinds and such, and I suspect it would be. Just weird that their illustrations and conclusions don’t match up.
I’m saving my $$ now for 2011. That is one of the best looking new frames there is.
so true. this is probably one of the most (if not most) aero frames out there that doesnt look stupid. it looks like a real bike.
the 2 sexiest frames out there now are the look 596 and this baby.
I agree.
They have taken the recent generations of superbikes that are all ugly (to me) and produced something that is both innovative AND beautiful, something all the other brands have struggled to achieve.
It is a real turnaround from a brand I have never really lusted after.
I’m saving my $$ now for 2011. That is one of the best looking new frames there is.
so true. this is probably one of the most (if not most) aero frames out there that doesnt look stupid. it looks like a real bike.
the 2 sexiest frames out there now are the look 596 and this baby.
At first I hated the Look, but in the right colors with the right wheels that bike can look awfully damn good.
The P-4, IMO, is just plain FUGLY, as is the Shiv.
I’ve always though the Trek TTX series what good looking and in my opinion simply looked to me what a fast tt/tri bike SHOULD look like. Not sure how to define that, but it always just looked right. No funky angles, sloping tubes, etc…just sleek and fast looking. Now the new Speed Concept lookes even better/cleaner. And from what I’ve heard there are removeable panels to let you work on the brakes so it’s not too difficult/hard to get to.
another benefit that I suspect might result from a kamm profile is the seatpost might clamp better =)
.