I have a question regarding time saved on something like this since I’m still in the Stone Ages on a round tubed aluminum frame.
From my round tubed bike to this Speed Concept over say a 40K TT. My best stand alone is 58:08 for a 40K. What could it have been with a frame like this potentially?
ALL other things being equal (your position included)…I’d conservatively estimate ~2s/km of time savings. So, that 40K time would’ve been something like 56:48 or so…possibly more.
The time and money we spend to save a minute or two… I think we’re all crazy.
Well I would buy the bike from the company that always comes second on other companies tests.
One thing that I have in mind about comments regarding Trek’s data is that we shouldn’t forget that the TTX was 3rd only to Cervelo’s P3 and P4 in that data set that came out like 3 years ago from Cervelo. Trek has been designing bikes in the wind tunnel for about as long as Cervelo both long before most companies. Up until now their geometry has always precluded them from being a bike for everyone.
Because Trek may chime in, we’ve all said we would need answers to questions, so just a few that come to find in case Trek comes around with answers:
Some thoughts on talks about the “curves”:
Cervelo’s P3 and P4 actually look kind of similar to what we’ve seen before. In Specializeds data the P4 has a very flat/slightly rising drag curve. In Cervelo’s own data the P3 and P4 looked very similar at 15 degrees of yaw. However, this data doesn’t show the drop that Cervelo’s data showed which Specialized didn’t show either.
The transition looks dissimilar to say the least.
The Felt looks similar to what Cervelo showed.
Finally, I am guessing that at least part of this bike’s design was Damon Rinard’s work. So for what it’s worth, congrats to Damon.
Great questions. Since the P4 uses conventional spacers, testing the bike with a lot of spacers puts a big round tube (steerer + spacers) right in the wind. The semi-integrated stem of the TSC will do much better in this instance.
The time and money we spend to save a minute or two… I think we’re all crazy.
Probably - but what has timetrialling and racing triathlons to do with being reasonable and modest?
Frank
We will be posting the whitepaper on our site shortly that answers all of these questions in detail. You guys will love it:). I’ll let you know when it’s up.
Look forward to it. Thanks for chiming in.
Thought of one other question for the uci guys in the forum, not related to the data. Is there an option besides the standard aerobar? That thing doesn’t look uci legal.
Look forward to it. Thanks for chiming in.
Thought of one other question for the uci guys in the forum, not related to the data. Is there an option besides the standard aerobar? That thing doesn’t look uci legal.
The ENTIRE point off the Kamm aerofoil is to produce the fastest UCI-legal bike money can buy. Why would they spoil that by putting non-UCI legal bars on there?
The ENTIRE point off the Kamm aerofoil is to produce the fastest UCI-legal bike money can buy…
That’s one point, but not the ENTIRE point, as you argue. Trek made sure their tube shapes were UCI legal, but the kammtail has a couple distinct advantages. It’s a lot stiffer than a regular airfoil. It’s also going to be easier to handle in a crosswind than an actual 5:1 airfoil. And the virtual foil actually bends with the wind. So, at yaw, the kammtail still outperforms an airfoil with the same dimensions. Meaning the bike handles great in the wind, but is still more aero.
And it’s fairly well-established that pro tour teams are the financial drivers behind a lot of bike development. The riders need to be compliant as far as the frame is concerned. But if you look, the full extent of the Speed Concept’s integration is geared towards its custom bar, which is not compliant, and ridiculously sexy. Probably the sweetest aerobar I’ve ever seen.
my eyes don’t have calipers in them but I’m 94% sure this thing looks more like the 3T ventus than like say Hed’s corsair:
http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2010/05/24/1274718603595-qc0j6okkpl9x-850-65.jpg
http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2010/05/24/1274718603601-73bgzhxtjcsh-850-65.jpg
http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2010/05/24/1274718819446-1ov7uqd1k4fiv-850-65.jpg
.
No calipers necessary – that bar is NOT uci-legal. Tyler Pilger has said so himself. And when I looked at it in person, it was quite obvious that it isn’t 3:1. But Trek is making the “stem stub” available to UCI athletes (like the one we’ve seen on some pro bikes) so they can bolt on a standard stem and bar.