Tour magazine of Germany tested the who is who of the tri bikes in their last issue. This magazine is considered to be the one which tests in the most professional manner of any bike magazine in Europe (maybe even the world?). So their plan was to end all the speculation about the most aerodynamic bike and just find it out by themselves. That would’ve been one of the first in depth tests of top end triathlon bikes by an independent source ever.
Surprisingly Cervélo and Specialized called back their bikes. That’s very sad and makes me – and many others, I’m sure - think that they are afraid of not being as good as they proclaim (especially Cervélo with their P4). Maybe Gerard could explain why they withdraw their bike? Hopefully there is a logical reason behind it. At least many triathlon enthusiasts in Germany/Austria/Switzerland would be relieved if he could give us a good reason for not participating.
Scott won the comparison with their Plasma 2 – so they try to advertise with it and show excerpts of the test on their website:
What is the difference between wind speed and speed of bike/rider? What I mean is when they say they were tested with a wind speed of 45/h, does that mean that is like the bike going 45/h on the road? Or is this wind speed just used to test the drag of the frames. Do some frames do better when the wind speed is lower or higher?
M~
Neither of both. Until now I just read the articles here. But after that test in the magazine I was just wondering why they withdrawed. Since this is the most famous forum and even some bosses of bike companies read here I signed up and hope to get some answers.
since I can’t read the original german, was the test down over various yaw angles? or only at yaw angle 0?
0 and 10 degrees. With and without rider. For the comparison they used the results without rider since the error was too imense with rider.
well, if they were truly ‘independent’, they’d have procured the bikes on their own and tested them. I’m fully aware of the economic constraints faced by a magazine in the bike industry, but that’s the reality. If they’re accepting product from manufacturers to test, that calls into question their objectivity right there.
It shouldn’t have been that hard to get these bikes from a shop, either on loan or purchased at a price that would have allowed them to test the bike and re-sell it at little/no cost.
Well then I think we can see why some bike makers would have pulled out. If one design has great 0 numbers but stalls at 11 degrees it will look really good in this test.
since I can’t read the original german, was the test down over various yaw angles? or only at yaw angle 0?
0 and 10 degrees. With and without rider. For the comparison they used the results without rider since the error was too imense with rider.
Sounds like they need to work on their test protocol
since I can’t read the original german, was the test down over various yaw angles? or only at yaw angle 0?
0 and 10 degrees. With and without rider. For the comparison they used the results without rider since the error was too imense with rider.
Sounds like they need to work on their test protocol
you took the words right out of my keyboard…
well, if they were truly ‘independent’, they’d have procured the bikes on their own and tested them. I’m fully aware of the economic constraints faced by a magazine in the bike industry, but that’s the reality. If they’re accepting product from manufacturers to test, that calls into question their objectivity right there.
It shouldn’t have been that hard to get these bikes from a shop, either on loan or purchased at a price that would have allowed them to test the bike and re-sell it at little/no cost.
Good post! Sounds logical. But as far as I know all those magazines get the bikes from the manufacturer itself, but you’re right anyway!
In my research methods class (a requirement for my M.S. degree), we have learned a thing or 2 about bias. It seems as if that could be applicable in several situations in this “research”. I’d rather have NO data rather than BAD data.
I’m not claiming to know a lot about fluid dynamics, other than what has been taught in the biomech and physics classes I’ve taken. Also, the last time I checked, the bike doesn’t ride itself. What have ‘we’ deduced from the bike+rider interaction?..how does it affect the air+bike?
Tour may be “the best” of the "poor’.
Not meaning that they are good in what they do (mechanically), but who will be able to differentiate between bottom bracket stiffness measured in a few measly Newtons…I also only see one value for aerodynamics, that probably means 0 degrees of yaw.
Politically correct one could say that they probably not rip apart the bike from a manufacturer that has a whole page ad in the mag.
And as a normally pretty well informed “guesser” told me:
Neither Specialized nor Cervelo got a discount on advertisement space, so they withdrew.
I saw take this studies and try not to worry about them that much, find the bike that fits and fits what you want it to do and it will be just as fast/aero as the next! To many people have got caught up in this aero thing from all of these companies, let it go, all the bikes on the market are good bikes!
So, the magazine determined the most aerodynamic tri bike without testing, arguably, the most aerodynamic tri bikes…P2, P3, P4, Trek TTX, Felt, Ridley, and Specialized?
I saw take this studies and try not to worry about them that much, find the bike that fits and fits what you want it to do and it will be just as fast/aero as the next! To many people have got caught up in this aero thing from all of these companies, let it go, all the bikes on the market are good bikes!
Actually that’s the conclusion of the tour test! They state that the differences between those aero frames are marginal whereas the gap between standard road frame and aero frame is recognizable! The outcome was: No need to spend thousands of dollars for a high end triathlon bike. Get a cheap tri bike and work on your position!
