All this banter about aerodynamics has got me wondering the following:
The real-world aero difference between, say, a deep-section rim and a box rim must have some sort of a corollary to human body size. For example, does going from 14" to 12" circumference biceps have the same aerodynamic benefit as going from a box rim to a 38 mm mid-deep section rim? And what about waist size? Going from a 34" to a 32" waist could be like going from box rims to a disc.
It’d be interesting to see a comparison of time savings from frontal area reduction vs. equipment upgrades (and I’m sure it can be/has been done). Everyone seems stuck on which wheel set will save 10 seconds over a 40k TT but nobody seems interested in knowing what anatomical changes they could make to their body that would provide greater benefit at a lower cost (but unlike buying stuff, that would involve work).
Great call…that is why I love it when I see dudes who are 30lbs over weight riding 14lbs dream bikes (usually they are riding to the Baskin Robins in the next city)…
I’m sure that the bigger you are the less aerodynamic you are. the problem is that I can’t do anything about the fact that I am 6’2" with 42" shoulders and a 77" wing span. Sure you could say that you could focus on losing a couple of lbs, but most of the folks are already pretty slim and start losing muscle if they try to drop. Surely you want to be as light as possible to the point of retaining strength, but other than that I don’t think any of us is going to have plastic surgery to make us more aero.
I just think it’s interesting how involved the discussions become about wheel/frame/aerobar aerodynamics when all this crap is likely way, way down the priority list in terms of where aerodynamic gains can be made. Are we really interesting in gains from improved aerodynamics, and if so, why do we spend most of our time arguing about this comparatively insignificant crap instead of first taking care of our personal aerodynamic profile? Or are we just interested in having cool shit on our bikes?
It was more of a hypothetical question meant to highlight the absurdity of long-winded discussions about wheel aerodynamics when there are probably many other far more effective and inexpensive ways to reduce one’s drag.
Only in the transition. When I rode in the past on a road bike with the most basic wheels and passed guys with a disc wheel and a front tri spoke - they did not look cool, they look stupid.
Last year when I did a duathlon I could here from the distance bangs and booms getting closer and closer. Then, Richard Allen was tucked in an aero position, and I could see that bontrager disc wheel spinning the red shapes. He seems as fast as if he was on a motorbike. He flew. I thought - these wheels look cool. I was doing 20-21 M.P.H and he just stormed me.
BTW, I was in front because I was on my first lap, he was on the second.
I have read a contrary analysis. As I recall a large rider may be more efficient in terms of aerodynamics than a smaller rider (on flat courses). This assumes that the larger rider is proportionately more powerful. Stated another way: a 170 lb rider really doesn’t punch much bigger a hole in the air as compared to a 135 lb rider.
Add some hills to the mix and weight can really become an issue.
I rode my disk at Auburn this weekend and it didn’t hurt me a bit. But it’s really not that much weight over my lightweight wheel. And I like climbing, so…
The big difference I noticed was going downhill. I was coasting and passing people that were pedaling. Now if I had been running something other than Tufo Tubies, i might have been even faster
But your max power output should be higher than mine (5’8, 140) compared to the amount of air you have to move. So if the additional weight is converted to strength, you should be able to overcome the slight aerodynamic drag of your bigger surface area. Isn’t this why the great climbers are skinny little guys and the sprinters and TT’ers are bigger?
Oh well, it’s another case of Lance vs. Jan. Go skinny guy!
Everyone seems stuck on which wheel set will save 10 seconds over a 40k TT but nobody seems interested in knowing what anatomical changes they could make to their body that would provide greater benefit at a lower cost (but unlike buying stuff, that would involve work).
Ugh, PC’s involve buying stuff and work, a lot of work.
Body mass doesn’t correlate directly to FA. If I gained 10 pounds, I assure you it would not be in body parts that increase FA. My belly is well-hidden behind my chest and arms.
Losing weight (while maintaining power) improves so many things for an athlete that I don’t think you need to worry about measuring FA reductions. Other benefits would overwhelm.
Of more importance than wheels is the simple matter of trunk angle and whether or not the head is tucked. That isn’t 10 seconds per 40k – it’s more like 2-5 minutes. The only thing stopping most people from picking up that extra speed are peanut-gallery posts on message boards that say aerodynamics doesn’t matter (I don’t mean you, Jhendric).
I have first-hand experience helping people gain the equivalent of 20-40 watts by simple position adjustments. No money, no training. Just a willingness to rely on data instead of lore.
I know that some people object to the notion of getting faster without improving fitness. I think such objections are the epitome of athletic foolishness.
The same issues with aero tubing and then going and putting two great big whopping water bottles on the downtube/setatubes.
That defeats the whole purpose of going aero and beating the mystical drag coefficients.
I’m an age group plodder and use a streamlined camelback when riding as it allows me to hydrate well in hot conditions, not to reduce drag, but it possibly helps keep the frame more slick at least.
