…this may have been posted, but in the spirit of yesterdays thread, you don’t need to read this if you’ve already read the other (here)
I think he also implied that it does not apply to triathlons unless you are a drafter. Are you are a drafter?
.
Cervelo’s Gérard Vroomen’s wrote an excellent and informative commentary on this. While I respect Leonard Zinn, I believe that he should stick to commentary on repairing bicycles. Here is the thread with Gerhard’s two posts that are well worth reading if one interested in aero design technology. His two posts are about 2/3’s of the way down the thread. http://forums.cervelo.com/forums/t/3192.aspx
Whoa, if you scroll down on that same page, there is more Slowtwitch blasphemy:
While there are exceptions, **higher tire pressure as a rule results in lower rolling resistance. **
If the tire pressure is lower, the rolling resistance will increase, regardless of tire width.
Cue the ST tire police in 3… 2… 1…
Whoa, if you scroll down on that same page, there is more Slowtwitch blasphemy:
While there are exceptions, **higher tire pressure as a rule results in lower rolling resistance. **
If the tire pressure is lower, the rolling resistance will increase, regardless of tire width.
Cue the ST tire police in 3… 2… 1…
Who posted that?
Paul Lew, founder of Lew Racing.
On the same page:
http://www.velonews.com/article/88555/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-weight-v-wind
Scroll down to the “High Pressure and Carbon Rims” question.
Cervelo’s Gérard Vroomen’s wrote an excellent and informative commentary on this. While I respect Leonard Zinn, I believe that he should stick to commentary on repairing bicycles. Here is the thread with Gerhard’s two posts that are well worth reading if one interested in aero design technology. His two posts are about 2/3’s of the way down the thread. http://forums.cervelo.com/forums/t/3192.aspx
I don’t surpose that Vroomen’s “informative commentary” has anything to do with marketing…hmmmm.
Hey…just because you have articles published in cycling/tri publications, or you make cycling parts, it doesn’t necessarily mean you know what you’re talking about 
…unless, of course, you have data to back you up
.
Cervelo’s Gérard Vroomen’s wrote an excellent and informative commentary on this. While I respect Leonard Zinn, I believe that he should stick to commentary on repairing bicycles. Here is the thread with Gerhard’s two posts that are well worth reading if one interested in aero design technology. His two posts are about 2/3’s of the way down the thread. http://forums.cervelo.com/forums/t/3192.aspx
I don’t surpose that Vroomen’s “informative commentary” has anything to do with marketing…hmmmm.
sure it does–but did he say anything that was materially incorrect? not that I could see…
Zinn didn’t do any math on the hill climbing claim, he just states it, and the math says he is wrong.
and he is completely wrong about the aero frames only working in a narrow band of yaw angles.
…this may have been posted, but in the spirit of yesterdays thread, you don’t need to read this if you’ve already read the other (here)
yes.
-
he said aero frames are a hindrance in crosswinds. when in fact the good frames drag actually go down at medium yaw angles and are still far lower than normal frames at high yaw angles. this is confirmed by some of Tom A’s independent testing and anyone else who ever put a decent aero bike in a wind tunnel
-
he said the aerodynamics is useless going uphill. here math disagrees, this one is debateable because perhaps the math oversimplifies the problem
-
he said in a pack the aerodynamics is useless. I would disagree, you would still be working a bit less hard. again, debateable since its hard to test this.
sure it does–but did he say anything that was materially incorrect? not that I could see…
Cervelo’s Gérard Vroomen’s wrote an excellent and informative commentary on this. While I respect Leonard Zinn, I believe that he should stick to commentary on repairing bicycles. Here is the thread with Gerhard’s two posts that are well worth reading if one interested in aero design technology. His two posts are about 2/3’s of the way down the thread. http://forums.cervelo.com/forums/t/3192.aspx
I don’t surpose that Vroomen’s “informative commentary” has anything to do with marketing…hmmmm.
I would think it has more to do with his Engineering degree, years of experience building/designing bikes and many hours in the wind tunnels than anything else.
I almost posted a link to that article yesterday, but I didn’t wan’t to seem like Jordan piling on Friel… Seriously, how does one guy get it wrong so often?
What I really don’t understand, both from Zinn and from the responders on the Cervelo forum, are the comments that aerodynamics don’t matter in the pack. Have any of these people ever actually raced a bicycle before, seriously?? Sitting in the pack, the main force you have to overcome is, guess what: wind resistance. Sitting in a pack certainly reduces wind resistance, but it doesn’t eliminate it. Flat, windy races break apart in the crosswind sections–yes, even in the pack…
What a lot of people just don’t seem to understand is that even in hilly races, every single watt saved adds up when it finally hits the fan. Frame aerodynamics is several orders of magnitude less important than pack positioning and the rider’s position on the bike–but it’s still a small component (as Gerard said himself, a 1.5% improvement or something like that). Still, every bit adds up–unless you have watts to burn…
yes.
-
he said aero frames are a hindrance in crosswinds. when in fact the good frames drag actually go down at medium yaw angles and are still far lower than normal frames at high yaw angles. this is confirmed by some of Tom A’s independent testing and anyone else who ever put a decent aero bike in a wind tunnel
-
he said the aerodynamics is useless going uphill. here math disagrees, this one is debateable because perhaps the math oversimplifies the problem
-
he said in a pack the aerodynamics is useless. I would disagree, you would still be working a bit less hard. again, debateable since its hard to test this.
sure it does–but did he say anything that was materially incorrect? not that I could see…
I was talking about Gerard–not Zinn… Pretty much everything Zinn said was incorrect…
I Needs to be factored in that Zinn may be Biased by the fact that he is about seven feet tall. A lifetime of racing bikes and never feeling a draft would change ones outlook
oops, sorry =)
I was talking about Gerard--not Zinn.... Pretty much everything Zinn said was incorrect...
I was talking about Gerard–not Zinn… Pretty much everything Zinn said was incorrect…
Hey, Zinn’s an expert. Who are you to diss him? Haven’t you been paying attention around here?
I know, I know–he’s written a book and everything! What the hell have I done besides some bitter internet posts?
I guess I’ve never really let go of this one. I’m still waiting for Contador to bust out that 38 mph TT…
I know, I know–he’s written a book and everything! What the hell have I done besides some bitter internet posts?
I guess I’ve never really let go of this one. I’m still waiting for Contador to bust out that 38 mph TT…
He wrote a book? Did it have the word “Bible” in the title or something?
500W for an hour. Maybe for small values of 500…