… 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…
I’ve got one interesting observation from when I was trying out my double Jet90 setup in some group ride situations with crosswinds prior to using them in a road race. I found that running the deep wheels makes it REALLY easy to find the drafting “sweet spot” behind another rider when winds are coming from the side…the deeper wheels actually make it easier to feel the differences
Yeah…I know that’s about wheels…but, what’s good for the wheels is good for the frame, I say
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.
Do you apply the same skepticism to Mr. Zinn when he writes about crank lengths?
… 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…
I’ve got one interesting observation from when I was trying out my double Jet90 setup in some group ride situations with crosswinds prior to using them in a road race. I found that running the deep wheels makes it REALLY easy to find the drafting “sweet spot” behind another rider when winds are coming from the side…the deeper wheels actually make it easier to feel the differences
Yeah…I know that’s about wheels…but, what’s good for the wheels is good for the frame, I say
funny, I notice the exact same thing - especially when I have my Jet 90 on front. You can really tell where to get in an echelon then. Interesting …
So when did gravity change that makes aero more important then weight going 12mph uphill?, It does not take math to figure out less weight is more of a factor than earo at these speeds.
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…
Sounds like weight and ceramic bearings are important, which is totally contradictory to every ST post - not just on hills…
Cervelo used to have something on their website that stated that for every extra pound on your body or bike you will be 8-10 seconds slower over a 40k distance with even the slightest up-hill rise in the road. What has changed since these statements were made?
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…
x2
Pros go up hills fast enough that there is some benefit to drafting (even 2-3% makes a difference at that level)…that’s why team leaders have someone draft behind on climbs, and hills don’t become one big ITT. One last note, since the UCI mandates that pros race on 15.5lb.+ bikes they can ride a super aero frame and still have to add a power meter to hit the weight min.
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…
Sounds like weight and ceramic bearings are important, which is totally contradictory to every ST post - not just on hills…
weight is hugely important. If I were 160 pounds, I’d get dropped in pretty much every hilly race. At 135 or so, I do OK. I don’t think anyone ever said a 20 pound aero frame is faster.
If ceramic bearings saved ‘watts’, then they’d probably be worth it. I haven’t seen any evidence to support that conclusion, though.
Actually yes it does take math to figure it out. Because the difference between an aero frame and a non aero frame is only 100 grams or so.
and there is still wind resistance at 12mph!
So when did gravity change that makes aero more important then weight going 12mph uphill?, It does not take math to figure out less weight is more of a factor than earo at these speeds.
Cervelo used to have something on their website that stated that for every extra pound on your body or bike you will be 8-10 seconds slower over a 40k distance with even the slightest up-hill rise in the road. What has changed since these statements were made?
Jack, I agree with you, when the new Cervelos are only about 1 pound different then aero becomes very important, even going up, as long as you are going fairly fast up the hill. Like others have said, reduction in body weight makes a huge difference, not only due to the weight, but also the work on the engine, as well as a smaller frontal area, be it on a hill or a flat.
You’re taking his comment out of context. He said weight and stiffness trumps aero for road cyclists that don’t specialize in breakaways. Whether or not that is true is up for debate, but making a statement like “Zinn says weight trumps aero” on a time trial focused message board is very misleading.
Cervelo’s Col de la Tipping Point presentation says a light bike is better than an aero bike after a certain (steep) grade, but that does mean “Vroomen says weight trumps aero…”
and that tipping point, using the S3 style vs R3 style bikes as the comparison point
was alpe duez for the pros (8% grade)
and a 5% for a good amateur
IF, you are ONLY going uphill, thats the point at which aero and weight are evenly matched.
Cervelo’s Col de la Tipping Point presentation says a light bike is better than an aero bike after a certain (steep) grade, but that does mean “Vroomen says weight trumps aero…”
My point was that statements like Zinn’s article and Cervelo’s power point presentation require context. Cutting “weight trumps aero” from Zinn’s article and saying that is the point of hte piece is akin to cutting the same meaning from the Col de la Tipping Point.
Zinn does *not *say that weight trumps aero. He says that weight trumps aero for a pack-level rider in a road race. These are two very different statements, regardless of the merit of his statement.
Well he says weight trumps aero in a pack, if its windy, if its uphill even a little, and so on
and Cervelo says aero trumps weight unless you are slow and going up alpe duez
so, its not VERY different really, in these cases =)
He says that weight trumps aero for a pack-level rider in a road race. These are two very different statements, regardless of the merit of his statement.
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
I think I’ve being unclear. My point has nothing to do with the merit of Zinn’s article. I am saying that pulling a phrase out of an article misrepresents the meaning of that article.
But while we’re on the subject, Col de la Tipping point ignores the fact that when riding up a steep climb a cyclist is constantly accelerating and decelerating within each pedal stroke. This increases the importance of weight. It also ignores the effect of stiffness.
They don’t speak to it but I don’t think it matters. The heavier bike decelerates slower to the same extent that it accelerates slower.
ignoring wind resistance I think that bit is a wash.
But while we’re on the subject, Col de la Tipping point ignores the fact that when riding up a steep climb a cyclist is constantly accelerating and decelerating within each pedal stroke.
