TOUR MAG AERO TEST 2016

[SLCBrandon]

Guys....the SL4 Tarmac isn't what Contador is currently riding. That was the previous Tarmac to the one currently being ridden.

[stormur]

To your three data requests, I can fulfill two of them with two studies (spoke shape and V vs torodial rim shape), but they're manufacturer studies, so of course completely useless, nevermind that they've presented their methodology, error bars, and shortcomings. They're not perfect comparisons, but as always, it's something brought to the table while you have yet to show up with one f***ing iota of proof for your position

Ask ANY researcher, PhD candidate, engineer - whoever deal daily with data documents - about value of "Zipp tests" ( protocol mainly ( but not only ) , so any input gives false output beacause output value is Zero ( more than 1 change at the time ) )

But even Zipp in one of their "tests" concludes :Quote : "small changes in spoke shape or count are marginal at best" . Frankly they coudn't notice any difference ; was smaller than error margin, and inconsistent. So please read document ( or at least conclusion ) before .

i don't have to prove anything. you try to again and again, and every time you fail I'm just critic, reviewer

[kgt]

Guys....the SL4 Tarmac isn't what Contador is currently riding. That was the previous Tarmac to the one currently being ridden.

My mistake. Still... SL4, SL5 makes no difference since "when absolute performance is a must, the best riders in the world choose the S-Works Tarmac." lol

[tranzformer]

Guys....the SL4 Tarmac isn't what Contador is currently riding. That was the previous Tarmac to the one currently being ridden.

My mistake. Still... SL4, SL5 makes no difference since "when absolute performance is a must, the best riders in the world choose the S-Works Tarmac." lol

Do you believe you would be faster on a climb with your 6.7 kg Cipollini Bond or on your Cipollini Bond bike loaded with an additional 6.7 kg of ballast for a total of 13.4 kg weight? Which one would you be able to ride up Alpe d'Huez or Le Mont Ventoux or Col du Tourmalet the fastest? Or even your favorite local Strava segment climb. Which frame of the two options I listed would be faster?

[BeeSeeBee]

words

Look at the charts measuring watts to spin.

And stop moving goalposts.

[kgt]

@tranzformer
You may keep on asking but your question is irrelevant.

[53x12]

Velonews, Tour etc. are advertising products and try to make things seem simpler to a wider audience. That is not scientific research. Trek, Specialized, Cervelo etc. only want to sell their products. That is why their bikes always come first in their tests. Always.

Since Velonews and Tour are "advertising products" and since manufacturers can't be trusted, I'm sorry you bought your Cippolini Bond frame that was made in Thailand from subpar aluminum and that your LW wheels are made of aluminum in a Indian factory. Seems you spent a bit much for that.

Show me a paper published on an established scientific journal, then we talk.

Show me a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal proving that your Bond frame was handmade in Italy, is made out of carbon fiber plus that your LW wheel are handmade in Germany out of carbon fiber as well. Then we can talk. Until then, I am sorry you have to ride an aluminum frame along with your heavy aluminum wheels.

Let's say that according to the x magazine a Venge would be 1 min faster than an SL4 over a 100 km ride. For a pro rider that would mean something like 30 min total gain on a Grand Tour. Who wouldn't want that?
Obviously that is not the case. Aero certainly exists but the aero 'data' and graphs presented by magazines and companies are totally misguiding.

So if you can't believe the Tour data, please provide with us the real data we can believe. I really need to know.

[kgt]

hallucination stage...

[tranzformer]

@tranzformer
You may keep on asking but your question is irrelevant.

That fact you won't answer the question tells us everything we need to know about you. You really have no clue about anything on this topic and won't answer because you know by answering that question what that will open the door to.

If you answer the question about the weight of the bike on a climb correctly, you realize that will open the door to you having to admit you are wrong about aerodynamics of bike racing as well. But you not willing to answer the question, is a response in and of itself!

[Ahillock]

Velonews, Tour etc. are advertising products and try to make things seem simpler to a wider audience. That is not scientific research. Trek, Specialized, Cervelo etc. only want to sell their products. That is why their bikes always come first in their tests. Always.

Since Velonews and Tour are "advertising products" and since manufacturers can't be trusted, I'm sorry you bought your Cippolini Bond frame that was made in Thailand from subpar aluminum and that your LW wheels are made of aluminum in a Indian factory. Seems you spent a bit much for that.

Show me a paper published on an established scientific journal, then we talk.

Show me a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal proving that your Bond frame was handmade in Italy, is made out of carbon fiber plus that your LW wheel are handmade in Germany out of carbon fiber as well. Then we can talk. Until then, I am sorry you have to ride an aluminum frame along with your heavy aluminum wheels.

[kgt]

[Frankie - B]

Stormur and KGT, I'm not sure what you two are up to. are you trying to aid the conversation with valuable data or are you just in here to provoke?

[tranzformer]

@tranzformer
You may keep on asking but your question is irrelevant.

It is very relevant. Ask anyone on here if that is a relevant question to know when it comes to how fast one can climb on their bike.

If we know the biggest factors on how fast a rider is on their bike can be attributed to outside of the rider are:

1. Aerodynamics of rider and bike system
2. Rolling resistance of tires
3. Weight of rider and bike

You know for fact that you would be faster on your 6.7kg bike than you would be on the same bike ballasted to 13.4kg. You know that is a fact as well as everyone else on here. You wouldn't even need to test it to know that, but if you wanted to test it there are plenty of online cycling calculators that will calculate that difference for you. The same bike calculators that will also allow you to input CdA of a rider + bike system and show you that the lower the CdA, the faster one will be. So if you drop the CdA of the bike and wheels, maintain the same power output, one would go further in less time (also know as going faster) than on a bike + wheels with a higher CdA.

So, yes a lighter frame climbs quicker than the same frame with ballast weights on it.
Yes, a frame with less CdA is faster than a frame with higher CdA.

[stormur]

Stormur and KGT, I'm not sure what you two are up to. are you trying to aid the conversation with valuable data or are you just in here to provoke?

can't say for kgt, but me : No, not provoke . That I'm not "buying" all marketing crap from equiment manufacturers, and do not swell easy everything what they say doesn't make me "troll".



I can go straightforward, basically - why not. If anyone believe in most of that crap served to us, I am really sorry for you. Your IQ is on holiday. Hopefully will come back some day . or not

THERE'S NO VALUABLE DATA AVAILABLE for public. Period.

Sooner you understand it, sooner you realize that whatever cycling business says, it means "give me more of your money, again".



Again, in simpler form :

1. Manufacturers & teams most guarded secret about aero-ness ( and any other test: training, component performance, medical ) is raw data. Will never be published . From many reasons. Competition is one of them. Patents ( not nessecary owned , but paid for using ) as well.

2. Media are dependable financially and won't go to war with cycling business, so won't publish ANYTHING what can "hurt" them. In opposite, biggest advertisers have best publicity. NOTHING is published without "permission" from big names.

3. No one independent will make such test : cycling business lawyers won't allow for such a thing. That could ( and would ) demistify all what they want us to believe and crash sale immediately.

4. Cycling business is paying BIG € to people on forums ( trendsetting ) to protect "mainstream" and keep it alive . On this forum issue is perhaps more obvious than on few others. fat is, trendsetters are less subtle now, then year or two ago.

5. Pro's are financially dependant from team / sponsor. So they will use and praise whatever sponsor tell them to. Sometimes are minor exceptions ( shoes, glasses, saddle, pedals ).


If you did read all above and still have no doubts... there's no hope for you. Sorry.


Anyway, you are allowed to not agree . Still are people who believe that earth is flat and carried by 7 crocodiles


All above doesnt change fact that this way or another brands design and sell better and better equipment. Strength, performance, weight, aero properties : everything has been improved over the years. No doubts. Same as increasing prices every year ( 5-20% , with general inflation level in 1st world of about 0.5% ) .

But claims in type of : "this shape of something will save you 3.456383s over 45km route with avg spd 50kph" ???

G!

Just don't buy their marketing, and because they consider me as an idiot / i'm their "target" /- i'm not buying their stuff as well .

[knukkeltje]

I happen to own a Power meter (Garmin Vector S) and the following 3 bikes:

- 2010 Aluminum Canyon F8 Ultimate Al with Aluminum boxed rims - no spacers
- 2014 S-Works Venge with Zipp 404 Firecrests - no spacers
- 2014 Giant Trinity Advanced with Zipp 404 Firecrest - some spacers

Today was a nice day over here so I ran a little (non scientific) test:
- Took a straight and flat segment of approx 3.1km, running North/South
- The segment runs through a forrest, so there is relative little wind influence, but since there was a bit of wind (N -> S), I ran it for in both directions for the 3 bikes - so 6 runs in total
- I tried to maintain approx 38km/h, which was a bit difficult due to other bikers and pedestrians...
- I did it within ± 1hr and there was no noticeable change in wind/weather
- I changed the powermeter in between and calibrated it each time
- Ran all bikes as aero as possible (so in the drops / on TT bars)
- All tires at 7 bar
- Wore a normal (tight) outfit with a Specialized Evade helmet - Wore exactly the same for each run
- I only saw the Speed on my Garmin 810, so I was not distracted by other (eg Power) data

The feeling:
Bought the Canyon second hand as my 'winter' bike in October last yr, and did 2K kilometers in 4 months on it.
It's a good bike; the same model that Philippe Gilbert raced in 2010. I also use it for a crits (did one yesterday) to keep possible crash damage 'payable'. I like it a lot, but his was actually the first time I ran it back-to-back with the Venge.
I was surprised to feel the difference; the Venge really 'feels' a lot faster and more agile. I'm not so sure anymore I want to do the crits only on the Canyon...
Obviously, the Giant Trinity feels much faster than the Venge...

The data:
(I had to make the pic relatively small, hope it's self explanatory and you can read it):



My conclusion...
The data is in line with my feelings on the bike. Obviously the TT bike needs the least power.
However I found the difference between the Canyon and the Venge bigger than I would have thought beforehand. There was a difference of 23W to maintain the 38km/h (arguably the difference is even bigger, as the speed on the Venge was 38.9 km/h vs. 38.1 km/h on the Canyon).
Thats a 10% less power on the Venge, which is a lot I think.

I already was an aero believer *wink*, but this data shows that even for me it makes a significant difference.

My biggest problem now is convincing my wife that I need to do the Crits on the Venge again...