*Tour Aero Bike Tests*

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

Lina
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

Eyeball test of what looks good on a trainer is surprisingly good for finding a good aero position. Of course it won't tell the whole story and if you want an optimal position then Chung method is an easy way to test different positions and what different changes do to your aero.

User avatar
C36
Posts: 2471
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:24 am

by C36

Mocs123 wrote:I wonder what the margin of error is for these tests?
I mentioned it few pages ago

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



HBike
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:22 pm

by HBike

C36 wrote:
Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:32 am
CAAD8FRED wrote:
Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:50 pm
C36, I know you keep a huge trove of your data. I wanted to ask you, since you likely do a lot of tour magazine reading, does Tour say what the margin of error on a test is? +/- x number of watts? Thanks
I have :D. 2-3 years ago I had this discussion with one of their journalist and they have now clarified under this article. They talk about ACCURACY and REPEATABILITY which is rare enough to be highlighted.

practically, you are around +/- 1W between 2 numbers published. That seems small but with the mannequin they removed all variables.

https://www.tour-magazin.de/kaufberatun ... windkanal/
"The measurement accuracy within a measurement campaign – which is usually the data that is published within a story – is +/- 0.25 W. The repeatability between different campaigns is +/- 1 W."

for those who want to understand better the difference
- Accuracy: how far is your average compared to the "absolute, real value" --> in absolute we care quite little we are interested in relative differences.
- Repeatability: how different will 2 subsequent measurement be --> what we want, I want to compare a bike tested in march with one tested in October and compare the results.
This drawing illustrate this
Image
They have 41 values for different yaw angles, each has a measurement uncertainty. All those are weighted and averaged to lead to a single value. I used a common pdf for wind distribution and assuming +/- 0.25W for each individual point I get an estimate of +/- 1.22 W in uncertainty. So the 1W is reasonable given the values you mention.

Alastair2308
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:16 am

by Alastair2308

Still a few bikes I would like would like to see tested.

I haven't seen anything for the new Orbea Orca Aero.
I would also like to see testing for the Parlee RZ7. Especially with those speed shield things over the calipers.

Alastair2308
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:16 am

by Alastair2308

*double post*

mrlobber
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:36 am
Location: Where the permanent autumn is

by mrlobber

Alastair2308 wrote:
Sat Feb 11, 2023 9:16 am
Still a few bikes I would like would like to see tested.

I haven't seen anything for the new Orbea Orca Aero.
I would also like to see testing for the Parlee RZ7. Especially with those speed shield things over the calipers.
The Orca Aero (the new one, with that downtube box) was here a while back. Something like 212...215W if I recall.

The Parlee likely won't be relevant, unfortunately, especially with the recent news of the company's problems.
Minimum bike categories required in the stable:
Aero bike | GC bike | GC rim bike | Climbing bike | Climbing rim bike | Classics bike | Gravel bike | TT bike | Indoors bike

Alastair2308
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:16 am

by Alastair2308

mrlobber wrote:
Sat Feb 11, 2023 10:48 am
Alastair2308 wrote:
Sat Feb 11, 2023 9:16 am
Still a few bikes I would like would like to see tested.

I haven't seen anything for the new Orbea Orca Aero.
I would also like to see testing for the Parlee RZ7. Especially with those speed shield things over the calipers.
The Orca Aero (the new one, with that downtube box) was here a while back. Something like 212...215W if I recall.

The Parlee likely won't be relevant, unfortunately, especially with the recent news of the company's problems.
Yeah I heard about Parlee's problems. Sad. But in still curious simply from an educational point of view.

I have read this thread through and through all 80 odd pages. I haven't seen any mention of the new Orca Aero. Although if those results are correct that seems a bit slow to me. Because it's a very good looking and fast looking frame.

I guess I am curious about these bikes because both the Parlee and the Orca Aero were options I was looking at when I was in the market for my frameset and just want to compare it to what I bought. .Ultimately I settled on my Felt (which is ALMOST ready just waiting on the last few bits in the mail)

Those Parlee speed shields. I wonder if something like those could be 3D printed. Anyone tried anything like that?

naavt
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2018 6:58 pm

by naavt

I see the interest in this thread (essentially because I'm kinda of a number's geek), but I entirely agree with the ones who said this is ultimately ridiculous, since Tour Mag is comparing oranges with apples.

Let's look at Look for instance! 795 comes with a bar/stem combo and everybody already agreed that an Aero integrated will save some 5 to 6 watts. Where does that put Look and other bikes like that one for instance?

FactoryMatt
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:35 am

by FactoryMatt

Alastair2308 wrote:
Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:24 pm
mrlobber wrote:
Sat Feb 11, 2023 10:48 am
Alastair2308 wrote:
Sat Feb 11, 2023 9:16 am
Still a few bikes I would like would like to see tested.

I haven't seen anything for the new Orbea Orca Aero.
I would also like to see testing for the Parlee RZ7. Especially with those speed shield things over the calipers.
The Orca Aero (the new one, with that downtube box) was here a while back. Something like 212...215W if I recall.

The Parlee likely won't be relevant, unfortunately, especially with the recent news of the company's problems.
Yeah I heard about Parlee's problems. Sad. But in still curious simply from an educational point of view.

I have read this thread through and through all 80 odd pages. I haven't seen any mention of the new Orca Aero. Although if those results are correct that seems a bit slow to me. Because it's a very good looking and fast looking frame.

I guess I am curious about these bikes because both the Parlee and the Orca Aero were options I was looking at when I was in the market for my frameset and just want to compare it to what I bought. .Ultimately I settled on my Felt (which is ALMOST ready just waiting on the last few bits in the mail)

Those Parlee speed shields. I wonder if something like those could be 3D printed. Anyone tried anything like that?
I have an RZ7 and im in love with it. fantastic bike. great geometry. well damped. fast. i think they have a marketing problem. i get asked about the bike everytime i ride it, but the decals are stealth and you cant see what it is. i asked parlee to send me some frame decals so i can represent, and they did, but they were all miscellaneous and too big for a bike frame. see the rz7 thread for weights, etc. the speed shields are cool, but the countersunk holes are prone to splitting. very torque sensitive. they really need a metal boss pressed in them, or they need to be thicker. i ended up finally leaving them off, though parlee was kind enough to send me a new set. and their support in general is VERY good, btw. really super people that work there.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=156437&hilit=rz7&start=45

Image
Image

mikemelbrooks
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:58 pm

by mikemelbrooks

Alastair2308 wrote:
Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:24 pm
mrlobber wrote:
Sat Feb 11, 2023 10:48 am
Alastair2308 wrote:
Sat Feb 11, 2023 9:16 am
Still a few bikes I would like would like to see tested.

I haven't seen anything for the new Orbea Orca Aero.
I would also like to see testing for the Parlee RZ7. Especially with those speed shield things over the calipers.
The Orca Aero (the new one, with that downtube box) was here a while back. Something like 212...215W if I recall.

The Parlee likely won't be relevant, unfortunately, especially with the recent news of the company's problems.
Yeah I heard about Parlee's problems. Sad. But in still curious simply from an educational point of view.

I have read this thread through and through all 80 odd pages. I haven't seen any mention of the new Orca Aero. Although if those results are correct that seems a bit slow to me. Because it's a very good looking and fast looking frame.

I guess I am curious about these bikes because both the Parlee and the Orca Aero were options I was looking at when I was in the market for my frameset and just want to compare it to what I bought. .Ultimately I settled on my Felt (which is ALMOST ready just waiting on the last few bits in the mail)

Those Parlee speed shields. I wonder if something like those could be 3D printed. Anyone tried anything like that?
There was a guy in the UK making disc caliper covers from Carbon fibre.

cajer
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:26 am

by cajer

Could you share a link to the caliper covers. I'm curious

cberg
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:30 am

by cberg

spartacus wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:21 pm
I feel like if someone was really motivated to analyze their position they should use the Chung method or something instead of relying on whatever "looks" aero while you're on a stationary trainer. But if there are glaring issues with the position they're possibly visible.
Eyeballing it can be a good way to get a decent starting point, to then use better methods to optimize with smaller adjustments

spartacus
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

by spartacus

cberg wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:54 am
spartacus wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:21 pm
I feel like if someone was really motivated to analyze their position they should use the Chung method or something instead of relying on whatever "looks" aero while you're on a stationary trainer. But if there are glaring issues with the position they're possibly visible.
Eyeballing it can be a good way to get a decent starting point, to then use better methods to optimize with smaller adjustments
What can you see by looking? Someone needs to get lower and narrower? If you assume you'll have to get lower and narrower to be more aero then I'm not sure what anyone can tell you that's helpful, other than maybe your helmet is bad? Frooming your elbows out too much?

Curious what you guys would be looking for.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 3665
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

tmrace wrote:
Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:52 pm
spdntrxi wrote:
Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:02 am
SL7 was I think 210
Aeroad was 204
New Scott Foil 206
New Giant Propel 209
BMC TimeMachine 210
2022 Cervelo S5 was 205
2023 Cervelo S5=???
I have not seen a number for Gen7 Madone yet
From what I'm understanding here the number for the new Scott Foil was measured with the 454. Did Tour release a number with the control 404 wheelset too?

I don't want to reopen the 454 vs 404 debate we all know the 454 is slower, I just want to see how the Scott stacks up with the regular 404 wheelset if Tour tested that.
I've found on Merida's page Reacto had tested 209W in 2021 - can someone confirm that? any idea what wheels was used? :noidea:
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



otnemem
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:55 am

by otnemem

naavt wrote:
Sun Feb 12, 2023 8:49 pm
I see the interest in this thread (essentially because I'm kinda of a number's geek), but I entirely agree with the ones who said this is ultimately ridiculous, since Tour Mag is comparing oranges with apples.

Let's look at Look for instance! 795 comes with a bar/stem combo and everybody already agreed that an Aero integrated will save some 5 to 6 watts. Where does that put Look and other bikes like that one for instance?
Tour Mag gives you data. The alternative is no data which, for me, is a worse alternative.

If everybody already agreed that an Aero integrated bar/stem combo saves 5 to 6W, then that puts the 795 at the figure Tour came up with, then plus/minus 5 or 6W depending on the comparison.

Post Reply