Bianchi Oltre RC 2023

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

Moderator: robbosmans

Post Reply
Singular
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:59 am

by Singular

For all things relevant even in amateur racing, 45 kph is a great benchmark.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



justkeepedaling
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

CarlosTheJackal wrote:
Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:28 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:56 pm
RDY wrote:
Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:03 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Fri Oct 21, 2022 8:18 pm


Hambini doesn't know what he's talking about. But the benefit for a feature like that is both structural and aero, at least in Cervelo's implementation. Cleans up the airflow over the toptube and helps the flow follow that contour instead of going into the rider legs
I think he does. Any gain is likely to be so small as to be unmeasurable in real world transient conditions. Particularly on this where it's so much higher than the top tube (even if there is a 'ramp').
huh? You know how airflow goes? It travels from high pressure to low. If it remotely reduces wake that would otherwise hit the legs, it's beneficial. And at no "cost" other than aesthetics. So you might as well do it.

Every instance where transient conditions is mentioned, essentially quasi-steady has shown to be a reasonable ranking methodology. The absolute drag values may vary, but not enough to change which bikes, wheels, and components are measurably fastest.

There is nothing on a bike that has as unsteady flow field as a leading edge ice horn, or a F1 turned front wheel, yet we still model and test those conditions in tunnels and in CFD, to great effect
This theory doesn't seem to work well when the rider is going relatively slowly. The tests are often carried out at 50kph. Who does 50kph? Answer Ganna in a velodrome on a TT bike with a skin suit, custom handlebars, no gears and no brakes.
You never ride in wind? 35 kph in a 15 kph headwind gets you at 50 kph right then and there. I daily descend at 70 kph multiple times. PS, tests are usually conducted at 45 kph and it does not "discredit" aero. It is simply a measure to help show statistical significant differences in the experiment. There is nothing physically different between 30 kph and 50 kph, they're still in a low Reynold's number range. The advantage of aero is still there and greater than 100 grams saved off a frame in the vast majority of ride cases

User avatar
Stendhal
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:43 am
Location: Silicon Valley

by Stendhal

According to Cycling News, the UCI stated in an e mail to the publication that it deems the air deflectors illegal (outside UCI rules). If true, oops.
Cannondale Supersixevo 4 (7.05 kg)
Retired: Chapter2, Tarmac SWorks SL6, Orbea, Dogma F8\F10, LOW, Wilier, Ridley Noah, Cervelo R3\R5\S2\Aspero, Time Fluidity, Lapierre Pulsium, Cyfac, Felt, Klein, Cannondale pre-CAAD aluminum

User avatar
eucalyptus
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:51 am
Location: Sweden

by eucalyptus

Stendhal wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:26 pm
According to Cycling News, the UCI stated in an e mail to the publication that it deems the air deflectors illegal (outside UCI rules). If true, oops.
Bianchi knew this already hence why they are bolted on with a screw to take off for the pros while the peasants will use it and be the quickest chap on the street :D 8)

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

by spartacus

The vents are borderline unforgivable especially if they knew they're illegal.

RDY
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:31 pm

by RDY

justkeepedaling wrote:
Mon Oct 24, 2022 5:31 am
CarlosTheJackal wrote:
Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:28 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:56 pm
RDY wrote:
Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:03 pm


I think he does. Any gain is likely to be so small as to be unmeasurable in real world transient conditions. Particularly on this where it's so much higher than the top tube (even if there is a 'ramp').
huh? You know how airflow goes? It travels from high pressure to low. If it remotely reduces wake that would otherwise hit the legs, it's beneficial. And at no "cost" other than aesthetics. So you might as well do it.

Every instance where transient conditions is mentioned, essentially quasi-steady has shown to be a reasonable ranking methodology. The absolute drag values may vary, but not enough to change which bikes, wheels, and components are measurably fastest.

There is nothing on a bike that has as unsteady flow field as a leading edge ice horn, or a F1 turned front wheel, yet we still model and test those conditions in tunnels and in CFD, to great effect
This theory doesn't seem to work well when the rider is going relatively slowly. The tests are often carried out at 50kph. Who does 50kph? Answer Ganna in a velodrome on a TT bike with a skin suit, custom handlebars, no gears and no brakes.
You never ride in wind? 35 kph in a 15 kph headwind gets you at 50 kph right then and there. I daily descend at 70 kph multiple times. PS, tests are usually conducted at 45 kph and it does not "discredit" aero. It is simply a measure to help show statistical significant differences in the experiment. There is nothing physically different between 30 kph and 50 kph, they're still in a low Reynold's number range. The advantage of aero is still there and greater than 100 grams saved off a frame in the vast majority of ride cases
I guess you ride in a completely featureless, barren salt pan that stretches to the horizons, with little turbulence. For virtually everybody else, a 15kmh headwind is going to be nothing like the set of conditions you're pretending that it implies.

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

by spartacus

RDY wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:45 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Mon Oct 24, 2022 5:31 am
CarlosTheJackal wrote:
Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:28 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:56 pm


huh? You know how airflow goes? It travels from high pressure to low. If it remotely reduces wake that would otherwise hit the legs, it's beneficial. And at no "cost" other than aesthetics. So you might as well do it.

Every instance where transient conditions is mentioned, essentially quasi-steady has shown to be a reasonable ranking methodology. The absolute drag values may vary, but not enough to change which bikes, wheels, and components are measurably fastest.

There is nothing on a bike that has as unsteady flow field as a leading edge ice horn, or a F1 turned front wheel, yet we still model and test those conditions in tunnels and in CFD, to great effect
This theory doesn't seem to work well when the rider is going relatively slowly. The tests are often carried out at 50kph. Who does 50kph? Answer Ganna in a velodrome on a TT bike with a skin suit, custom handlebars, no gears and no brakes.
You never ride in wind? 35 kph in a 15 kph headwind gets you at 50 kph right then and there. I daily descend at 70 kph multiple times. PS, tests are usually conducted at 45 kph and it does not "discredit" aero. It is simply a measure to help show statistical significant differences in the experiment. There is nothing physically different between 30 kph and 50 kph, they're still in a low Reynold's number range. The advantage of aero is still there and greater than 100 grams saved off a frame in the vast majority of ride cases
I guess you ride in a completely featureless, barren salt pan that stretches to the horizons, with little turbulence. For virtually everybody else, a 15kmh headwind is going to be nothing like the set of conditions you're pretending that it implies.
OK dude I'm calling you out. What are you saying? That aero gains aren't real? They don't work in real life? Wind doesn't increase the effective air speed? Turbulence cancels out aerodynamics (lol)?

RDY
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:31 pm

by RDY

spartacus wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:01 pm
RDY wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:45 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Mon Oct 24, 2022 5:31 am
CarlosTheJackal wrote:
Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:28 pm


This theory doesn't seem to work well when the rider is going relatively slowly. The tests are often carried out at 50kph. Who does 50kph? Answer Ganna in a velodrome on a TT bike with a skin suit, custom handlebars, no gears and no brakes.
You never ride in wind? 35 kph in a 15 kph headwind gets you at 50 kph right then and there. I daily descend at 70 kph multiple times. PS, tests are usually conducted at 45 kph and it does not "discredit" aero. It is simply a measure to help show statistical significant differences in the experiment. There is nothing physically different between 30 kph and 50 kph, they're still in a low Reynold's number range. The advantage of aero is still there and greater than 100 grams saved off a frame in the vast majority of ride cases
I guess you ride in a completely featureless, barren salt pan that stretches to the horizons, with little turbulence. For virtually everybody else, a 15kmh headwind is going to be nothing like the set of conditions you're pretending that it implies.
OK dude I'm calling you out. What are you saying? That aero gains aren't real? They don't work in real life? Wind doesn't increase the effective air speed? Turbulence cancels out aerodynamics (lol)?
No, that hokum like head tube air deflectors (which I doubt work in an ideal state) and the manta mouth in the bars lead to any measurable gain in real world conditions. They don't - categorically.

RDY
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:31 pm

by RDY

Stendhal wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:26 pm
According to Cycling News, the UCI stated in an e mail to the publication that it deems the air deflectors illegal (outside UCI rules). If true, oops.
How are people this naive? It's absolutely a deliberate part of the marketing. It doesn't work - at all. But it's a cheap stick on which they can successfully market as being UCI illegal to the muppets who'll consider buying it. This is a prime example of marketing led tech. Almost guaranteed that marketing came up with the initial concept - a stick on feature that would be UCI-illegal which they could then leverage to get people who don't know better to buy it because they think (wrongly) it will make them faster.

Cemicar
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:40 am

by Cemicar

Stendhal wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:26 pm
According to Cycling News, the UCI stated in an e mail to the publication that it deems the air deflectors illegal (outside UCI rules). If true, oops.
But what's the fuss. They don't sponsor even a UCI pro team (though things may be different in 2023), or does this forum have so many rider who race in UCI-sanctioned events?

Brands like MAVIC and Cervelo have intendedly released something UCI illegal, but such attempts may make the industry slightly progress. After all, the most aero race is triathlon.

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

RDY wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:22 pm
Stendhal wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:26 pm
According to Cycling News, the UCI stated in an e mail to the publication that it deems the air deflectors illegal (outside UCI rules). If true, oops.
How are people this naive? It's absolutely a deliberate part of the marketing. It doesn't work - at all. But it's a cheap stick on which they can successfully market as being UCI illegal to the muppets who'll consider buying it. This is a prime example of marketing led tech. Almost guaranteed that marketing came up with the initial concept - a stick on feature that would be UCI-illegal which they could then leverage to get people who don't know better to buy it because they think (wrongly) it will make them faster.
I didn't even read Bianchi's statements on the deflectors and right away figured out it was using the F1 side mirror aerodynamics concept to reduce drag.

But hey, aero features on F1 cars are all about marketing.

Also, what in the world are you saying regarding wind speed and relative freestream velocity? Do you even understand that when you moan that you can't ride at 50 kph?

robeambro
Posts: 1829
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

I wish modern aero bikes focused on "making aero comfortable and easy", narrow bars made for best ergonomics in aggressive positions (eg sphinx, drops), relatively good comfort without having to resort to 30c+ tyres, storage solutions to avoid using saddle bags, practical aero water bottles.. The fastest bike for amateurs will be the one that allows you to stay aero the longest and the one that is the most aero once you've put all of your gps mount and unit, bottles and possibly spares on the bike.

Instead what we get is a "wind tunnel race" where all brands aim to make a bike that is a smidge faster at 45km/h in a laboratory. Think about this Oltre - they tout the advantages of the cockpit but what happens when you add a GPS unit there (and where can you even put it)?

RadB
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:24 am

by RadB

justkeepedaling wrote:
Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:01 am
RDY wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:22 pm
Stendhal wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:26 pm
According to Cycling News, the UCI stated in an e mail to the publication that it deems the air deflectors illegal (outside UCI rules). If true, oops.
How are people this naive? It's absolutely a deliberate part of the marketing. It doesn't work - at all. But it's a cheap stick on which they can successfully market as being UCI illegal to the muppets who'll consider buying it. This is a prime example of marketing led tech. Almost guaranteed that marketing came up with the initial concept - a stick on feature that would be UCI-illegal which they could then leverage to get people who don't know better to buy it because they think (wrongly) it will make them faster.
I didn't even read Bianchi's statements on the deflectors and right away figured out it was using the F1 side mirror aerodynamics concept to reduce drag.

But hey, aero features on F1 cars are all about marketing.

Also, what in the world are you saying regarding wind speed and relative freestream velocity? Do you even understand that when you moan that you can't ride at 50 kph?
No one is doubting the theory, it's the microscopic scale, relatively slowww application and dubious benefits shrouded in marketing bs that makes any real world benefit questionable if not unquantifiable. Look into the probe setups required to accurately measure the pressure differential in models for these arrangements, yeah not sure. If another brand did it, it would potentially be taken more seriously as a concept, even just as a concept, than this particular one jumping the shark and riding the coat tails of past glory and pastel pantones, for which it is just a matter of time before it is a meme.

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

robeambro wrote:
Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:53 am
I wish modern aero bikes focused on "making aero comfortable and easy", narrow bars made for best ergonomics in aggressive positions (eg sphinx, drops), relatively good comfort without having to resort to 30c+ tyres, storage solutions to avoid using saddle bags, practical aero water bottles.. The fastest bike for amateurs will be the one that allows you to stay aero the longest and the one that is the most aero once you've put all of your gps mount and unit, bottles and possibly spares on the bike.

Instead what we get is a "wind tunnel race" where all brands aim to make a bike that is a smidge faster at 45km/h in a laboratory. Think about this Oltre - they tout the advantages of the cockpit but what happens when you add a GPS unit there (and where can you even put it)?
They do that. It's called a tri bike

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

RadB wrote:
Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:23 pm
justkeepedaling wrote:
Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:01 am
RDY wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:22 pm
Stendhal wrote:
Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:26 pm
According to Cycling News, the UCI stated in an e mail to the publication that it deems the air deflectors illegal (outside UCI rules). If true, oops.
How are people this naive? It's absolutely a deliberate part of the marketing. It doesn't work - at all. But it's a cheap stick on which they can successfully market as being UCI illegal to the muppets who'll consider buying it. This is a prime example of marketing led tech. Almost guaranteed that marketing came up with the initial concept - a stick on feature that would be UCI-illegal which they could then leverage to get people who don't know better to buy it because they think (wrongly) it will make them faster.
I didn't even read Bianchi's statements on the deflectors and right away figured out it was using the F1 side mirror aerodynamics concept to reduce drag.

But hey, aero features on F1 cars are all about marketing.

Also, what in the world are you saying regarding wind speed and relative freestream velocity? Do you even understand that when you moan that you can't ride at 50 kph?
No one is doubting the theory, it's the microscopic scale, relatively slowww application and dubious benefits shrouded in marketing bs that makes any real world benefit questionable if not unquantifiable. Look into the probe setups required to accurately measure the pressure differential in models for these arrangements, yeah not sure. If another brand did it, it would potentially be taken more seriously as a concept, even just as a concept, than this particular one jumping the shark and riding the coat tails of past glory and pastel pantones, for which it is just a matter of time before it is a meme.
They don't use probes for pressure differential on the frame in the tunnel, unless you're talking about the aero probes being used for outdoor riding.

As far as other brands, Cervelo S5 and Simplon Pride II both have split stems and are amongst the most aero bikes out there. Nobody has done the air deflectors, but somebody has to be the first mover. It was a recent development in F1 to begin with, introduced only in 2018.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Post Reply