[Lombard]

I get lit up a lot because too many people posting here are incapable of having a debate without taking disagreement personally.

Pot meet kettle. Rather than admit you may be wrong when everybody here told you why you are wrong, you double down and insist you are right, but don't have anything on your side to back it up. This has happened on multiple threads you have started.

You are either a troll or a masochist.

Do you know a guy named ASFOS?

 

[tomato coupe]

I don’t dispute those results (but it’d be helpful if I knew what CdA was). What I dispute is the significance of the results - ie the extrapolation of it to more speed in a bicycle race.

I have little interest in this debate, but you owe me a new keyboard after that post. (I spit coffee all over it.)

 

[frdfandc]

Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.

Typical doctor stupidity who thinks he knows everything about bicycle engineering. Useless drivel that would be skewered by any legitimate engineer.

 

[Waspinator]

Pot meet kettle. Rather than admit you may be wrong when everybody here told you why you are wrong, you double down and insist you are right, but don't have anything on your side to back it up. This has happened on multiple threads you have started.

You are either a troll or a masochist.

Do you know a guy named ASFOS?

I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.

But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.

 

[cxwrench]

I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.

But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.

What isn't good enough about the load of info that's been posted here? We all know it's your ignorance that's the problem here, but I'll play along. What kind of 'evidence' do you want?

 

[asgelle]

I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.

But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.

How can we do that if we don't speak the same language? You admit you don't know what CdA is and have no interest to learn. That's the same as saying you refuse to look at the evidence; yet you continue asking for for proof you're wrong.

 

[cxwrench]

How can we do that if we don't speak the same language? You admit you don't know what CdA is and have no interest to learn. That's the same as saying you refuse to look at the evidence; yet you continue asking for for proof you're wrong.

I forgot about that...there's no way to supply facts when he has no ability to make sense of them.

 

[exracer]

How can we do that if we don't speak the same language? You admit you don't know what CdA is and have no interest to learn. That's the same as saying you refuse to look at the evidence; yet you continue asking for for proof you're wrong.

Haven't you heard? Facts/proof is fake news if it doesn't support your position. Some pseudo fact/proof BS is 100% correct if it supports your position.

 

[velodog]

I forgot about that...there's no way to supply facts when he has no ability to make sense of them.

All ya gotta do is agree with him, that'll make sense to him.

 

[velodog]

dr. waspinater some reading material, if you're interested.

Cycling Power Lab

 

[asgelle]

Haven't you heard? Facts/proof is fake news if it doesn't support your position. Some pseudo fact/proof BS is 100% correct if it supports your position.

You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

 

[tlg]

I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.

But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.

You are utterly completely full of s#it. You've been destroyed in this thread (and others) and you have nothing, not one shred of fact to support your uninformed made up opinion.

Talking with you is like talking to an anti vaxxer who doesn't even know what a virus is.

Your opinion is worthless.

 

[exracer]

You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

Well somebody had better explain that to Waspinator and the prez and use small words and a flow chart.

I thought I had provided a reasonable solution to inquiry in a previous post. I offered that if didn't like the answers he was getting here then perhaps he should send out emails to Colnago, Pinarello and Specialized. Between the 3 of them, you have ? what? over 100 years of bike/frame building experience. I'd say that makes them slightly qualified on the subject. When I made the post it only dealt with titanium frames but they are also fully qualified to speak on the aero subject as well.

Shockingly he didn't take me up on that. Big surprise. What a killjoy that would be if you got an answer you didn't like and it pretty much matched what everyone else was saying here. Suck all the air out of the room. Put an end to standing on a ridiculous position and arguing pointlessly for over 200 posts.

 

[Lombard]

I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.

But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.

But you don't want to do any research yourself. You just want to cry that you think you are right and everybody else is wrong. Even if we spoonfeed you, you still won't believe any of us.

 

[Lombard]

Well somebody had better explain that to Waspinator and the prez and use small words and a flow chart.

You beat me to it.

 

[masont]

Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.

The pedaling rider on the bicycles is a gargantuan confounding factor... especially when you’re talking about a one second difference over the course of a km. If you think his movement would be identical on both bicycles, you’re nuts. Even if the drive trains were identical, you’d be nuts. (Granted, to their credit, they did acknowledge that the drivetrains were different).

The proper way to study this would be to have a static object on the frames representing the rider (eg a rider or a dummy), and blow wind at these things at increasing velocities (up to the maximum speed a rider may propel a bicycle) and measure the force of the drag. This should be done repeatedly, with the rider in different positions each time (eg pedals mid-stroke or at 3 and 9 o’clock, hands in hoods, hands in drops, etc). Drag forces should be measured for each velocity and each rider position. But having some bald-headed twirp get on a bike and pedal into the wind is a surefire way to introduce error and skew results.

I've been in that wind tunnel running tests with a Stanford PhD in computational fluid dynamics and a MIT educated Engineer who do this for a living. If you think you're coming up with anything they haven't come up with, you're drastically overestimating your own ability even more than I thought you were. I'm sure you can write cialis prescriptions and tell people to exercise and drink more water, but you're out of your depth in this discussion, and you'd be well served to be as humble as you'd like one of us to be in your office with a patient. You are an expert in your world. You are clearly not an expert in this world.

Also it is a tip that nobody gives a rip what the aero properties are without a rider on it, unless you know of bike races that don't have riders on the bikes.

 

[asgelle]

Also it is a tip that nobody gives a rip what the aero properties are without a rider on it, unless you know of bike races that don't have riders on the bikes.

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that aero bicycle design has reached a level of maturity where design of a bare frame and a fully built bicycle have been pretty well optimized so the next frontier is to improve designs based on bike rider interactions. But it's still possible to see gross differences in performance between bikes even without a rider. It's true there are examples where the relative performance of super aero frames changes from bare bike to bike+rider, but the differences are small both before and after the rider is on board. If even moderate differences are seen between bare bikes, it's unlikely the relative performance will change when they are compared with riders present.

I suspect that most development testing progresses from bare frame to fully built bike to bike+rider because that would go from the cleanest data that could be taken quickly, to noisier but more accurate data that takes more wind tunnel time. One caveat is the extent that this might be short circuited by CFD modeling. Sophisticated CFD could replace most or all of the first two steps.

 

[rideit]

I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.

But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.

This is precisely the flat-earther screed.

 

[Akirasho]

OK, someone catch me up. Why is this thread still growing???

 

[Waspinator]

How can we do that if we don't speak the same language? You admit you don't know what CdA is and have no interest to learn. That's the same as saying you refuse to look at the evidence; yet you continue asking for for proof you're wrong.

Not being familiar with an abbreviation isn't the same thing as not knowing what something is. And yes, I looked it up, and yes, I know what drag coefficient is. Just haven't seen it written as CdA before.