Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

121 - 140 of 277 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,316 Posts
Show me a study demonstrating the significance of aerodynamics of the bicycle itself in anything but time trials. And I’m talking about the aerodynamics of the frame, and not the wheels, not the rider positioning, etc. Just the frame.
Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance. :rolleyes:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance. :rolleyes:

Less than a minute of gains over a 25 mile ride is significant?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance. :rolleyes:
And that is still the first gen venge, which isn't nearly as aero as any of the current generation aero bikes. Their current "lightweight" bike is just as aero as that so while there might be some companies still making top-end bikes that aren't aero that that isn't the trend. And in the case of Pinarello their top end is only available in aero.

Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.
Because they make their money from consumers which aren't limited by uci regulations that might have use for a super light weight bikes on terrain that the benefits of aero are outweight by weight (7+% climbs).

Eventually I see most companies going the way of Pinarello with one bike that is both light weight and aero.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,521 Posts
Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.

For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.
That may or may not be the case, but plenty of "average joes" are spending their money on those numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.

For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.
Amateur racers devote hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars to their racing. Who are you to say their results shouldn't matter to them.

The point isn't that the difference should matter to everyone. The point is that the difference is measurable and is very significant to many.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.

For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.
Not really, it could be the difference in getting dropped or not on a ride with stronger riders. On a century it might mean you aren't as destroyed at the end. While it might not be a matter of winning and losing for us it still has appreciable benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter #134 (Edited)
So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:
Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance. :rolleyes:

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,316 Posts
Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.
So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.


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). But having some bald-headed twirp get on a bike and pedal into the wind is a surefire way to introduce bias and skew results.
Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this?

FYI... riding a bike isn't static.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Apparently a BS in aeronautics/mechanical engineering + M.S. aeronautics + PhD in aeronautics doesn't make you a legitimate engineer.

You should really see about that lobotomy. You could even do it to yourself being a physician and all.:rolleyes:

So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.


Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this?

FYI... riding a bike isn't static.
His "proper" way is about as flawed a way of testing as it gets. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter #137
So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:
So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.


Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this?

FYI... riding a bike isn't static.
When you’re familiar with scientific method, eliminating big confounding factors like that becomes common sense.

Yes, I realize that riding a bike isn’t static. But since I doubt Honda would loan their Asimo robot for such a test, the next best way would be to test wind resistance with the static rider in various stages of pedal stroke.

The upshot is that easily 15-20 different measurements for each frame would have to be taken, at different rider positions at different velocities.

The experiment in the video posted here was comically bad, and is, unfortunately, what the bicycle industry considers to be “research”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,316 Posts
When you’re familiar with scientific method, eliminating big confounding factors like that becomes common sense.

Yes, I realize that riding a bike isn’t static. But since I doubt Honda would loan their Asimo robot for such a test, the next best way would be to test wind resistance with the static rider in various stages of pedal stroke.

The upshot is that easily 15-20 different measurements for each frame would have to be taken, at different rider positions at different velocities.

The experiment in the video posted here was comically bad, and is, unfortunately, what the bicycle industry considers to be “research”.
STILL waiting for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who agree with you.

How long shall we wait? Can I go get lunch?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Apparently none of these bike companies ever thought of testing each element individually because they made one video with a bald guy on it. The rest of the time I'm sure the tunnel sits there unused.:rolleyes:

I guess engineers that have worked in F1 who then move to the cycling industry really aren't legitimate either. The only legitimate engineer/physician is wasp. :thumbsup:

I wonder if wasp is a flat earther too. :idea:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter #140
So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:
STILL waiting for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who agree with you.

How long shall we wait? Can I go get lunch?
I’m not the one making dubious claims about the importance of frame aerodynamics. Am I.
 
121 - 140 of 277 Posts
Top