[velodog]

No, he's got skin in the game. His first post:

Clearly trying to justify his purchase was the most awesomest. (Even though he'll never ride it in the pro peloton)

You misunderstood me, I'm the one with no skin in the game.

As far as his purchase=his awesome, well sure, just as my purchase=my awesome. But that don't make my steel rando bike faster than a crabon aero bike.

 

[tlg]

You misunderstood me, I'm the one with no skin in the game.

As far as his purchase=his awesome, well sure, just as my purchase=my awesome. But that don't make my steel rando bike faster than a crabon aero bike.

Ahh gotcha. Misread that.

I got no skin in the game either. Lots of bikes. None of them aero.

 

[cxwrench]

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean diddly when the sample sizes are small. If you’re going to use race results, you need dozens of races to prove the point. A few race results here and there won’t cut it. You need consistent results showing over and over that aero bikes are producing on the average better times than non-aero bikes.

But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think you’ll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.

Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.

 

[Jay Strongbow]

Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.

Or a troll.

 

[cxwrench]

Or a troll.

Very likely. He's been like this in the past IIRC.

 

[Oxtox]

Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.

oh, he's got some stiff competition over in PO...

 

[Waspinator]

Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.

Or perhaps I’m not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.

 

[tlg]

Or perhaps I’m not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.

Yet every single thing you've said is just your unsubstantiated opinion with zero facts to support it.

So I ask yet again. What do you consider negligible?

Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

 

[taodemon]

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean diddly when the sample sizes are small. If you’re going to use race results, you need dozens of races to prove the point. A few race results here and there won’t cut it. You need consistent results showing over and over that aero bikes are producing on the average better times than non-aero bikes.

But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think you’ll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.

The only one spouting nonsense anecdotal evidence is you the non engineer "physician". You are still the only one to not have found any source supporting your make believe theory that aero is negligible. Your inane ramblings don't count.

In the labs they are finding the differences aren't negligible, which is why all bikes are moving towards more aero. Some companies are just slower than others about it. They have been testing this stuff for years now in cycling alone (much much longer in aeronautics and cars). Just because you are ignorant to it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Aero makes no difference to riders like you and me. But to racers who are sustaining 25+mph, it's a big difference.

Except it does. How important that difference is completely up to you. A slower rider will save more absolute time over the same course due to spending more time riding. If saving some watts or going a bit faster on a ride isn't important to your solo riding and you are happy with your current bike there probably isn't a reason to buy an aero one. If you like going fast or need some help keeping up with faster riders it could be the difference you need. Some don't think aero bikes are comfortable, others don't like the looks, all fine reasons for not getting one, especially if you have the physical means to make up the difference, but none of that makes aero not real or BS or negligible.

 

[Waspinator]

No, he's got skin in the game. His first post:

Clearly trying to justify his purchase was the most awesomest. (Even though he'll never ride it in the pro peloton)

I also ride a carbon fiber “aero” bike too.

 

[taodemon]

I also ride a carbon fiber “aero” bike too.

Sure you do, and you must be real fast on it too like most of the other doctors and dentists.

 

[tlg]

But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think you’ll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.

Key words... YOU THINK.
You have no evidence. No knowledge. Just made up thoughts.

What do you consider negligible?

Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

[/QUOTE]

 

[cxwrench]

Or perhaps I’m not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.

You have not posted anything other than 'I feel' and 'it seems'...while some others have posted videos and graphics describing legitimate testing time and time again. The have posted substantial evidence while you have posted none. Congratulations on joining the troll elite.

 

[taodemon]

Key words... YOU THINK.
You have no evidence. No knowledge. Just made up thoughts.

What do you consider negligible?

Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

At this point I think it is fairly safe to assume he likely has no idea what that even means. All that counts is the nonsense he keeps going on about anyways. His uninformed opinion is more valid than years of engineering and aerodynamics research done by real engineers.

 

[Lombard]

Or a troll.

:7::9:

Remember this beauty?

https://forums.roadbikereview.com/g...-vastly-superior-design-thru-axle-360883.html

 

[Waspinator]

You have not posted anything other than 'I feel' and 'it seems'...while some others have posted videos and graphics describing legitimate testing time and time again. The have posted substantial evidence while you have posted none. Congratulations on joining the troll elite.

Oh, out comes the “troll” accusation. That was fast!

Look dude... people have better things to do with their time than study bicycle aerodynamics. The only people who would bother to spend any time (and money) on it would be, you guessed it, bike manufacturers who have something to sell. You know what we do in medicine with studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and product manufacturers? We toss them. Actually, we read them, discuss them at the fancy dinners and lunches, and then ignore them and go on about our business, directed by independent studies by people who have no stake in a given product.

So yeah, it would be awfully hard for me to find a well-designed, independent, peer-reviewed study in the glorious and popular field of bicycle aerodynamics. Nobody but people selling bikes (or in business with people selling bikes) gives a hoot about the topic. So all we have are studies like the ones in the video: flawed and misguided.

 

[Waspinator]

Yet every single thing you've said is just your unsubstantiated opinion with zero facts to support it.

So I ask yet again. What do you consider negligible?

Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

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.

Lighter bicycles. Stiffer frames. Better drivetrains. Better wheels. And likely better athletes have produced the faster times we see today. But to say that aerodynamics of a bicycle frame (which has a very small total surface area and aerodynamic cross sectional area) makes an appreciable difference when you have a large clunky human being on top of it with his chest forward into the wind simply flies in the face of reason and common sense.

Would you make this claim about frame aerodynamics if the rider were the size of a gorilla? An elephant? See my point?

 

[tlg]

Oh, out comes the “troll” accusation. That was fast!

Fast? It's been 170 posts. None of which you've provided any proof to your claims.

So yeah, it would be awfully hard for me to find a well-designed, independent, peer-reviewed study in the glorious and popular field of bicycle aerodynamics. Nobody but people selling bikes (or in business with people selling bikes) gives a hoot about the topic. So all we have are studies like the ones in the video: flawed and misguided.

That's a crock of $#it.. Just proving yet again you have utterly no clue what you're talking about There's lots of independent facilities doing wind tunnel testing.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1344-wind-tunnel-testing-of-cyclists

https://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/An_independent_aero_super_bike_test__6309.html
Slowtwitch forum member Kiley Austin-Young crowd raised money to test various super bikes in the A2 Wind Tunnel with AeroCamp mavens Heath Dotson and Brian Stover. Jimmy Seear of Ventum and Dan Kennison of Premier Tactical were also there to assist and have their bikes tested. Geoff Eaker of A2 ran all the tests and slowtwitcher BryanD assisted in various ways. Bikes tested were Felt B2, Premier Tactical, Cervelo P5X, Cervelo P5/6, Diamondback Andean and Ventum One.


(Maybe you could rent a wind tunnel and do some testing. Prove us wrong. Come to think of it, if what you say is true, why hasn't this been done? Should be easy and make someone really rich and famous debunking every single bicycle manufactuter)

 

[tlg]

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.

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

You don't even know what CdA is and YOU are disputing the significance of the results. WOWWWWW. To bad you don't know how stupid what you just said sounds.

 

[Marc]

Oh, out comes the “troll” accusation. That was fast!

Look dude... people have better things to do with their time than study bicycle aerodynamics. The only people who would bother to spend any time (and money) on it would be, you guessed it, bike manufacturers who have something to sell. You know what we do in medicine with studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and product manufacturers? We toss them. Actually, we read them, discuss them at the fancy dinners and lunches, and then ignore them and go on about our business, directed by independent studies by people who have no stake in a given product.

So yeah, it would be awfully hard for me to find a well-designed, independent, peer-reviewed study in the glorious and popular field of bicycle aerodynamics. Nobody but people selling bikes (or in business with people selling bikes) gives a hoot about the topic. So all we have are studies like the ones in the video: flawed and misguided.

Not really....took 3 days of non-stop idiocy on your part and 176 posts. So, it really was overdue.