You're probably thinking of the Chung-on-a-stick, though I believe Zipp has indicated they've used something similar mounted to riders' bikes to get a wind profile for some courses and optimize their rim shapes around those apparent wind angles.

For all of this "may not be applicable in the real world" talk, you guys are aware that field testing is a thing and that it does show correlation with wind tunnel testing right? http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/how-aero-is-aero You can even do it yourself with a power meter!

Nobody is saying that you'll cruise around with a static 30W savings at all times, that would be ridiculous, but there are times where you will have a substantial gain from improved aerodynamics from a frame, wheels, kit, etc. like out on a break away, if you're taking a turn pulling into the wind, etc.

Of course there are tradeoffs, and those have to be weighed for each race, but the bikes absolutely have a place in the quiver of a rider's available tools to help them. And so what if there's only a marginal gain at times? The light 6.8kg bike would make even less of a difference in a flat 200m sprint than something even moderately more aerodynamic. Up a hill, protected in a pack, or where comfort may play a bigger role? don't bring it out then. They may not be the right choice for those of us who can only have one bike (like myself), but if you have easy access to it, why wouldn't you consider it as an option for those days when the race/ride plan will have use for it.

The one thing I do like about slowtwitch is that they're willing to say "show me the data" and consider the conclusions that come from it. Here it's "show me the data; no not that data, it conflicts with my strongly held, but ultimately baseless beliefs."

Those in favour come in, for the most part, with tests.

Those against (and you can read back and see it) normally begin their post with "I believe" or "in my opinion"...

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis

In God we trust, all others bring data.

ras11 wrote:
im under the impression it worked the other way around: the deeper wheel is faster at greater angles, as the air that comes from the left, passes just in front of the wheel and tries to suck back to the right side of the wheel, has more distance to try to reconnect with the rim before missing the trailing edge. and that at very shallow angles, skin friction, which of course is higher on a 1080 (it has much more skin), plays an overall larger role, reducing its advantage compared to shallower rims.
imo in windy conditions, you ride the deepest wheels you can keep straight (tight group riding would be a slightly different issue of course).
i looked for clear data, ive seen it before but i couldnt find it, besides an old zipp one that compared the 808 to the disc. the disc worked for a much greater yaw range, but since it was a complete disc and not a rim with spokes, i thought it would be too dissimilar to mention.

No I'm saying that data conflicts with the data from Top Velo's wind tunnel tests and from my experience of riding aero WITH a power meter. It exaggerates the gains from what I can see and ignores the losses. That makes it misleading - but highly useful to marketing teams at multinationals.

Link to the top velo test? Or at least a description of their testing protocol? I can find nothing on their site or on the web.

I just posted a link showing a very strong correlation between wind tunnel testing and real world testing and you didn't attempt to even address it (thus making my statement you quoted all the more true). Here it with more analysis.

 

[quote="BeeSeeBee"]Link to the top velo test? Or at least a description of their testing protocol? I can find nothing on their site or on the web.

I just posted a link showing a very strong correlation between wind tunnel testing and real world testing and you didn't attempt to even address it (thus making my statement you quoted all the more true). Here it with more analysis.

This pdf from Specialized and Steve Hed makes a believer out of me!

Hi Caley...as much fun as it is to talk about the aerodynamic results (these are AERO road bikes, after all) and whether or not the "gains" are truly "realizable", I was hoping we could discuss your stiffness testing results from this test. It seems to me that there's not a very good correlation between the rankings based on your stiffness testing rig protocol and the subjective rankings for comfort, handling and "acceleration". Is it possible you guys aren't quite measuring what you think you're measuring?...and have you thought about possibly changing the test setup? IIRC, you state that the "stiffness" (as measured by the rig) of the 4 frames in the current review were higher than the stiffest one in the last test (the Ridley Noah, I believe) and yet you found the Ridley to be subjectively "too stiff" in actual riding, right?

A couple of things I can think of right away is: Shouldn't the rider weight also be placed on the rig? Does the front fork mount adequately reflect the real boundary condition, or does it unduly constrain at that point...you know, stuff like that?

Have you guys ever considered instrumenting up a road frame with strain gages and gathering "in the field" data on the actual load cases in order to drive a better simulation of those loadings in the testing rigs?

Can't take these reviews serious when they don't include at least two bikes which have been readily available for awhile now, the Venge and S5. No Canyon Aero, Kuota etc...bikes they are ridden by teams in the Pro Peloton currently. Maybe they just aren't available though for a company to test. But the S5 and Venge certainly are.

But hey, what did I expect, I didn't pay for a magazine or anything.

The Venge has been reviewed by various publications across Europe with decidedly mixed results.

It's hard not to notice that the top speed merchant at Cervelo rides an R3 and Boonen is happily winning on various non aero frames. Cavendish continues to rack up the results deprived of his Venge and there is to date nothing to suggest that the adoption of an aero frame is of any benefit except in very particular circumstances.

i think it's the riders making the frame go fast, rather than the frame making those riders go fast.

Huh? It seems to me that Mr. Zabriskie is a BIG fan of the S5.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpHw9hFqx24&feature=player_embedded

Boonen was on the new proto roubaix for the classics; it's my understanding that going forward he will return to the Venge.

Anyway, I think the saying "there is to date nothing to suggest... is of any benefit except in very particular circumstances" is ridiculous. There are loads of tests that "suggest" that aero frames are beneficial.

I think more correctly you could say, though aerodynamic testing demonstrates a benefit, people retain doubt about how those benefits play out in the large amount of variables that is bicycle racing. It's less about demonstration of benefit and application to real world; and more about pack cycling races, tactics, etc.

Though, I think you'd have to be a fool to just assume that the 20 watt solo real world tested and wind tunnel demonstrated advantage magically disappears.

Correct.

_________________
Exp001

Isn't it both? For example, I beat people in races (TTs, crits, whatever...) who I KNOW put out more power than I do. How does that happen?