Cavendish Olympic Bike

[euan]

Wiggins bike.

[afterburner]

I love all the armchair aerodynamics experts here who can make such accurate assessments of aero performance simply by looking at a photo and reading a cervelo, trek or zipp 'white paper'.

Here is a bike that was first introduced in 2002 and has been continuously refined for the last 10 years. It was not built to make money, sell x number of units per year or to drive corporate profits. It was made to give athletes the best opportunity to win gold medals.

I know this may be difficult for some people to understand but Trek's, Cervelo and other bikes are built to a price first, if engineers can find enough gains so a marketing department can convince the buying public to open their wallets then everyone wins. The UKSI was designed and built for a result, and a result only, price is an irrelevance. This means engineers have built a bike without compromises to cost (and therefore quality of input materials, CFD hours, time in the wind tunnel etc) and without the need to make a bike that a marketing department can convince the masses is desirable.

Everything on this bike is there because of performance considerations, very few other bikes can say the same.

[spud]

speaking of armchair experts....

Maybe you can opine on

1) how Wiggins and Cav ever win on inferior Pinarello bikes
2) how a frame has continuously evolved to be the best aerodynamically, all while using molds cut in 2002
3) whether they are using one set of molds across frame sizes (thus the short head tube with lots of spacers for Wiggins' bike)
4) how they used CFD to create a super aero design, while Formula 1 teams funded by $100 million/yr plus are still trying to figure out how to get CFD to predict wind tunnel results

Maybe some of us believe too much in white papers, but someone else has been drinking kool-aid.

[justkeepedaling]

I love all the armchair aerodynamics experts here who can make such accurate assessments of aero performance simply by looking at a photo and reading a cervelo, trek or zipp 'white paper'.

Here is a bike that was first introduced in 2002 and has been continuously refined for the last 10 years. It was not built to make money, sell x number of units per year or to drive corporate profits. It was made to give athletes the best opportunity to win gold medals.

I know this may be difficult for some people to understand but Trek's, Cervelo and other bikes are built to a price first, if engineers can find enough gains so a marketing department can convince the buying public to open their wallets then everyone wins. The UKSI was designed and built for a result, and a result only, price is an irrelevance. This means engineers have built a bike without compromises to cost (and therefore quality of input materials, CFD hours, time in the wind tunnel etc) and without the need to make a bike that a marketing department can convince the masses is desirable.

Everything on this bike is there because of performance considerations, very few other bikes can say the same.

I'm an aeronautical engineer with experience in this field. The design is significantly sub optimal. Many concessions are made to increase stiffness for the frame because of the choice of using a 1" headtube to start with.

[afterburner]

As an aeronautical engineer with experience in this field perhaps you can offer up an opinion based on more than a photograph? Unfortunately, the reality for almost all of us on here we are guessing when it comes to these bikes. What I do know is that these are made with no compromises in mind. If 1" fork is used, it must be stiff enough. I've not used this frame, however if it's stiff enough to be used by Chris Hoy, Jason Kenny et al on the track, I'm sure Cav and Wiggins will not find fault with it.

Wrt comments about so called 'white papers', all results (be they aero, stiffness etc) released by a manufacturer is biased. Every manufacturer will ensure the testing protocol allows their to win. Are we really so deluded to believe Zipp would release testing results showing Enve wheels test faster and vice versa. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking the cool aid.

At then end of the day, ride what you want, I know I do.

[prendrefeu]

Or ride who you want, so long as it is consensual.

[afterburner]

Gold!

[justkeepedaling]

As an aeronautical engineer with experience in this field perhaps you can offer up an opinion based on more than a photograph? Unfortunately, the reality for almost all of us on here we are guessing when it comes to these bikes. What I do know is that these are made with no compromises in mind. If 1" fork is used, it must be stiff enough. I've not used this frame, however if it's stiff enough to be used by Chris Hoy, Jason Kenny et al on the track, I'm sure Cav and Wiggins will not find fault with it.

Wrt comments about so called 'white papers', all results (be they aero, stiffness etc) released by a manufacturer is biased. Every manufacturer will ensure the testing protocol allows their to win. Are we really so deluded to believe Zipp would release testing results showing Enve wheels test faster and vice versa. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking the cool aid.

At then end of the day, ride what you want, I know I do.

I'm not going to spend a couple hundred CFD hours for you. And independent testing has shown several of these manufacturer's data to correspond with claims. F1 teams are cost is nearly no object and there still is a huge difference in performance from team to team. The front brake is NOT matched to the headtube and downtube as the frame was initially designed as a TRACK frame (read, NO brakes NO Derailleurs). That and the huge space between the fork and downtube means you have turbulent airflow coming off the wheel and fork right onto the downtube. This was a compromise so as to increase the headtube gusset to stiffen the headtube section due to the use of the 1" fork. The stem back intersection with the top of the headtube is also anything but flush.

Also, considering their choice to use a short headtube has forced the bottles to take up a significant amount of space behind the downtube. The track frame converted to road is NOT designed for bottles with regard to aerodynamics.

[crohnsy]

Well good thing he didn't ride that inferior Pinarello.....

[Irish]

Yes Uran must be some rider to overcome the pinarello handicap.........

[crohnsy]

Yes Uran must be some rider to overcome the pinarello handicap.........

The difference between solo attack for the win and second place......

[spud]

imagine the temerity of two guys to break away on commercially available bikes! Next, they'll be showing photos of the medalist riders in their advertising, the horror!

[crohnsy]

I'm sure that'll be the first image on Specialized.com by Monday.

[spud]

Thus starting a whole new thread for the retro grouches!

[Valy]

Valid point for it being designed as a track frame, but I just can't help but laugh at the conviction of some of the comments here and on that link on CW.

This bike has a shitload of money in it with development and has been used at THE highest level where aerodynamics are far more at play due to the speeds - track vs road.